Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1995.volume.15/vol15.iss451-500

Text File | 1995-11-30 | 1MB | 30,899 lines

From [e-mail]  Thu Oct 26 03:07:28 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id DAA14931; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 03:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 03:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: telecom-recent
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #451


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Oct 95 02:30:00 EDT    Volume 15 : Issue 451

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ITA Scam is a Done Deal (Tom Crofford)
    Re: How to Make Dial-Up Stay Up as Long as Possible (Richard Neveau)
    Cellular Phone Caller ID (Colin A. Johnson)
    Email Over the Telephone? (Paul Dixon)
    Area Code Authoritative List (Bruce Pinsky)
    I Need Help Finding Cellular Modems (Michael A. Manzelli)
    A WWW Usenet Newsgroups Archive System on Internet (Gang Cheng)
    Looking For Business Partner(s) in China (Zhenjun Zhu)
    CDPD and Ardis (Greg Baxter)
    Subject/Author Index Now Updated (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: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 16:28:51 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Tom Crofford)
Subject: ITA Scam is a Done Deal


I posted a message a couple of months ago about how an ITA company billed me
for two months of "voicemail" on my SBC telephone bill.  I contacted SBC and
ITA.  SBC told me they could refuse the billing, but ITA would probably turn
my account over to a collection agency.  ITA said I had subscribed to a
personal ad/voicemail service by calling an 800 number.  Needless to say, I
did not do this.

In this case, ITA was the billing agent for an Absolute Communications
(based in NYC).  Absolute Communications can be reached via U.S. Mail only.
They apparently do not have telephones.

ITA removed the second month's billing when I called, but refused to
remove the first month's billing.  I contacted my Senator, Don
Nickles, and asked for his assistance.  He corresponded with the FCC.
SBC also sent me a couple of letters and offered again to stop
payment.  SBC also contacted ITA on my behalf.

Today SBC called me at the office and told me ITA had removed the first
month's billing from my account.  Reba at SBC told me ITA had apparently
just received the FCC's inquiry.

This is the first time any company has attempted to rip me off personally on
my telephone bill.  As a telecom professional, these practices tremedously
insult me.  As I told Don Nickles, I hope Congress can find a way to
eliminate these ridiculous practices without adversely affecting the
freedoms that make U.S. telecom and the Internet so powerful.


Tom Crofford   [e-mail]  918-664-6876 fax


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have discussed Absolute Telecom here
in the past. They are also very fond of advertising 800 number for hot
chats and being very casual about mentioning in the introductory message
how much it will cost. Their billing goes through Integratel for that
part of it. We printed their address here, and also an 800 number for
them in New York. I agree though the phone number was a joke; the line
was *always* answered by a malfunctioning answering machine with no
outgoing message on it. They never returned any calls either.    PAT]

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

From: Richard Neveau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How to Make Dial-Up Stay Up as Long as Possible
Date: 25 Oct 1995 22:03:44 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications


In Dallas at least you can pay for "dedicated" dial-up. You are the
only one with the number and it is EXPECTED you will be on 24hrs x 7days.
You can even get dedicated single IP OR dedicated LAN (a network on your
end). Of course 28.8 or ISDN. Even low priority on the 2nd B channel of
ISDN so you only get the 128K when ISP is not 'busy'.

I would hate to have to deal with the telco's and get a real dedicated
line if I was in a hurry to get 'on-line' !!

In most parts of the country it seems ISP's could use a little more
competition. In Dallas we have enough of a real free market that
you can get just about any flavor hookup you need.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who are the other telecom companies
operating there?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin A. Johnson )
Subject: Cellular Phone Caller ID
Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:05:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I am trying to find out how caller ID works on cellular phones.  I
have been getting the ignore message when I call people with call
blocking on.  When I called AT&T wireless services they said that I
need to start my calls with *82 and then the number. Is there a way to
get caller ID to show up on my phone display when people are calling
my cellular phone?

Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.


Colin

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

Date: 25 Oct 95 17:08:32 -0700
From: PDIXON.US.ORACLE.COM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email Over the Telephone?


Does anyone know of a service that will read email messages over the
telephone?

I had a hack worked out with MobilComm text paging, but it was too
expensive.


Paul


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interestingly enough, ATT Mail did this
quite a few years ago when they first opened that service to the public.
ATT Mail was around for awhile previously as an employee-only thing,
and I guess in the late 1980's it 'went public'. One of the things I
liked about it when I was using it back then was that you could call from
any phone and have your mail read to you by a synthesized voice. I do
not know if they are still offering that feature or not.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Pinsky)
Subject: Area Code Authoritative List
Date: 26 Oct 1995 00:28:34 GMT
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I've searched the archives and I've searched at Bellcore.  Is there
any authoritative, up to date list of all the North American area codes?


Thanks,

Bruce Pinsky
Cisco Systems, Inc.   + Sr. Internetwork Supt Engr+
170 West Tasman Drive + Phone: [phone]     +
San Jose, CA  95134   + Fax:   [phone]     +
Cisco Systems Inc.    + E-mail: [e-mail]     +


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, area codes are a hard thing to
keep up with these days. There is a file in the archives with areacodes
which is out of date (and any day it gets updated it seems to be out
of date a week or so later!) and there is a feature of the Telecom
Archives Email Information Service called AREACODE <number> which will
return the geographic location of an area code based on the input given.
It too is out of date ... perhaps one of our regulars who works on
this from time to time -- I am thinking of Carl Moore, because it really
is his baliwick -- will fetch the copy now in the archives and send it
along to me with as many corrections and updates as he can think of.
It would be good to have an updated table there.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Manzelli)
Subject: I Need Help Finding Cellular Modems
Date: 26 Oct 1995 01:24:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I own a small communications buisness that deals with many Fire Dept.
and Hazardous Materials units. I have been receiving many requests for
Cellular Fax Machines and cellular PCMIA cards. My problem is that
none of my suppliers carry this item, nor know where to get them. I
look forward to any information any one can give to me.


[e-mail]

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

From: Gang Cheng <[e-mail]>
Subject: A WWW Usenet Newsgroups Archive System on Internet
Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:10:47 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse NY, USA


We at Northeast Parallel Architecture Center (NPAC), Syracue
University have developed an archive system for searching/reading
USENET newsgroups, mailing lists and personal mailbox from WWW. An
Oracle database server is used to store/manage mails and two
search/navigation interfaces accesible by any WWW browser to the
archive are provided: one is an advanced search interface allowing
queries with various options such as query by mail header, by date, by
subject (keywords), by sender. The other is a Hypermail-like
navigation interface for users familiar with Hypermail.

We offer free access to this archive for the Internet community. Check
the URL:

<URL:http://asknpac.npac.syr.edu>
or
<URL:http://128.230.144.19>.

The whole archive is automatically updated in every 30 minutes.
Currently the following newsgroups (total 67) are archived in the
database, including this newsgroup/mailing-group:

(..) shows the current total number of mails archived in the database

alt.comp.compression (46)
comp.ai (375)
comp.ai.neural-nets (152)
comp.ai.philosophy (464)
comp.arch (549)
comp.benchmarks (202)
comp.compression (388)
comp.compression.research (28)
comp.databases (704)
comp.databases.object (181)
comp.databases.oracle (2461)
comp.dcom.cell-relay (175)
comp.dcom.frame-relay (149)
comp.dcom.isdn (929)
comp.dcom.lans.fddi (55)
comp.dcom.lans.misc (71)
comp.dcom.net-management (96)
comp.dcom.servers (98)
comp.dcom.sys.cisco (898)
comp.dcom.telecom (380)
comp.dcom.videoconf (149)
comp.graphics.visualization (139)
comp.infosystems (93)
comp.infosystems.gis (406)
comp.infosystems.www.advocacy (247)
comp.infosystems.www.announce (869)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi (1647)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html (3995)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.images (679)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc (634)
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.mac (681)
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc (577)
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows (2095)
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x (467)
comp.infosystems.www.misc (1157)
comp.infosystems.www.servers.mac (256)
comp.infosystems.www.servers.misc (209)
comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows (602)
comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix (724)
comp.lang.basic.visual.database (601)
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc (2474)
comp.lang.c++ (3764)
comp.lang.java (1850)
comp.lang.oberon (170)
comp.lang.perl.announce (27)
comp.lang.perl.misc (1702)
comp.lang.rexx (265)
comp.multimedia (1202)
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc (1546)
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools (493)
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 (1163)
comp.os.ms-windows.setup (608)
comp.parallel (80)
comp.parallel.mpi (41)
comp.parallel.pvm (103)
comp.protocols.tcp-ip (358)
comp.security.misc (515)
comp.software-eng (459)
comp.sources.unix (8)
comp.sys.sgi.graphics (188)
comp.sys.sun.admin (948)
comp.unix.admin (837)
comp.unix.aix (1261)
comp.unix.misc (337)
comp.unix.programmer (658)
comp.unix.solaris (1881)
syr.general (218)

The following mailing lists (total 8) are archived:

hotjava-interest (mailing-list) (788)
java-announce (mailing-list) (8)
java-interest (mailing-list) (1479)
java-porting (mailing-list) (279)
perldb-interest (mailing-list) (173)
sp-discussion (mailing-list) (51)
[e-mail] (mailing-list) (507)
www-vrml (mailing-list) (3235)

This system is still under development and more functions are planned to
add to this system. Please send your comments to:

Gang Cheng  ([e-mail]).


Thanks,

Gang

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

From: [e-mail] (Zhenjun Zhu)
Subject: Looking For Business Partner(s) in China
Date: 26 Oct 1995 03:40:02 GMT
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University


A telecommunication and cable TV company in a booming area of
Shanghai-Pudong Area, China is seeking joint venture relationship
with one or a few North-America or European companies.

This company has been a leader in providing cities and
towns of China with cable television services. Its objectives
are:

    o     Building the infrastructure to facilitate the
        provision of services, including cable TV, and
        data and voice communication.

    o    Providing complete networking solutions to the
        customers in the booming area of Pudong and Shanghai.
        There will be large number of domestic and foreign
        businesses opening in the next 10-20 year and
        the market for data and voice communication services
        is huge.

    o    Promoting the advances in the telecommunication and
        computer communication technologies in China, in both hardware
        and software.

The joint venture partner can help the Chinese partner in making more
technological progress, standardizing the products and services. It is
also expected that the foreign partner(s) make investments into the
joint venture in forms of equipments and technology. As one of the
benefits, the foreign partner will get an entrance into the huge
Chinese market and get the help from Chinese partner in aspects which
require dealing with Chinese legal, financial and other government
agencies in order to run a business. There are huge potential market
for companies which are seriously looking at the China market.

If your company is interested in discussing this issue in further
details, or obtain more information, please contact

Zhenjun Zhu

E-mail:    [e-mail]

Mail address:    13-302
        15 MacPherson Ave.
        Kingston, Ontario
        Canada
        K7M 2W8

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am told phone service in China is
expanding and growing at an incredible pace. Is that correct?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (GregBaxter)
Subject: CDPD and Ardis
Date: 26 Oct 1995 00:52:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (GregBaxter)


Where is a good place to start...

We need to send packet data over RF to remote non-wire laptops.
Cellular cdpd and Motorola's Ardis comes to mind I guess.  We want
to place this data on laptops fed from a Unix server.

Any ideas?

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

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 01:41:20 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: Subject/Author Index Now Updated


The subject/author index for this Digest has been updated as of
October 25 to include all issues through 450. You may wish to pick up
a copy in the Archives for future reference. You should also note that
the SEARCH command in the Telecom Archives Email Information Service
uses this index, along with the previous indexes for volumes 9-14.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #451
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Oct 26 23:21:58 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id XAA17258; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 23:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 23:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: telecom-recent
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #452


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Oct 95 21:59:00 EDT    Volume 15 : Issue 452

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Nostalgia and Old-Time-Radio (Mark J. Cuccia)
    "Networking Personal Computers With TCP/IP" by Hunt (Rob Slade)
    Re: FAX Machine as Page Scanner (Brian C. Shensky)
    USWEST Files For ISDN Tariff to Be Set in Utah (Vince Hadley)
    Phone Service in China (Hao Shen)
    Frontier Telecom Experiences? (Randolph Fritz)
    Digest is Now Encrypted on Usenet (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: Mark J. Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Nostalgia and Old-Time-Radio
Date: 25 Oct 1995 15:12:44 GMT
Organization: Tulane University


Just a bit more of old exchange names and telephone numbers used on an old
radio drama -- for those interested in nostalgia.

Last night I heard an episode of "Nightbeat" starring Frank Lovejoy on the
weeknight WHEN RADIO WAS, a syndicated Old-Time-Radio program.

The episode originally aired in July 1950 and was entitled `The City
at Your Fingertips'. In the series Nightbeat (NBC Radio, early 50's),
Frank Lovejoy played a newspaper reporter who specialzed in crime and
murder stories. I don't remember offhand where the series took place
-- whether it was Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc., but the actual
production of the radio program was from Hollywood, of course.

In the episode `The City at Your Fingertips', Frank Lovejoy was a bit
bored and thought about 'doodling' with the telephone. He mentioned
that there were some six million possible telephone number combinations
of a seven digit local number. (Actually that is or was not *exactly*
correct and will be explained later). He just picked up the telephone
and randomly dialed a seven digit number. Of course we know that this
*could* be considered a form of harassment, but he reached some woman
who was locked in her estranged husband's studio apartment. She told
him that her husband was mentally sick and had left her locked in
there and would probably return to kill her. She had tried to call her
husband's doctor but the answering service said that he was out and
would check in occasionally that evening. Since Frank Lovejoy was
playing the part of a newspaper reporter in this series, this type of
situation was right up his alley. He tried to get her to determine the
exact location of where she was, but she didn't exactly know. He did
give her his phone number (BUtterfield exchange), but since he dialed
her randomly, he didn't have her's, and forgot to ask her the number.
He did get the telephone number of her husband's doctor, and he kept
getting the answering service everytime he called.

Other exchange names used were ANdover, EDgewater, RAndolph, and even
MEridien for the time-of-day recording. One interesting thing -- at
one point, Frank Lovejoy calls the operator and asks how to call the
Police. The operator told him to dial `211'. Many larger cities used
211 to call for a Long Distance operator. The use of 911 as a standard
code for Emergencies didn't come around until 1966 or 67. The operator
did say that she could ring the Police directly, though.

Throughout the drama, Frank Lovejoy kept getting several incoming
calls -- from his editor and from a drunk! He called the operator and
asked if it was possible for the Operator to block out incoming calls
except from the Police, the doctor, and the woman. The Operator said
that they could only block incoming *Long-Distance* calls (since at
that time Long Distance comming into his city would still be manually
handled at a toll board).  Local calls were handled by automatic dial
equipment and the operator had no control over blocking out incoming
local calls. And there was no such thing as Call-Waiting or Caller-ID
back in 1950.

I enjoyed hearing the grinding and clickity-click of the old style
metal rotary dials -- the older style of bells ringing -- and the
sound-effects of and *older* dialtone, busy, ring indication, etc.

Frank Lovejoy was going frantic waiting for the desperate woman to
call him back -- or get a call from her husband's doctor -- but he
still kept getting calls from this drunk. And he was also on the phone
trying to inform the Police about the situation, however he randomly
dialed the woman on the phone -- and didn't ask her for her number.
There was no way he could give the Police the number!

Well, eventually the receptionist for the answering-service of the
woman's husband's doctor called and said that she got through to the
doctor who knew where the woman actually was -- and that the husband had
been taken off to a hospital or asylum -- and that the woman was safe
but under sedation. Frank Lovejoy asked why they hadn't called
earlier -- and was told by the answering service receptionist "Well,
I've *been* calling you but *your* line has been busy!"

In many ways, this radio drama reminded me of another one -- Lucille
Fletcher's "Sorry Wrong Number" which was performed several times on
CBS Radio's "Suspense" series back in the 1940's and 50's, starring
Agnes Moorehead. (Barbara Stanwick did the movie -- including the Lux
Radio Theater performance of the movie version).

And, of course, this was in 1950 -- back when there was electromechanical
switching technology in place. While automated long distance switching was
just in its first stages for full nationwide service, most toll and
long-distance calls were still handled by operators. And the actual
number of possible seven digit combinations was *really* 5,400,000 back in
1950.

Most locations using two-letter exchange names did *not* use any
names/letters from the 55, 57, 95, or 97 combinations. San Francisco
*did* have the KLondike exchange name used back then, but that was
probably one of the few places that did use 55x for any local
exchanges. Most exchange name locations also did *not* use `0' as a
third digit, as it could have been confused with the letter `O' which
is really the numeral `6'. There are eight numbers on the dial with
letters (I don't think any areas ever used the letter `Z' for
significant letters of dialable exchange names -- and not all dials back
then had Z with the 0/Operator hole on the dial). You multiply 8x8 and get
64 possible combinations -- subtract out 4 (the 55, 57, 95, 97) and then
multiply 60 by 9 (for the third digit) and get a possible 540
three-digit exchanges available in a large city or areacode. Multiply
10,000 possible line-number comibinations within a central office code
with 540 possible codes/exchanges, and you get 5,400,000 -- not six
million.

When exchange names were dropped -- but before N0X and N1X exchanges
were introduced -- you could have 64 possible `NN' exchange combinations --
and possible number of exchanges was 640 (if you include such special
ones as 950, 555, 976, 958, 959, 970, etc), which means 6,400,000
possible numbers. When N0X and N1X codes are introduced, you get a
possible 800 codes- but in practice they normally don't use the N11
codes, so you get 792 codes and 7,920,000 possible numbers.

And if Frank Lovejoy was just `doodling' around with the telephone --
I wonder what he would have got if he had dialed an N1X or N0X code or
began something with a `1'. It is possible that it could have been
'ignored' by the switch (absorbed), or it could have been a 11X
service code used in some areas. And then again, he might have dialed
`0' as his first digit and cut through to the operator right away,
regardless of whatever followed- 0+ dialing didn't exist in 1950,
neither!

How far we have come since 1950- But right now, I'm looking at my BLACK
rotary dial (metal dial) Western Electric 500 deskset on my desk -- with the
number card stating "UNiversity 5-5000, EXT.5954"


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: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:39:44 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Networking Personal Computers With TCP/IP" by Hunt


BKNPCTCP.RVW   950725

"Networking Personal Computers with TCP/IP", Craig Hunt, 1995, 1-56592-123-2,
U$29.95
%A   Craig Hunt
%C   103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA   95472
%D   1995
%G   1-56592-123-2
%I   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O   U$29.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   408
%T   "Networking Personal Computers with TCP/IP"

Most computer users work on PCs.  Personal computers are cheap and
widely available, with a variety of support resources (not the least
of which is the guy-next-door-down-but-two).  Some computer
professionals, however, would make the case that PCs are not "real"
computers: PCs have much more in common with consumer goods than
information technology.  There is a very real gap between those who
use internetworks and workstations, on the one hand, and those who use
PCs, on the other.

The very concept of a network is one of the distinctions.  To computer
professionals, a network is a system of different communications links
which allow computers to exchange data and distribute processing
tasks.  To a PC user, a network is a wire-that-runs-around-the-office-and-
we-all-share-a-printer.  It's no wonder the two sides don't communicate.

Hunt's book is primarily aimed at network administrators for larger
systems who are beginning to integrate PCs into the structure.  There
are some very helpful tips about Intel/BIOS/ISA hardware, operating
system(s), and utilities.  DOS, Windows, Windows 95 and NT systems,
and TCP/IP implementations are addressed.  Email, file, and print
services are covered.  There is even a chapter devoted to the
integration of NetWare and TCP/IP.  Among the appendices, a list of
vendors and texts is particularly helpful.

The book assumes a technical background, but no specific knowledge of
the PC itself.  The material is generally quite clear, however, and
those familiar with personal computers may also find this a very
helpful introduction to some of the concepts and activities in the
wider computing world.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995  BKNPCTCP.RVW   950725. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
"If you do buy a computer, don't turn it on." - Richards' 2nd Law of Security
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian C. Shensky)
Subject: Re: FAX Machine as Page Scanner
Date: 26 Oct 1995 17:56:03 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan


I have noticed that connecting the fax machine directly to the
Fax/modem does not supply the line voltage necessary to send the data
over the line.  So what does one do?  Easy: steal the voltage from
your existing line.

What I do is take a third phone off the hook and wait for it to go
"dead": past the initial dialtone, past the "please hang up"
recording, and finally, past the grinding hang-up-the-goddam-phone
blaze tone.  Eventually, the line goes dead, while voltage is still
being passed through the line.  Now you can send from the fax to the
PC all on a single line.  Make sense?


Brian

SHENSKYbrian    313.454.9603 (home)     [e-mail] (email)
                313.780.3213 (page)     http://www.umich.edu/~shensky (www)

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

From: [e-mail] (Vince Hadley)
Subject: USWEST Files for ISDN Tariff to be Set in UTAH
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 18:30:15 GMT
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center


USWEST will be filing for a tariff to be set for ISDN service
possibly by the end of October (in the next few days).  Estimates have
it that they will be asking for possibly $70+ for Basic rate service.
They are also planning to increase the already expensive commercial
rates by 45%!  Other telecoms in other states have it much
lower ... around $25-35 per month.  And added to that there is no
gaurantee that you'll even see a flat rate for ISDN but a measured
service as in some states like Arizona, although Colorado managed to
get it set as a flat rate.

    After all, it is only your money ...

This tariff is being filed through the Utah State Public Service
Commission which acts to regulate these tariff requests.  Ordinarily,
there is an almost rubber stamp approval of these tariffs unless there
is sufficient opposition to them.   The commission will usually
schedule a hearing date only a week or two after recieving the tariff
being filed so there is no time to lose.

In order to have any impact on these proposals you will need to
request to appear before the Public Service Commission in _Writing_ in
advance.  These are the people the commission pays the most attention
to.   Their address is:

    Public Service Commission
    Heber Wells Building
    160 East 300 South
    Salt Lake City,  UT  84111

Just showing up to the hearing has little impact, comparitively
speaking, although it would still help.  If you want to request to
appear before the  commission you must write them a letter stating so,
although you _may_ be able to go down to the office and sign in that
you want to appear before the commission in advance of the hearing
date.  We need to "PACK the house" if we are going to have any effect.
These tariffs have been overturned/reconsidered/investigated before,
but only with _outstanding_ (overwhelming) opposition to them- so you
can indeed affect the outcome.

    Tell (and bring) your friend/nieghbor/associate/boss.

What is ISDN?

    In possibly over simplistic terms, ISDN is a digital rather than
analog interface that you set up between your home/business and the
telephone company.  Through this interface, which is much more
efficient than your present analog connection, you can achieve data
connection rates up to 128K when connecting to other ISDN users!  This
is several times faster than the fastest modems.  Through this type of
connection you can also continue to use the phone for voice purposes.
and your normal analog modem although ISDN will begin to replace that
kind of connection.

    Further comment by others more knowledgeable about IDSN
implementation, it's use, and the other issues involved, is encouraged
in order to inform others.

    ISDN will become widely used by almost everyone in the next
few years, so this tariff affects most everyone that uses a modem now
or might in the future.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:42:57 -0500
Subject: Phone Service in China


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am told phone service in China is
> expanding and growing at an incredible pace. Is that correct?   PAT]

That's absolutely correct!


Regards,

H'
Hao Shen                       E-mail: [e-mail]
Student, MCS Dept.             URL:  http://www.gac.edu/~hshen/
Gustavus Adolphus College      Voice: (507) 933 - 6184
St. Peter, MN 56082, USA       FAX: (507) 933 - 6277


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've heard a lot of wild statistics
tossed around on this. Some are saying new phones are being installed
in China at the rate of five or six to every similar installation in
the USA ... that there are more new installs there in a month than
the entire USA has in six months. True or false?  Any solid figures?  PAT]


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

From: [e-mail] (Randolph Fritz)
Subject: Frontier Telecom Experiences?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 19:14:40 GMT


Having hard some thoroughly rotten customer service experiences with
both ATT and MCI, I recently sat down and thoroughly researched my
available long distance carriers.  The choices narrowed to two:
Arcata, a northwest regional carrier, and Frontier, the emerging
national carrier.  Unfortunately, it's hard to evaluate service
quality for these firms.  So I'd like to hear customer service
experiences with these two firms; tell me what's good (or bad) about
'em.


Randolph

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digest is Now Encrypted on Usenet
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:12:00 CDT


Starting with this issue of the Digest, the single messages going out
to Usenet (as opposed to the larger newsletter style seen by mailing
list subscribers) are using a form of encryption to authenticate them
for the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. This authentication works with
'cancelbots', software designed to immediatly cancel messages which do
*not* have the proper authentication attached. By doing this, I believe
the spams and other inappropriate messages placed here will, if not
cease entirely, be greatly reduced.  The 'cancelbots' operate at
various sites around the world and their sole task is to examine all
incoming news for the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. Seeing something
that is not appropriate for the group -- meaning it does not bear my
*authentic* approval, the 'bot' immediatly kills the item *and* it
generates a cancel via a few very well connected sites where the cancel
message is introduced almost immediatly to the news stream. I am then
provided with a copy of the spam or other inappropriate item.

In addition, I have aliased-out certain sites from which the majority
of the spam seems to originate, and I have also taken measures to
forbid those same sites from receiving the Usenet comp.dcom.telecom
newsgroup feed. I don't intend to say what sites they are, but I am
sure you will notice them by their absence.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #452
******************************


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Oct 95 12:14:00 EDT    Volume 15 : Issue 453

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Change of Address For Digest and News Group (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Name and Address Authentication With LD Carrier? (L.K. Chen)
    Multiport Serial Solutions (Steve Winter)
    Call Waiting and Caller Id - Is It Actually in Place? (Scott Atwood)
    TCP/IP Mechanics: Document Covering TCP/IP - tcpip.zip (B. Vandecasteele)
    Need Information to Reduce Power Consumption on Cell Phones (Cathy Lyton)
    Need Help With Old Key Telco Equipment (John McClellan)
    Pin Out Needed For Siliconix DG508 (Dave McNeill)
    Pay Phone TDD Wanted (Rito Astorga)
    DS3 Systems Distance Learning (Richard Shelor)
    Directory Information in Oregon Down? ([e-mail])
    Re: Reverse Engineering Voice Mail (Amos Shapira)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Chris Gray)
    Re: AT&T's Bait and Switch Tactics (Chris Sullivan)
    Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone (Doug Reuben)
    Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada ... (Peter M. Weiss)

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 massis.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: Change of Address For Digest and News Group
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:30:00 CDT


Effective at this time, ALL correspondence to the Digest including
editorial submissions, administrative requests, flames, spams and
other correspondence should be sent to our new address:

           [e-mail]

This is also the site where the Telecom Archives is housed. Over
all, it should be a great place to work from, and I think I will
like it here.

News admins: please change the pointers on comp.dcom.telecom at
your site to reflect this change as well.

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

A word of thanks to the fine people at Northwestern University who
assisted me with many resources for about eight years ... your
generosity was and remains greatly appreciated.

PAT

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

Subject: Name and Address Authentication With LD Carrier
Organization: Lunatic Haven BBS
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (The Dreamer)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 18:27:27 MST


Don't Long Distance companies check to see if the person's name and
address actually correspond to the actual customer and that person
even wants anything to do with them?

I've been getting bills from Sprint Canada, addressed to my first
initial and last name at my address, for phone lines that aren't mine.
They claim that that the bills came about when they aquired STN.  So,
I must have been an STN customer.

The thing is I've never been an STN customer.  I have one phone line
that is with Sprint Canada, and I have it listed with my full name
and address and I pay for it.  I have had this line with Sprint Canada
ever since competition came in.  I have another line that is with
fONOROLA, also have had this ever since competition started.  And,
again I signed up with my full name.  I would've thought that you had
to sign up with a full name ... but apparently 'L' is considered a
full name as opposed to an initial ... my local white page listing
is a single 'L' ... so its entire possible somebody decided to screw
me from my white page listing. I'm the only Chen in this small city.

I called Sprint Canada a couple months ago and the rep called the number
that I was getting bills for, and it clearly wasn't me.  So, they assured
me that I could disregard these false bills and that it would be taken
care of.

Well, now I have a notice from a collection agency saying that Sprint
Canada has filed a claim against me.  It continues to be addressed to
'L Chen'.  Well, I call Sprint Canada and once again they assure
me that I can disregard these notices and that it will be taken care of.

Other than this total lack of security and lack of action in doing
something about it, I have been satisfied with my service up to this
point but I think this is enough for me to go looking for a different
long distance provider.


Email: [e-mail]       or        [e-mail]
PHONE: [phone]      FAX: [phone]       CIS: 74200,2431
Praxis Society K12 BBS: [phone] Lunatic Haven: [phone]
Packet: VE6LKC @ VE6PAQ.#SAB.AB.CAN.NA

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

From: Steve Winter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multiport Serial Solutions
Date: 27 Oct 1995 00:03:45 GMT
Organization: compuserve.com


Press Release:

The STB 4COM card is now available with alternate addressing that
allows up to four of the cards (16 serial ports) in one machine using Ray
Gwinn's famous SIO drivers under OS/2.  It also works quite well with
Linux and other Unix based platforms.

You can share one IRQ per card under OS/2 with Ray Gwinn's SIO drivers.
A 4 port, 16bit, High Speed serial I/O card, that provides four high
performance RS-232 Asynchronous Serial Communications ports, each on
one separate IRQ, or allows sharing one or more IRQs.

Each port INDEPENDENTLY configurable by jumpers for addresses:

      h3E8, h2E8, h1E8, h1A8, h3F8, h2F8, h1F8, h2A8

          and for IRQs 15, 12, 11 10, 5, 4, 3, 2

 * With address option You CAN use 4 4COM Cards in one machine *

Address option gives h100, h108, h110, h118, h120, h128, h130, h138

There is no additional charge for alternate addressing, just ask for it.

  LIFETIME manufacturer's warranty & free tech support from STB.

   Works fine with DOS, DESQview, DV/X, Windows, and OS/2 2.+

These products are available from the following vendor:

For Orders *ONLY* 1-800-SELLCOM(735-5266)  Ext 9 (VISA/MASTERCARD)
For Technical Questions, leasing, or outside USA call 919-286-1502

                   or 24 hour FAX at 919-286-4617
             As seen in SysOp News, BBS Callers Digest


The sun never sets on the PRIME network 919-286-2100 300-33600bps

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Atwood)
Subject: Call Waiting With Caller Id - Is it Actually in Place?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 22:13:54 MST
Organization: Primenet


US West in the Phoenix (AZ) area is suppose to have Call
Waiting-Caller ID sometime before the end of the year ... (yeah right).

I have read a few threads regarding the spec's, but all refer to the
BellCore TR-NWT-000030 document.  Is this spec available on the net,
or libraries or does one have to shell out the $$ to receive it?

I've tried to contact the local telco reps and they are of NO help.
They went on to say that even they don't have a CW-Caller ID unit
available for us to buy (recommended trying Radio Shack :-) ).

So far I have gathered that after the CW signal is sent the caller-Id
unit must [mute the handset] , send one of the [A,B,C or D] Touch
Tones at which time the CO will send the Caller_ID burst.

Am I even close to what is necessary?

Anybody developed hardware, software to allow our fine computers to
gather the info?


Thanks for reading,

ScottA

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

From: [e-mail] (Bert Vandecasteele)
Subject: TCP/IP Mechanics: Document Covering TCP/IP - tcpip.zip (0/1)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:34:18 GMT
Organization: US Robotics


Hi,

Some time ago I decided to make up a document that describes most of
the protocols from the TCP/IP suite. The whole idea was to make one
document that bundles the existing RFC's, standardizations and documents
and adding graphics to it.

I have attached the zipped WORD 6.0 document to this message. For
those who are interested, please take a look at it (you might actually
read it if you want to ...).

Could someone out there convert the .doc to PS and repost it to the
TCP/IP newsgroups ?

Please let me know where I was right/wrong, where the errors are, what
should be deleted/replaced/added, and most of all: should I continue
or rather give up?  (also important: what about copyrights from the
original documents?  Can I use the documents in this way?)

I hope this document can be of any help to people who want to find out
about the 'mechanics' of a TCP/IP based networks.


Kind regards,

Bert Vandecasteele
Distelstraat 4  9000 Gent Belgium
Email : [e-mail]
Fax   : [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bert's document is quite lenthy, and I
am not sure how well it would transmit using email, so I have placed
it in the Telecom Archives for review by interested persons. Look in
the /technical sub-directory of the archives under the filename
'tcp/ip.specifications'. The archives is ftp'able at ftp.lcs.mit.edu.
Don't forget to use type I for binary for best results.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need Information on Reducing Power Consumption on Cell Phones
Date: 27 Oct 95 13:33:25 +0800
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore

Hi,

Does anyone have any ideas on how companies have tried to  reduce
power consumption on cellular phones?


Thanks,

Cathy    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John McClellan)
Subject: Need Help With Old Key Telco Equipment
Date: 27 Oct 1995 05:56:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


Hi, I scavenged the following items from a building that was about to
be demolished and I'm wondering what exactly this stuff is and if its
worth anything anymore.

Any info would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

    ------------
Several cabinets labeled:  Western Electric 1A2 Key Telesystem
620 A2 Cabinet (8 slots, 8 fuses, 2 small 66-type connector blocks)
(total of five of these)
Each has several 400D KTU's marked as:  ISS 2, 8,10,12,14,15
also three 400G CO/PBX Line Ckts.

    ------------
Cabinet #1 (big)
Tellabs 262 PO-6 6ckt NCTE assy w/power
   with: Rockwell Wescom 4112-11 Data Channel Interface
                         7305-45
                         4417A Data Channel Termination
(3 empty slots)

   ------------
Cabinet #2 (small)
Tellabs 262 UPO-2 universal ntwk terminating assy.
with 2 cards

  -------------
Cabinet #3 (big)
Tellabs 262 UPO-9 universal network term module
with:  five - 6044 Network Term. Modules
        one - Wescom 7305-45 Data Chan Interface
        two - Wescom 4112-11 Data Chan Interface ISS2
8001 power supply
66 Block connector

  -------------
Cabinet #4 (small)
Western Electric DAS 829 ALIA
 series 5 44A2 Data Mtg

 --------------
T-105 Power Unit Tone Commander


Thanks,

Maus


[TLEECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say you have yourself an
interesting phone system, considering you got it all for free. I
hope you can get it to work.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pin Out Needed For Siliconix DG508
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:11:27 GMT


I need the pin-out information for a Siliconix DG508 analogue
multiplexer.  Any clues?


dave mcneill

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

From: Rito Astorga <[e-mail]>
Organization: Our Lady of the Lake University
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:02:28 CDT
Subject: Pay Phone TDD


         Dear Sir,

I've always seen you help out alot of people with equipment they need
or need to know about. Well hopefully you can help me out, I'm trying
to locate a TDD that can be used on a pay phone. Either new or used,
what I understand it can be a booth or compact. I got a $1300 dollar
price on a booth (half booth if you will) and a $280 dollar price on a
compact from Graybar, and we as a poor university cannot afford such
high prices.

Hopefully you can me out, Thank you in advance! Keep up the good work!


RITO J. ASTORGA                                     [phone]
Our Lady of the Lake University
Telecom System Manager
          Here's to number "7"... thanks for the memories Mickey!
                               1942-1995

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyone have any suggestions for Rito?
I imagine this would be for use by students at their school. Part of
the reason Rito says 'dear sir, I have seen YOU help out, etc' is
because the real helpers are those of you who read the Digest. Please
see what can be done.   PAT]

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

From: Richard Shelor <[e-mail]>
Subject: DS3 Systems Distance Learning
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:00:39 -0400
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College


If there is anyone out there that has experience with Bell Atlantic
Distance Learning equipment I would truly be thankful for any guidance
regarding technical info with respect to the operation of DS3 fiber Optic
Distance Learning Systems. I am also interested in any tech manuals of
the new version that would contain this type of info.


Thanks,

[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 00:49:32 EST
From: rsprang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directory Information in Oregon Down?


I have been trying to call directory assistance for Oregon for several
days - 503-555-1212.  The phone rings, but I never get any answer.

Any idea what is wrong?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No idea at all. I tried it a few
minutes ago and got through on the first ring. A half-ring actually. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Amos Shapira)
Subject: Re: Reverse Engineering Voice Mail
Date: 27 Oct 1995 10:40:09 GMT
Organization: Inst. of Comp. Sci., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel


[e-mail] (Gene Cartier) writes:

> their interface specs; others have been less forthcoming.  While some
> vendors do support the loose Audio Messaging Interchange Specification
> (AMIS) others don't.  Does anyone have any ideas on the best way to

Could someone please describe or give pointers to more information
about this AMIS standard?  I'm sub-contracting for a company which
builds such voice-mail boxes (Comverse) and I think they might be
interested (unless they allready implement this, which I have a slight
doubt about).


Cheers,

Amos Shapira
133 Shlomo Ben-Yosef st.
Jerusalem 93 805  ISRAEL
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Gray)
Subject: Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives
Date: 27 Oct 1995 11:46:52 GMT
Organization: Never was my forte
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> [...] I prefer the "mess" of several competing long distance
> carriers to the neat but painful certainties of being forced to bend
> over and pay the outrageous rates typically charged by monopoly
> state-owned carriers in most other countries.

Countries such as the UK and Australia manage to have competing carriers
without making mincemeat of their numbering system, and I daresay the
same goes for Finland ... the US numbering goulash is the result of
hanging on for too long to what "seemed like a good idea at the time".
If you ask me a Flag Day is long overdue.


Chris Gray        [e-mail]          Compuserve: 100065,2102
                http://plato.digiweb.com/kiffer/

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Sullivan)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Bait and Switch Tactics
Date: 26 Oct 1995 19:48:01 GMT
Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA


[e-mail] wrote:

> I recently received a call from AT&T (regarding my residential
> service), and they offered me a $70 check, and 50% off their regular
> rates for the next three months, if I would "switch back" to their
> service.  Having been lied to by them once before, where they promised

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

Since AT&T is so hot on having their customers tell MCI and company to
"put it in writing", you should have done the same.  I had a similar
instance happen, myself.  After getting screwed once by AT&T, when they
called a second time and offered me some large chunk'o'change to come
back, I requested that the rep "put that in writing", and I'd consider it.

Funny thing happened.  I never got it in writing, and I've never gotten
another call from AT&T asking me to switch back.  This is real humorous,
considering a recent call from an MCI rep not only got me the facts "in
writing", it also included a $10 credit certificate on top of it, totally
unsolicited.

I'm beginning to seriously reconsider who exactly the sleazeballs are in
the long-distance market.


Chris Sullivan        | 714-648-9433 | At what point does technology
[e-mail]   |  Orange, CA  | become indistingushible from magic?

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 05:10:26 EDT


Recently, PDIXON.US.ORACLE.COM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Does anyone know of a service that will read email messages over the
> telephone?

Well, to be brief, we offer a service which will let you hear the
HEADERS of your messages over the telephone, and if you determine that
the message merits further attention, you may fax it to yourself or
anyone else worldwide.

(We also do offer text -> voice, ie, the message is read to you, but it is
*very* crude and we do not think it would be very useful. It's certainly
not the pleasant AT&T "boing" voice , or a HAL-9000 voice saying "Good
Morning, Dave, you have three new e-mail messages. Shall I play them now?"
It's mainly for the unusual case where you may want to glean more
information from a piece of e-mail than the header will provide, and are
not near a fax. But it is available if you are desperate and no one else
out there is offering this. And yes, we do plan to upgrade this shortly,
provided we find the right suppliers and general interest in such a
project...)

> I had a hack worked out with MobilComm text paging, but it was too
> expensive.

I'm curious how this worked. Did it pick up the text from the alpha
pager and convert it? Sounds interesting!

As a more general question, is there really any sort of interest out
there in such a service? We keep asking our customers if they have any
interest in e-mail -> voice, but the responses we get back indicate that
faxing and paging are much more of a concern, and thus we concentrate on
that. (And no, we didn't let them hear the thing first; if they did,
they'd never want to use it! :) )

To me, the idea of voice transcription of e-mail, especially for
depostion to voicemail is very exciting. But each time I approach the
topic with the majority of our customers, I get a polite "That's nice",
and not much more.  Am I missing something?

I'd appreciate hearing any comments from people who think that we should
concentrate more energy on our voice services (so I can forward it on and
prove I'm right! :) ), or if you feel otherwise, perhaps let us know why
you think *quality* e-mail to voice is never going to be a popular item.

Thanks in advance for any input!

      Doug Reuben  *  [e-mail]   *  +1 (203) 499 - 5221
Interpage Network Services -- http://www.interpage.net, telnet interpage.net
E-Mail Alpha/Numeric Local/Nationwide Paging, WWWFax, and E-Mail <-> Fax Svcs


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you looked at all into how ATT Mail
was doing it a few years ago? That might be a good starting place.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:13:31 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada ...
Organization: Penn State University


Of course the TELECOM DIGEST would now need to be translated
to French ;-)


Pete Weiss -- Penn State


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You people from State Penn get some odd
ideas. I can barely get out an English version of the Digest some days,
let alone like my competitors at {Readers Digest} translate each issue
into 45 different languages. Aybe-May I-ay ould-cay ut-pay an-ay
edition-ay out-ay in-ay ig-pay latin-lay.  Enough already!  Have a nice
weekend all!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #453
******************************


From ptownson Mon Oct 30 22:41:32 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id WAA13826; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 22:41:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 22:41:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #454
Status: RO

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Oct 95 22:38:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 454

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences? (Robert Levandowski)
    Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences? (John Higdon)
    Re: Area Code Authoritative List ([e-mail])
    Re: Which PBXs Have BRIs Compatible With NI-1? (John Romano)
    Re: AT&T Switch Access via PC (John Romano)
    Re: Pay Phone TDD (Dave Levenson)
    Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone (Henry Baker)
    Re: Cellular Modems (Arthur Knight)
    Alpha Paging From DTMF Phone (John Gilbert)
    Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice Systems? (Steve Samler)
    Telephony Programmer Needed (Dan Monaghan)
    Caller-ID Interface ([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] (Robert Levandowski)
Subject: Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences?
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 19:15:54 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randolph Fritz)
writes:

> Having hard some thoroughly rotten customer service experiences with
> both ATT and MCI, I recently sat down and thoroughly researched my
> available long distance carriers.  The choices narrowed to two:
> Arcata, a northwest regional carrier, and Frontier, the emerging
> national carrier.  Unfortunately, it's hard to evaluate service
> quality for these firms.  So I'd like to hear customer service
> experiences with these two firms; tell me what's good (or bad) about
> 'em.

I've had exceptional customer service from Frontier.  They have pleasant
phone reps; they handle problems quickly and courteously; billing errors
seem uncommon; they're more than willing to put your cellphone on a
discounted-LD billing plan (unlike some other companies I contacted);
they monitor your calling-card usage, and they really do call you if the
usage becomes unusual.

Of course, Frontier is also a hometown product here; it used to be
RCI Long Distance, a part of Rochester Telephone.  Now, Rochester Telephone
the LEC is part of Frontier Corp., and Frontier Long Distance, Frontier
Cellular (previously NYNEX Mobile/RochesterTel Mobile/Advantage Cellular/
Mountain Cellular), and a few others are part of Frontier Corp. as well.

The only problem I've had with Frontier is that they don't accept calling
cards issued by Southern New England Telephone, although as far as I know
they do take AT&T and Baby-Bell calling cards as well as their own.

Frontier's Frontrunner plan is a pretty good deal.  Good discounts, and
they give you half-off on major (and some minor!) holidays.

Frontier is supposedly available everywhere now, due to their acquisition
sprees.  (Check out http://www.frontiercorp.com to see a map of their
companies; it's almost scary how they're growing.)  You should be able to
force calls through Frontier with the 10xxx code: 10211.


Just a satisfied customer...

Rob Levandowski
News Administrator and UNIX Technical Assistant, UNIX Group
University of Rochester Computing Center -- Rochester, New York
[e-mail]      [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:51:37 -0700
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences?


[e-mail] (Randolph Fritz) writes:

> Having hard some thoroughly rotten customer service experiences with
> both ATT and MCI, I recently sat down and thoroughly researched my
> available long distance carriers.  The choices narrowed to two:
> Arcata, a northwest regional carrier, and Frontier, the emerging
> national carrier.  Unfortunately, it's hard to evaluate service
> quality for these firms.  So I'd like to hear customer service
> experiences with these two firms; tell me what's good (or bad) about
> 'em.

I have a T1 to Frontier. Several years ago, I signed up with MCI to do some
various telephone projects including IP and some experimental services. I
had assumed that since several of my clients had been using MCI (on my
recommendation) that I would get some consideration in terms of service
quality and price. Hah!

The MCI experience was the worst telecom disaster I have gone through in
this decade. The fallout was enormous. I missed service commitments, was
nickeled and dimed almost to death, could not get the services and
signaling that I required, not to mention the threats of lawsuits that
ocurred.

I "switched" (switching T1 service is a bit more complex than switching
dialup carriers -- to say the least) to West Coast Telecommunications through
a reseller. What a difference! ALL promises were kept, all signaling worked
as advertised, and all prices were exactly as quoted. There were no
spurious charges (as with MCI), no price escalations (as with MCI), and no
confusing shell games with quantity discounts, etc. (as with MCI). And the
prices were VERY LOW -- lower than anything MCI had with all the discounts
combined.

Somewhere along the line, WCT was bought up by the conglomerate that is now
Frontier. A short time ago, the reseller I was working through apparently
stopped paying its bills and I ended up cut off for a brief time until I
was able to re-establish an account directly with Frontier. But the service
is still excellent, the prices are still low, and the company is still easy
to deal with. Unlike AT&T, MCI, or any of the "we're so big we don't really
need or care about your business" companies, you can reach real people at
Frontier who know what they are talking about and know about you and your
requirements.

I cannot begin to tell you what a pleasure it is to deal with a
company that actually provides a great product at a very competitive
price -- and cares about its customers to boot. As some of you may
know, I am breaking a long-held silence concerning what LD company I
actually use. While I won't quote rates (that is between you and your
salesperson), I WILL say that Frontier's rates are lower than any of
the usual hooey that you see plastered all over the net.

In short, I would say that Frontier is definitely a company worth
looking into.


John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | [phone]
             |         http://www.ati.com/ati             |

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

From: [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)
Subject: Re: Area Code Authoritative List
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 01:16:53 GMT


> I've searched the archives and I've searched at Bellcore.  Is there
> any authoritative, up to date list of all the North American area codes?

Sure thing.  Here's one that's up to date as of today, 10/27/95.

 201   NEW JERSEY     202   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 203   CONNECTICUT     204   MANITOBA
 205   ALABAMA         206   WASHINGTON
 207   MAINE         208   IDAHO
 209   CALIFORNIA     210   TEXAS
 212   NEW YORK         213   CALIFORNIA
 214   TEXAS         215   PENNSYLVANIA
 216   OHIO         217   ILLINOIS
 218   MINNESOTA     219   INDIANA
 281   TEXAS         301   MARYLAND
 302   DELAWARE         303   COLORADO
 304   WEST VIRGINIA     305   FLORIDA
 306   SASKATCHEWAN     307   WYOMING
 308   NEBRASKA         309   ILLINOIS
 310   CALIFORNIA     312   ILLINOIS
 313   MICHIGAN         314   MISSOURI
 315   NEW YORK         316   KANSAS
 317   INDIANA         318   LOUISIANA
 319   IOWA         334   ALABAMA
 360   WASHINGTON     401   RHODE ISLAND
 402   NEBRASKA         403   ALBERTA, YUKON, NW TERRITORIES
 404   GEORGIA         405   OKLAHOMA
 406   MONTANA         407   FLORIDA
 408   CALIFORNIA     409   TEXAS
 410   MARYLAND         412   PENNSYLVANIA
 413   MASSACHUSETTS     414   WISCONSIN
 415   CALIFORNIA     416   ONTARIO
 417   MISSOURI         418   QUEBEC
 419   OHIO         423   TENNESSEE
 441   PUERTO RICO & CARIBBEAN
 456   INTERNATIONAL     501   ARKANSAS
 502   KENTUCKY         503   OREGON
 504   LOUISIANA     505   NEW MEXICO
 506   NEW BRUNSWICK     507   MINNESOTA
 508   MASSACHUSETTS     509   WASHINGTON
 510   CALIFORNIA     512   TEXAS
 513   OHIO         514   QUEBEC
 515   IOWA         516   NEW YORK
 517   MICHIGAN         518   NEW YORK
 519   ONTARIO         520   ARIZONA
 540   VIRGINIA         541   OREGON
 562   CALIFORNIA     601   MISSISSIPPI
 602   ARIZONA         603   NEW HAMPSHIRE
 604   BRITISH COLUMBIA     605   SOUTH DAKOTA
 606   KENTUCKY         607   NEW YORK
 608   WISCONSIN     609   NEW JERSEY
 610   PENNSYLVANIA     612   MINNESOTA
 613   ONTARIO         614   OHIO
 615   TENNESSEE     616   MICHIGAN
 617   MASSACHUSETTS     618   ILLINOIS
 619   CALIFORNIA     630   ILLINOIS
 701   NORTH DAKOTA     702   NEVADA
 703   VIRGINIA         704   NORTH CAROLINA
 705   ONTARIO         706   GEORGIA
 707   CALIFORNIA     708   ILLINOIS
 709   NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR
 710   GOV EMER TELECOM SVC
 712   IOWA         713   TEXAS
 714   CALIFORNIA     715   WISCONSIN
 716   NEW YORK         717   PENNSYLVANIA
 718   NEW YORK         719   COLORADO
 770   GEORGIA         801   UTAH
 802   VERMONT         803   SOUTH CAROLINA
 804   VIRGINIA         805   CALIFORNIA
 806   TEXAS         807   ONTARIO
 808   HAWAII         809   PUERTO RICO & CARIBBEAN
 810   MICHIGAN         812   INDIANA
 813   FLORIDA         814   PENNSYLVANIA
 815   ILLINOIS         816   MISSOURI
 817   TEXAS         818   CALIFORNIA
 819   QUEBEC         901   TENNESSEE
 902   PRINCE EDWARD IS & NOVA SCOTIA
 903   TEXAS         904   FLORIDA
 905   ONTARIO         906   MICHIGAN
 907   ALASKA         908   NEW JERSEY
 909   CALIFORNIA     910   NORTH CAROLINA
 912   GEORGIA         913   KANSAS
 914   NEW YORK         915   TEXAS
 916   CALIFORNIA        917   NEW YORK
 918   OKLAHOMA         919   NORTH CAROLINA
 941   FLORIDA         954   FLORIDA
 970   COLORADO


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So ... the above list was correct as of
October 27?  Good, will it stll be correct on November 1?   grin ... PAT

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

From: John Romano <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Which PBXs Have BRIs Compatible With NI-1?
Date: 30 Oct 1995 18:51:58 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory


[e-mail] (Steve Cogorno) wrote:

> Lars Poulsen said:

>> Case in point: We bought a couple of AT&T 8503 voice terminals to play
>> with on the public network, but it turns out that these can not be
>> made to work with the public service provided out of an AT&T 5ESS
>> switch.  (According to the support staff at AT&T's PBX group: This
>> voice terminal is specifically for use with System 85 and Definity
>> PBXs.)  This surprising information explains why the manual doesn't
>> describe how to program a SPID into the units.

> I literally spent an hour and a half on the phone with AT&T (being
> conferenced with four people at times) trying to get this same question
> answered.  Sourcebook says 8503 is ONLY for Definity and System 75/85.
> The engineering group that designed the unit said it is for public use
> as well because the System 75 is emulating the same protocol as 5ESS.

> I took the engineer's word over the customer service droids at
> Sourcebook, but hey, it did take the first person I talked to 15
> minutes to even FIND the phone in her computer so who knows what's
> going on over there.

I have used 8510's and 8520's on Definity G2s, G3V1, and 5ESS custom
without any problem.  As far as I know there are no 85xx sets that
will work with NI-1 (BTW you can convert a 75xx set from custom to
NI-1 or vice versa with a ROM change, although I'm not sure whether a
conversion kit is generally available).  The Definity G3 line just
started to support NI-1 as of Version 3 or Version 4.  I moved to
another company with a Meridian PBX before that conversion was
complete so I can't add any details.


John Romano
Telecommunications Engineer
JHU/Applied Physics Laboratory
Eyes:  [e-mail]
Ears:  [phone]

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

From: John Romano <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Switch Access via PC
Date: 30 Oct 1995 19:05:21 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory


[e-mail] (Sean Doherty) wrote:

> I would like to use the PC and modem on my desk to access a System 75,
> G2 and G3 switch.  I've tried using Procomm Plus's ATT 4410 emulation
> but something is funny with the keyboard.  What software/emulations
> are other tech's using?  Does any body have any suggestions?  Is their
> an AT&T BBS with these type of utilities?  Any thoughts would be
> greatly appreciated.

AT&T sells a program called Terronova which works very well.  We also
have an *old* (the highest speed the program will go is 9600) 513
emulator which did the job even though it had no sophisticated
features.  There's also G3-MA, the high end AT&T management system.

BTW, you can't dial directly into a G2 with a terminal emulator
program.  You need Manager 2 software which can access the procs.


John Romano
Telecommunications Engineer
JHU/Applied Physics Laboratory
Eyes:  [e-mail]
Ears:  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Pay Phone TDD
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 01:55:47 GMT


Rito Astorga ([e-mail]) writes:

> I'm trying to locate a TDD that can be used on a pay phone.

Ultratec (800-482-2424) makes utility-grade TDD devices for this
purpose.   They are designed to bolt onto the shelf below the phone
in a conventional payphone booth or enclosure.  They connect with
the phone line, and when a call is placed to a TDD device, the
machine unlocks and its keyboard and display slide out in view of
the operator.  I think this company also offers portable devices
suitable for accoustic coupling to a handset on a payphone or a
non-pay phone.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that TDD-equipped
payphones be provided in buildings where large numbers of payphones
are installed.  Ultratec makes most of the ones currently installed.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:55:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug
Reuben) wrote:

> Recently, PDIXON.US.ORACLE.COM <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Does anyone know of a service that will read email messages over the
>> telephone?

> Well, to be brief, we offer a service which will let you hear the
> HEADERS of your messages over the telephone, and if you determine that
> the message merits further attention, you may fax it to yourself or
> anyone else worldwide.

On a recent trip to Europe, a number of my associates were furious that
most of the public telephones don't have '*' and '#' touch tone keys that
work, and hence they couldn't access their voice mail!!

I also understand that other pay phones don't allow touch tones at all,
once the call is made, so that revenues from the pay phone are 'enhanced'.

Perhaps the first order of business for some of these services is to offer
an alternative keying that doesn't require '*' and '#'.  Voice recognition
to bypass these payphone bandits would also appear to be an important
requirement.


www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html

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

From: Arthur Knight <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Modems
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:56:25 CST


Pat,

I am a relatively new reader of your interesting comp.dcom.telecom. In
your recent issue of the digest, there is an inquiry regarding cellular
modems etc. There is a company named TELLULAR that makes cellular fax
machines all in one case that is used my many emergency responders in
Canada. I do not have the name of a U.S. vendor, but perhaps with the
name of the company, Mike Manzelli can track them down. I tried to send
this info to him directly but could not get it to go. The address shown
in the inquiry is "[e-mail].

Thanks very much for your assistance in this matter.


Art Knight
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Gilbert)
Subject: Alpha Paging From DTMF Phone
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:10:32 -0500
Organization: Motorola LMPS


The Unipage paging terminal is popular with many paging companies.
There is a method of alpha paging entry that is available on some
Unipage systems that doesn't require a modem and terminal.

Unipage terminal Alpha entry using DTMF.

1. Access pager as you would for a normal numeric message.
   With a normal page the "*" key should send a dash.
   The "#" key should send the page and hangup.

2. Enter "**".  You are now in Alpha mode.

Use the alpha characters on the keypad in the following manner:

3. Press the key that contains the alpha character you want to
send. To send an "A", "B" or "C" press the "2" key.

4. Press the "*" to "shift left."  Press the "#" to "shift right."
The center character is entered without pressing either key.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 to send additional characters.

1(Q.Z)                  2(ABC)                  3(DEF)

4(GHI)                  5(JKL)                  6(MNO)

7(PRS)                  8(TUV)                  9(WXY)

*                       0(Space)                #

6. Press "*#" to shift back into numeric mode, if necessary.


Example  To send the message "Call home.":

access the pager
dial:  **(alpha mode), 2#(C), 2*(A),5#(L),5#(L),0(space),4(H),6#(O),6*(M),
3(E),1(.),(hangup).

As you can see -- it is cumbersome, but it works!


John Gilbert    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 21:59:37 EST
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice Systems?


My company operates a fax back service where users order news
articles.  Callers enter six digit story ids where the # key is used
as the delimiter between the story numbers.  We are getting reports
from some users that the system does not recognize the pound key.  I
know that the other keys work because they are required to enter a
user id and a password to enter the system.

Doctor offices seem to have more than their fair share of this problem
but I also hear reports from others as well.  I tested the system down
to 60ms dtmf pulse width prior to deployment.

System configuration is two T-1s: One via Sprint and one via Nynex.

Any ideas out there on this one?

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Monaghan)
Subject: Telephony Programmer Needed
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:29:40 GMT
Organization: InfoRamp Inc.


We need a programmer with expertise in telephony technology to program a fax
on demand system for us.  Please Email me if you can help or point me in the
right direction (or call me at 416-390-9699.)


Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (M1English)
Subject: Caller ID Interface
Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:33:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (M1English)


Hi,

I am looking for some information regarding interface of Caller ID
system with Sun Workstations.  I am working on a project using ORACLE
on Sun Solaris and the client wishes to have an interface to the
Caller ID system so that when a phone call comes in, the number will
be sent to the system we are developing and the corresponding
information of the caller stored in the database will be displayed
automatically.

Please email me if you have any information regarding this subject.  I
really appreciate any help you can give.  Thank you very much.


M.L.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #454
******************************



From ptownson Tue Oct 31 00:24:58 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id AAA19319; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:18:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:18:43 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #455
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Oct 95 00:18:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 455

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    NYNEX Voice Messaging (Stan Schwartz)
    Trouble in NYNEX Town (Nicholas Spill)
    Give Me a Break AT&T! (Stuart Zimmerman)
    Telco Simulator - Design Challenge? (Bill Shields)
    Station Bell Cutoff (Karl Imhoff)
    Exchange Radio Telephone Service (Scott Montague)
    Calling Cards With 950 Access (Matthew D'Elia)
    Scope.FAQ (John Seney)
    Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ? (Ed Marion)

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: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX Voice Messaging
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 22:07:12 -0500


Forwarded FYI to the Digest

From:     Mike Pollock[SMTP:[e-mail]]
Sent:     Saturday, October 28, 1995 2:11 PM
To:     Stan Schwartz
Cc:     John Malfa
Subject:     Voice Messaging

COMPANY NEWS (sm) provided by Dow Jones/News Retrieval Copyright
(c)1995 Dow Jones & Company 10/26/95 Voice Messaging -2-: Table:
Voice-Mail Who's Who Several Baby Bells -- relative newcomers to the
field -- may be closer to the goal of universal voice mail. Nynex
Corp. says it will roll out a new linking service, knitting together
residential customers and businesses regardless of what phone systems
they use, in the next nine months. In August, it began offering
messaging services to a few thousand customers in some New England
markets, and it hopes to wire up New York eventually.  U S West Inc.
expects to offer a similar service early next year in its 14-state
region.

  Nynex and some rival Bells have already had discussions about eventually
linking their networks to provide nationwide messaging -- a cheap
alternative to long-distance if the caller doesn't need to actually
converse. If the Bells win entry into the long-distance business, Nynex
says it could begin trials of a nationwide system one year later.

  Bell Atlantic Corp. in April began testing a "community messaging"
service for Montgomery County, Md., which has 300,000 households. So far,
organizations generally like the service but family users are reluctant,
unfamiliar with the technology and fearful their mailboxes will be stuffed
with telemarketing pitches.

  One customer, Fields Road Elementary School in Gaithersburg, sends out a
"voice newsletter" to inform dozens of parents about field trips and other
events. Several day camps and community groups use it to contact members,
paying 15 cents to 25 cents for each recipient.  In California, some
600,000 residential customers of Pacific Telesis Group subscribe to a
voice mailbox, and about 126,000 of them use it for voice messaging.
FranCine Gadsden of Oakland rents her mailbox for $6.50 a month and
frequently messages a dozen friends who get together once a month. Each
message costs up to 20 cents. "I tell all my friends who don't have it
that they're still in the Stone Age," she says.

                  Voice-Mail Who's Who
                              1994
                             VOICE-MAIL
                           MARKET REVENUE
                            SHARE (millions)
Octel 20.0% $396
AT&T 16.5 332
Northern Telecom 14.0 274
Siemens-Rolm 7.0 141
Boston Technologies 5.0 106
Centigram 4.5 90
  Source: Yankee Group
  (END) DOW JONES NEWS 10-26-95

   6 23 AM Copied from the PRODIGY(R) service 10/28/95 18:59 COMPANY NEWS
(sm) provided by Dow Jones/News Retrieval Copyright (c)1995 Dow Jones &
Company 10/26/95 Voice Messaging: Efficient And Cheap But Still Too
Limited By Gautam Naik

  Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

  When Congress was about to kill the Office of Advocacy at the Small
Business Administration last July, Terry Neese wanted to galvanize
opposition quickly. So she got on the phone and left a rousing voice-mail
message for 4,000 far-flung entrepreneurs -- with a single call.

  The office survived. "There was no time to send mailings," says Ms.
Neese, a lobbyist. "I don't see how this would have happened without voice
messaging."

  Voice messaging -- a sort of e-mail for the voice -- is transforming the
humdrum voice mailbox into a potent communications tool. It lets a user
leave a message in someone's voice mailbox -- or simultaneously in many
people's mailboxes -- without having to converse directly. Properly used,
it can be a low-cost, efficient way to communicate.

  But pushing voice messaging out to the masses has been a quixotic
crusade at best. Most of America's 30 million voice-mail users treat their
voice mail as a fancy answering machine. And the biggest makers of
voice-mail systems use proprietary designs that are incompatible.

  "All the machines talk a different language. It's a Tower of Babel out
there," says Tom Oliver, chief executive officer of VoiceCom Systems Inc.,
a voice-mail provider. Dennis King, founder of Applied Voice Technology
Inc., Kirkland, Wash., says industry leaders such as AT&T Corp., Northern
Telecom Ltd. and Octel Communications Corp. used incompatibility
originally to hold onto customers. "They didn't want upstarts to enter the
market," he says.

  Now voice-mail companies, spurred by the saturation of their markets and
the boom in zap-it-anywhere electronic mail, are trying to undo past
mistakes. They are adding bells and whistles, including digital
technology, and trying to link incompatible systems.

  Many customers use voice messaging to avoid wasting time playing phone
tag. More than 80% of phone calls don't reach the intended party, studies
show. Replying to a message is more efficient with voice messaging, too;
the recipient touches a single key and gets the caller's mailbox. "It
eliminates 50% of wasted conversation and small talk," says Todd Crockett,
a Cleveland real-estate agent and avid user.

  DuPont Co.'s automotive-finishes unit would typically spend two weeks
mailing product updates to its roving sales force. Now the same
information is created, "addressed" and sent instantly to the voice-mail
boxes of 365 sales reps, many of whom work from home.

  First Chicago bank saves on long-distance charges by using digital
technology to squeeze a 60-second message into a 20-second slot and send
it over its internal network. Some 11,000 bank employees exchange more
than two million messages a month.

  General Electric Co. links 150,000 phones in 350 locations with an Octel
system. Last year, when a supplier ran out of crucial chips for GE
appliances, the chief buyer at GE's appliance division sent out a query to
25 buyers at other GE divisions around the world. The message turned up
one division that had a surplus of the scarce parts.

  Still, makers are a long way from the ultimate "universal" voice-mail
system. Eight major players, all with rival designs, hold 72% of the $2
billion-a-year voice-mail-systems market, according to Yankee Group, a
research firm based in Boston.

  The biggest voice-mail providers have bickered for years over how to
develop a common design standard. Octel, the No. 1 player with 20% of the
market, recently started a new service that bridges rival systems. But all
the parties that want to communicate with one another must subscribe to
OcteLink, and it's costly: Equipping 10,000 workers would cost an extra
$10,000 to $20,000 a month.
  (END) DOW JONES NEWS 10-26-95
   6 19 AM Copied from the PRODIGY(R) service 10/28/95 19:00

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:48:05 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Trouble in NYNEX Town


Pat, I much enjoy your newsgroup and am troubled by two telecom issues
concerning my otherwise wonderful trip to New York (lived there for
seven years and loved it but glad to escape to Miami Beach and live
like a human being -- (I shave, I wear socks, I have no pastels or
unstructured jackets).

1. The new yellow NYNEX calling card pay phones.

Used several in Manhattan (with my MCI Preferred calling card) and
after approximatly three minutes got cut off -- preceded by message:
"We're sorry, calls to this number are not allowed." Yes, I was
calling different numbers -- out of state.

In small print beneath the printed instructions in the booth/panel
were the words (something like this):

For calling cards, collect and 800# calls.  Can NYNEX cut off calls on
their payphones if you use a competing service?  This sort of tactic
doesn't bode well if they want to get into the long distance market,
does it?

2. Using my Bell South Mobility phone in New York I was informed by a
recording that I now need a 4 digit pin number or I could place an
"independant operator-assisted call for $1.95 a minute".  Really, I
have roamed before in Manhattan -- but BSM have not informed their
users of the terrors of PIN registration nor do I want to pay "phone
sex" rates for a mere long distance call (which I am probably being
charged transport for as well). Can't wait to see this next bill from
BSM -- transport and roaming charges for listening to these
charges/changes!

There are several questions embedded here: why have a PIN number if
you are roaming? why didn't the cellular companies design more
security overtheir analog transmissions in the first place? Is digital
transmissions/phones more secure? Why the outrageous operator assited
charge? Why couldn't I use my MCI calling card on my cellular calling
an 800 access number, and so on?  With more choices, more technology and
more marketing savvy than engineering savvy this is all getting rather
messy isn't it?


Thanks for all your info and help.

Nicholas Spill    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 15:13 EST
From: Stuart Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Give me a break AT&T!


I have been skeptical lately when I have read claims about sleazy practices
from AT&T.   Not good old Ma Bell!

A call from AT&T soliciting their "Small Business Advantage" program
convinced me otherwise.  Their representative, Robin from their Camp
Hill, PA center claimed that a particular competitor billed for busy
and unanswered calls.  While most long distance carriers have call
supervision and therefore such claims are generally not true, what
made her claim so ridiculous is that the competitor she named was SNET
(Southern New England Telephone, the local telco). (She was talking
about Intrastate calls, although SNET offers Interstate calls through
a wholly owned subsidiary.  SNET was not part of an RBOC and was one
of the first Telcos to offer Interstate long distance.)

Come on AT&T, at least make your falsehoods credible! (I had told her
that I was a telecommunications consultant!)  By the way, I don't
usually use SNET for long distance calls, but when I have, they have
not billed for unanswered or busy calls.  Further, if SNET was not
able to detect busies and unanswered calls, how could AT&T?  AT&T gets
its supervision information from SNET.

Thanks for letting me vent!


Stuart Zimmerman   Fone Saver, LLC
"We perform an unbiased analysis of your home or business long distance bill
and find ways to save you money! - Guaranteed."
[e-mail]             1(800)313-6631

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Shields)
Subject: Telco Simulator - Design Challenge?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 06:44:07 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services


I have been asked to look into the feasibility of creating an
interface to a standard telephone (via an RJ-11 jack) which meets the
following requirements:

1.  Provides sufficient power for standard line-powered
    telephone. (+5 VDC and +12VDC are available - step-up via
    DC-DC converter?).

2.  Simulates a standard "ring" signal. (115/6.3v transformer
    connected "backwards"?).

3.  Detection of "off-hook" condition (TTL level output).

4.  Performs 2-wire to 4-wire conversion (standard ICs available?).

5.  Decode DTMF signals (plenty of ICs available - any favorites?).

Note that none of this needs to meet any agency approvals since
there will be NO connection to the Telco.

Any hints, suggestions, pointers to reference materials, app notes,
schematics, etc. would be VERY appreciated!  So far, I've managed to
bury myself in various texts, but I am clearly out of my element here
and I have the deep suspicion that I'm trying to re-invent the wheel -
and that there may be others out there for whom this would be
considered trivial.

Can any of you telephony wizards help?  I should mention that IF
this project actually got to the commercial development stage (and
that's a big IF), I could actually afford to PAY someone who could
contribute their expertise.  In the meantime, I'm trying to determine
if this is actually feasible at a reasonable cost OR if the marketing
dreamers should be sent back to their cave :-).

All input and/or comments welcomed and appreciated!

Regards,


Bill    [e-mail]

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

From: Karl Imhoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Station Bell Cutoff
Date: 30 Oct 1995 16:51:35 GMT
Organization: Software AG of North America, Inc


My father recently recieved a notice from AT&T requesting that he
return the STATION BELL CUTOFF that is listed as being leased to him.
The lease stated that there is/was no charge for the equipment, but
that they would like to have their equipment back.  He has standard
residential service in Western Maryland with Bell Atlantic.

Any clue as to what this is, where it may be located, or anything else
would be appreciated.


Thank you,

Karl Imhoff, RCDD                       Email   [e-mail]
Software AG of North America, Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Montague)
Subject: Exchange Radio Telephone Service
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 01:14:02 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I work in Northern Ontario during the summers at Missinaibi Provincial
Park.  This wilderness park is located 88km up a logging road from the
small town of Chapleau, located between Wawa and Timmins on Hwy. 101.
Needless to say it would be impractical to run a phone wire all that
distance for just one customer, let alone costly.  So, the provincial
park subscribes to Bell Canada's Exchange Radio Telephone Service.

This service consists of a VHF or FM Radio Unit which is connected to
the building's phone jacks.  The radio unit is connected to a Bell
supplied antenna, on top of a customer supplied tower.  The radio unit
is usually powered by a 12 volt 10 amp car battery, but will be
replaced with a special power supply for buildings with reliable
power.  The customer has to apply for a frequency license with the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and has
to comply with the radio act (no swearing, etc.) as the frequency is
publicly accessible.  Installation of the service can cost thousands
of dollars as a tower is also required at the CO to receive the
transmissions.  This is in no way related to cellular service.

So what happens?  When I pick up the phone the radio unit checks to
see if the frequency is in use, and if so will squawk *VERY VERY
LOUDLY* at me.  This is for the people who have four party service.
Otherwise, it will open up the frequency and I'll hear a CO generated
dialtone.  I can dial normally (normally for the switch (an old
crossbar switch) that is).  When I hang up, I have to remain off the
line for several seconds before it actually hangs up (this is to avoid
interference causing hang-ups).

This service has its problems though.  You have to wait a LONG time to
redial.  If there is interference (sun spots, etc.) you can't use your
phone without tricking the radio unit.  If you want to speak to
someone else on your four party service, you have to use a "push to
transmit" button as you are on the same frequency.  Of course to ring
the other party, you have to go through the operator.  You have to
bring back the radio unit each time you suspend service (luckily not
the power supply or the antenna).  If you use a battery, you have to
worry about keeping your conversations short and keeping the battery
charged and filled with water.  Also, it is VERY expensive, with the
frequency license, high installation costs, and high monthly costs.

On the other hand you have reasonably reliable telephone service where
you wouldn't otherwise have any service at all.  You get to deal with
a special Radio Services branch with two of the best Bell Canada
employees (Mary and Gerry), prompt service (once I suggested the power
supply for the park they got up there within 2 days... from over 350
km away!), and great repair service (under 2 days for problems at the
park, same day for problems at the CO).  Plus you also get to use the
phone as an excuse to hang up on people or ask the operator to perform
special services.  It's great!

I've also convinced them to put in a Charge-a-call payphone on the
same frequency for the use of the campers.  This is using a relatively
new technology that allows two phone lines per frequency (but not
digital).

My question for all those Digest readers (and you too Pat) is: does
anyone else know if their phone company offers such a service?  Does
it operate the same?  Or is Bell Canada unique in this service, as
much of its covering area is remote locations.  I'd be interested in
hearing anyone else's adventures with this service.

Or am I and others in Northern Ontario just living in the past?


Scott
[e-mail] / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tommorow
*Proud to be Canadian* \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today.
<<Les renseignements dans ce message sont egalement disponible en francais.>>

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew D'Elia )
Subject: Calling Cards With 950 Access
Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:04:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom


    Does anyone know which long distance companies still offer calling
cards using 950 numbers for access?


    Matthew D'Elia

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

From: [e-mail] (John Seney)
Subject: Scope.FAQ
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:02:25 GMT


IF you want the complete version of this Digital Scope.FAQ file sent
to you automatically, send me ([e-mail]) an EMAIL where the
subject contains the text "subscribe scope.faq".

Or go to the WWW page listed at the end of this file.

This file contains the first "page" to give you a sense for it.


                  FALL / 1995 DIGITAL SCOPE.FAQ - VERSION 2.00

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::Date/Time               |  O  O  ::
::     /\                 |        ::
::    /  \                |  O  O  ::
::   /    \        /\     |        ::
::__/      \      /  \  /`|  O  O  ::
::          \    /    \/  |        ::
::           \  /         |  O  O  ::
::1.5 GHz BW  \/  10 GS/s |________::
::________________________|A B C D ::
::      rise 1.5 ns       | x x x  ::
::      fall 4.9 ns       | x x x  ::
::_________________________________::
::(*)   (*)   (*)   (*)   (*)  (*) ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::                               :::

Dear Technologist(s):

This Digital Storage Scope.FAQ file contains many (but not all) of your
answers to the more "Frequently Asked Questions" re: Digital Storage
Oscilloscopes (DSOs).

The answers and suggestions come from > a decade of my experience as a
DSO sales engineer in Boston, MA.  The opinions are mine and represent no
company or service - they are meant simply to be helpful, generic, and easy
to understand.

Thanks to the hundreds of responses to the earlier versions of this FAQ.

Feel free to contact me anytime ([e-mail]) if you have additional
questions or comments.

If you want the next version of this file sent to you automatically, send an
EMAIL where the subject field contains the text "subscribe scope.faq".

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
            KEY ISSUES REVIEWED IN THIS FAQ (in order of appearance)

  * DSO INDUSTRY TRENDS       (Whats happening in DSO technology this year?)

  * DSO FORM FACTORS          (What types of DSOs are there?)

  * PRIMARY DSO FUNCTIONS     (What can DSOs actually do?)

  * COMPARISONS               (How can I best compare various models)

  * APPLICATIONS              (What are the most common DSO applications?)

  * ADCs                      (What speed do I really need on each channel?)

  * BANDWIDTH & TRIGGER       (What numbers and functions are right?)

  * ARCHIVAL & MEMORY         (How fast, how deep, and can I get more?)

  * DISPLAYS                  (What am I really looking at?)

  * MEASUREMENTS              (How much is my signal changing over time?)

  * DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING (How can I obtain more useful information?)

  * DEMOS & PURCHASING        (How can I see and get the DSO I really need?)


Best regards,


John D. Seney, WD1V                Internet:      [e-mail]
144 Pepperidge Drive                    AOL:        [e-mail]
Manchester, NH 03103-6150         AX.25 Pkt: [e-mail]
(H) 603-668-1096                 TCP/IP Pkt:    [e-mail]

macnet world wide web home page:    http://www.mv.com/ipusers/wd1v

Macnet Roster -     "Whos Who" of all amateurs using Mac Computers
Macnet Test -       Amateur Radio Test Simulators
Macnet Collection - 10 Disks of Amateur Radio and Scientific Prgms


     LeCroy Corporation - Test and Measurment Sales Engineering
                Serving NE Massachusetts, NH, and ME
                     WWW http://www.lecroy.com
                           NASDAQ: (LCRY)
(O) 800-553-2769      (F) 603-627-1623    (P) 800-SKYPAGE #5956779

   All opinions are my own, including Digital Storage Scope.FAQ

 To obtain the latest copy automatically, simply send me an EMAIL
       with "subscribe scope.faq" in the subject field.
  or: WWW http://beam.slac.stanford.edu/www/library/w3/dso.html

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Marion)
Subject: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ?
Date: 28 Oct 1995 12:34:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Does anyone know why Countries like Canada, Bermuda
the British Virgin Islands, and the Carribean in general are
all accessible from within the USA with a 1 + Area Code + number?

All other countries (even Mexico) require 011 + etc.

I can't figure this one out either. Guam, a USA territory, requires
you dial 011 + etc. to send a FAX.

The rates to these countries can be onerous. About $1 min to
the Cayman Islands, for instance. So, dialing 1-809 + Cayman
Islands seven digit phone number) can rack up some serious charges.

I've called Southwestern Bell and asked if we could block 1+
'international' area codes. Their answer was terse: NO!

We have an 800 number with Sprint and turning it off for Canada,
Carribean, etc. (or any combination of area codes) is no problem. What
gives?

A small business or individual that does not have a programmable PBX
really has no control, other that blocking all 1+ calls and strict
employee training.  Recently, a new employee racked up about $120 in
LD to Canada (AC 905) because she thought it was in the USA. The same
LD time to a USA number would have cost only about $60.

For that matter, with NAFTA and all that, why does it cost about 25
cents per minute to call suburban Toronto from Houston during business
hours, when it only costs 12 cents per minute to call Seattle which is
500 miles more distant?  On 800 inbound, it is even worse ... 56 cents
vs 16 cents.

Any comments?


Best regards to y'all from:

Edward Marion, General Manager of
EZX Corp. "The EZ-Forms Automation Company"
Email: [e-mail]   or   [e-mail]
Compuserve: 76350,3111   Americal Online: EZXHOU
Mail: EZX Corp, 403 E. NASA Rd., Suite 377, Box 58177,
      Webster (Houston), TX 77598-8177 USA
Voice:713-280-9900   FAX:[phone]   BBS:713-280-8180


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I can tell you that much of what
you are complaining about is really just an accident of history. The
area codes for North America were in place for many years before the
concept of international direct dialing (thus requiring the use of
011 and country codes) was even thought of. It just made 'good sense'
in the mind of someone back in the 1950's to put Canada and the USA
together in one dialing plan back then.  There were politics involved
of course, and that is why Canada and the USA got area codes but
Mexico did not. Hawaii became part of the USA prior to IDDD so it
got an area code also even though it is not connected to our mainland.
Guam on the other hand only became dialable after IDDD was installed,
so for whatever reason it got a country code rather than an area
code. Like Puerto Rico, it is a territory of the USA, but the island
known as PR has an area code it shares with other (completely non-
related countries) while the territorial island known as Guam has a
country code of its own. Midway Island is a US territory and it shares
an area code with a US state, namely Hawaii with 808. I would say the
two biggest factors in how the numbers came to be assigned as they are
over the years are politics (relationships between governments and
between various phone companies) and arbitrary decisions made long ago
by people who never would have dreamed how extensive our telecom
network is today. If it was all to be done over today would things be
different in the North American Numbering Plan?  I think so.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #455
******************************



From ptownson Tue Oct 31 13:23:42 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id NAA20738; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 13:09:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 13:09:09 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #456
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Oct 95 01:06:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 456

Inside This Issue:    <Happy Halloween!>     Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice? ([e-mail])
    Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice? (Jonathan Elgart)
    Re: Pin Out Needed For Siliconix DG508 (Bryan Douglas)
    Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place? (Sam Clason)
    Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place? (scotta@prime)
    Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (John R. Levine)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Directory Information in Oregon Down? (Danny Burstein)
    Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone (Henry Baker)
    Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada ... (Carl Moore)
    Re: Telecom in China (Andrew Decker)
    Still More MyLine Improvements (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Change of Address Reminder (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: [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, 31 Oct 1995 06:20:13 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice Systems?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


Steve Samler <[e-mail]> writes:

> We are getting reports from some users that the system does not
> recognize the pound key.

I once had a problem like this to deal with.  Believe it or not, the
problems were occurring because the affected callers were using those
phones where the # key was mapped to some other function, such as
"memory" or "redial".

Despite the fact that the key had # on it, it also said something else
right next to it.  When pushed, it would not emit the tone at all!  We
had to change the system to one with a fixed number of digits to
eliminate the problem.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 05:49:09 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan Elgart)
Subject: Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice Systems?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


Steve Samler ([e-mail]) wrote:

> My company operates a fax back service where users order news
> articles.  Callers enter six digit story ids where the # key is used
> as the delimiter between the story numbers.  We are getting reports
> from some users that the system does not recognize the pound key.  I
> know that the other keys work because they are required to enter a
> user id and a password to enter the system.

I've had experience with phone systems that do not send out tones on the
* and # keys ... unless you first press * # consecutively during your
phone call.  Then any further uses of these keys, for the rest of that
call, will send out tones.  No one seemed to understand why the phones
would be set up this way, but we all needed to learn this technique so
we could page each other.  Sorry, I can't remember the brand name of the
phone system, but you might suggest this technique to your callers.

By the way, these were phones that did not have their own outside phone
numbers, but shared lines on one main number, such as in hotels or in
office rentals.  In our main office, where every desk had its own
703-538 number, we had no such problem.


Jonathan Elgart, 448 Ward St., Newton, MA 02159, U.S.A.
[e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 07:08:04 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pin Out Needed For Siliconix DG508


           EN A0 NC A1 A2

            3 2  1  20 19
       Key _____________
          /             \
   V1  4 |               | 18  GND
   S1  5 |               | 17  V+
   NC  6 |               | 16  NC
   S2  7 |               | 15
   S3  8 |               | 14  S6
          \_____________/
           9 10 11 12 13
          S4  D NC S8 S7

             TOP VIEW
               LCC

            -------
    A0   1 |       | 16    A1
    EN   2 |       | 15    A2
    V-   3 |       | 14    GND
    S1   4 |       | 13    V+
    S2   5 |       | 12    S5
    S3   6 |       | 11    S6
    S4   7 |       | 10    S7
    D    8 |       | 9     S8
            -------

           TOP VIEW
      SOIC and Dual In Line


Source: Siliconix Data Book, DG508A

If you can't get a copy of the data sheet from your TEMIC/Siliconix
rep let me know.


Bryan Douglas  Alcatel
Richardson, TX
voice [phone]
fax   [phone]

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

Date: 30 Oct 95 16:28:55 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place?


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Atwood) writes:

> I have read a few threads regarding the spec's, but all refer to the
> BellCore TR-NWT-000030 document.  Is this spec available on the net,
> or libraries or does one have to shell out the $$ to receive it?

> So far I have gathered that after the CW signal is sent the caller-Id
> unit must [mute the handset] , send one of the [A,B,C or D] Touch
> Tones at which time the CO will send the Caller_ID burst.

Are the European and the American CW signals the same (two "knocks" of
some length and frequency)?  Any European standards on CW/CLI?  Who
knows, one might even be able to use the same protocoll :-)...


Sam
http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam,  [e-mail],  [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 20:56:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place?
Organization: Primenet


The Phoenix [AZ] market is suppose to receive the Call Waiting-Caller ID
sometime by the end of the year.

USWest claims they don't have a "special" box for sale to receive the
CW-CID and suggested calling Radio Shack (smile).

 From reading some past posts, the BellCore TR-NWT-000030 document has
the specs.  Is this document on the net, at libraries or is it
necessary to purchase (big bucks) the doc.

So far I've gathered that following the call waiting tone, the "box"
must mute the handset, send the _upper_ DTMF digits [A,B,C,D] then
receive the Caller-ID info burst.

Anybody have any further DETAILED information on this subject?

I've also searched the net looking for a manufacture / reseller of a
Caller-ID box that can handle the call waiting feature with no luck.


Thanks,

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael D. Sullivan)
Organization: Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
Montague) writes:

> I work in Northern Ontario during the summers at Missinaibi Provincial
> Park.  This wilderness park is located 88km up a logging road from the
> small town of Chapleau, located between Wawa and Timmins on Hwy. 101.
> Needless to say it would be impractical to run a phone wire all that
> distance for just one customer, let alone costly.  So, the provincial
> park subscribes to Bell Canada's Exchange Radio Telephone Service.

> My question for all those Digest readers (and you too Pat) is: does
> anyone else know if their phone company offers such a service?  Does
> it operate the same?  Or is Bell Canada unique in this service, as
> much of its covering area is remote locations.  I'd be interested in
> hearing anyone else's adventures with this service.

> Or am I and others in Northern Ontario just living in the past?

There is a similar service available in parts of the United States.
Under the FCC's rules it is known as the Rural Radio Service, and it
operates on a variety of UHF and VHF frequencies.  It is only used in
very isolated locations, however, because of the cost.  Back in the late
1970s, when I first worked at the FCC, I granted a license to a one-man
telephone company who wanted to put in a single radiotelephone in a desert
town consisting of a Mormon community.  In the US, the telephone company
or other provider gets the license for both the base station and the
subscriber station.


Michael D. Sullivan                      Email to:  [e-mail]
Bethesda, MD, USA     Also:  [e-mail] [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you talking about Beehive? I think
that is its name. One employee/owner and eight subscribers.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 15:53:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


> Countries such as the UK and Australia manage to have competing carriers
> without making mincemeat of their numbering system, ...

Actually, LD competition has hardly affected the US numbering plan at all.
There's an optional 10NXX or 101XXXX prefix if you want to use a carrier
other than your default, and you dial 00 for a long distance operator.

The renumbering in the NANP is due to a large increase in local
numbers, which is happening partly because local service is so cheap
that lots of individuals and small businesses have multiple phone
lines, and partly because flexible interconnection rules have made it
technically and economically possible to integrate a lot of stuff into
the numbering space that used to be non-dialable, e.g.  PBX
extensions, pagers, and voice mail boxes.  Adding NXX area codes was
always part of the plan, it's just happening sooner than originally
expected.  Most of the screwups are due to myopic PBX owners being
unwilling to upgrade their equipment, often because inept or less than
honest PBX vendors didn't tell them that it'd be necessary.

It's also worth remembering that the UK and Australia each have one
local telco (well, 1.01 in the UK) and two LD carriers, one of which
is the local telco.  In the NANP we have hundreds of LD carriers and
thousands of local telcos, which makes the situation somewhat more
complex.  We also have five times as many people as the UK and
probably eight times as many phones.

We're now gearing up for local service competition, which will be a lot
more difficult, since one of the rules is that you can switch telcos
without changing phone numbers.  I don't think any other countries are
even considering that.

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:19:53 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives


Chris Gray ([e-mail]) writes:

>> [...] I prefer the "mess" of several competing long distance
>> carriers to the neat but painful certainties of being forced to bend
>> over and pay the outrageous rates typically charged by monopoly
>> state-owned carriers in most other countries.

> Countries such as the UK and Australia manage to have competing carriers
> without making mincemeat of their numbering system, and I daresay the
> same goes for Finland ... the US numbering goulash is the result of
> hanging on for too long to what "seemed like a good idea at the time".

What precisely do numbering plans have to do with long-distance
competition?  The Digest did recently conclude a discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of fixed-length vs. variable-length
numbering plans, which I guess is what the "mincemeat" and "goulash"
comments refer to.  (Then again, I don't think you can favorably
compare the UK to the NANP in the "mincemeat" department -- there are
several times as many area codes in the UK, even though its population
is one fifth the size of the NANP and it covers about 1/80th of the
land area.)  But I know of no way in which long-distance competition
has affected the numbering plan itself.  Indeed, callers need do
nothing special at all to invoke their default LD carrier.  If they
want to choose a non-default carrier for a particular call, they
simply dial a special prefix to identify the desired carrier.  How
exactly does this compare unfavorably to the schemes used in
Australia, Finland and the UK?

> If you ask me a Flag Day is long overdue.

I'm not sure what this means.  The U.S. already has a national
holiday known as Flag Day, but I don't imagine that was what you
were referring to :-).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: Directory Information in Oregon Down?
Date: 28 Oct 1995 21:15:29 -0400


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

> I have been trying to call directory assistance for Oregon for several
> days - 503-555-1212.  The phone rings, but I never get any answer.

> Any idea what is wrong?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No idea at all. I tried it a few
> minutes ago and got through on the first ring. A half-ring actually. PAT]

Aside from all the other possible causes, keep in mind that more and more
long distance carriers (and cellular phone groups, etc.) are re-directing
your directory assistance call to a third party, rather than to the local
(or distant) RBOC.

These can range from full fledged groups to just a couple of folk in a
backroom with a cdrom.

So ... you might want to try rerouting your DA call through another IXC
(interexchange carrier) and hope they'll connect you for real.

BTW, when I first pointed this out about a year ago numerous reps from
<unnamed> telcos denied that anyone was doing this. Alas, I was right,
they were wrong, and the public is suffering as they get old and
inaccurate info. (And, needless to say, the person calling DA is -not-
getting any reduction in their call charge).


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 05:55:43 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug
Reuben) wrote:

> Recently, PDIXON.US.ORACLE.COM <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Does anyone know of a service that will read email messages over the
>> telephone?

> Well, to be brief, we offer a service which will let you hear the
> HEADERS of your messages over the telephone, and if you determine that
> the message merits further attention, you may fax it to yourself or
> anyone else worldwide.

On a recent trip to Europe, a number of my associates were furious that
most of the public telephones don't have '*' and '#' touch tone keys that
work, and hence they couldn't access their voice mail!!

I also understand that other pay phones don't allow touch tones at all,
once the call is made, so that revenues from the pay phone are 'enhanced'.

Perhaps the first order of business for some of these services is to offer
an alternative keying that doesn't require '*' and '#'.  Voice recognition
to bypass these payphone bandits would also appear to be an important
requirement.


www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html

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

Date: 30 Oct 1995 22:08:15 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.


AT&T Easylink Service (aka AT&T E-Mail) has offered text-to-speech conversion
of E-Mail over a telephone dialup 800 number for more than five years!

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 18:11:56 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada ...


Two thoughts about this issue, which is being voted on now --

How does the Quebec-leaving-Canada proposal compare to what Newfoundland
was like before it joined the Canadian federation?

Also notice that some prefixes have the place name "Ottawa-Hull", and
at least some can be reached in either 613 or 819?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As far as phone service is concerned,
bear in mind the country of Newfoundland ceased being such back about
1947 (I think that was the year) when it became a Canadian province.
The differences in phone service between then and now are so extreme
that an accurate comparison is impossible. Even our own experience
with Hawaii and Alaska over 35 years ago are hard to compare. They
were both assigned area codes shortly after their admission to
statehood. Oklahoma and Arizona became states in the early years of
this century; whatever limited phone service they had at that time
probably just continued in place, so remote from today's telecommun-
ications network were they.

I had a very old relative who passed away a couple of years ago who
had a copy of her birth certificate which stated, quite correctly,
that she was born in 1900 in Tulsa, Indian Territory.  There were
times when this caused some confusion when she needed to produce
identification for one reason or another. A couple of places even
said to her 'you have to have been born in the USA or be a citizen
of the USA' (for whatever they were doing). "Where do you suppose
Tulsa is located?" she would ask patiently. "Are you an Indian,"
they would ask. Dumb, dumb, dumb. State officials offered to give her
a revised copy of her birth certificate showing she was born in
Tulsa, Oklahoma if she wanted one; but she never did bother with it.

As for the confusion bound to result from the Ottawa-Hull 613/819
phone exchange, we don't know at this point what Quebec plans to do
with its phone service, or if it intends to make any changes at all.
I don't think there will be any changes at all over the next year
or two, at least until the formal period of negotiations they have
planned are completed. I guess we will know the results soon, and I
for one refuse to give an opinion or stick my nose into it. People
in the USA should butt-out and let them attend to their own affairs
up there.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:22:56 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Decker)
Subject: Re: Telecom in China


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am told phone service in China is
> expanding and growing at an incredible pace. Is that correct?   PAT]

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've heard a lot of wild statistics
> tossed around on this. Some are saying new phones are being  installed
> in China at the rate of five or six to every similar installation in
> the USA ... that there are more new installs there in a month than
> the entire USA has in six months. True or false?  Any solid figures?

The Government of China has announced various medium- to long-term
plans to extend and upgrade China's communications infrastructure.
While the details vary depending upon the sector (and to some extent
the report), in general, the Government is attempting to increase the
aggregate number of access lines by 10+ million per year (essentially
building an RBOC every year!) and to roll-out wireless (GSM and other
services) throughout the country.

In order to speed the development of this infrastructure, the
Government recently created a second national carrier called Lian Tong
(also known as China United Telecommunications Corp. or Unicom).  Lian
Tong is backed by the Ministries of Power; Electronics Industry; and
Railways and has about 16 lesser shareholders including a number of
state controlled financial and industrial concerns.  Lian Tong has
been authorized to build wireline and wireless networks throughout the
country.  To date, they have sponsored GSM networks in a number of
cities and are beginning to attempt to organize groups to develop
local exchange wireline networks and long-distance backbones in the
various provinces.

Both Lian Tong and the Ministry of Posts and Telecom (MPT) are doing
deals at a furious rate to exploit opportunities.  Foreign ownership
of the assets and involvement in the operations of networks is still
technically prohibited.  However, there are an increasing number of
innovative financing and operating arrangements that effectively
circumvent the prohibition.

For more information I recommend International Technology Consultants
(telephone [phone]) who publish a monthly newsletter on Chinese
telecom developments.  Pyramid research also publishes an Asian
newsletter that includes China.


Andrew Decker                  Tel:  [phone]
Senior Managing Director       Fax:  [phone] (Office)
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.             800 728 8950 (Personal U.S.)
245 Park Avenue                      510 927 2557 (Personal Intn'l)
New York, NY 10167           email:  [e-mail]
U.S.A.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:12:03 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Still More MyLine Improvements


Don't those people *ever* get done making improvements to their product?
Their latest addition to the MyLine 800 number software is something
called 'voice screening'. Here is how it works:

Someone calls your MyLine 800 number in the usual way, and they get
your recorded announcement to 'please stand by while call is transferred
to me' (or whatever you choose to say for the greeting).

Instead of it just ringing through to your normal number or your priority
call number as in the past (or going to voicemail on no answer) now if
you wish, you can use 'voice screening' before answering the call.

The system asks the caller to state his name. While he is waiting, the
system rings you and the name of the caller is given. You then have
the choice of accepting the call, or pressing a key on your phone and
sending the call to voicemail, with the caller being told you are
unavailable right now. The caller hears none of this of course; he is
just waiting on hold while you decide (based on his name or whatever
he recorded as his 'name') whether to take the call or not.

This is in addition to the improvements announced a couple weeks ago
of 'virtual call waiting' and 'call conferencing'. So far as I know,
MyLine is the only 800 service to offer call waiting on an 800 line.
Now, if they would only pass along the ANI they get, converting it to
Caller ID for the outgoing side of the call ... hmmm ... Steve, is
that a good idea or not?

Steve Betterly at Call America informed me there is no shortage of 800
numbers where they are concerned; there is still enough to assign
one promptly to each new customer of MyLine service. If you prefer,
you can have a regular number in the 415/408 area code instead. This
is for the benefit of people who get a lot of international calls
where an 800 number might be hard or impossible to dial. You can check
out earlier messages in this Digest about the benefits of MyLine 800
service or send email to:  [e-mail] and request complete
details. Billing to credit cards is okay.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:33:50 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: Change of Address Reminder


Please make certain you have changed the address for TELECOM Digest and
comp.dcom.telecom effective at this time.

All correspondence to the Digest is to be sent to:

                  [e-mail].

By 'all correspondence' I mean all editorial submissions, all list
maintainence requests; all 'not for publication' comments, etc.

Usenet news admins: pointers for the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup
should also refer to the above address. Please make the needed changes
in your records today.

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

Just a further reminder also that beginning this past week, ALL
outgoing stuff to the newsgroup is authenticated with encrypted
approval meaning spam will bounce. Cancelbots operating at various
locations continually watch the comp.dcom.telecom newsfeed for
stuff which does not belong there -- meaning it does not have my
encrypted approval -- and cancels it out  with cancel messages
sent out immediatly to a few very well connected sites. The spammer
or other miscreant poster is not notified, nor is his submission
returned. He gets no warnings, no second chances. The item in
question does come to me for manual review of course, in the event
I want to override the cancelbot and make the item available, which
is unlikely considering most of what gets caught that way.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #456
******************************



From ptownson Wed Nov  1 00:13:35 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id XAA03381; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 23:55:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 23:55:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #457
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Oct 95 23:55:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 457

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Report From China ([e-mail])
    Newfoundland Telephones Before 1949 (Nigel Allen)
    Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada .. (Chris Gettings)
    Licenses and Regulation ([e-mail])
    When Was the Coiled Phone Cord Invented? (Michael Moore)
    Private Line No. 9 Out Now; No. 8 Free Upon Request (Tom Farley)
    Split-T or Fractional T-1 Device w/ocu/bri Interfaces (Doug Neubert)
    Trying to Get Info From 604-555-1212 British Colombia, No Go (Robert Casey)

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: [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, 31 Oct 95 16:28:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom Report From China


Some more detailed information on Telecom in China based on our own
research:

Explosive Growth in China's Telecom Markets

     China's telecom sector is growing at an unprecedented speed.  In 1994
     alone, China added 10.8 million new telephone subscribers and nearly
     one million new lines of trunk switching, installed nearly 26,000
     kilometers of fiber optic lines, interconnected its cellular networks
     nationwide, cut over a national digital data network, and completed
     construction on its first major SDH fiber optic trunk line.
     Liberalization is providing an additional push to China's telecom
     market, and will be a major factor driving market growth during the
     1995-2000 period.  Newly licensed second network operator China Unicom
     and datacom services provider Ji Tong are already implementing
     large-scale network construction projects which will change the
     competitive face of the Chinese fixed and wireless voice and data
     communications markets.

     The MPT is investing a total of $9.5 billion (RMB 80 billion) in 1995.
     Plans call for China's switching capacity to increase by 14 million
     lines by year-end 1995. During the first six months of 1995, China's
     exchange capacity had already grown by 7.48 million lines to reach a
     total 56.25 million lines. The MPT is targeting 12 million new
     telephone subscribers this year, up from 10.8 million and 5.8 million
     in 1994 and 1993 respectively. Annual growth in telecom traffic
     averaged 45.9% during the 1991-1994 period.  Nevertheless, overall
     teledensity is extremely low, reaching only 2.3% at the end of 1994 --
     leaving plenty of demand for expanded networks and services.

     Transmission construction also continues to gather speed.  China is
     completing construction on 22 fiber optic trunk transmission systems
     by the end of 1995, under the Eighth Five Year Plan.  Already, work
     has begun on the construction of 16 new SDH trunk lines, as part of
     the Ninth Five Year Plan.  SDH technology (up to STM-16) has already
     become the de facto equipment standard in MPT long-haul transmission
     procurement practices.  Moreover, provincial transmission systems are
     increasingly coming to rely on SDH technology.

     This growth translates into tremendous opportunity for foreign
     investors and telecom equipment vendors. Every major foreign telecom
     equipment supplier is rushing in to join up with Chinese manufacturers
     in joint venture production agreements, while an increasing number of
     foreign operators are investing in telecom projects in exchange for
     revenue sharing agreements.

Competition Spurs Growth and Opportunities

     Changes in China's regulatory policy have put an end to MPT's monopoly
     on telecom services.  Last year two new entrants were given the green
     light to begin telecom services: China United Telecommunications
     Corporation (Unicom) and Ji Tong Communications Corporation have
     already begun to irrevocably alter the competitive landscape of
     China's telecom market.  Unicom, which is backed by the powerful
     Ministry of Electronics Industry, Ministry of Railways and Ministry of
     Electric Power, has already cut over GSM digital cellular networks in
     Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangzhou, with a combined capacity of
     roughly 80,000 subscribers.  The new operator's extensive plans
     include the construction of a nationwide VSAT network, a national long
     distance voice network, and extensive submarine fiber optic
     transmission links along the coast of China.  Unicom has already
     invested $84.3 million in cellular networks and will invest an
     additional $722 million to build out GSM networks in 16 additional
     cities this year.

     Ji Tong has made a splash in China's data communications market
     through its ambitious Golden Projects initiatives.  The company's
     "Golden Bridge" network has already begun installation and will
     provide high speed data communications services across China by the
     end of the decade.  Hughes is supplying the first round of VSAT
     terminals for the Golden Bridge, which will interconnect with existing
     data communications networks throughout the country.

     The liberalization in telecom services has opened up new opportunities
     for foreign carriers looking to break into China. Already, many
     foreign operators, such as BellSouth, GTE, Hong Kong Telecom, NYNEX,
     Singapore Telecom, and Sprint, have signed MOUs and cooperation
     agreements in China to serve as technical consultants, financial
     backers and network integrators for both MPT and non-MPT operators.
     While foreign companies are still prohibited from holding equity
     stakes in telecom operating ventures in China, a growing number are
     involved in revenue-sharing agreements with Chinese operators in
     exchange for investment and technical assistance.

Cellular Services Climb to New Heights

     China added more new cellular subscribers last year than all of
     Southeast Asia combined, reaching a total of 1.56 million subscribers.
     A seemingly insatiable demand for cellular services will continue to
     drive growth in this lucrative segment of the market.  Pyramid expects
     an additional 1.7 million subscribers to sign on during 1995.
     Cellular subscribership will reach over 15 million by the year 2000,
     with a nearly equal distribution of analog and digital subscribers.

     MPT's analog TACS-A and TACS-B networks now permit interprovincial
     roaming; the two networks will soon be interconnected, allowing for
     national automatic roaming.  At the same time, GSM networks are
     springing up across the country, with both new operator Unicom and
     China's local and provincial MPT subsidiaries racing to gain market
     share.  Significant drops in handset prices and cellular tariffs are
     also spurring the growth in subscribership.  While the TACS
     infrastructure market has been dominated by Motorola and Ericsson, the
     emergence of the GSM digital standard in China is providing other
     vendors the opportunity to enter the market.  CDMA, while still not a
     fully developed technology, has potential to capture some of the
     market as well over the next several years, particularly if it is
     successfully deployed in nearby Hong Kong.

Provincial Level Telecoms Networks Increasingly Important

     Telecom Markets in China also provides detailed analyses of telecom
     activities in each of China's 30 provinces, municipalities, and
     autonomous regions.  Provincial-level Posts & Telecommuncations
     Administrations have become an increasingly powerful independent force
     driving the development of China's telecom market.  Provinces and
     municipalities are taking on increased responsibility for funding,
     planning, installation, and interconnection of networks.  Particularly
     in the prosperous coastal provinces such as Guangdong and in cities
     like Beijing and Shanghai, new technologies such as SDH transmission,
     GSM cellular networks, ATM switching, and high speed digital data
     networks are being tested out well in advance of their adoption at the
     national level.

     Provinces and municipalities are also forging links with foreign
     operators and suppliers independently of the MPT; a case in point is
     Beijing Telecommunications Administration's 1994 agreement with Hong
     Kong Telecom, which calls for HKT to invest nearly $260 million in the
     expansion of Beijing's GSM network and the construction of a fiber
     optic link between Beijing and Hong Kong.  Investment from the
     provincial PTAs themselves is becoming increasingly significant:
     Guangdong will invest $1.26 billion in telecom network development in
     1995, while Beijing and Shanghai will invest $640 million and $470
     million respectively


     T E L E C O M  M A R K E T S  I N  C H I N A (US$ 2,850), a new report
     from Pyramid Research, Inc. (available Dec 1995), presents a
     comprehensive view of telecom equipment and services markets in China.
     This new report provides detailed information and analysis of market
     and investment opportunities, spending and development plans, new
     liberalization and reforms in the services sector, competitive
     strategies of foreign and local suppliers and operators, new service
     and technology trends, and equipment market growth opportunities by
     sector.

For further information on this report or other information
(newsletters, reports and consulting) on telecommunications in
developing countries please contact [e-mail]


Todd Allmendinger
Senior Associate
Pyramid Research, Inc

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:01:50 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Newfoundland Telephones Before 1949
Organization: Internex Online


Carl Moore asked about telephone service in Newfoundland before 1949.

In the capital city of St. John's and the rest of eastern
Newfoundland, service was provided by an investor-owned company,
Avalon Telephone Co. Ltd., which took its name from the Avalon
Peninsula. I think Avalon was partly owned by Bell Canada. Around
1970, the company changed its name to Newfoundland Telephone, and a
subsequent reorganization turned Newfoundland Telephone into a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a new holding company, NewTel Enterprises.
NewTel is partly owned by BCE Inc., the former Bell Canada
Enterprises.

In the rest of Newfoundland, telephone service was provided by the
Newfoundland government's Department of Posts and Telegraphs. When
Newfoundland joined Canada, the telecommunications side of the
Department of Posts and Telegraphs was turned over to Canadian
National Railways, which also received the never-very-healthy
Newfoundland Railway. CN's telecommunications division provided
telegraph and Telex service throughout Newfoundland, and telephone
service within the areas not served by Avalon Telephone/Newfoundland
Telephone, until 1980, when a new CN subsidiary, Terra Nova
Telecommunications Inc., took over the CN Telecommunications operation
in Newfoundland.  (This was at the same time that Northwestel,
originally a CN subsidiary, took over the CN Telecommunications
operations in the Yukon, the western half of the Northwest
Territories, and northern British Columbia, and that CNCP
Telecommunications was formed from the merger of Canadian Pacific's
telecommunications division and the bulk of CN Telecommunications.)

Terra Nova Tel was run from Gander, a small Newfoundland community
best known for its international airport, although the company's
president -- who was also the head of CN's communications division --
was located in what had been the CN Telecommunications headquarters at
151 Front St. West in Toronto. Terra Nova Tel also provided Telex
service in St. John's and elsewhere in Newfoundland, and operated
Newfoundland's last telegraph office in St. John's until it was closed
in 1983. These services were provided in connection with CNCP
Telecommunications, later Unitel Communications Inc.

About five years ago, Terra Nova Tel was purchased by Newfoundland
Telephone, which is now the only local exchange carrier in
Newfoundland. (At some point in the 1960's, Bell Canada sold its
Labrador operations to Newfoundland Telephone.)  After the sale,
Unitel set up Unitel Newfoundland in partnership with Fortis, an
electricity company.

As for regulation: I assume that the Newfoundland government regulated
Avalon Telephone before 1949, although I do not know if the government
did so directly or through an independent regulatory tribunal.
Certainly there was a Public Utilities Board in Newfoundland after
1980, and probably much earlier. As for the areas served by the
Department of Posts and Telegraphs prior to 1949, the telephone and
telegraph rates would have been established directly by the
government. After 1949, CN Telecommunications and Terra Nova Tel would
have been regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission and its predecessors (the Board of
Transport Commissioners for Canada and later the Canadian Transport
Commission).

A few years ago, a Supreme Court of Canada decision placed
Newfoundland Telephone under federal jurisdiction, so authority for
regulating the company was transferred from Newfoundland's Public
Utilities Board to the CRTC.


Nigel Allen (who has never visited Newfoundland)
52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada
Telephone [phone]    Internet: [e-mail]
http://www.io.org/~ndallen

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 18:24:18 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Chris Gettings)
Subject: Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada ..


As you may already know, the referendum in Quebec resulted in a "Non"
vote by a margin of about 1%.  So, for the time being, Quebec will
remain part of Canada.  Some view this as part of an inexorable slide
to independence for Quebec, as the vote resulted in more "Oui"s than
at the last vote.  Expect another referendum in two or three years.


Christopher C. Gettings
[e-mail]    www.econnect.net


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I read today that as the vote was
more throoughly counted and audited the margin was down to less
than one percent ... more like a quarter of a percent. Personally I
think the separation would be tragic, particularly for the provinces
to the east which would be cut off from the rest of Canada. Here in
the USA I don't think any such thing could happen; I do not think
there is any provision whatsoever for a state in the union to decide
to withdraw from the country although I suspect in a couple of the
western states there is a prevailing attitude by many of the citizens
that they would if they could. I know that on a few occassions
officials in Illinois have suggested they would like to see the City
of Chicago separated from Illinois and made into a state of its own
to reduce the dreadful drain on the state treasury caused by Chicago
in areas of welfare, human services, etc.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Licenses and Regulation
Date: 31 Oct 1995 18:46:45 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


Following is an excerpt from the book *Federal Broadband Law*
by John Thorne, Peter W. Huber, and Michael K. Kellogg. All of chapter
1 can be seen at http://khht.com/huber/home.html.

---------
1.4 Entry(41)

   Who will be permitted by the government to build broadband networks?
   Given how loudly government has been promoting the "information
   superhighway," this question might seem idle. It isn't. Entry into the
   broadband business is strictly controlled through a labyrinth of
   franchise procedures and license requirements.

   The franchising of communication technologies is not new. Soon after
   the printing press arrived in England, Henry VIII decided that the
   risks of sedition required control by the Crown. When it became
   impossible to limit the number of presses, the government tried its
   hand at licensing books.(42)

   Licensing today is always undertaken in sorrow, not anger. It is a
   matter of necessity.(43) Franchises are required by the laws of
   physics, it is said: spectrum is scarce. Or by the laws of economics:
   monopoly is cheaper and more efficient than competition. Or by the
   inherent scarcity of orbital slots in which to park satellites.(44) Or
   by logistics: franchises are needed to protect the public from the
   inconvenience of too much digging in the public streets. When
   transmitters, wires on telephone poles, underground conduits, or
   simply our patience are in short supply, and under monopolistic (or at
   best oligopolistic) control, the government must step in to ration and
   dole out the poverty, protesting its reluctance loudly as it does so.

   And often protesting all the way to the bank. Government entities that
   issue licenses have noticed that they can collect pay-offs for doing
   so.(45) With telephone service, the most common model is a local or
   state tax on receipts. With cable, franchise fees are more commonly
   paid in cash or kind-free wiring for schools, television studios for
   favorite charities, free TV time for city officials, and so on.(46)
   The federal government recently began cashing in directly, by selling
   spectrum for wireless telephones at auction to the highest bidders, or
   to bidders judged to be most diverse, marginalized, or politically
   correct.(47)

   Antitrust law and the First Amendment have been the two main federal
   tools available to sanitize the process.(48) The inherent inefficiency
   (or worse) of the franchising process has grown clearer with each new
   advance in broadband technology. Virtually every locality in the
   country now has not one wireline network, but two; wireless
   alternatives are advancing and multiplying, as well. With digital
   broadband technology, every network is capable of carrying voice,
   video, and data, or soon will be.

   On the constitutional front, government clearly could never get away
   with licensing paper-and-ink presses the way it currently licenses
   electronic ones. Press licenses were effectively abolished in the
   United States by the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791. For
   most of this century, courts distinguished celluloid and emulsion,
   radios and tuners, photons, phosphors, fiber-optic glass, and
   countless other electronic substitutes for ink and paper. Franchises,
   licenses, and permits are still the norm for these media, not the
   exception. But licensing remains the quintessential prior restraint;
   it creates countless opportunities to chill or to censor by way of
   bureaucratic wink, nudge, or frown. The First Amendment presumption is
   that other, post hoc means to any legitimate regulatory ends are
   strongly favored, if they can be concocted in any reasonable way.

   They can be. The old rationales of scarcity and natural monopoly no
   longer persuade. The clamor of people who want to deploy new
   electronic presses faster than regulators can process their permits is
   reaching a crescendo.(49) Property rights and anti-trespassing rules
   are needed in telecommunications, as in all other free markets.
   Licenses are not.

   [Endnotes 41 through 49 can be seen at http://khht.com/huber/home.html.]

   --------
   Copyright 1995 John Thorne, Peter W. Huber, and Michael K. Kellogg.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. All rights reserved. Electronic
   copies of this document may be distributed freely, provided that this
   notice accompanies all copies.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Moore)
Subject: When was the Coiled Phone Cord Invented?
Date: 31 Oct 1995 17:45:46 GMT
Organization: EDS Technology Architecture


I wondering if anyone has any info about when the COILED telephone
cord was invented/patented and/or when it came into common use.  I'm
doing some research and have not been able to find an answer to this
question anywhere else.  I will also take suggestions on where to look
for this info.


Thanks in advance,

[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All the old 'French style' phones from
the 1930-40 era (with the little fingers on the top on which the
reeiver rested) had straight cords. Straight brown *cloth* cord was
used a lot in the same time period, with black rubber cord beginning
to be prevalent around 1940. Of course, in those days, phone instruments
lasted for *years and years and years* without ever needing repair of
any kind, so maybe they started using rubber instead of cloth earlier
but were still phasing out the older phones (with cloth cords) in
1940. The early 500 model phones from around 1950 or so also had
straight cords at first, but I recall seeing one with a coiled cord
in the early 1950's. I was only a child; I cannot remember where I
saw it. In the early to middle 1960's all new installs used the 500
desk set with coiled cords however there were still plenty of the old
'French style' phones around as well. The ones that had never needed
repair to the handset still had straight cords but those which had
new or replacement receivers nearly all had coiled cords.

Payphones in the 1950's began getting their straight cords replaced
by coiled cords, but armored cable from phone to handset on payphones
did not appear until sometime in the 1970's with any regularity, which
was about the time the three-slot (5/10/25 coins) payphones began
getting phased out and they started putting trapdoors on the coin
return chute to keep people from getting inside the phone with bent
coat hangers to fetch the money back out before the operator had a
chance to hit the 'collect or return' buttons on the switchboard.

I found a real gem a few years ago. A friend who earns his living
doing repairs and maintainence to tower (steeple) clocks, bells and
carillons took me along to help him re-align the hands on the clock
in the tower of Holy Family Church. He also cleaned up and fixed
the gears on the bell mechanism which made the bell chime on the
hour and quarter-hours. Holy Family Church was constructed in the
1860's and the notation on the clock machinery in the tower said
it had been installed by the 'Southwick Clock and Bell Company' of
England in the year 1921. The company had gone out of business in
1928, but their schematics and documentation file for those old
tower clocks had been passed along and the docs for HF Church were
finally located in the archives of the Timex people in Chicago.
With those in hand he did a pretty good job of getting the clock
and bells restored. But I digress ...

HF Church had a 1A2 system. Six button five line phones with a hold
button. Three or four outside lines in rotary hunt, with one of the
buttons marked 'ICOM' and a dial intercom with a bunch of stations.
*Way up there*, in that clock tower, an *ancient* key phone still
in working order. Dial tone on all the lines, the lamps illuminating
properly, the hold button working, etc. Straight -- not coiled --
rubber cord to the handset, the little round barrel-like buttons
instead of the square ones used now, a clear colored (rather than
red as used now) hold button, etc. Taking the cover off the punch
down block mounted on the wall nearby I found a note handwritten
in the most exquisite penmanship from a phone installer long since
dead and forgotten telling others who might come after him what
he had done: "Six pairs from here terminate on the IT in the
basement at the rectory. House pairs on row two."  Signed with his
name, the notation "Illinois Bell" and the date in May, 1931.
Like President Carter, I had lust in my heart. Oooh, I wanted
that phone! The other phones on the system were much newer. It
looked to me like no one had used that phone for at least 20
years or perhaps longer.  In the basement of the rectory next
door to the church, the phone box had a note in the same hand-
writing telling phone men of the future that "Six pairs on
row two go to Sexton's phone in tower clock." (and furthermore
that) "Wabash cable 239, pairs 16-24 multipled to (some nearby
addresses). Fifty pair cable to the new building." Again his
name, and the 1931 date. The 'new building' was apparently the
boy's high school Holy Family Church built around that time.
I found a 'new' (1980-ish) key phone for them and swapped it
for the 1930's model, which about sixty years later was still
working fine. That's how Western Electric made things back then.  PAT]

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

From: Tom Farley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private Line No. 9 Out Now; No. 8 Free Upon Request
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 11:46:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


The November-December issue of _private line_ (No. 9) is now out. Send
me four dollars if you want it. Issue number 8 is now my sample issue
- send me a snail mail address if you want a free copy of that. I'll
get your request in the mail in about a week, just as soon as I get my
subscribers' copies posted.

November-December contains a look at an AT&T cable station, an update
to the Digital Telephony Bill, an index to volume 2 of _private line_,
a review of Def Con III and an article on propagation basics of point
to point microwave systems. Among other things.  It's my best effort
so far and it contains 17 photographs.

September-October, the free sample issue, contains a long article
introducing Canadian telecom. It also has an article on Outside Plant.
The feature article was written by Damien Thorn on cellular test mode
scanning. Its four parts are: Accessing Diagnostic Modes, Oki Test
Mode Commands, Motorola Diagnostics, and a Motorola Test Mode Command
Summary.

_private line_ is a hardcopy, alternative publication about the
telephone system. Text of back issues 1-6 are on line. Issues 7 and 8
will be when I get a little more time to convert them to ASCII.
Gopher or FTP to:

    etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Zines/PrivateLine

Another useful URL is:

    gopher://gopher.etext.org:70/11/Zines/PrivateLine

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

I don't take credit cards but I can bill you. Back issues are $5.00
apiece.  E-mail me if you want a list of their table of contents.
Corrections and comments are always welcome. Submissions are also
encouraged.  Voice is [phone]. My fax number is [phone]
and my e-mail address is [e-mail]


Thank you!

Tom Farley

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Neubert)
Subject: Split-T or Fractional T-1 Device w/ocu/bri Interfaces
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 13:03:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I am looking for a vendor who makes a Split-T or fractional T-1 device that is
drop and insert and will give me my choice of cards. It would have XN-56/64k
V.35/449/530 card. Also an OCU-DP card w/5 ports. Last but not least a BRI
drop point. If anyone knows who makes this box please drop me a line or E-mail
me.


Thanks,

Doug Neubert
Telsource Corp. Cleveland, Ohio
800-788-8824 x305
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Trying to Get Info From 604-555-1212 British Colombia, No Go
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 00:26:45 GMT


I needed to find out the phone number of some company in British
Columbia, "Softlanding Software".  Dialed 604-555-1212 and got a
robotic voice asking what city, then a pause which I said a
puzzled hello (hoping it really was human), then it asks for the
"listing".  I said Softlanding Software.  Machine hands me off to
an actual human, who demands "what city".

I don't know what town this company is in I explain.  "Can't you just
do a search for "Softlanding Software".  "No, sorry, that's
impossible", "What do you mean impossible, how many "Softlanding
Software"'s are there in your province?!  She says "probably only one,
but I need the city for it".  I'd have to search the entire province."

I say, well do it.  "The system doesn't permit that.  She compares it
to searching the entire state of Washington.  I didn't (and still
don't ) see what the problem is, other than poor software.  A database
program should let one hunt down info by various different incomplete
inputs.  What this Canadian phone company (is it some sort of
government agency up there?  THAT would explain it!) seems to have is
an exact equivalent of a physical card file (like what libraries used
to do) indexed by city.  I could understand them not being able to
find an entry in an unknown city if it meant searching thru thousands
of paper cards, but a computer should be able to handle this no
problem.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #457
******************************



From ptownson Wed Nov  1 01:25:48 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA07425; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 01:15:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 01:15:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #458
Status: RO

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Nov 95 01:15:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 458

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    DejaNews - Search the Past Year's USENET Traffic (via John Shaver)
    Big Brother - He's Everywhere! (Michael J. Kuras)
    Chicago Ameritech Cellular PINs Required? (Andrew C. Green)
    Telecom History Web Site (Ken McCarthy)
    Telephone Key-Pad Standards (Andy Cobham)
    Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager (Bruce Albrecht)
    GH337 and Mobile "Modem" (Antnio Sousa)
    BONeS vs. CACI Network Modeling Question (James Kovaly)
    Physical Layer Testing For Fiber Optic Transmitters and Receivers (Mirman)
    GPT and Ringmaster (Jaap Doogers)
    Another UK Number Change (Clive D.W. Feather)
    Head of French Hacker Group Was Secret Service Agent (JeanBernard Condat)
    ETSI Standards Needed (Patricio Boric)
    Specs For HM9102A Telephone IC (David Nyarko)
    Towing Pirates (Gideon Yuval)
    Cable Services License Renewal Help Wanted (Joe Mortz)
    Multiple Phones on Cellular Line (Lisa R. Owen)
    New Area Code Shows Up on Caller ID (David A. Cantor)

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: [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: Shaver, John <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: DejaNews - Search the Past Year's USENET Traffic
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 07:48:00 PST


Passed along FYI to the Digest.

John

  From: queens-list-owner
  Subject: DejaNews -- search the past year's USENET traffic
  Date: Monday, October 30, 1995 10:05AM

  From: Keith Bostic <[e-mail]>
  Reply-To: [e-mail]

Ever wonder who some slimebucket is when he crawls out from under his
rock and splatters some trash on the mailing list you read?  Well, now
ya can just go and see what he's been up to elsewhere on USENET.

DejaNews is a searchable archive of the last year's USENET news all
crossreferenced and indexed for your research use.

http://www.dejanews.com

 From: http://www.dejanews.com

Scope and size of DejaNews

DejaNews has the largest collection of indexed archived Usenet news
available anywhere. While WAIS servers typically contain only articles
from a limited number of newsgroups, DejaNews gives you access to most
of the usenet postings (articles posted to groups that match alt.*,
soc.*, talk.* or *.binaries are excluded) in the last month. This
amounts to over 4Gbytes of searchable data.

Selected groups have an extended history of up to a year. As resources
allow, we will plan to eventually offer an entire year of history on
all of the groups (except the excluded ones described above). If you'd
like to have the full-year history of your favorite group available
now, just send us email to [e-mail] and let us know. We'll
pull the last year's articles for that group off the archive and add
it to the database. Once it has been added, you'll get an email
confirmation that it's now available.

Performance

DejaNews is extremely efficient and fast. Even searches that span huge
quantities of data are finished on the server in a few seconds.

Reliability

DejaNews has server redundancy and backup to ensure that you always have
efficient access. If you can reach the backbone, you can reach DejaNews.
DejaNews is dedicated to maximum uptime and we have the resources to
back up that commitment.

Target your search to get what you want, fast and easy with these
powerful search and retrieval options.

Pattern Match

Searches for articles that contain words that match a pattern using
shell-like pattern matching. eg: doct* finds articles containing any
of the following words: doctor, doctors, doctrine...

Filtered

You can limit the results of your searches to a subset of the database
that satisfy limiting conditions (newsgroups, author, posting date).

Topic thread

Retrieves the entire thread of articles on a particular topic. First
you find an article of interest using a regular article search, then
you can retrieve the entire thread so you can put the article in
context and see what others have to say about the topic.

Author profile

Helps you determine the credibility of the author of an article by
showing you a history of their posts and useful statistics on their
posting habits.

Time sensitivity

The latest news on a particular subject is often much more important
than older news. DejaNews has the capability of weighting recent
documents as more important so that they will take precedence over
older documents in the results of a search.

See the "how to" guides for help on putting these features to work for you.

What is Usenet?

Usenet is a worldwide electronic public message service that hosts
over 9,000 topic-specific newsgroups. Typically, users post questions
and the Usenet community responds - exchanging everything from
artichoke soup recipes to tips on installing a web server.

Researchers have turned to Usenet to identify experts or uncover areas
where research is needed. Businesses and entrepreneurs have found that
Usenet provides a unique opportunity to improve customer relations and
increase visibility by posting answers in their area of expertise.
Companies have found it a valuable tool for recruiting employees and
monitoring trends and markets.  But have you thought about how Usenet
could help you plan the perfect vacation, or help you get a good deal
on a big-screen TV?

How DejaNews helps you use Usenet:

The good and bad news is: Usenet has proven so useful and popular
since it began in 1979, that the traffic of messages had grown to over
80 megabytes per day. With this much potentially useful, but
practically overwhelming amount of information, one needs a system
that provides the capacity and functionality to effectively search the
news. DejaNews is this system.

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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And personally, I think it is a really
great service. There is the usual complaining and whining from the
privacy freaks about how it is such a terrible thing that someone is
able to track someone else's postings and presumably make a profile
of that person, but to my way of thinking it is the height of lunacy
to post messages on Usenet where they are seen by millions of people
in thousands of newsgroups and then (apparently) *not* expect others
to pay any attention to what you have written. All that is happening
here is that a systematic compilation is being made of the things
people talk about. If you don't like it, then don't post. I've even
had people write me to complain about the index of authors and
subjects for this Digest which I have compiled over the past several
years. They think it is just terrible that anyone who wishes to do
so can get a list of everything they have written here. Let's face
it, the real culprit here is the computer, isn't it?  If it were
not for computer record keeping, a lot of records theoretically
available for inspection would be as a practical matter nearly
impossible to obtain or review due to the sheer size of the listings.
You who argue about the invasion of your privacy should remember
that the computer is what has made it all possible, so start by
unplugging yours.

Well not everyone agrees with me. The next message in this issue
talks about (who else!) ... Big Brother.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:51:19 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Kuras)
Subject: Big Brother - He's Everywhere!
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University


This is from the 23 Oct 95 {Boston Globe}:

DEJANEWS SPARKS PRIVACY CONCERNS

DejaNews Partners, an Internet service that catalogues and indexes
Usenet messages, is under attack for the service's potential to
violate Internet users' privacy.  The service makes copies of every
Usenet message and indexes them for easy retrieval.  For instance, by
typing in someone's name, you can track the messages they posted to
various newsgroups over a given period of time.  Some Internet users
resent the "Big Brother" aspects of the service: "No one ever
mentioned to me that it was possible to take a different program and
run a search on what you've written," says one.  "When you post to
Usenet, it automatically gets propagated to tens of thousands of
computers," replies DejaNews's president.  "So anybody who posted
something to Usenet, and then later on has any kind of privacy
concerns about it must have seriously misunderstood what they were
doing."  DejaNews can be reached at < http://dejanews.com/ >.

This service is supported by corporate sponsers who get a 6"x1" ad at
the top of each page.  (I just turn off 'Auto Load Graphcs' and I
hardly notice the intrusion.)

I tried it out by performing a search of messages I posted in the last
month.  Each reference to the msg's I posted is hot-linked so I can
point-and-click to instantly view the text.  It's both interesting and
admittedly a little disconcerting.

On the other hand, doing a keyword search on 'Slaton' shows what kind of
bandwidth this, uh, gentleman is generating.

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

michael j kuras      www.ccs.neu.edu/~mkuras       [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'm glad to have a service like
DejaNews available. It is an extremely valuable reference tool on
an increasing cluttered and noisy net.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:17:50 -0600
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chicago Ameritech Cellular PINs Required?


I received a puzzling piece of mail from Ameritech recently which
seemed to imply (it was _very_ carefully worded) that I needed to
call them and set up a PIN for my cellphone service as part of their
Ongoing Battle Against Telecommunications Fraud. It did not actually
say that this was mandatory, nor did it say that it was purely optional,
only that I should be calling such-and-such a number and setting it up.
An enclosed glossy brochure covered the usual questions and answers,
which I won't rehash here; we all know the issues and the details.

Basically, I don't want the PIN. I make only light use of my two cellular
phones anyway, and don't want to mess around with manually entering the
PIN for each call, especially while driving. I do not frequent busy areas
where someone would be trolling for numbers. I have not called the PIN
service number yet; I tend to think I'll get more knowledgeable advice
here. Does anyone else have more insight on what Ameritech is planning
to do with this in the Chicago area?


Andrew C. Green            [phone]
Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology)
Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: [e-mail]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498    FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken McCarthy)
Subject: Telecom History Web Site
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 03:38:04 GMT


History buffs: The Net is 150+ years old.

Check out  http://www.e-media.com/telecom

for a web version of George Oslin's "The Story of Telecommunications"
which tracks the history of electronic communications from 1844 (when
it all began with the telegraph) through to today.

If you like it, pass it on.


Thanks,

Ken McCarthy   E-Media
and telecom history buff


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And thank you for reminding us that the
net did not start with AOL's decision to let their subscribers use it,
nor for that matter even with the early days of Usenet in the late
1970's. Some think it is a relatively new phenomenon. Not really it
isn't ... just the tools we use on it are new.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Cobham)
Subject: Telephone Key-Pad Standards
Organization: Motorola GRO-A/P
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 03:00:41 GMT


I am in the process of researching standards and/or regulations
regarding telephone (conventional telephone and/or cellular phones, --
both analog and the new GSM digital) keypad layouts. I have been
advised that the ITU recently issued a recommendations (ITU-T Recomm-
endation E.161) which outlines the criteria behind a new "Standard
Keypad Layout". I have not been able to put my hands on a copy of this
new "Recommendation". Can anyone help me out with a copy via my EMail
address if possible I would be most grateful.

EMail address is: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Albrecht)
Subject: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager
Date: 31 Oct 1995 22:08:09 -0600


I am looking for Unix sources to send messages to an alphanumeric
pager.  I've been told that there was one posted a while back, perhaps
to alt.sources.  Does anyone know a location for this, or an
approximate posting date?  For that matter, are the ixo files in the
telecom-archives/technical directory adequate for writing one from
scratch?

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

From: Antnio Sousa <[e-mail]>
Subject: GH337 and Mobile "Modem"
Date: 30 Oct 1995 17:48:21 GMT
Organization: telepac


Hi,

I've recently seen a post referring that the DC12 "modem" that fits
with Ericsson's GH337 only works at 2400?

Can anybody confirm or not?


Thanks in advance,

Antonio Sousa

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

From: [e-mail] (James Kovaly)
Subject: BONeS vs. CACI Network Modeling Question
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:33:40 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.


I am currently evaluating two network modeling tools, the BoNES
product from Systems&Networks and the Comnet III product from CACI.
Has anyone had any experience with either or both of these products
that they would like to share?


Thanks,

[e-mail]
James Kovaly   Network Design Engineer
Bellsouth Cellular

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

From: [e-mail] (Ilya Mirman)
Subject: Physical Layer Testing For Fiber Optic Transmitters and Receivers
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:15:30 GMT
Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc.


I am curious: when do people stop testing the physical layer or fiber
optic transmitters and receivers?  Obvously, the individual components
get tested during their manufacture (spectral characteristics, pulse
performance ("EYE"), Error Rate performance, etc.  Presumably, they
are also tested once integrated into the system manufacturers' boards.

But, at some point (deployment, maintenance, etc.) people no longer
look at the eye diagrams or spectral characteristics -- instead, they
look for "higher layer" issues, such as sending packets, system
jitter, etc.

My question: when, exactly, does the "physical layer" testing stop,
and higher level testing begin?


Thanks!

(feel free to e-mail me...)

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

From: [e-mail] (jaap droogers)
Subject: GPT and Ringmaster
Organization: NLnet
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:03:11 GMT


We are using an GPT iSDX large PBX. For costs registration we use the
Ringmaster program. The problem is that every day we have one or two
calls with no costs although the calls took more than three minutes. Has
anyone a solution for us?


Thanks,

Jaap Droogers
Leeuwenhorst Congres Centrum
Langelaan 3
2211 XT NOORDWIJKERHOUT
The Netherlands

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

Subject: Another UK Number Change
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:37:55 GMT
From: Clive D.W. Feather <[e-mail]>


The UK National Code Change, completed this April, was supposed to
solve our numbering problems for the forseeable future. Well, many of
us foresaw that other places were still running out of numbers.

Oftel announced recently that Reading numbers are about to change
again.  0734 XXXXXX became 01734 XXXXXX, and will now become 0118 9XX
XXXX. Parallel running will start in April 1996, with the final
changeover in January 1998.

According to posters in uk.telecom, there already exist 01734 90XXXX
and 01734 04XXXX numbers. No-one is sure how these will interact
during parallel running.


Clive D.W. Feather      | Work: [e-mail]        | Gateway House
Senior Manager          | Home: [e-mail] | 322 Regents Park Road
Demon Internet Ltd.     | Tel: [phone]        | Finchley
                        | Fax: [phone]        | London  N3  2QQ

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

From: [e-mail] (JeanBernard Condat)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Head of French Hacker Group Was a Secret Service Agent
Date: 31 Oct 1995 18:38:42 GMT
Organization: FranceNet


Bonjour,

In the October 12th issue of {Intelligence Newsletter}, I note the
following text that the editor accept to put at the end of this email.
Don't hesitate to send me all your comments related at this fact ...

Regards,

   Jean-Bernard Condat
   47 rue des Rosiers, 93400 Saint-Ouen, France
   Phone: [phone], portable phone: [phone]
   [e-mail]

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

A Computer Spy Unmasked

For years Jean-Bernard Condat has undoubtedly been France's best-known
computer hacker. Appearing on television talk shows, launching provocative
operations and attending computer seminars, he founded the Chaos Computer
Club France (CCCF) in 1989 as France's answer to the renowned Chaos
Computer Club in Germany. French journalist Jean Guisnel revealed this week
in a book entitled Guerres dans le Cyberespace, Internet et les Services
Secrets (Cyberspace War, Internet and Secret Services) published  by the
Editions La Decouverte  (ISBN 2-7071-2502-4) that Condat has been controlled
from the outset by the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire.

A student in Lyons where he followed music and information technology
courses, Condat was taken in hand by the local branch of the DST in 1983
after committing some "minor misdemeanor." The DST organized his
participation in hacker meetings abroad. Guisnel said that from 1989 onwards
"Jean-Luc Delacour, Condat's handler at the DST, decided that his protegé
was ready for bigger and better things." He asked Condat to start up CCCF,
then worked to promote his public image in order that the largest number of
hackers would gravitate towards him. The DST printed hundreds of T-shirts
and thousands of post cards for him.

When Thomson and Pechiney found that hackers were trying to break into
their systems Condat enabled the French counter-espionage service to
trace the intruders. When he was taking part in a television program
in 1991 in which he was to demonstrate how to hack into a system his
handler dictated what he should say in his earphones.  Questioned by
Intelligence Newsletter, Condat admitted he had worked for the DST
over a 52 month period and written up 1,032 reports during that time.
He claims, however, that he broke with the DST in 1991 and that he
intends to shortly publish an account of what he calls his "turpitude."
Whether true or not, Condat worked for several years for the SVP company
before leaving it a few months ago to take over a key function: he is
now system operator for the France forum on Compuserve.

Guisnel cites any number of cases of  how "Internet is controlled to the
bone" by such  measures as turning around hackers, systematically bugging
computer networks and manipulating newsgroups. "If no serious company should
confide its correspondence to the network and if no government should use it
to transmit sensitive information the reason is that the NSA is watching and
that all the network's communications physically travel through the U.S.,
and very probably through computer filters at its installations at Fort
Meade, Maryland," Guisnel said.

He said the conclusion was that advanced encryption programs like PGP
needed to be used if one wants to communicate in a secure manner on
the Internet. Citing the debate raging in the U.S.  over computer
security which has made little impact in Europe, Guisnel called on
France to authorize the use of encryption by everyone and criticized
the country's reactionary policy in that score. He said the attitude,
while defensive in nature, was all the harder to understand because
its first consequence was to increase the vulnerability of French
companies, to the benefit of NSA.


Copyright 1995 Indigo Publications.  All rights reserved.  This news
report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part,
without the prior written consent of Indigo Publications.  For more
information and sample issues, please mail to [e-mail].

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

From: [e-mail] (Patricio Boric)
Subject: ETSI Standards Needed
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 13:43:06 GMT
Organization: CTC Mundo


I need to get several standards from ETSI, specially those related
with EURO ISDN If somebody knows where I can get them, please let me
know.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Nyarko)
Subject: Specs for HM9102A Telephone IC
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 15:08:23 GMT
Organization: Z.I.Probes. Inc, Edmonton, Alberta


Hi,

Could I have specs and equivalents for the HM9102A IC. It is in
a tone/pulse telephone with redial. Who manufactures this chip?
The marking 8918CZ is also found on the chip. It might be a date code.


My email address is:
[e-mail]
My fax no. is 403-463-1567

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

From: [e-mail] (Gideon Yuval)
Subject: Towing Pirates
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 00:12:31 GMT


The AAA's newsletter for Washington state warbs about "towing
pirates", who interecept cellular calls to the AAA, tow the car, and
then start playing games.

And I thought cellular snooping was go-to-jail stuff ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Mortz)
Subject: Cable Services Renewal Help Needed
Date: 31 Oct 1995 07:03:38 GMT
Organization: RAIN Public Access Internet (805) 967-RAIN


Looking for Cable TV franchise renewal information for small group of
concerned "consumers" ... referrals, suggestions will be appreciated.


Joe Mortz (805-564 0824)

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

From: Lisa R. Owen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line
Date: 01 Nov 1995 04:40:27 GMT
Organization: Hilco Technologies, Inc.


Hi,

I'd like to know how to have more than one cellular phone on the same
phone line.  As far as I know, this is legal under FCC guidelines (I
want to make sure of this, though), but the primary service provider
(Southwestern Bell, for example) can't provide that reprogramming
service for you.  I don't know of any companies in the St. Louis area
that provide this service, or exactly how they would be classified (a
friend of mine just had this done in Atlanta).

Thanks for your assistance!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everything I have heard about this and
all the discussions we have had about it here in the past would seem
to indicate you are *wrong*. More than one phone per number is a
definite no-no where cellular companies are concerned. Perhaps readers
with more specifics on this will write you direct and explain it.  PAT]

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

From: David A. Cantor <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 17:10:36 EST
Subject: New Area Code Shows Up On Caller-ID


The new area code 860 showed up today, 10/31, for the first time on my
caller ID unit on a local call.  The last local call I received with
the old area code 203 was on 10/29.


David A. Cantor            +1 860.444.7268 (444-RANT)
453 Bayonet St., #16       Connecticut has a new area code.
New London, CT  06320

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #458
******************************



From ptownson Wed Nov  1 03:05:37 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id CAA11554; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 02:56:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 02:56:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #459
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Nov 95 02:56:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 459

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Music-While-on-Hold (Arsen Darakdjian)
    WA State Order on Local Interconnection (Glenn Blackmon)
    Re: Telecom in China (John W. Pan)
    Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences? (John McGing)
    Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences? (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place? (Stephen Knight)
    Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place? (A. Hawthorn)
    Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice? (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice? (bgriffis@capital)
    Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ? (Malcolm Osborne)
    Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone (Tim Shoppa)
    Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone (Michael J Kuras)
    Re: Area Code Authoritative List (Stuart Zimmerman)
    Re: Area Code Authoritative List (Linc Madison)
    Re: Alpha Paging From DTMF Phone (Barry Margolius)
    Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service (Martin McCormick)

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: [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] (Arsen Darakdjian)
Subject: Music-While-on-Hold
Date: 1 Nov 1995 00:19:49 GMT
Organization: Unique Computer Systems


This >should< be a fun project for those telephone guru's:

  I was wondering if anyone can help me build a device that will allow
me to put music while the phone line is on hold.  I don't know the
specifics or the changes in the phone line when someone is put on
hold, but there must be some change because the phone recognizes that
the line is on hold by blinking.

  I am able to get the music onto the line by putting both wires from
the microphone jack off the radio ON TO the ground/tip wires of the
phone.  Now, that works, but all the time!  That is the reason for the
device ... it will know when the line is on HOLD status and allow the
music to play until the hold is off.

  I obviously intend to keep the radio on all the time with the micro-
phone jack cable plugged in, but need this device to notice the change
in the line and allow the current to go through when put on hold, and
stop the current (from the microphone jack) when the handset is picked
up (or line is put off-hold).

  Any suggestions?


[e-mail]

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

From: Glenn Blackmon <[e-mail]>
Subject: WA State Order on Local Interconnection
Date: 1 Nov 1995 00:56:52 GMT
Organization: Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission


The Washington Utilities and Transportation on Oct. 31 issued an order
setting the terms and conditions for interconnection of new local
exchange companies with the existing networks.  The commission ordered
the incumbents, US West and GTE, to interconnect with competitors at
mutually agreed-upon meet points and to use "bill and keep" or mutual
traffic exchange as an interim compensation mechanism.  The commission
accepted US West's offer to file a tariff unbundling the local loop and
directed the company to do so within 30 days.

A news release and the order may be found at:

http://www.wln.com/~wutc3/iconnect.html


Glenn Blackmon  [e-mail]
Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:27:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Telecom in China


[e-mail] (Andrew Decker) wrote:

> While the details vary depending upon the sector (and to some extent
> the report), in general, the Government is attempting to increase the
> aggregate number of access lines by 10+ million per year (essentially
> building an RBOC every year!).

Depending on who you talk to, the telephone penetration in China is one
to five percent, with big cities like Beijing and Shanghai reaching as
high as 30%.  Now if the government wants to increase penetration by one
percent per year for the next ten years.  That's one RBOC per year.  It
is not going to happen.

An excellent piece on telephones in China is a folksy {New York Times
Magazine} article by Nancy Berliner, September 5, 1993.  While two
years old, things have not changed that much.  Some are willing to pay
US $5000 (several years average annual salary) to get connected, which
exceeds the per line capital cost.  What percentage of the total
population are so wealthy or so willing?

A call from Shanghai to New York costs US$6.00 per minute, ten times
the cost from New York to Shanghai.  Needless to say, China outlawed
callback companies.  Because it is such a lucrative business, the
Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MPT), while wanting to
increase revenues, does not want anyone else dipping into their turf.
However, the Ministry of Power, Electronics, and Rail (MPER), using
right-of-way it owns as leverage, won an inter-ministerial fight to
gain the right to enter the telephone business as well.  Not mentioned
by Andrew Decker is the fact that the People's Liberation Army (PLA)
has its own telephone system and owns ALL the radio frequency
spectrum.  It too is vying to enter the telephone business, using
spectrum as leverage.

Clandestine telephone systems are popping up all over, usually with
the blessing (bribe) of the local mayor or governor.  That's the
"incredible pace" PAT mentioned.  Most popular are turnkey wireless
systems packaged in several suitcases.  However, when MPT in Beijing
finds out, it dispatches the army to dismantle and confiscate the
equipment, provided of course that the army is not part of the scheme.
By that time, the entrepreneurs have already recouped their
investment, packed up and started business elsewhere.  Who are these
telephone guerrillas?  They are usually overseas Chinese who
maintained relations with the mayors of their old home town.  Profits
are converted on the black market and smuggled out.

For major companies investing in telecommunications in China, the big
issue is repatriation of profits, which is prohibited.  What AT&T does
is to open a factory.  The profits from operations are used to pay
wages in the telephone factory.  The telephones are then shipped out.
Boeing, in like manner, ships out airplane tails as payment for
airliners it sells to China.  No money comes out.

Old Shanghai is different.  Prior to 1949, ITT owned, and covered the
city with telephones.  After that, the People's Republic confiscated
the phone system and disconnected all private telephones.  Thus with
excess capacity, reconnecting today is easy, provided the district
manager, the number assignment clerk, the mainframe operator, the
lineman, the installer, and the billing clerk all have received proper
"gifts" which are recurring, else the phone will cease to work.  For
the newer parts of Shanghai, however, there is simply no telephones at
all.

The information presented here comes from newspaper articles, personal
visits, and recent reports from visitors from China.  Disputes welcome.

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

From: [e-mail] (John McGing)
Subject: Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences?
Date: 31 Oct 1995 21:05:21 -0500
Organization: Digital Express, Maryland
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I use Allnet for my Cellphone (they cut a deal with our employee
association and Bell Atlantic) and they get the LD traffic.  And I got
a bill a week ago from Frontier telling me that Allnet and Frontier
have merged and now to write the check out to Frontier.

Service seems good, people seem profesional; and I had no problems with
the Allnet people either.

Of course, my first bill was for $.07.  Good price for a LD call from
the cellphone to Des Plaines, IL from Baltimore but I did feel foolish
writing the check.


[e-mail]  JOHN.PF on GEnie  Team OS/2
http://www.access.digex.net/~jmcging


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T has a policy on their cellular
billing for long distance calls which says if your bill is less than
five dollars, you may put off paying it for three months, or until
it goes over that amount, whichever comes first.   PAT]

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Frontier Telecom Experiences?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 22:04:34 -0500


In TELECOM Digest V15 #454, Robert Levandowski wrote:

> You should be able to force calls through Frontier with the 10xxx code:
> 10211.

Going back to when I had an account with Frontier when they were
called RCI, in areas where Frontier isn't the LEC, you have to have an
account with them before they will allow a call over 10211.  They also
didn't bill through my LEC (NYNEX, at the time).  They used to have
great rates for intra-state, inter-LATA New York State calls, as well
as six-second billing.

I dropped them after they discontinued their 950 service.  They
grandfathered those of us who had it, but they raised the rates so
high it didn't make sense to use them.


Stan

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Knight)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place?
Organization: Northern Telecom
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 22:21:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
Atwood) wrote:

> US West in the Phoenix (AZ) area is suppose to have Call
> Waiting-Caller ID sometime before the end of the year ... (yeah right).

> I have read a few threads regarding the spec's, but all refer to the
> BellCore TR-NWT-000030 document.  Is this spec available on the net,
> or libraries or does one have to shell out the $$ to receive it?

> I've tried to contact the local telco reps and they are of NO help.
> They went on to say that even they don't have a CW-Caller ID unit
> available for us to buy (recommended trying Radio Shack :-) ).

Northern's PowerTouch 350 (aka Vista 350) can do CallerID w/ Call Waiting.

> So far I have gathered that after the CW signal is sent the caller-Id
> unit must [mute the handset] , send one of the [A,B,C or D] Touch
> Tones at which time the CO will send the Caller_ID burst.

 From TR-NWT-000030:

"For data transmission, however, a CPE alerting signal (CAS),
consisting of a pair of frequencies will be used.  When the CPE
receives this signal correctly, it will reply with an ACK to the SPCS
indicating readiness to receive information (see SR-TSV-002476).  The
SPCS will then send the relevant data to the CPE".

> Am I even close to what is necessary?

Yep.  Altho, it should be pointed out that it's not limited to just the CO
sending the information (which could make for some confusion).


steve knight   nortel

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 23:39:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Andrew B. Hawthorn)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place?


In the Atlanta area BellSouth is offering two new services -- Call
Waiting Deluxe and Call Director.

Call Waiting Deluxe delivers the Caller ID information for Call Waiting
calls.  It currently sells for around $6/mo.

Call Director is an integrated service of Caller ID Name and Number
Delivery with Anonymous Call Rejection, Call Waiting Deluxe,
MemoryCall Voice Mail Service, and Three-Way Calling.  Call Director
gives you the same features as conventional Caller ID and Call Waiting
Deluxe, but also allows you to direct the second incoming call.  As I
understand it, when a Call Waiting call is received, the name and
number are displayed on the screen of the phone and the phone user can
select an option from a menu.  The menu allows the phone user to
switch between calls, send the second caller directly to their voice
mail, or send a message to the second caller asking them to hold while
the phone user completes their call and answers the incoming call.  It
currently sells for around $16/mo.

As I understand it, both services require the Nortel Powertouch series
of telephones (http://www.nortel.com/english/phones/power225.html).
BellSouth is selling these phones when the service is ordered.

I would love either of these two services, but I don't want to part
with my Nortel M9417 two line Caller ID phone.  If there are any
Nortel people out there who know if a Powertouch with two line
capabilities and the ability to handle the Call Waiting Deluxe is in
the works, please let me know!


Andrew Hawthorn   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice Systems?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 13:31:36 PST


Steve Samler said:

> as the delimiter between the story numbers.  We are getting reports
> from some users that the system does not recognize the pound key.  I
> know that the other keys work because they are required to enter a
> user id and a password to enter the system.

I'm almost positive I know what it is: PBX equipment.  Doctors offices
often have Merlin systems (don't know why, but every doctor I've been
to has had some type of Merlin).

Anyway, many PBX systems use the # key for features.  If you dial #
instead of it sending the actual DTMF, it waits for a code and then
processes that feature.  On a Merlin you can avoid this by typing ##
each time you want to send a #.  Toshiba phone systems have a similar
"feature." TO deactivate, use **##.  See the user's manual from the
PBX for more info.


Steve   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice Systems?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 17:14:10 PDT
Organization: GE Capital News Server


You may want to find out what type of phone system callers with
problems are using. I was in an offfice with an older Toshiba Strata
and it did not emit a pound (I couldn't get into my voice mai!) There
was a workaround -- I contacted a rep. from Toshiba. I don't remember
the sequence now as we swapped the system out.

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

From: Malcolm Osborne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ?
Date: 31 Oct 1995 17:01:43 GMT
Organization: Telkom S.A. Ltd


[e-mail] (Ed Marion) wrote:

> Does anyone know why Countries like Canada, Bermuda
> the British Virgin Islands, and the Carribean in general are
> all accessible from within the USA with a 1 + Area Code + number?

> The rates to these countries can be onerous. About $1 min to
> the Cayman Islands, for instance. So, dialing 1-809 + Cayman
> Islands seven digit phone number) can rack up some serious charges.

> A small business or individual that does not have a programmable PBX
> really has no control, other that blocking all 1+ calls and strict
> employee training.  Recently, a new employee racked up about $120 in
> LD to Canada (AC 905) because she thought it was in the USA. The same
> LD time to a USA number would have cost only about $60.

> For that matter, with NAFTA and all that, why does it cost about 25
> cents per minute to call suburban Toronto from Houston during business
> hours, when it only costs 12 cents per minute to call Seattle which is
> 500 miles more distant?  On 800 inbound, it is even worse ... 56 cents
> vs 16 cents.

Isn't the reason for higher charges for crossing international borders
due the continued use of the Inter-Administration Accounting system,
whereby each country has to pay a share of the traffic between
themselves? I have seen it mooted that telcos should change to a
`sender keeps all' policy. Perhaps then there could be parity in
tariffs, irrespective of destination.


Malcolm Osborne
Pretoria South Africa
EMail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone
Date: 31 Oct 1995 19:29:33 GMT
Organization: Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech


In article <[e-mail]>, Henry Baker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On a recent trip to Europe, a number of my associates were furious that
> most of the public telephones don't have '*' and '#' touch tone keys that
> work, and hence they couldn't access their voice mail!!

> Perhaps the first order of business for some of these services is to offer
> an alternative keying that doesn't require '*' and '#'.  Voice recognition
> to bypass these payphone bandits would also appear to be an important
> requirement.

A more direct solution would be to go to the local Radio Shack and get
one of those pocket autodialers which generate touch-tone phones and
send them out of a small speaker that you hold up to the phone's
mouthpiece.  I've used these with good success from payphones and
hotel phones in Europe.  (As a matter of fact, I didn't see a single
touch-tone phone in the part of central Italy I was in last summer!)

> I also understand that other pay phones don't allow touch tones at all,
> once the call is made, so that revenues from the pay phone are 'enhanced'.

Watch out with these US payphones, though. I swear that some of these
have *disconnected* me when I've tried to use a pocket autodialer
after the touch-tone pad was disabled.


Tim  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:32:45 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Kuras)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Over the Telephone
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University


Recently, PDIXON.US.ORACLE.COM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Does anyone know of a service that will read email messages over the
> telephone?

I read this off of Edupage this week ...

COMPUSERVE BY PHONE

CompuServe will offer a new feature that allows subscribers to access
the system using just a telephone.  Code-named CallingAll Card, the
service will allow a user to call an 800 number and check stock
quotes, flight information and handle e-mail and faxes.  Eventually
users will be able to have their e-mail read to them via text-to-voice
software.  "We're opening up CompuServe to millions and millions of
people that don't own computers as well as CompuServe users on the
run," says the company's strategy manager. (Wall Street Journal 26 Oct
95 B3)


michael j kuras      www.ccs.neu.edu/~mkuras       [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 11:28 EST
From: Stuart Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Authoritative List


The list sent in by [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)  was well done but
slightly incomplete.  Area code 441 is is not the Caribbean and Puerto
Rico.  It is actually Bermuda (which is not part of the Caribbean).
Area code 860 for Connecticut was missing.


Stuart Zimmerman   Fone Saver, LLC
[e-mail]   1 [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That lack of 860 might have been my
fault in the editing process. I had a terrible time getting that
message edited.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Area Code Authoritative List
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 16:38:19 GMT


BUBEYE! ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> I've searched the archives and I've searched at Bellcore.  Is there
>> any authoritative, up to date list of all the North American area codes?

> Sure thing.  Here's one that's up to date as of today, 10/27/95.

Well, actually, there are two corrections.

>  441   PUERTO RICO & CARIBBEAN

Area Code 441 is specifically Bermuda, which actually isn't in the
Caribbean, it's in the Atlantic.  It does not cover any area outside
Bermuda.  The rest of Area Code 809 (Puerto Rico, Caribbean, Bahamas)
is not affected by this change.

>  562   CALIFORNIA

This area code is not yet in service, pending revision by the CPUC.
(The test numbers may work, but there are no "real" numbers yet.)


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And yet Linc, even with your eagle
eyes for accuracy, you apparently overlooked 860 which got left out
somehow. I'll tell you, these new area codes are a real pain to try
and keep up with aren't they.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Margolius, NYC)
Subject: Re: Alpha Paging From DTMF Phone
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 18:39:01 GMT


I have come across two methods of "touch-toning" alpha messages that I
like better than the one you describe.  I've not seen either of them
used in paging, but here they are:

1. Press the letter key once for the first letter, twice for the
second letter, thrice (I love that word) for the third letter.  Your
"call home" example would be: 222 2 555 555 * 44 666 6 33.  This
system is, to me, the easiest to use, but is subject to error as the
user must pause between each letter of the alphabet, e.g. to
differentiate AA from B.

2. Your first keypress indicates which set of three letters, the
second keypress is 1,2, or 3 to indicate which letter.  So "call home"
becomes 23 21 53 53 * 42 63 61 32.  This is a bit tougher for the
human, but safer since all letters parse as two digit combinations.


Barry F Margolius, New York City
[e-mail]  For PGP Key, finger [e-mail]

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

From: Martin McCormick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service
Date: 31 Oct 1995 17:30:13 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University  Stillwater, OK


    I was tuning my HF receiver around 26.0 megahertz one day a
few years back when the sunspot cycle was much higher and heard what
sounded like a wireless telephone of some kind.  The voices had a
Canadian accent and I seem to recall hearing the name of a town or
some other reference that let me know that the signal originated from
Canada.  I remember hearing dial-tone and pulse-dialing sounds with
the dial-tone being the modern duel-frequency style.  From what little
I heard, it sounded like it might have been one of these radio
telephone systems for isolated areas.  It appeared to be working quite
well at the time.

    I have also heard similar type transmissions on roughly the
same frequencies which appeared to come from somewhere in Latin
America.  Conversations were in Spanish and the dial-tone and other
sounds lead me to believe that the phone system that the radio
telephone was connected to was a rotary stepping system with lots of
clicks and curchunks.

    If the link from the outlying telephone to the switch is also
somewhere in the 26 megahertz range, then those poor souls must have
to contend with all the illegal CB-type activity between about 25.5
and 26.965 megahertz.  Since the radio telephone uses full-duplex
operation, any carriers or other interference on either of the two
frequencies will really bother somebody.  Much of the pirate radio
traffic in the 26 megahertz range is a mixture of single sideband, AM,
and occasional FM, but it doesn't really matter since any kind of
strong signal would pretty well trash the system.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #459
******************************



From ptownson Wed Nov  1 19:28:39 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id TAA02352; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:21:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:21:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #460
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Nov 95 19:21:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 460

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Key-Pad Standards (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Appalachian Regional Commission Unveils Telecom Initiative (Nigel Allen)
    Ameritech Problems (Alex Strasheim)
    Wanted: Dialogic 21D/41D With Stylus Software and Diagnostics (Les Kula)
    These Sleezeball Companies Are Killing Me! (Johnny Castaldi)
    Sharing One Phone Line With Multiple Modems (John S. Hope)
    Service Centres For GSM Cellular Phones (Giuliano D'Ambrosi)
    Selective Answering Machine (Theodore Wayne Hong)
    Re: Audio Signal Directly Into Phone Line (Mike)
    Re: Audio Signal Directly Into Phone Line? (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (Curtis Wheeler)
    Re: When was the Coiled Phone Cord Invented? (John Shriver)
    Re: Old Los Angeles Prefixes (Michael Hollomon, Jr.)
    Re: Using *69 To Get Caller's ID (Ph0ne Phreak)
    Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople (Philip Spencer)
    Re: Last Laugh! Trying to Call the Nowhere Man (Scott Montague)

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: [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] (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: Telephone Key-Pad Standards
Date: 1 Nov 1995 17:20:01 -0500
Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM)


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] (Andy Cobham) said: I've got
a copy buried somewhere.  Email me your fax number, and I'll see if I
can dig it up.

Essentially, the new worldwide standard mirrors the U.S. keypad, with
the addition of Q on the 7 and Z on the 9.  After this was adopted,
the U.S.  modified its standard with these additions so that there is
supposed to be one consistent standard.


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: +1 800 The Expert.    Fax: [phone].

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

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 02:34:29 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Appalachian Regional Commission Unveils Telecom Initiative
Organization: Internex Online


Here is a press release from the Appalachian Regional Commission.  I
don't work for the Commission, but I thought people here would find
the press release interesting. Appalachia is the area in the U.S.
defined by the Appalachian mountains, traditionally synonymous with
coal-mining and poverty.  The region is more economically diversified
and better off today than it once was, but it still suffers from a lot
of poverty. Here's the press release:

 ARC Unveils Telecommunications Initiative

 Contact: Duane J. DeBruyne of the Appalachian Regional Commission,
          202-884-7663, E-mail [e-mail]

    JACKSON, Miss., Oct. 27 -- Jesse L. White Jr., federal co-chairman
of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), today announced that the
ARC has adopted as a major policy goal the deployment of "a modern,
cutting-edge telecommunications technology infrastructure" throughout
the 13-state region to ensure that "the information superhighway not
bypass Appalachia as the national highway system did some four decades
ago."

   Speaking before the Mississippi Library Association in Jackson,
Miss., White said that carefully planned telecommunications networks,
backed with widespread education and training, would "contribute
mightily toward removing distance and ruralness as two of the most
significant barriers to economic development in Appalachia."

   "Education, training, planning, coordination, and most importantly,
state, regional and federal cooperation must be laid as the foundation
stones to the introduction of new technology in Appalachia, regardless
of the hardware, software, RAM, bits or bytes," said White. "The
Appalachian Regional Commission pledges its best effort to help
communities and institutional centers throughout the region gain
access to, and participate in, all of the benefits offered by today's
worldwide telecommunications revolution."

   In addition to telecommunications, ARC is also launching major
initiatives covering civic leadership development and globalization of
the Appalachian economy.

   The Appalachian Regional Commission was created by Congress to
serve as a partner with the 13 governors of Appalachia to improve
health, education and economic opportunities throughout the region.


Press release forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada     [e-mail]
http://www.io.org/~ndallen

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

From: [e-mail] (Alex Strasheim)
Subject: Ameritech Problems
Date: 1 Nov 1995 19:23:25 GMT
Organization: Suba Communications


We run a small ISP in Chicago, and we can't get Ameritech to set up
our hunt groups properly.  Some lines don't get hit by incoming calls
at all, and other lines drop in and out periodically -- the behavior
of the hunt groups actually changes every five or ten minutes.
Sometimes a group will ring through (ie., no modem answers), even
though we can check each line individually and they'll all answer.
Then it will work again ten minutes later.

We've tried all sorts of things -- calling Ameritech every day,
calling the office of the President (which gets their attention, but
doesn't get the problem fixed), etc.

My question here is pretty general: how do people go about getting
these types of problems fixed?  What do you do when the telco denies
that there's a problem?  Are there consultants who can get things
fixed up for us, people who understand how the phone system is wired
together?


Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (Les Kula)
Subject: Wanted: Dialogic 21D/41D With Stylus Software and Diagnostics
Date: 1 Nov 1995 21:17:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


WTB: Dialogic 21D (two-line) or 41D (four-line) voice board for PC with
Stylus Innovations Visual Voice Pro applications software for Windows
3.X.

I also need the diagnostics program that comes on a floppy with
Dialogic 41D four-port card.  I'm buying used 41D and the seller does
not have the floppy any more.

Respond by email please.


Thanks,

Les

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

From: [e-mail] (Johnny Castaldi)
Subject: These Sleezeball Companies Are Killing Me!
Date: 1 Nov 1995 18:05:58 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of NJ


I am the telephone administrator for a large college in New Jersey.
Every month on my Bell Atlantic phone bill there are several extra
charges for companies like Telesphere, Integretel, Discount calling
card, Joe Schmoe telephone company and the like.  I added toll billing
exception to my account, but low and behold, they keep coming.  I
called my account team to complain, and they tell me that I can't do
anything about it because they simply bill for these companies.  I
can't even refuse to pay these because they just go past due on my Bell
bill.  After months and months, Bell forgets that they were other
company charges and want to come after me for these charges.

Has anyone come up with a way to stop this from happening?

Ever try to call Integretel (1-800-736-7500)? They tell you to call
back at midnight!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By toll billing exception, I think you
actually mean Billed Number Screening. You might try asking for it
that way just be certain you and Bell Atlantic are speaking the same
language. Each of those companies billing you is supposed to have a
phone number listed on their billing page where you can call them.
A lot of those may actually wind up going back to Integratel, and
yes, Integratel makes it quite difficult to reach them at any normal
hour of the day. As they say, call them at midnight. You need to get
on as many screening databases as possible. Bell Atlantic uses the
one all the 'traditional' telcos use, including AT&T as well as MCI
and Sprint which have pretty much gained acceptance as 'traditional'
telecom companies. Integratel does their own thing as we know, and
even then with 'Bell' and 'Integratel' notified, you'll only be
covering about 95 percent of the possibilities. What you really need
to do is vigorously contact all the sleazeball companies at the
phone numbers listed on each page of your phone bill. You'll need to
do it and follow up for a couple months with each of them. Before
you call *any* of them, have a list of every single number on your
phone system. You'll want each and every one of them listed.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John S. Hope)
Subject: Sharing One Phone Line With Multiple Modems
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 07:24:31 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   [phone]


Does anyone know of a company that makes a modem multiplexor.   That
is, I need a box that will accept one phone line and be able to switch
between async posts depending on what command strings I issue.

I will be using one phone line to dial into the management functions
of several systems.

Please provide any information you have including product name, model,
company contact, and any experience with the product.


Thanks a million,

John Hope

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

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:49:22 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Giuliano D'Ambrosi)
Subject: Service Centres For GSM Cellular Phones


I live in Italy and notice the quick increase of cellular GSM mobile
phones.  Now, many companies sell phones but, if one of these sets
does not work, it has to be sent to manufacturer to be repaired. There
is no Service Centre who has schemes and spare parts for GSM mobiles.
This sems to me a "non sense" on account of times and costs this
disorganization requires.  As in Germany and UK, to remain in Europe,
like in US, I think, these mobile phones have a large circulation, I
think manufacturers will use the same methods to organize service here
in Italy; so, does anyone know if Service Centres exhist in those
countries and are they able to repair phones or only replace them with
others? Is it possible to buy spare parts, like any other technical
equipment?


Regards,

Giuliano D'Ambrosi   Email:  [e-mail]
Sintesi Srl          Phone:  [phone] via G. Galilei 7 - Monfalcone
(GO)                 Fax  : [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Theodore Wayne Hong)
Subject: Selective Answering Machine?
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 20:18:40 GMT
Organization: University College London


I've recently moved from the US to the UK, and I brought my answering
machine with me.  It's hooked up to the local switchboard here, and
the phone part works fine.  I thought the answering machine part did
too, until I discovered that it didn't answer outside calls, only
internal ones.  Now outside calls do have a different ringing pattern
(two rings instead of one), but I can't see what would cause the
answering machine to ignore calls from outside ...?


Theodore Hong   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike)
Subject: Re: Audio Signal Directly Into Phone Line
Date: 31 Oct 1995 21:14:44 GMT
Organization: Neocom Communications


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

> In TELECOM Digest #437, [e-mail] wrote:

>> How can I play audio directly into the phone line?  I'd like to
>> connect an RCA-style input to a phone jack so I can play audio
>> directly from the stereo/computer output into the phoneline.  What
>> interfacing electronics is required?

> You might try tracking down a "music-oh-hold" device, if such a beast
> exists.  Please be aware that FCC and Industry Canada rules prohibit
> the sale of devices that don't limit the energy sent out over the
> telephone line.  As such, the line-level audio from your RCA output
> can't be legally connected to the phone line without something to
> limit its output power.  This said, it is certainly possible to
> "illegally" connect your RCA jack to a telephone connection.

> I believe some of the devices used to *record* telephone conversations
> (sold in the "back" sections of many electronics magazines) could be
> pressed into service to provide this function.  You might consider
> using this setup with a telephone having mute capability to prevent
> your telephone from adding unwanted signals and distortion to your
> RCA-jack audio signal.  An isolation transformer capable of carrying
> the telephone line's DC current is also recommended.  I can provide
> information on such transformers if you like.

> Coincidentally, I am in the process of helping develop a product that
> allows (among other things) the playback of sound card audio out to
> the telephone line.  This device *has* been approved in accordance
> with FCC rules (soon Industry Canada) and we hope to have it available
> early in 1996.  Send me a private e-mail for more information.

Years ago I used to install "WIRED MUSIC" lines for the local phone
company in Toronto, basically various ethnic groups wanted to send
there own type of music to subscribers all over the city so the owner
of "MUSIC COMPANY A" would set up a small studio in his basement and
order a music loop from Bell, he would then set up a mickey mouse
little amp and cassette player and pump anything he wanted to into the
line. The termination suplied by the phone company was just a simple
900 ohm isolation transformer and the audio would go into a bridge in
the serving central office and then could be xconnected to virtually
anywhere in the world (if ya got the money). The equipment in the CO
was made by McCurty and consisted of analog bridges and amps. It was
that simple for a fellow to start up his own little "WIRED MUSIC
NETWORK". OH YA! the phone company would get reaal mad if the main leg
(sender) would crank that little $100 amp to the sky and spill chinese
music over everybody's voice lines.


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Subject: Re: Audio Signal Directly Into Phone Line?
Date: 31 Oct 1995 15:57:56 -0600
Organization: FieldDay


In article <[e-mail]>, TGI <[e-mail].
ca> wrote:

> How can I play audio directly into the phone line?

I've seen one inexpensive device in computer stores which looks like
it may have a number of uses for comp.dcom.telecom readers.  It is
called "Voice Mail for the PC" by Reveal.  It connects to a phone
line, RS-232 serial port, and has two mini stereo phono jacks for a
sound card.  From the description it seems to be an RS-232 controlled
phone circuit which uses a sound card instead of a handset.


Scot E. Wilcoxon    [e-mail]

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

From: Curtis Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 09:55:48 -0800
Organization: Chevron, La Habra, CA


Lisa R. Owen wrote:

> I'd like to know how to have more than one cellular phone on the same
> phone line.  As far as I know, this is legal under FCC guidelines (I
> want to make sure of this, though), but the primary service provider
> (Southwestern Bell, for example) can't provide that reprogramming
> service for you.  I don't know of any companies in the St. Louis area
> that provide this service, or exactly how they would be classified (a
> friend of mine just had this done in Atlanta).

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everything I have heard about this and
> all the discussions we have had about it here in the past would seem
> to indicate you are *wrong*. More than one phone per number is a
> definite no-no where cellular companies are concerned. Perhaps readers
> with more specifics on this will write you direct and explain it.  PAT]

The FCC ammended part 22 late last year and made all cloning, including
for your own use, illegal.  One ESN, one phone.

Many carriers are beginning to offer the service.  Here in Northern
California you can get it from GTE -- I think they call it "The 1
Plan".  You can have your number assigned to a second phone that has
it's own ESN.  The catch is ... that second phone can't roam.

Not all carriers offer the service.  If your's doesn't, you're out of
luck for now.


Curtis Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA

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

From: John Shriver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When was the Coiled Phone Cord Invented?
Date: 1 Nov 1995 18:51:59 GMT
Organization: Shiva Corporation


There were coiled handset cords in the cloth cord era.  I've seen some
on old phones for sale.

However, I have never seen one in any sort of reasonable condition.
They weren't very durable.  The rubber ones (on 302 sets), and the
later plastic ones on the 500 set, were durable enough to see wide
use.

I think I haven't seen coiled handset cords on anything older than a
302 set.  That would give us a date of the early 1930's, when the 302
came out.

I suspect what made the coiled cord practical was the shift from cloth
insulation of the individual tinsel conductors to rubber insulation.
That had the body to hold the coiling.  The overall wrapper remained
cotton or rayon.

They may have been an extra cost option back in the 1930's and 1940's.
Plugs were an extra cost option (presumably per month).  Long cords
(to the plug) were also an option.  When my mother first got a long
cord in the 1950's, it was a one-time fee, and you got one long cord
forever, even if you moved.  Long cords are quite uncommon on old desk
phones, from the French (202) phones right up through the pre-modular
500 set.

Coiled cloth cords are fairly common on old operator's headsets.  I
suspect the ones with coiled cords were for supervisors, who were
wandering about.

Do note that all WECo cords have a date code stamped on one of the
metal strain relief.  Thus, given a coiled cord, dating it is easy.
Cords are usually dated in the IV-36 style, which would be April 1936.

I've also seen extensible AECo cloth cords, but they weren't coiled.
More of a braid, with one elastic member threaded through.  Quite
cool.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Hollomon, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Old Los Angeles Prefixes
Date: 1 Nov 1995 04:26:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
net says:

> Does anyone know of a source of information where one can find the
> verbal representations of prefixes in the Metro L.A. area?  For
> example, in the fifties and early sixties, many Miracle Mile-area
> prefixes were designated as WEbster-x-xxxx; many of those "93"
> prefixes are still in use today.  I would like to know what the verbal
> designations of those prefixes were.

I know that the Crenshaw district's 29 prefix was called AXminster.
That's about all I know.  There was also another called RIchmond.  But
I don't know what part of town that was in.  If you find out others,
please email me.  I'd like to know.


Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ph0ne Phreak)
Subject: Re: Using *69 To Get Caller's ID
Date: 01 Nov 1995 19:21:47 GMT
Organization: Internet Online Services


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
oh.us says:

>      Can someone explain the exact workings of the Ameritech offering
> of "Call Back" as it is used from a single residential line.  In my
> part of the country, this is the *69 function and calls (dials) the
> last person to call you.

>      According to the friendly people at the business office <humor
> here> it works totally in the central office with the person who
> initiates the call back hearing _nothing_ until the ringing signal is
> passed.  This eliminates the possibility of capturing the actual
> number by recording <decoding> the tones.  This is supposedly mandated
> by the Ohio Public Utility Commission at the request of those
> businesses (battered women and the like) that need this protection.

>      Is this right, or did something get left out in the explanation.

The way *69 works (correct any errors, please):

The exact working in a 1AESS:

Associated with every line, there is a call store memory that has in
it, among other things, the number of the last person who called it
(if known, if not known the number of the incoming TRUNK is put
there).  Now, when you dial *69, the system just looks at yer call
store memory and completes a call between them and you.  Nothing
special, nothing worth 0.75, and NO extra DTMF tones invloved.


bspline

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

From: [e-mail] (Philip Spencer)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople
Date: 1 Nov 1995 22:29:09 GMT
Organization: Zanto Films


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
mil says:

> 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>

Him: Am I speaking to the man of the house?
Me:  You're trying to sell me something, aren't you?
Him: (Ignoring me) Have you considered a subscription to the Los Angeles
     Times?
Me:  Look, give me your home number and I'll call you back and discuss
     it.
Him: This is a business...
Me:  Yeah, I know but give me your home number.
Him: I don't think I can do that...
Me:  Well then you understand why I don't like being disturbed at home
     either.
<click>

Interestingly my wife's number is a sequentially close to mine, we can
always tell a machine dialler because it'll hit hers about three to
four minutes later.

This time the solicitor was a female. She followed her script, I followed
mine. She hung up without even discussing why I wanted her home number.

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Montague)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Trying to Call the Nowhere Man
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 23:24:47 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hello Pat!

I've repeated that mantra you insisted I say 100 times before posting
again to the digest, specifically "I will not cause Pat to publish
anything incorrect in his digest, I will not cause Pat to publish
anything incorrect in his digest, I will not...".

Just so you know, you can now call [phone] and get a *LIVE*
intercept operator.  Hey, didn't I say a few weeks ago you could also
call [phone]?  Well you can, but it seems that the old stepper
switch serving that exchange is a little unreliable in forwarding.  Oh
well.

In case you forgot, the people at Bell Canada's Radio Services tell me
that some American LD carriers will not allow a voice path to Bell
Canada (a highly reputable company) until after supervision.  I'd be
interested in knowing if you or any of the Digest readers have any
trouble communicating with the intecept operator.  If things are
working OK, after giving the number to the operator they should get a
recording saying "At the customer's request, the service at 234-2222
has been temporarily disconnected.  The customer can be reached at
864-1710.".

In the new fangled automated systems (pretty much everywhere in NA),
the ANI of the called number is passed to the intercept generator.
The intercept generator then looks at it's tables, and replies with
the appropriate intercept.  If the called number doesn't have an entry
in the computer's tables, the intercept replies that the number is a
valid one.  This was the problem that Gary Shapiro originally had.  Of
course, in these old switches in Northern Ontario they have no way of
telling what the called number was.  So instead you get an operator
who types in the number you say you called, and the intercept
generator gives you the appropriate message.  If you want to hear the
weird recording Gary did, give them a working number.  Try 864-1710.
You'll get the recoding saying "the number you dialed should be in
service".  And yes, it is sort of weird to hear if you DID dial a
working number.

Just a little ***CAVEAT***, if you try to call these numbers during
the operating season (Late April-Early October) you will get friendly
Provincial Park staff.  Of course, as this digest is read worldwide,
you might be calling at rather unfriendly hours.  So please, unless
you have a question pertaining to Missinaibi Provincial Park
([phone]) or The Shoals Provincial Park ([phone]),
don't call during the operating season.

Hope this makes up for my past mistakes,


Scott
[e-mail] / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tommorow
*Proud to be Canadian* \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today.

<<Les renseignements dans ce message sont egalement disponible en francais.>>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #460
******************************



From ptownson Wed Nov  1 22:06:27 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id VAA12896; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 21:56:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 21:56:58 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #461
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Nov 95 21:56:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 461

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FAX Machine as Page Scanner - fax_scan.pcx (0/1) (Doug Krahmer)
    Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice? (Mark Peacock)
    Research Sources Wanted on Telecom Companies (Art Durdag)
    Re: Telco Simulator - Design Challenge? (Ross Oliver)
    Re: Telco Simulator - Design Challenge? (Roger Snyder)
    Story From PacBell Very Doubtful (Bren Smith)
    We Need Telecom Technicans Around the World ([e-mail])
    When Will They Get Things Together? (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Need Info on Reducing Power Consumption on Cell Phones (John Dreystadt)
    Re: 1+ Dialing To Canada and the Caribbean (Ronald D. Havens)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Tony Harminc)
    Caller ID Specs Needed (Chip Sharp)
    Re: E-mail Over the Phone (Part 2) (Steve Samler)
    Re: TCP/IP Specifications (Percy Cave)
    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    900 Mhz Headset Wanted (Ernie Holling)
    Re: Use Analog Modem on Digital Line (Jack Warner)

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: [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] (Doug Krahmer)
Subject: Re: FAX Machine as Page Scanner - fax_scan.pcx (0/1)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 03:44:24 GMT
Organization: ElectraSoft


[e-mail] (Brian C. Shensky) wrote:

> I have noticed that connecting the fax machine directly to the
> Fax/modem does not supply the line voltage necessary to send the data
> over the line.  So what does one do?  Easy: steal the voltage from
> your existing line.

> What I do is take a third phone off the hook and wait for it to go
> "dead": past the initial dialtone, past the "please hang up"
> recording, and finally, past the grinding hang-up-the-goddam-phone
> blaze tone.  Eventually, the line goes dead, while voltage is still
> being passed through the line.  Now you can send from the fax to the
> PC all on a single line.  Make sense?

I have a simple diagram of a device to keep the line voltage up.  Just
decode the .PCX file.


Doug Krahmer, ElectraSoft

Contact:
  Internet: [e-mail]
   Fidonet: Doug Krahmer on 1:106/10000
       FAX: [phone]
     Voice: 1-713-261-0307
Snail Mail: 3207 Carmel Valley Dr.
            Missouri City, TX  77459-3068

FaxMail for Windows:
       WWW: http://www.blkbox.com/~jonk/
       FTP: ftp://ftp.blkbox.com/pub/dos/fax_v426.zip
       BBS: 1-713-499-5939
       CIS: GO PCFF, Search FaxMail
       AOL: GO keyword: Software, Library Search: FaxMail


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because of the size of this file, it
has been place directly in the Telecom Archives where it can be
located as /technical/fax.machine.page.scanner.   Remember, it is
a .pcx file and it would be a good idea to set the transfer type to
'I' (binary) when getting it using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 13:01:06 CST
From: Mark Peacock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Trouble Recognizing the Pound Key With Intervoice?


> I've had experience with phone systems that do not send out tones on
> the * and # keys ... unless you first press * # consecutively during
> your phone call.  Then any further uses of these keys, for the rest
> of that call, will send out tones.  No one seemed to understand why
> the phones would be set up this way, but we all needed to learn this
> technique so we could page each other.  Sorry, I can't remember the
> brand name of the phone system, but you might suggest this technique
> to your callers.

I have run into this with electronic Northern Telecom Meridian sets.
You hit the # key to activate out-bound DTMF signalling after dialing.
This must be configurable because it doesn't happen on all Meridian
sets.  Perhaps the switch configuration doesn't have enough DTMF
generators.


Mark Peacock
Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group
Detroit, Michigan   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 10:29:30 PST
Subject: Research Sources Wanted on Telecom Companies


Dear Mr. Townson:

I am a research associate at the firm Emerging Markets and Investors
Corporation located in Rosslyn, Virginia.  I am interested in
acquiring information on telecommunication companies around the world.
I would like to know if you are aware of any free services that may be
available, where I would be able to find research on Telcom companies;
not only financial data, but also information such as digitalization%,
lines per employee, etc.

I would appreciate any consideration that you may give to my question.


Sincerely,

Art E. Durdag

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: Telco Simulator - Design Challenge?
Organization: The Air Affair: http://www.airaffair.com/
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:25:52 GMT


If you want a pre-packaged solution, a company called Teltone makes a
black box that does everything you want, as well as off-hook dialtone,
and ring the other device when you dial a series of DTMF digits.  It
retails for about $300.  Teltone also offers a variety of ICs that
perform telephone functions, such as ring detection, disconnect
detection, etc.

If you want a cheap or homebrew solution, there have been two articles
this year in either Popular Electronics or Electronics Now on building
a simple phone line simulator.


Ross Oliver    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger S.)
Subject: Re: Telco Simulator - Design Challenge?
Date: 1 Nov 1995 15:16:53 -0500
Organization: The Print Shop


Bill Shields ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I have been asked to look into the feasibility of creating an
> interface to a standard telephone (via an RJ-11 jack) which meets the
> following requirements:

     I would think that one of the availble telephone testing/stimulator
boxes would do what you are looking for. Radio Shack used to sell one,
and I've seen them availble elsewhere.


Roger

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

Date: 1 Nov 1995 16:37:51 -0800
From: Bren Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Story From PacBell Very Doubtful


I woke up the other day to a dead phone line at home.

Hmmm, I'm thinking, did I pay the bill on this? Yeah, I did. So I run to
the back alley, and check the line at the demarc with a butt set. Hmmm,
still dead. Must be a Pac Bell problem.

Using my second line I call PacBell Repair and ask them to test my
primary. The rep. says there's no problem and that it must be my wiring. I
tell
the rep. that I'm at the demarc with all internal wiring removed and that it
can't be my wiring (oh, stupid me).

She says that they can't be out with a service person until tomorrow. I
then ask them if they can remote call forward my dead primary line to my
secondary line (remembering what Linc has tried this in the past).

They tell me, and this is the real pisser part, that the PUC tariffs
prevent them from forwarding my line. When I asked why, the rep. explained
that it was to prevent "unfair competition". I'm thinking, "yeah, right
who else competes in the local exchange market?"

Anyway, to make a short story even longer. The rep. ran another test on my
line and it still checked out ok according to them. It turns out that I
had a short in my internal wiring, and when I removed it from the demarc
it took a few minutes for the CO equipment to detect that the problem was
fixed and to restore service. As a side note, when I left for work that
morning, I noticed not one, but two Pac Bell repair trucks parked across the
street from my house with the repair guys sitting in their truck.

So, the question for me still remains. Can PacBell prevent me from Call
Forwarding my primary to my secondary because of tariffed restrictions, or
were they just snowing me?


[e-mail]
[e-mail]

 Bren Smith aka NetBoy |510/253-3048 voice
 Dantz Development     |510/253-9099 fax
 4 Orinda Way, Bldg C  |[e-mail]
 Orinda, CA 94563      |"Practice safe government - use kingdoms"

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: We Need Telecom Technicans Around the World
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 06:33:12 GMT
Organization: Adhesive Media, Inc.


New World Telecom L.L.C. needs qualified professional telecommunication
technicians around the world.  Applicants should be able to work in
on-premise phone rooms of large businesses.  Also should own laptop
computer with available communications port and Windows 3.1 or higher,
digit-grabber, PhD or similar device to listen to C.O. side of line
and detect dialed digits, telephone test set and be PBX (PABX)
knowledgeble, able to work closely with NWT on equipment programming
and be certified, bonded and insured.

Applicants interested should send email to: [e-mail]      or
[e-mail]

******and place --technician-- in the subject line.************

Additional information and detailed questionairre's will be sent out
upon contact.   SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING:
--Do you have word 6.0              Yes    or     No
--What is your mail server software name- Eudora or Pegasus, etc.
--Can you pkunzip documents     Yes   or     No
--Do you prefer BinHex or UUencode   Other:_____________

**WE NEED QUALIFIED TELECOMMUNICATION TECHNICIANS IN ALL
COUNTRIES OUTSIDE U.S.///this can be a very lucrative offering**

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

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:36:04 PST
From: henry mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: When Will They Get Things Together?


Can someone tell me where to look for information on when/whether
California's PUC will sort out their differences with the local
telephone companies (Pac*hell and GTE) with respect to the pro-
vision of Caller-ID services?


# henry mensch / po box 14592; sf, ca  94114-0592 / <[e-mail]>
#                     http://www.q.com/henry/

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

From: [e-mail] (John N. Dreystadt)
Subject: Re: Need Information on Reducing Power Consumption on Cell Phones
Date: 01 Nov 1995 17:26:06 GMT
Organization: ICNET... Your Link To The Internet... +1.313.998.0090
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> Does anyone have any ideas on how companies have tried to reduce
> power consumption on cellular phones?

Many ideas are being tried and used. One of the more interesting is
where the cell phone determines how strong the signal getting to the
cell tower is and reduces the output wattage if the tower is getting a
very strong signal. I know about this because of problems in Mexico
City where some locations have very sharp changes in signal strength
as you moved. If you had a phone that did not try to lower the signal,
you would notice some buzzing. If you had a phone that did lower the
signal, disconnects were frequent.


John Dreystadt

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 21:33:56 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+ Dialing To Canada and The Caribbean


Both Canada and the Caribbean are part of the North American Numbering
Plan (NANP).  Any point that is part of the NANP can be reached by
dialing 1+.  FYI, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands have an issue open at the Industry Numbering Committee (INC)
seeking assignment of area codes so they can be included in the NANP.
Mexico used to have two area codes (one for Mexico City, and one for
northern Mexico), but they were "reclaimed" so they could be used for
relief for exhausting domestic area codes.  Some of the Caribbean
nations (e.g., the Bahamas, Bermuda) have requested and been assigned
area codes.  When those are turned up they will no longer be part of
the 809 NPA.  The rates charged are the result of the decisions made
by the individual service provders (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc.).


Ron Havens    Sprint

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

Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 17:38:01 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives


[e-mail] (John R Levine) wrote:

> Adding NXX area codes was always part of the plan, it's just
> happening sooner than originally expected.  Most of the screwups are
> due to myopic PBX owners being unwilling to upgrade their equipment,
> often because inept or less than honest PBX vendors didn't tell them
> that it'd be necessary.

Actually the NXX codes are going into service exactly when predicted
in the Bell System _Notes on Distance Dialing_, 1974 edition.  Not
bad, for predicting 20 years into the future.

And it's worth pointing out that among those "inept or less than
honest PBX vendors" are AT&T and Nortel, both of whom were fully aware
of the 1974 timescale and what to do about it. I'd add "greedy" to the
list of adjectives.


Tony H.

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

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 08:36:40 EST
From: [e-mail] (Chip Sharp)
Subject: Caller ID Specs Needed


I need the specs for delivering Caller ID over POTS lines.  I'm sure
there is a Bellcore or some other spec available somewhere.  Could
someone send me a pointer in the right direction?


Thanks.

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:33:17 EST
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email Over The Phone (Part 2)


I neither work for or represent either of these firms.  Just passing on
info their press releases.

Enhanced Systems announced on October 30 a software module that would
allow one to access and manage e-mail, voice mail, fax and pages via
the WWW.  The product also operates over TCP/IP.  A Netscape or Mosaic
browser is needed.  First release is Feb. 96.  Although the press
release doesn't say exactly, one would presume that you would also
need hardware from them as well as the software.

Compuserve and Premier Communications announced a product called
CallingAll Card on the 26th.  The product let's you dial in to
re-direct e-mail to a fax machine.  Future features include picking up
voice mail and faxes from your e-mail box.

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

From: Percy Cave <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:35:45 +0000
Subject: Re: TCP/IP Specifications


Dear Mr. Townson:

I am trying to locate the file which contains the specifications
pertaining to tcp/ip cited in archieve release of 10/27/95. I tried
finding this file at your ftp site: ftp.lcs.mit.edu, but I could not
find the filename: tcp/ip specifications. Did I look in the wrong
directory perhaps? please advise if you can.

Confused, and somewhat lost.


P.C.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Look for /technical/tcp.ip-specs. This
got renamed for the Archives to get the slash '/' out of the name.  A
few other readers have likewise gotten confused by this.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line
Date: 2 Nov 1995 01:07:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], Lisa R. Owen <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'd like to know how to have more than one cellular phone on the same
> phone line.  As far as I know, this is legal under FCC guidelines (I
> want to make sure of this, though), but the primary service provider
> (Southwestern Bell, for example) can't provide that reprogramming
> service for you.  I don't know of any companies in the St. Louis area
> that provide this service, or exactly how they would be classified (a
> friend of mine just had this done in Atlanta).

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everything I have heard about this and
> all the discussions we have had about it here in the past would seem
> to indicate you are *wrong*. More than one phone per number is a
> definite no-no where cellular companies are concerned. Perhaps readers
> with more specifics on this will write you direct and explain it.  PAT]

It is not legal to have two cellphones with the same ESN. Since the
easiest way to get an extension cellphone is to "clone" the ESN, Lisa is
warned that operating a cloned ESN cellphone is also illegal.

Cellular switch vendors provide a cell-phone extension feature that
uses the same cellular number (MIN) on two phones, each with different
ESNs. This is legal but most carriers don't offer the service since it
works poorly at best, within a carrier's own market, and looks like a
cellular ESN tumbler to roaming markets that can disable the MIN/ESN
on a national basis! These limitations are hard to explain to
customers who want reliable service without unintended interruptions,
hence few (if any) carriers offer this FCC-approved extension service.

So it is not illegal to have two cellular phones with the same MIN and
different ESNs, provided the cellular carrier is willing to support
this operation. Most carriers will not support this operation and will
permanently disable any MIN/ESN pair that they don't recognise! Anyone
purporting to offer "two cell phones, same number" without the
carrier's consent, is obviously offering illegal "cloned cell-phones"
in which both cell-phones share the same MIN and ESN.

The ESN is assigned by the original cell-phone manufacturer and it is
a federal crime to alter this internally stored number. It is a
federal crime to operate a cell-phone that has had the ESN altered or
has an ESN that has been fraudulently assigned.

It's hard to believe that nearly every day someone asks "are two
cell-phones, one number legal?". P.T. Barnum suggested that there is a
sucker born every minute. Basic judgment should tell people "if it's
too good to be true, then it isn't". Now that cellular fraud busts are
making news and some are behind bars, maybe the word will get out
that:

"Yes, the FCC approves extension line service for cell-phones but No,
you can't have it because it looks too much like fraud when roaming."


Jeffrey Rhodes at [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ernie Holling)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 11:19:46 GMT
Subject: 900 Mhz Headset Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Ernie Holling)


Hi,

We're looking for a 900Mhz headset which has all the electronics in
a holster with a light weight headset attached.

If you are aware of one, please let us know brand and model.

Thanks for the help.


Ernie Holling                               [e-mail]
The InTech Group, Inc.                                (610)-524-8400
Telecommunications Consultants                    FAX:[phone]
75 East Uwchlan Avenue, Exton, PA 19341
      A Member of The Society of Telecommunications Consultants
             MultiMedia Telecommunications Association
          Building Industry Consulting Service International

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

From: [e-mail] (Jackeagle)
Subject: Re: Use Analog Modem on Digital Line?
Date: 1 Nov 1995 21:20:37 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jackeagle)


It is not cost effective or easy, but it can be done if the line is 64Kb
or better (like ISDN). the modem has to be put in front of the analog to
digital converter.


Jack Warner
Ken-Caryl Ranch, Colorado

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #461
******************************



From ptownson Thu Nov  2 09:48:49 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id JAA08683; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:43:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:43:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #462
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Nov 95 09:43:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 462

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (Joe J. Harrison)
    U.S. Publisher Comments on China's Computer Industry ([e-mail])
    Re: TELECOM Digest V15 #453 (Thaddeus Cox)
    Re: FAX Machine as Page Scanner - fax_scan.pcx (Collin Park)
    US Phone Usable in France? (Chester Howes)
    Looking For Telephone With Call Blocking (Stephen Chin)
    Re: New Area Code Shows Up on Caller-ID (Alan Lange)
    Re: Area Code Authoritative List (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Area Code Authoritative List (David Esan)
    Area Code Split in 617 and 508 (MA) (Scott D. Fybush)
    Two New Area Codes For Eastern MA (Jonathan Welch)
    Still More Area Code Information (Ronald D. Havens)
    Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ? (David Esan)
    Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Trying to Locate Konnex Corp (Georg Schwarz)
    GTE Actions (Steven Lichter)
    Make That Address Change! (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: [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, 2 Nov 1995 12:25:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line


>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everything I have heard about this and
>> all the discussions we have had about it here in the past would seem
>> to indicate you are *wrong*. More than one phone per number is a
>> definite no-no where cellular companies are concerned. Perhaps readers
>> with more specifics on this will write you direct and explain it.  PAT]

> It is not legal to have two cellphones with the same ESN.

But only in the US? I was very surprised to discover that Vodafone in
the UK could not care less about this on their analog (E-TACS) system.

A friend told me his local dealer was advertising this as a legitimate
service (just bring in some old cellphone and we'll fix it to work on the
same number as your existing connected one). It sounded to me like some
kind of scam, and I didn't want my fairly telecom-clueless friend to get
burned somehow, so I called Vodafone Customer Care and asked their advice.

Vodafone told me they did not particularly care for people doing it and
their network might occasionally blacklist one or both of the phones if
they were turned on simultaneously in different locations. But that was it,
not illegal or contrary to their conditions of service. So my friend went
ahead, it worked fine for him and still does.

The UK does have the same huge cloning phraud problem as does the US, at
least on the analog stuff which is still fairly widespread. Even for
cloners it is not illegal to mess with ESNs and MINs and equipment to do
this is on open sale -- the criminality only comes in with any actual
attempt (or intent?) fraudulently to obtain service.


Joe

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:02:18 -0600
Subject: U.S. Publisher Comments on China's Computer Industry


Source: Reuters
Reported by: Ray ZHANG, Liedong ZHENG

[CND, 10/28/95] Poor telecommunications and low income are becoming
more and more prominent and serious problems in the face of China's
emerging computer market, said a top U.S. publisher on Saturday.  In
an interview with Reuters, Patrick McGovern, chairman of International
Data Group (IDG), remarked that today's computing advances are making
information more valuable than ever.

McGovern asserted that information is often "the more profitable part of
industry. ... The Airline Guide is more valuable than the airlines. ...
TV Guide was sold for $2.5 billion, [making it] more valuable than any
TV network."

"The limitation is the limited amount of telephone line capacity,"
said McGovern. At present, only 3.1 percent of China's households have
access to a telephone. It is China's aim to achieve nearly eight
percent penetration by the year 2000 by installing 100 million
telephone lines over the next five years. Despite its limitations,
China's computer industry is growing 30 to 50 percent each year. The
state has also allowed numerous connections to be made on to the
Internet.

Following the initiation of market reform under DENG Xiaoping, IDG
quickly entered the China market in 1980, and became the first
Sino-U.S. joint venture in China. Today, IDG, a publisher of more than
250 technology- related magazines and newspapers in 68 countries, is
one of the few firms allowed to own a publishing business in China.
More importantly, it is one of the very few companies that has
prospered in China despite the relative immaturity of the computer
industry. With an average annual increase of 65 percent, IDG's revenue
from China surpassed $50 million in 1994, comprising 4.2 percent of
its $1.2 billion global revenues.

On Saturday, IDG's chairman Patrick McGovern met with DENG Pufang, the
son of paramount leader DENG Xiaoping.  DENG praised IDG for raising
China's awareness of the computer industry. McGovern praised Beijing
for "embracing information technology five times faster than anyone
expected."

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

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 21:39:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Thaddeus Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD For Payphone Use


> to locate a TDD that can be used on a pay phone. Either new or used,
> what I understand it can be a booth or compact. I got a $1300 dollar
> price on a booth (half booth if you will) and a $280 dollar price on a
> compact from Graybar, and we as a poor university cannot afford such
> high prices.

I don't know what the LEC in 210 has to offer, but here in Oregon
USWest has standard Western Electric coin phones with a slide-out
drawer containing a TDD, wired into the phone.  Perhaps the gentleman
would be able to convince his telco to install one on the premises?  I
assume this is being done to comply with Americans with Disabilities
act or some such legal requirements.


Thaddeus Cox - [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Collin Park)
Subject: Re: FAX Machine as Page Scanner - fax_scan.pcx
Date: 2 Nov 1995 04:27:58 GMT
Organization: HP Asia Pacific Product Operations, Kobe, Japan


> located as /technical/fax.machine.page.scanner.   Remember, it is
> a .pcx file and it would be a good idea to set the transfer type to
> 'I' (binary) when getting it using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.  PAT]

Apparently on 10/22 the ftp archives were moved from "lcs.mit.edu"
to "ftp.lcs.mit.edu";  of course the file is really at
        /telecom-archives/technical/fax.machine.page.scanner


Thanks and best regards,

collin


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite right on this. Somehow
I got it wrong in the message. I guess after so many years of the
archives at the one address, it is easy to type the wrong thing and
then not catch it in the proofreading.  PAT]

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

From: Chester Howes <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Phone Usable in France?
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 22:30:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


A customer at my local Radio Shack said he had sent a phone to a friend
in Paris and the then found out the plug (US modular) wouldn't fit the
jack in Paris.  He want an adapter to mate the two.

I told him I thought the phone systems were not even compatible; a phone
made for the US market would probably not even work on the French phone
system.

Could anyone please advise if the systems are close enough for the phone
to work there?


TNX,

Chester F. Howes    <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Chin)
Subject: Looking For Telephone With Call Blocking
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 06:19:54 GMT
Organization: General Communications


Does anyone know of a telephone manufacturer that makes a phone which
can block out numbers by putting in a code?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you referring to the *67 code used
to block Caller-ID?  There are a couple of companies which made
adjunct devices to plug in before the phone which do this. When the
phone goes off hook, the little device automatically sends out *67
at the start of the dialing string. Or did you have something else in
mind?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 22:06:43 EST
From: Alan Lange <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Code Shows Up on Caller-ID


> David A. Cantor <[e-mail]>

> The new area code 860 showed up today, 10/31, for the first time on my
> caller ID unit on a local call.  The last local call I received with
> the old area code 203 was on 10/29.

I, too, got 860 for the first time this past weekend, but only from
the Bristol area prefix (860-548).  Calls from Hartford and Farmington
areas (860- 677, 674, 277, 258, 289, 313) as well as some other areas
still report area code 203.

It seems they are converting prefixes one at a time.  Up until MCI
turned it off, I got code 203 from both work (677) and home (667) at
800-my-ani-is.


Alan Lange <lang0251.hgc.edu> PGP keyID: bea6e65d
Finger Print: 9edb0db49acf05d b2067981 20b42201


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has been reported here recently that
800-MY-ANI-IS is no longer in service.  PAT]

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Authoritative List
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:08:08 -0500
Stuart Zimmerman <[e-mail]> wrote:


> The list sent in by [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)  was well done but
> slightly incomplete.  Area code 441 is is not the Caribbean and Puerto
> Rico.  It is actually Bermuda (which is not part of the Caribbean).
> Area code 860 for Connecticut was missing.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That lack of 860 might have been my
> fault in the editing process. I had a terrible time getting that
> message edited.    PAT]

Then [e-mail] (Linc Madison) commented:

> Well, actually, there are two corrections.

>  441   PUERTO RICO & CARIBBEAN

(description of 441 deleted)

>  562   CALIFORNIA

> This area code is not yet in service, pending revision by the CPUC.
> (The test numbers may work, but there are no "real" numbers yet.)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And yet Linc, even with your eagle
> eyes for accuracy, you apparently overlooked 860 which got left out
> somehow. I'll tell you, these new area codes are a real pain to try
> and keep up with aren't they.   PAT]

A pain indeed!  Lest we forget 864 which, according to today's report
on WBTV in Charlotte goes into service on 12/3/95 for Northwestern
South Carolina (the areas including and surrounding Greenville and
Spartanburg).  WBTV gave the already-tired report about PBX systems
that can't handle the new-format area codes.


Stan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, and did you think that was all?
Nope, just as soon as the list gets printed,  still more news on the
changing area code scene is recieved here at Digest Headquarters.
Read on for still more.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: Area Code Authoritative List
Date: 2 Nov 95 12:59:01 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(BUBEYE!) writes:

> 441   PUERTO RICO & CARIBBEAN

This should read BERMUDA.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: Area Code Split in 617 and 508 (MA)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 04:09:10 GMT


NYNEX is beginning preparations for splits and/or overlays in both
Eastern Massachusetts area codes, 617 and 508 (which was a geographic
split from 617 in 1988).  NYNEX says 617 will be exhausted by 1999,
and 508 by 2000, according to current projections, and so splits or
overlays in both are needed by late 1997.

No word yet on what the new codes will be, or how things will split
up, but I'd bet on an overlay for 617, which is a reasonably compact
urban core surrounding and including Boston.  A geographic split would
be difficult, and could end up creating a second ring around Boston
with a new code, leaving 617 serving only the city of Boston and a few
neighboring areas (Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline perhaps.)  An
overlay would make more sense here.  In 508, which forms a wide arc
around Boston, a geographic split would be logical, perhaps with 508
remaining with the northern and western portions of the code, and a
new code being assigned to the fast-growing area south of Boston,
including Cape Cod.  An overlay would make less sense in 508.

The NYNEX official I spoke with today says none of the company's other
New England NPAs (207 Maine, 603 N.H., 802 Vermont, 401 Rhode Island,
and 413 Western Mass.) are in any danger of exhaustion.  413, in
particular, is now slated for exhaustion in 2030!


Scott Fybush - [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 08:31:18 -0500
From: Jonathan_Welch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two New Area Codes For Eastern MA


This morning on WBZ radio (Boston, MA) there was a brief news blurb
that due to the explosion of faxes, modem, pagers, etc.  it would be
necessary to add two new area codes.  Overlaying them was mentioned,
but not if they'd both go to help out 617 (Boston area) or 508 as
well.  Discussion wasn't planned to begin until next year.


Jonathan Welch  VAX Systems Manager  Umass/Amherst  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:56:18 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Still More Area Code Information


The FCC Common Carrier bureau has a factsheet on their home page that shows
planned area codes and effective dates.  Try
http://www.fcc.gov/bureaus/common_carrier/factsheets/areacode.txt


Ron Havens   Sprint

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ?
Date: 2 Nov 95 13:07:33 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ed
Marion) writes:

> Does anyone know why Countries like Canada, Bermuda
> the British Virgin Islands, and the Carribean in general are
> all accessible from within the USA with a 1 + Area Code + number?

It is possible that this is also a result of both the Canadian and the
US phone companies being owned by the same people.  Bell would
probably view this area as a single entity, and wanted to integrate
the network.  While there are many differences between the US and
Canada, the similarities, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s were
quite striking.  The languages are nearly identical, a shared British
heritage (which we reject, and then spent many years trying to
emulate), the geographic divisions (Eastern population, Central Plains
and Western Mountains and coast).  Add to this the fact that 90+% of
the Canadian population lives within 200 miles of the US border,
suggests that the two countries have an integrated calling pattern.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service
Date: 2 Nov 1995 05:46:45 GMT
Organization: Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael D. Sullivan)


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you talking about Beehive? I think
> that is its name. One employee/owner and eight subscribers.   PAT]

Yep.  Beehive Telephone Co., formerly Silver Beehive Telephone Co.,
formerly The Telephone Co., owned by Arthur W. Brothers.  Not certain
he only has eight subscribers, though.


Michael D. Sullivan                      Email to:  [e-mail]
Bethesda, MD, USA     Also:  [e-mail] [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well he may have more than eight customers
now; that's what he had a few years ago. I don't think he will be
applying for a new area code any time soon however.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Georg Schwarz)
Subject: Trying to Locate Konnex Corp.
Date: 2 Nov 95 07:55:10 GMT
Organization: Berlin University of Technology


Does anyone the address of Konnex Corp., USA (preferably their e-mail
address, if they have one)? They are said to be the manufacturer of
acoustic coupler modems for wireless telephones.  I'd also like to
know an adress of a representative/distributor for their products in
Germany.


Thanks.

Georg Schwarz ([e-mail], [e-mail], PGP 2.6ui)
Institute for Theoretical Physics  [phone]   FAX -21130   IRC kuroi
Berlin University of Technology   http://itp1.physik.tu-berlin.de/~schwarz

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Lichter)
Subject: GTE Actions
Date: 1 Nov 1995 17:19:06 -0800
Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University


Below is the way that certain people in power at GTE treat employees.
I have tried to work out the problem with no effect so I am now
putting it in a public forum for all to see. If you want you can call
GTE and let them know how you feel. You can contact the Chairman Chuck
Lee in Stanford, Conn, Telephone Operatins in Dallas, Texas or GTE
West in Thousand Oaks. I'm not going to list any phone numbers as GTE
may try and claim I am violating some ethics since they could say I
used company property to get the information.

In early 1992 GTE received a Notice of Levy from the IRS. When I got my
copy I notified GTE by certified letter, company mail and telephone
that a Federal Court stay was in place. GTE already was aware of the stay.
For some reason that I never was told something went wrong and my wages
were taken for this levy, when this happened both my attorney at the
time and myself advised GTE of that fact, yet 2 weeks later they were
again taken. GTE was notified in plenty of time to stop the levy the
first time and took no action, they again did the samething a second
time even after they had said it was an error. This action caused me
many problems with a loss of about $100,000.00 at the time, this has
since increased to almost $250,000.00.

GTE through its legal department offered to help me recover the money
from the IRS. They found out that is would cost more to recover it then
to just pay me. their offer was to pay me the lost wages if I agreed
not to sue them. At this point I could not agree to this offer since my
loss was much more then what they had offered. They then hired an
outside attorney to settle this matter. They had agreed to cover my losses
if I could prove that it was their erro, they already said it was and we
were asked to supply copies and proof of all my losses; we did this and
yet no action was done dispite repeated requests. Since I could no longer
afford to fight them; I believe this was their plan all the time, but I
have no proof. I have somewhat recovered from the damage that GTE had
done to me and again I have attempted to settle this matter plus another
one that has occured.

I have given GTE one last chance to settle this matter before bringing
it to the public via The Internet. If you are reading this through one
of the newsgroups you know that I was unable to settle this. I will be
sending copies of this to officers of GTE as well as others in an
effort to force GTE to bring a settlement.

As many you know I have defended GTE and helped some set problems
cleared up, some in public, but most via E-mail as I felt it would
be better that way. I will continue to help since the majority of
GTE people want to help and have nothing to do with this problem.

Please don't E-mail me as I may not be able to reply, you may make
your comments in the Newgroups since GTE does monitor these groups
for anything with GTE in it


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. [e-mail]

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Make That Address Change!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:00:00 EST


Incoming mail is indicating that although quite a few of you have made
the requested address changes for the Digest and the Archives, there
are still many readers using the old and now incorrect address. Please
make these changes today if you have not already done so:

     ALL mail to TELECOM Digest including subscription
     requests and editorial submissions is to be sent to:

                  [e-mail]

     Pointers in the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup should be
     directed in the same way.

If you need to have a personal address for email to me, you can
use:  [e-mail].

The Telecom Archives is located on the same machine as the Digest;
but in the case of the archives we refer to it as:

                      ftp.lcs.mit.edu

Same place; ftp.lcs.mit.edu is an alias for massis.lcs.mit.edu.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #462
******************************



From [e-mail]  Fri Nov  3 01:23:41 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA21034; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:23:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:23:41 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #463
Status: R

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 3 Nov 95 01:23:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 463


Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Multiple Phones on Cellular Line (Gary Novosielski)
    Re: Old Los Angeles Prefixes (Gordon Winston)
    Re: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager (Dan Fandrich)
    Re: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager (Jeffrey C. Honig)
    Re: AT&T Switch Access via PC (Steve O'Brien)
    Re: Another UK Number Change (Rachael Rosen)
    Names Wanted at PUC - Colorado ([e-mail])
    Problem With AT&T Access in Italy (Mary Leugers)
    Re: Story From PacBell Very Doubtful (R.R.M. Tweek)
    Re: Still More Area Code Information (David F. Reynolds)
    Re: Still More Area Code Information (Linc Madison)
    Re: When was the Coiled Phone Cord Invented? (Matthew B. Doar)
    Re: Split-T or Fractional T-1 Device w/ocu/bri Interfaces ([e-mail])
    Re: Using *69 To Get Caller's ID (Hugh Pritchard)
    Re: 1+ Dialing To Canada and The Caribbean  (Linc Madison)
    Re: Trying to Locate Konnex Corp. (Michael Schuster)
    Re: Need Information on Reducing Power Consumption (Jeffrey Rhodes)

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: [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]
Organization: Small Business Administration
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 22:31:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Jeffrey Rhodes <[e-mail]> writes:

> It's hard to believe that nearly every day someone asks "are two
> cell-phones, one number legal?". P.T. Barnum suggested that there is a
> sucker born every minute. Basic judgment should tell people "if it's
> too good to be true, then it isn't". Now that cellular fraud busts are
> making news and some are behind bars, maybe the word will get out
> that, "Yes, the FCC approves extension line service for cell-phones but
> No, you can't have it because it looks too much like fraud when roaming."

On the contrary, I think "basic judgment," or common sense, is what's
behind these questions in the first place.

What's hard for most people to comprehend (which accounts for the
continual repetition of this question), is why it should be illegal to
have a second (cloned ESN) phone even when no fraud is intended or
attempted. That's what defies common sense.

Until the FCC made it illegal (as we are told they did recently) it
worked just fine in practice. It even worked fine while roaming, and
didn't "look like fraud" at all, for the simple reason that it
*wasn't* fraud. It was just a way to make legal phone calls, using
one's own bona fide cellular account, and to pay for them in full,
using either of two phones (both bought-and- paid-for) instead of just
one.

Certainly, using a cell phone modified to fraudulently bill someone
else's account *should* be illegal (and would be, with or without FCC
rule-making), but just to be sure, let's raid and bust all those
"suckers" with the audacity to ask why they can't use their own second
phone on their own account!

Basic judgment just might be telling these people that the real
(only?) reason such cloning was made "illegal" is that it deprives
wireless carriers of their presumed "right" to charge double the
revenue while they incur no additional expense. This might be called
their "right" to treat their customers like ignorant suckers.

Having two phones with the same number is intrinsically no more
"fraudulent" than hooking up an extension phone in one's own home. Old
Timers will recall that back when AT&T "Wireful" ruled the known
world, this too was called "illegal". (for the same reason?) And why
should it be? Every call made or received gets billed to the
appropriate parties. No, I cannot make two calls at once, as I am only
paying for one "line"; if I want that feature, I must pay for a second
line. And of course if I hook up nine or ten extensions, there may not
be enough voltage to ring the bells any more. But if I'm willing to
live with the limitations, and it is not technically infeasible, then
why *should* it be illegal to have an extension phone on the same
number, either wired, or cellular.

Granted it is, but why *should* it be? Certainly not just because
Congress says so. Once upon a time, Congress said freeing slaves was
illegal, too. Just because someone who clones their own phone can be
put "behind bars" doesn't mean they belong there.

Some will argue that it is because cloning might be, or could be, or
would be (and let's face it -- ACTUALLY IS) used for fraud. If so, then
rocks, hammers, computers, and telephones themselves should be
outlawed. In fact, everything should be outlawed, because there isn't
an object I can think of that someone, somewhere could not figure out
how to use in the commission of a crime.  Crimes -- actual crimes --
already are and should be illegal. "Potential" crimes, like fictional
characters, do not exist. Let's get a grip.

The fact that the "legal" cell-extension variant, i.e., same MIN,
different ESN, is something the cell carriers can and do charge extra
for is no coincidence. And the fact that it doesn't work as well as
simply cloning the phone is ironic. Whose fault is that? Who designed
the system, the ignorant suckers in the general public, or the
high-priced talent within the industry?

Two-ESN roaming doesn't "look like fraud" at all, any more than all
Arab- Americans "look like" terrorists, or vice versa. It's just that
the system we're relying on is so badly designed that it can't tell
fraud from legal use.  That's the fault of the system designer, not
the innocent user. The user did not ask for a second-rate system.

PT Barnum might well be amused at the sucker-per-minute birth rate of
those in the wireless industry who staked their companies' future
revenues on a technology that any bright fourteen-year-old could hack.
Making a blunder of that magnitude is pretty embarassing.

Sure, we all make mistakes, and then we live with them. But what
arrogance to blame others (the non-suckers) for asking perfectly
reasonable questions, or gleefully to make criminals of those with
perfectly reasonable answers. An apologetic tone, not an arrogant one,
from the wireless carriers would seem more appropriate to me.

Don't get me started <oops, too late>.


GaryNovosielski   GPN Consulting  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Winston)
Subject: Re: Old Los Angeles Prefixes
Date: 3 Nov 1995 02:06:47 GMT
Organization: Internet On-Ramp, Inc.


Michael Hollomon, Jr. ([e-mail]) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
> net says:

>> Does anyone know of a source of information where one can find the
>> verbal representations of prefixes in the Metro L.A. area?  For
>> example, in the fifties and early sixties, many Miracle Mile-area
>> prefixes were designated as WEbster-x-xxxx; many of those "93"
>> prefixes are still in use today.  I would like to know what the verbal
>> designations of those prefixes were.

> I know that the Crenshaw district's 29 prefix was called AXminster.
> That's about all I know.  There was also another called RIchmond.  But
> I don't know what part of town that was in.  If you find out others,
> please email me.  I'd like to know.

Los Angeles:
22 = capital     23 = adams    25 = clinton   26 = angeles
29 = axminster   38 = dunkirk  46 = hollywood 62 = madison
65 = melrose     66 = normandy 72 = rampart   73 = republic
74 = richmond    75 = plymouth 75 = plesent   78 = sunset

These are the only one's that I can think of off the top of my head.
Others exist but usually relate to a street name.

Ex Chief Deskman (Webster Office) ... That position existed when the
telephone company cared about service.


Gordon Winston, Spokane Wa.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Fandrich)
Subject: Re: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 00:25:01 GMT
Organization: Fandrich Cone Harvesters Ltd.


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

> I am looking for Unix sources to send messages to an alphanumeric
> pager.  I've been told that there was one posted a while back, perhaps
> to alt.sources.  Does anyone know a location for this, or an
> approximate posting date?

There is an indexing service for some of the source newsgroups and the
larger ftp archives available at <http://www.acs.oakland.edu/cgi-bin/shase>.
You can search any of probably two dozen indices and newsgroups and
are presented with a list of matching programs and the sites they are
available.  The alt.sources links, however, are broken since the
archiving sites seem to have moved to a newer method of storing
articles.  Still, the information provided is enough to find the
software you want.

I know Wimsey has some kind of email to pager gateway set up -- I don't
know if the software is one of the products they sell, but you could
try asking at [e-mail].


[e-mail] / MIME email ok / finger [e-mail] for pgp key

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey C Honig)
Subject: Re: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager
Date: 02 Nov 1995 17:26:45 GMT
Organization: Information Technologies/Network Resources; Cornell University;


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Bruce Albrecht) writes:

> I am looking for Unix sources to send messages to an alphanumeric
> pager.  I've been told that there was one posted a while back, perhaps
> to alt.sources.  Does anyone know a location for this, or an
> approximate posting date?  For that matter, are the ixo files in the
> telecom-archives/technical directory adequate for writing one from
> scratch?

I hacked on an expect script that I found.  You can find it via my
home page http://nr-atp.cit.cornell.edu/~jch, or directly via
ftp://nr-atp.cit.cornell.edu/pub/tools/beep-0.2.tar.gz.  You'll need
Tcl and expect install on your system to use it.


Jeff

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve O'Brien)
Subject: Re: AT&T Switch Access via PC
Date: 3 Nov 1995 04:54:29 GMT
Organization: SuperNet Inc. (303)-296-8202 Denver Colorado


Sean Doherty ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I would like to use the PC and modem on my desk to access a System 75,
> G2 and G3 switch.  I've tried using Procomm Plus's ATT 4410 emulation
> but something is funny with the keyboard.  What software/emulations
> are other tech's using?

I have been using a Procomm Plus for Windows for some time to
administer both G3 and Audix systems.  The 4410 emulator in the
Windows version of Procomm works fine.  The older Procomm for DOS did
not seem to understand the function key setup strings that the switch
sends when you change from screen to screen.

Another technique that works pretty well is to set Procomm for DOS to
emulate a vt102, and then program the function keys using the Alt-f8
keyboard setup.  Program f1 as ^[OP, f2 as ^[OQ, f3 as ^[OR etc. up to
f8 as ^[OW.  Then tell the switch you are a 4410 terminal, and ignore
the weird characters at the bottom of each screen.


Steve

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

From: [e-mail] (Rachael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Another UK Number Change
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 00:43:34 GMT
Organization: Tyrrell
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Clive D.W. Feather <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The UK National Code Change, completed this April, was supposed to
> solve our numbering problems for the forseeable future. Well, many of
> us foresaw that other places were still running out of numbers.

> Oftel announced recently that Reading numbers are about to change
> again.  0734 XXXXXX became 01734 XXXXXX, and will now become 0118 9XX
> XXXX. Parallel running will start in April 1996, with the final
> changeover in January 1998.

> According to posters in uk.telecom, there already exist 01734 90XXXX
> and 01734 04XXXX numbers. No-one is sure how these will interact
> during parallel running.

Are you sure about 01734 04xxxx ?  How can you have a Reading number
starting with 04 ?  What does a local caller dial for this ?  Surely
no exchange numbers in UK start with a zero ?

The only nubers I believe *can* start with a zero are things like 0800
free calls and 0345 / 0645 local rate numbers.


Rachael Rosen
Sig minimalist.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Names Wanted at PUC - Colorado
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 13:17:53 PDT
Organization: GE Capital News Server


Anyone out there know where to send a formal letter to the PUC in
Denver, Colorado? I have an address and phone number (with eternal
hold). A name would help!

Need address and contact for business telecommunications related
concerns. Primarily late delivery and poor problem determination/
resolution.

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

From: LEUGERS Mary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problem With AT&T Access in Italy
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 10:53:00 PST


Are there any readers out there who regularly use the toll-free number in
Italy to access AT&T USADirect service?

For a couple weeks now I've had intermittant problems with the call
dropping, and a message from Telecom Italia (Italian telco) coming on
saying that the number has changed.  There doesn't seem to be any
pattern as to when the call drops, but some days it's so bad I can't
get a call out.

Any readers out there know who I might contact at AT&T to report the
problem?


Thanks,

Mary Leugers    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (R R M Tweek)
Subject: Re: Story From PacBell Very Doubtful
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 21:25:55 GMT


Bren Smith  <[e-mail]> wrote:

> She says that they can't be out with a service person until tomorrow. I
> then ask them if they can remote call forward my dead primary line to my
> secondary line (remembering what Linc has tried this in the past).

> They tell me, and this is the real pisser part, that the PUC tariffs
> prevent them from forwarding my line. When I asked why, the rep. explained
> that it was to prevent "unfair competition". I'm thinking, "yeah, right
> who else competes in the local exchange market?"

"Unfair Competition" Keeps YOUR competitors from calling the telephone
company and having the telco forward YOUR line to him ... much like
what happened over the Christmas holiday last year, where a plumber
had three or four of his competitors phones forwarded to his plumbing
business ... after first calling up the phone company and ordering up
Remote Call Forwarding for his competitors.  Those victim plumbers had
the loneliest Christmas ever.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]   [e-mail]   DoD #MCMLX  SP-3
Fodder-Line: Rogue Agent  Hubbard Thetan Scientology Clear  OT Course  Clam
http://www.io.com/~tweek/    [e-mail]   OT-7  Dr. Doo's little Llama

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you would think that telco could
call the man back on a line they could get through on and verify with
him that he wanted it done.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David F. Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Still More Area Code Information
Date: 3 Nov 1995 00:11:33 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access [phone]


The fact sheet in question dates from August, so has far less info
than is already available here.  Correct path is:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/areacode.txt

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Still More Area Code Information
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:43:12 GMT


[e-mail] wrote:

> The FCC Common Carrier bureau has a factsheet on their home page that shows
> planned area codes and effective dates.  Try
> http://www.fcc.gov/bureaus/common_carrier/factsheets/areacode.txt

Thanks for the tip, Ron.  However, the URL as shown is incorrect.  The
capitalization is significant:

<A HREF=
"http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/areacode.txt"
>FCC area code fact sheet</A>


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew B. Doar)
Subject: Re: When was the Coiled Phone Cord Invented?
Date: 2 Nov 1995 14:52:27 GMT
Organization: Ascom Nexion


I suspect that as soon as the plastic cords came out, someone must
have coiled them. If you've never tried it, 200 degrees C for 20 mins,
coiled tightly around a copper tube of the correct diameter and
clipped on at both ends, worked well for me.


Matthew B. Doar      Ascom Nexion, Inc.
[e-mail]      289 Great Road,
[phone]      Acton, MA 01720, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (LARB0)
Subject: Re: Split-T or Fractional T-1 Device w/ocu/bri Interfaces
Date: 2 Nov 1995 10:17:42 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (LARB0)


Not real sure about this, but check with AdTran ... they usually have a
good selection of add/drop CSU/DSU devices for T1s.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 10:55 EST
From: Hugh Pritchard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using *69 To Get Caller's ID


An anonymous bspline writes,

>>      Can someone explain the exact workings of the Ameritech offering
>> of "Call Back" as it is used from a single residential line.

> The exact working in a 1AESS:

> Associated with every line, there is a call store memory that has in
> it, among other things, the number of the last person who called it.
> ...  Now, when you dial *69, the system just looks at yer call
> store memory and completes a call between them and you.

I wonder if this call store memory would contain the last number (ANI)
of a long-distance call, the kind of call that shows "Out of area" on
my CallerID box.


Hugh Pritchard, [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My experience here has been that
anything I cannot get on the caller ID box likewise cannot be
re-connected using *69. In other words, if they had it for *69,
they would give it to you on the caller ID box unless it was
specifically marked private.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 1+ Dialing To Canada and The Caribbean
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:33:26 GMT


[e-mail] wrote:

> Mexico used to have two area codes (one for Mexico City, and one for
> northern Mexico), but they were "reclaimed" so they could be used for
> relief for exhausting domestic area codes.

Well, actually, Mexico used to have THREE area codes.  905 was used
for Mexico City, 706 for northwest Mexico (Mexican city codes
beginning with 6), and 903 for northeast Mexico.  That's why I was a
bit surprised to see 903 assigned for the 214 split when there were
other N0/1X area codes still unassigned.

I don't know exactly what the scope of those old Mexican area codes
were; I know 706 included northern Baja, and 903 some of the border
area with Texas, but I don't know, for example, whether they reached
as far as Cabo San Lucas or Monterrey.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: Trying to Locate Konnex Corp.
Date: 2 Nov 1995 18:59:44 -0500
Organization: panix


In article <[e-mail]>, Georg Schwarz
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Does anyone the address of Konnex Corp., USA (preferably their e-mail
> address, if they have one)? They are said to be the manufacturer of
> acoustic coupler modems for wireless telephones.  I'd also like to
> know an adress of a representative/distributor for their products in
> Germany.

There is no Konnex Corp.

The products you refer to are manufactured and marketed by:

Unlimited Systems Corp.
5555 Magnatron Blvd, Suite J
San Diego, CA 92111

[phone]

I have **NO** other contact information besides the above.



Mike Schuster       |        [e-mail] | [e-mail]
------------------- | [e-mail] | GEnie: MSCHUSTER

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Subject: Re: Need Information on Reducing Power Consumption
Date: 2 Nov 1995 21:20:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John N. Dreystadt)
writes:

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

>> Does anyone have any ideas on how companies have tried to reduce
>> power consumption on cellular phones?

IS-136 "Digital Control Channel" provides a sleep mode negotiation
with an IS-136 TDMA switch such that any page requests are
synchronized with an IS-136 cellular phone's sleep pattern. Power
consumption is reduced while sleeping.

IS-136 cellular phones will be compatible with current analog and
IS-54 TDMA switches. Someday this decade, AT&T will be able to offer
telephone service in at least 80% of US homes and offices using IS-136
technology.


Jeffrey Rhodes at [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #463
******************************

From [e-mail]  Sat Nov  4 01:49:20 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA22560; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 01:49:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 01:49:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #464
Status: RO

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Nov 95 01:48:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 464

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Delay on Long Haul Circuits (Todd Martin)
    Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (via John Shaver)
    Bell Canada Files Residential ISDN (Ron Kawchuk)
    Michigan 313/810 to Get Overlaid! (Brian C. Shensky)
    ICS Busted for Securties, Mail and Wire Fraud (Tad Cook)
    Re: Chicago Ameritech Cellular PINs Required? (Dave Levenson)
    Anyone Have a Identa Ring/Ring Leader/Distinctive Ringing Box (J. Plescia)
    Powering the Optical Network Interface (Ted Quade)
    AT&T Employment in Wiltshire, UK (Anne Baillie)
    Lost Mail Due to Filter/Autoreply Problems (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: [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: Todd Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delay on Long Haul Circuits
Date: 3 Nov 1995 16:50:29 GMT
Organization: Silicon Systems


We have a 128kbps circuit from California to Singapore.  I estimate
that we experience a 100ms delay.  We would like to simulate the
affects of increasing the bandwidth.  The question is what can we
expect for reasonable delay as the bandwidth increases.  Is this
reasonable and/or realistic:

   Bandwidth Delay
   ----------------
   128k      100ms
   256k      50ms
   >512      30ms

What I am confused about is how much is the delay dependent on
bandwidth.  If we were to increase the pipe to 256k would the delay be
cut in half?  I have heard that the 30ms delay is the (minimum) I
could expect.

What are others experiences with delays on long haul circuits?


Todd Martin
Silicon Systems, Inc.
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 10:06:04 MST
From: John Shaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:

Comments by: Wendell Craig Baker <[e-mail]>

A lot of people chatter about the amount of people in Europe who are
seen wandering around chatting on their cellular phones.  Why don't we
have that level of service here ... etc.

In Europe, the caller pays.  In the U.S. the callee pays.  This means
you with the phone in your hand pay airtime charges for just answering
the phone.  Charges range from $0.50/min during daylight down to
$0.25/min at night/weekends.

Justice at last!!!
                W.

  Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 12:04:07 GMT
  From: Bell Atlantic <[e-mail]>
  To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Wireless Customers Can Save With Calling Party Pays


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                         Contact:
November 2, 1995                                           Paul Miller
                                                          804-772-1460
                                      [[e-mail]]

           WIRELESS USERS CAN NOW SAVE ON AIRTIME CHARGES

ARLINGTON, VA -- Until now, wireless phone users have been charged for
all calls made on their wireless phone -- even calls coming from
unknown or unwelcome callers.  Now, with a new service from Bell
Atlantic, the person who calls the wireless user is charged for those
calls.

Bell Atlantic's new Calling Party Pays service allows cellular
companies to give their customers the option of having the caller pay
the airtime charges. The announcement came today at Bell Atlantic's
Carrier Services annual Wireless Forum in Washington, D.C.

"Bell Atlantic's Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) makes this service
possible," said Peter D'Amico, senior product manager for Bell
Atlantic's Carrier Services line of business.  "Bell Atlantic is the
first to develop Calling Party Pays service that offers the
flexibility of AIN-based features.  This allows us to offer our
wireless carriers a service that helps them meet the needs and
requirements of their customers."

Normally, incoming calls to cellular numbers are routed to the
appropriate Bell Atlantic access tandem switch, serving a cellular
carrier's mobile switching center.  The tandem switch recognizes the
called number as a cellular number and routes the call directly to the
cellular carrier, which then completes the call to its cellular
customer.

With Calling Party Pays, incoming calls to wireless subscribers will
be screened by the AIN platform to determine the proper call
processing and billing instructions.  An announcement will notify
callers that they will be charged for the airtime.  Callers will be
able to bypass the announcement by pressing the "#" key on their
phone.

If billing data for the phone number associated with the incoming
call is not available, AIN will instruct the tandem switch to play
another announcement notifying the caller that he or she will be
routed to the cellular customers' voice mail box to leave a message.

"This service will significantly increase the usefulness of wireless
phones, " said John Campanola, director - wireless product management
for Bell Atlantic.  "Customers will want to give out their cellular
numbers and may even list those numbers in the phone directory."

By using AIN technology, Bell Atlantic minimized the number of calls
for which the caller cannot be billed and developed a service with
features not previously available.   Customers who use Bell Atlantic's
Calling Party Pays can keep their current cellular phone number.
Other similar services have been limited to dedicated NXX numbers that
required customers to change their cellular phone numbers to a
particular exchange.

Calling Party Pays also offers customers several unique
call-management features:

*  VIP (very important person) Number -- Cellular customers can give a
   VIP number to family, friends and clients.  Those callers then
   enter the VIP number when they hear the announcement, signaling the
   AIN platform to bill the called party for air time.

*  VIP Table -- Customers can select up to six telephone numbers from
   which the calling party will not pay for the air time of incoming
   calls.

* Toggle Option -- Customers can use an on/off option to deactivate
  Calling Party Pays for a period of time.

Research by the Yankee Group shows that 69 percent of cellular users
think about the cost of a cellular call every time they pick up their
cellular phone.  Also, 78 percent of cellular users say they would
encourage people to call them if they didn't have to pay for receiving
the calls.

"We believe that cellular service is headed toward a new paradigm of
stimulating network usage," said Mark Lowenstein, director - Wireless
and Mobile Communications for the Yankee Group.  "Services such as
Calling Party Pays are at the forefront of this effort to make
wireless a way of life for everyone."

The Bell Atlantic Carrier Services line of business provides switched,
special and wireless access to Bell Atlantic's telecommunications
network.  Carrier Services also is developing new wireless services,
such as personal communications services, new access services such as
Facilities Management Service, and increased network survivability
through Bell Atlanticr IntelliLightsm services.

Bell Atlantic Corporation (NYSE: BEL) is at the forefront of the new
communications, entertainment and information industry.  In the
mid-Atlantic region, the company is the premier provider of local
telecommunications and advanced services.  Globally, it is one of the
largest investors in the high-growth wireless communication
marketplace.  Bell Atlantic also owns a substantial interest in
Telecom Corporation of New Zealand and is actively developing
high-growth national and international business opportunities in all
phases of the industry.

                                   ####

INTERNET USERS:  Bell Atlantic news releases, executive speeches, news
media contacts and other useful information are available on Bell
Atlantic's media relations World Wide Web site (http://www.ba.com), by
gopher (gopher://ba.com) or by ftp (ftp://ba.com/pub).

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

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 07:47:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Ron Kawchuk)
Subject: Bell Canada Files Residential ISDN


Bell Canada filed for residential ISDN on October 27, 1995
     $51 to $57 per month for 2 ISDN channels. (2B+D)
     Pay per call in peak (Business day) times.
     $1 per hour 7AM to 7PM weekdays per 64k channel... $2 per hour for 128K
bps??
     Request CRTC approval for Dec 1, 1995

If approved, this would be a precedent for local measured service (LMS) in
Canada.

For details on LMS in Canada, check out the HALT home page:
   http://www.io.org/~kawchuk/

Bell Canada's home page is http://www.bell.ca/


Ron Kawchuk  Telecom Consultant and HALT co-founder.
             Ph: 905 281-1998  Fax: [phone]
             Internet: [e-mail]
             Home page: www.io.org/~kawchuk
             HALT Fax-on-Demand: 416 798-7121 access code 4258( HALT).

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian C. Shensky)
Subject: Michigan 313/810 to Get Overlaid!
Date: 2 Nov 1995 18:32:11 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan


I just got off the phone with Ameritech.  Apparently, in March 1996,
they will hold a conference to announce, presumably, two new overlaid
area codes for 313/810.

If you recall, 313 was geographically split into 313 below 8 Mile Rd.
and 810 North of 8 Mile Rd. in August 1993.  So in addition to the geo
split, Michiganians have to get used to these two codes being
overlaid!

Ameritech does *not* know what the new area codes will be yet.


Enjoy!

Brian
SHENSKYbrian    313.454.9603 (home)     [e-mail] (email)
                313.780.3213 (page)     http://www.umich.edu/~shensky (www)

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

From: Tad Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: ICS Busted for Securties, Mail and Wire Fraud
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 23:40:51 -0500


Ten from Boca Raton, Fla., Accused of Securities, Mail, Wire Fraud
By Ronnie Greene, The Miami Herald Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

Nov. 3--Boca Raton -- the upscale city known for its wealth, its
lushness and its white-collar crime -- was the setting for a bustling
boiler room that defrauded 144 investors of $2 million, authorities
said Thursday.

A federal grand jury returned a 71-count indictment accusing 10
defendants of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, money
laundering and perjury. Five others have already pleaded guilty or
plan to.

They worked for International Communications Specialists, ICS, in a
suite on West Palmetto Park Road.

Their alleged scam: Selling unregistered securities to investors
throughout the United States through a combination of lies and deceit.

Using "lead lists" culled from other boiler rooms, salesmen called
thousands of potential investors. Reading from scripts, they described
ICS as an opportunity to "get in on the ground floor of the rapidly
expanding wireless communications industry."

Salespeople said ICS was offering interests -- at a cost of $10,000 to
$17,000 apiece -- in revenues from mobile radio licenses and radio
towers purportedly owned by ICS.

The lie: ICS didn't own FCC licenses, as alleged, but merely options
to purchase licenses. Still, salespeople described the investment as
"safe" and inquired about the investor's net worth and past investments.

"The information, as well as an assessment of potential investors'
interest and perceived gullibility -- potential investors were often
described as 'mooch' and 'controllable' -- were noted for use in
further contacts with the potential investor," the indictment says.

One principal allegedly used $11,225 of investors' money to buy
jewelry for himself, his girlfriend and salespeople.

The scam, which allegedly operated from September 1991 to February
1992, was investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and the Postal Inspection Service. The
prosecutors are Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Murad and Special
Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krudys.

Those charged Thursday: Richard Weber, 49, and Ira DiCapua, 36, of
Boca Raton; Jon Stewart, 41, and Ira Cohen, 48, of Fort Lauderdale;
Michael Harvey, 48, of Pompano Beach; Dwayne Shepherd, 35, of
Plantation; James Michaels, 42, of Lauderhill; Wayne Axelrod, 25, of
Chicago; Gary Nakkula, 42, of Brighton, Mich.; and Brandon Rios, 24,
of Trenton, N.J.

Previously, ICS sales manager Edward Ruppert and salesmen Jason
Ruppert and Richard Marshall pleaded guilty to securities fraud, mail
fraud and wire fraud.  Michael LaCue, a salesman, and Joseph Cunha, a
paid reference for the firm, agreed earlier this week to plead guilty,
the U.S. Attorney's Office said.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Chicago Ameritech Cellular PINs Required?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 03:54:46 GMT


Andrew C. Green ([e-mail]) writes:

> I received a puzzling piece of mail from Ameritech recently which
> seemed to imply (it was _very_ carefully worded) that I needed to
> call them and set up a PIN for my cellphone service as part of their
> Ongoing Battle Against Telecommunications Fraud. It did not actually
> say that this was mandatory ...

In the New York City area, PINs were introduced on an optional basis
six months ago or so.  They were optional, but with the subtle hint
that if your cellular phone was `cloned' and you had not obtained a
PIN, CellularOne (now called AT&T Wireless) would no longer drop the
fraudulent charges from your bill.

Recently, the use of a PIN has become mandatory for AT&T Wireless
subscribers in the New York City area (SID 00025).  As recommended, I
have stored the PIN and its feature access code on a repertory-dial
button on my cell phone, so it's only a single-button operation ...
not too hard when driving.

What bothers me about the PIN, however, is that it is sent out over
the setup channel, in the clear, as part of the same access message
that contains the mobile user's MIN and ESN.  It probably won't take
very long for the cloners to modify their listining equipment to
capture the PIN along with the rest of the data they need.  The PIN
seems to be, at best, a temporary fix.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: Joe Plescia  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anyone Have a Identa Ring/Ring Leader/Distinctive Ringing Box
Date: 3 Nov 1995 14:19:03 GMT
Organization: Plescia.Com
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Anyone have a identa ring / ring leader / distinctive ringing box for
sale?


Joseph P Plescia-Plescia Photo
email [e-mail]
201.868.0065    201.868.0475fax

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

From: [e-mail] (Ted Quade)
Subject: Powering the Optical Network Interface
Date: 3 Nov 1995 15:17:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ted Quade)


I am engaged in graduate research regarding the issue of powering the
residential customer terminal equipment in an all-fibre (all-fiber)
telephone system.  I wish to make contact with other researchers in
this area to exchange ideas and information.  Please contact me via
e:mail at [e-mail] or post to this news group as
appropriate.

Thanks for your time.


Ted

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

From: Anne Baillie <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Employment in Wiltshire. Exciting Opportunities in GSM
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 12:53:48 GMT
Organization: S-Com CSE


AT&T requirements in Wiltshire. Exciting opportunities in GSM

On the Web <http://bigweb.scom.com/scom/advert/95_00216.html>

S-Com have been appointed as AT&T's recruitment advisers.

AT&T have a continuous requirement for various roles within their GSM
development centre in Malmesbury, Wiltshire.

16 People are currently required to be able to start from November
onwards.

Location
    Based in Malmesbury, Wiltshire.
    Some roles may involve working at AT&T sites in New
    Jersey,U.S.A. and Nurnburg,Germany.
Project
    Development of the next generation of GSM Base Station
    equipment.  This project is being jointly developed across
    three primary locations.
Roles
1.    To develop the layer of software that interfaces the cluster
    management software with the application. Experience in
    initialisation and recovery of high availability systems
    advantageous. Must be a good team player.

2.    Two developers required to develop the layer of software
    that interfaces the applications with the platform software in
    a fashion that removes as many of the platform specific
    dependencies as possible. Knowledge of realtime operating
    systems.

3.    Performance Specialist.
    To Measure, evaluate and enhance the performance of the GSM
    Base Station Controller.  Previous experience in performance
    monitoring and enhancement in realtime systems required.
    Excellent communication skills.

4.    Software developer to develop the layer of software that
    interfaces a suite of commercial communications protocol stacks
    with the GSM application software. Knowledge of communications
    protocols (SS7, X.25, LAPD, TCP/IP).

5.    To develop the layer of software that interfaces a commercial
    database management package with the GSM application software.
    Knowledge of distributed database managers.  Experience in
    database development in a realtime system.

6.    Lab Support (2 positions). Needed to install and support the
    test models and associated support equipment to be used in the
    development of the GSM Base Station Controller. Previous
    experience in installation and support of test models
    essential.

7.    Physical Designer. To pull together the various pieces that
    will make up the GSM Base Station Controller into an ETSI
    compliant package. Previous experience in physical design
    with ETSI requirements is required.

8.    System Integrators (3 positions). Needed to co-ordinate the
    merging of software and hardware subsystems developed at the
    various locations involved in this project. Previous experience
    in integrating diverse hardware/software essential.

9.    Project Manager. To co-ordinate and track the efforts of the
    Base Station Controller team. Experience in managing
    development projects (predominantly software) required.

10.    System Architect. To help define the architecture for the
    next generation GSM Base Station Controller. Experience in
    either GSM or AMPS essential.

Rates
    Good rates.
Start date
    November onwards.
Contract length
    18 months.
Other lures
    A new international development centre.


Please email your CV to
             Anne Baillie  <mailto:[e-mail]>
          or Margaret Davies <mailto:[e-mail]>
             Contact us direct on 01296 311449

S-Com CSE, Buckingham House, Buckingham Street
Aylesbury, HP20 2LA
Phone [phone]       Fax [phone]
General enquiries / CVs  <mailto:[e-mail]>
     Visit our Web site  <http://www.scom.com>

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lost Mail Due to Filter/Autoreply Problems
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 01:15:00 EST


If you wrote to me on Friday evening, and primarily if you sent your
mail via the newsgroup, then you will need to send it again. I was
working on getting the autoreply turned back on when a large bunch
of incoming mail got zapped due to 'cat >' rather than 'cat >>'.
The difficulty with attempting to make any repairs or adjustments to
mail software here is the large volume of constantly flowing inbound
mail to the Digest. One slight, small error in the way something is
written, then you put it in place, and bam! There go a dozen letters
in the bit bucket. Yet without the use of filters, manual scanning
of it all would be impossible.

A couple days ago, I was entering something new in /etc/aliases and
forgot a simple colon. Zoom! There goes about forty pieces of mail
back to their senders as 'user unknown' ... that sort of thing. I
will be watching the autoreply and the filters very closely over the
weekend to see if more mail is getting lost. In the meantime, if
you sent me something Friday night, try try again!

Finally, the usual reminder: *all* mail for the Digest is now to be
addressed to "[e-mail]". If you have not yet
changed your records or your newsgroup pointers, please do so at
this time. I am running parallel on mail with delta for another
couple weeks or so, but will then discontinue receiving from that
end. Just because I toss out large amounts of mail due to my own
buggy software does not mean you should not be sending it to the
correct address to start with!    <grin>


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #464
******************************




From [e-mail]  Sat Nov  4 22:50:06 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id WAA10939; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 22:50:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 22:50:06 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #465

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Nov 95 22:07:07 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 465

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    888 Code Startup Not Delayed (Greg Monti)
    Re: These Sleezeball Comapnies Are Killing Me ([e-mail])
    Alaska Interexchange Bandwidth (Philip Treuer)
    Selective Answering Machine from the UK (Dave LeVasseur)
    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (James E. Bellaire)
    Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: Alpha Paging From DTMF Phone (Hendrik Rood)
    Re: US Phone Usable in France? (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Looking For Telephone With Call Blocking (Sheri Stritof)
    Re: Trying to Get Info From 604-555-1212 British Colombia (Dan Fandrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat,  4 Nov 95 00:55:41 PST
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: 888 Code Startup Not Delayed


The electronic newsletter {Communications Today} reported in its
November 1, 1995, issue that implementation of the new 888 toll-free
code in North America will *not* be delayed from its intended start
date of March 1, 1996.

This was the reported consensus of a meeting at which "an Ameritech
representative" advised the FCC that DSC Communications, the vendor
providing the software patch required for Database Service Management,
Inc.'s signal transfer points' (STP's) handling of the new numbers,
would deliver that patch later than expected.

In the meantime, the newsletter reported, some interexchange carriers
expressed concern that Database Service Management might be "still too
closely connected to the Bell companies."  They did not want DSMI to be
providing information on how many numbers each interexchange carrier
holds.

The {Communications Today} article notes that DSMI reported that the
exhaust date for the availability of 800 toll free numbers currently is
projected at April 20, 1996.  As of October 29, 730,051 numbers
remained available in the Service Management System 800 database.


Greg Monti     Arlington, Virginia, USA     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So folks, get your 800 numbers while
they last. Need a few more for anticipated projects in the future?
Better get them now before its too late. Don't look to AT&T, Sprint
or MCI for any; they play games with their largest customers pulling
the strings. Go to one of the smaller vendors like Allnet, Call
America or similar. Steve Betterly for example, at Call America tells
me they still have an ample supply of 800's for their customers.
Contact him at [e-mail] if you want to get in on their
MyLine 800 service.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: These Sleezeball Companies Are Killing Me!
Date: 4 Nov 1995 19:01:44 GMT
Organization: ISSC Southeast Region
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Johnny Castaldi) writes:

> Ever try to call Integretel (1-800-736-7500)? They tell you to call
> back at midnight!

I recently got slammed by Integretel and got the usual "call back some
other time" on their 800#.  I called my local telco (Bellsouth,
formerly Southern Bell) to complain and they dialed the number for me
and transferred me.  Wouldn't you know it, I got through.  I don't
know if they have any kind of special dialing priveleges or if they
just got lucky, but that worked for me.


Later,

Mike

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

Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 10:44:06 -0900
From: [e-mail] (Philip Treuer)
Subject: Alaska Interexchange Bandwidth


I'm writing from Alaska where most interexchange traffic is
transported by satellite or microwave.  Because of the high cost of
service most interexchange voice traffic, which (I assume) in the
lower 48 is carried on fiber over 64 Kbps circuits, is here compressed
by the IXC's as much as five to one.

In the future (after the interexchange networks are upgraded to
digital), the IXCs say they will only guarantee data transmission over
basic voice grade lines (i.e., using modem or fax) up to 9.6 kbps --
above that speed the IXC's have indicated that either the call will
not go through or customers will have to pay extra for higher transfer
rates.  Currently rural to rural calls are generally limited to 4800
kbps data transmission (if that) using faxes and modems on voice grade
circuits.

What is the maximum bandwidth IXCs allow on voice grade calls in the
lower 48? Do customers have to pay surcharges on swithched 56 or ISDN
64 Kbps voice calls that go over the interexchange network?  Have any
states attempted to define basic voice grade telephone service in such
a way that guanantee customers the ability to transmit data at certain
minimum speeds using fax and modems?

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

Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 15:50:27 CST
From: Dave LeVasseur <[e-mail]>
Subject: Selective Answering Machine From the UK


In TELECOM Digest #460, Theodore Hong wrote:

> I've recently moved from the US to the UK, and I brought my answering
> machine with me.  It's hooked up to the local switchboard here, and
> the phone part works fine.  I thought the answering machine part did
> too, until I discovered that it didn't answer outside calls, only
> internal ones.  Now outside calls do have a different ringing pattern
> (two rings instead of one), but I can't see what would cause the
> answering machine to ignore calls from outside ...?

The UK telephone system uses a third wire not found on (most) US
telephone systems.  The third wire is used to distribute the ringing
signal, separate from the two wires that carry the voice signals.
Your local switchboard use a similar arrangement which allows your
machine to respond to the ringing signal, although it seems odd that
an external ringing signal would be delivered in a manner different
from that of an internal signal.

The reason the third wire is used in the UK is due to a problem
referred to as "bell tinkle" caused when rotary-dial systems falsely
trigger a telephone's ringer.  We call it "bell tapping" here in the
US where it is less common (although on the increase) due to most
calls being placed with DTMF tones.  The three-wire method was
introduced as a way of preventing burglars from being alerted when
they triggered a store's automatic dialer.  Evidently, thieves were
able to escape capture by listening for "bell tinkle", a warning that
the police were soon to be at the premises.

I understand that a UK company makes a device called a "mod-tap" which
makes the necessary conversion between three- and two-wire systems.
This device reportedly sells for US$10 to US$15.  Perhaps other TD
readers will be able to provide more information on this company and
its product.


Dave LeVasseur            Internet: [e-mail]
Midcom, Inc.              Front Desk:[phone]
Watertown, SD 57201 USA   Fax: [phone]
Amateur Radio: N0DL       BBS: [phone]  14.4-8-n-1

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

Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 03:47:33 -0500
From: James E. Bellaire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line


Jeffrey Rhodes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It's hard to believe that nearly every day someone asks "are two
> cell-phones, one number legal?". P.T. Barnum suggested that there is a
> sucker born every minute. Basic judgment should tell people "if it's
> too good to be true, then it isn't". Now that cellular fraud busts are
> making news and some are behind bars, maybe the word will get out
> that, "Yes, the FCC approves extension line service for cell-phones but
> No, you can't have it because it looks too much like fraud when roaming."

GaryNovosielski <[e-mail]> replied:

> On the contrary, I think "basic judgment," or common sense, is what's
> behind these questions in the first place.

> What's hard for most people to comprehend (which accounts for the
> continual repetition of this question), is why it should be illegal to
> have a second (cloned ESN) phone even when no fraud is intended or
> attempted. That's what defies common sense.

What people need is a second phone, with its own MIN and ESN, and a cellco
that is willing to give a multiple phone rate that is within reason.

> Until the FCC made it illegal (as we are told they did recently) it
> worked just fine in practice. It even worked fine while roaming, and
> didn't "look like fraud" at all, for the simple reason that it
> *wasn't* fraud. It was just a way to make legal phone calls, using
> one's own bona fide cellular account, and to pay for them in full,
> using either of two phones (both bought-and- paid-for) instead of just
> one.

Cloned phones worked fine?  Tho identical phones both reporting back to the
cellco for tracking didn't confuse the switch?

> [SNIP]

> Having two phones with the same number is intrinsically no more
> "fraudulent" than hooking up an extension phone in one's own home.

Having a second line installed with the same number costs money
everywhere I have been.  These are NOT extensions within a single
building.  Cell phones are 'extensions' from the MTSO.

> Old Timers will recall that back when AT&T "Wireful" ruled the known
> world, this too was called "illegal". (for the same reason?)

Old timers will also remember that the demarks and switches have changed
completely since the old ones.  More havoc could have been done to the
network by CPE in the old days than now.

> And why should it be? Every call made or received gets billed to the
> appropriate parties. No, I cannot make two calls at once, as I am only
> paying for one "line"; if I want that feature, I must pay for a second
> line. And of course if I hook up nine or ten extensions, there may not
> be enough voltage to ring the bells any more. But if I'm willing to
> live with the limitations, and it is not technically infeasible, then
> why *should* it be illegal to have an extension phone on the same
> number, either wired, or cellular.

If you want any of your extensions across town you will PAY for them,
per link.  In my home town it is about the same price for an off
premises extension as it is a single line business phone, except you
don't have to pay all the government per line charges on the
extension.

Cloning ESN allows a customer to 'steal' the extension service.  They still
may pay for the calls, but they don't pay for the service.  You are using
more than one link through their network.

> [SNIP]
> Some will argue that it is because cloning might be, or could be, or
> would be (and let's face it -- ACTUALLY IS) used for fraud. If so, then
> rocks, hammers, computers, and telephones themselves should be
> outlawed. In fact, everything should be outlawed, because there isn't
> an object I can think of that someone, somewhere could not figure out
> how to use in the commission of a crime.  Crimes -- actual crimes --
> already are and should be illegal. "Potential" crimes, like fictional
> characters, do not exist. Let's get a grip.

Cloning is a practice, not an object.  Verbs are crimes, nouns are not.

> The fact that the "legal" cell-extension variant, i.e., same MIN,
> different ESN, is something the cell carriers can and do charge extra
> for is no coincidence. And the fact that it doesn't work as well as
> simply cloning the phone is ironic. Whose fault is that? Who designed
> the system, the ignorant suckers in the general public, or the
> high-priced talent within the industry?

The network was designed for SINGLE phones, not extensions.  Not bad for
15-20 years ago.

> Two-ESN roaming doesn't "look like fraud" at all, any more than all
> Arab- Americans "look like" terrorists, or vice versa. It's just that
> the system we're relying on is so badly designed that it can't tell
> fraud from legal use.  That's the fault of the system designer, not
> the innocent user. The user did not ask for a second-rate system.

To a system that uses a matched MIN-ESN as a user/password link, seeing
a user with more than one password can be confusing.  They should be able
to tell their switches that user MIN can use phone ESN1, ESN2 and ESN3.
Then the search engine matching MIN-ESN would have to be able to accept
any valid entry.  Get the software designers to work it out.

A fair price should be paid for 'extension' phones, either wired off-
premises or celluar.  If you want a lock so that only one phone in
your shared setup can make a call at a time then PAY for the software
to do that.  Otherwise PAY for the ability to use the phones
independently.

Cloning gives a FREE service to customers, without the provider's
consent.  It is the right of any company to sell their product at the
price they want.  It is NOT the right of the consumer to take product
without paying that price.


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wes Leatherock)
Subject: Re: If Quebec Leaves Canada
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 00:46:00 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As far as phone service is concerned,
> bear in mind the country of Newfoundland ceased being such back about
> 1947 (I think that was the year) when it became a Canadian province.
> The differences in phone service between then and now are so extreme
> that an accurate comparison is impossible. Even our own experience
> with Hawaii and Alaska over 35 years ago are hard to compare. They
> were both assigned area codes shortly after their admission to
> statehood. Oklahoma and Arizona became states in the early years of
> this century; whatever limited phone service they had at that time
> probably just continued in place, so remote from today's telecommun-
> ications network were they.

      Actually, Pat, the first commercial telephone service in
Oklahoma was established in 1879, three years after the telephone was
invented.  It was a toll line between Tahlequah (capital of the
Cherokee Nation) and Muskogee.

      Before I retired from Southwestern Bell Telephone, the
historical files for Oklahoma (compiled during the Great Depression
when business was slow, partly by Pioneers [retired employees] and
partly by active employees) was in my office, and I had many occasions
to answer questions about it or to prepare various written (and in
later years video) materials involving the company's history in
Okalhoma.

      The first commercial telephone line was established by a group
of (Indian) promoters, who applied to the Cherokee Nation for
authority.  The files included the text of the Cherokee Nation
legislature's act authorizing the line, providing for a gross receipts
tax, and earmarking the tax for the Cherokee Nation's common schools.
It carried the signatures of the presiding officers of both houses of
the legislature and was signed by the principal chief (who, incidentally,
had veto power).

       By statehood in 1907 Oklahoma had a reasonably developed
telephone system for those times, with local and long distance service
(and sometimes competition, with the Bell company (then known in
Oklahoma as the Pioneer Telephone and Telegraph Company) already
becoming the major player.

       There were also telephone connections with surrounding states
and on as far as you could go in those days before repeaters.

       Note that much of the eastern and southeastern parts of what is
now Oklahoma (including Tulsa, mentioned in your comments) were part
of what was generally called "Indian Territory," although that was not
a legal entity and the jurisdiction was that of the respective Indian
tribes.

       The northern, northwestern and western parts of the state were
"Oklahoma Territory," a territory regularly organized like other
"territories" of the United States.

       But toll dialing ... in fact, any kind of dialing ...  were
almost or completely non-existent in 1907, and there wasn't even a
philosophical basis for area codes.

       As you say, it was too remote to be relevant to today's
telecommunications sytem.


Wes Leatherock
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Hendrik Rood)
Subject: Re: Alpha Paging From DTMF Phone
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 20:45:26 GMT
Organization: Hendriks Humble Home Hero


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Barry
Margolius, NYC) wrote:

> I have come across two methods of "touch-toning" alpha messages that I
> like better than the one you describe.  I've not seen either of them
> used in paging, but here they are:

> 1. Press the letter key once for the first letter, twice for the
> second letter, thrice (I love that word) for the third letter.  Your
> "call home" example would be: 222 2 555 555 * 44 666 6 33.  This
> system is, to me, the easiest to use, but is subject to error as the
> user must pause between each letter of the alphabet, e.g. to
> differentiate AA from B.

> 2. Your first keypress indicates which set of three letters, the
> second keypress is 1,2, or 3 to indicate which letter.  So "call home"
> becomes 23 21 53 53 * 42 63 61 32.  This is a bit tougher for the
> human, but safer since all letters parse as two digit combinations.

In the Netherlands we provide telephones for deaf-people that connects
to displays with dtmf-decoders. They use a variant of the second system,
but then with the * and # as an escape-code.

Call home becomes something like #2 2 #5 #5 *# *4 #6 6 *3. This is
used by a lot of deaf-people and it is called "teksttelefoon" or
"texttelephone" in English. You can also get a Qwerty-keyboard with an
DTMF-encoder using this system.  There are people who run
translation-services for deaf people behind a medium-prized 900
number. Dialling this number deaf people can communicate with speaking
people, that do not use the display-gear

In practice typing is a bit slow. Most alphanumerics use two
dtmf-tones.  This then comes to 200 ms pro character. But it is still
fast enough to get a serious fast information flow.

The problem is: telephones with these encoding use a different
configuration in Several European countries. They also differ from the
alphanumeric US-system.


Hendrik Rood
Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL
tel: [phone]  fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: US Phone Usable in France?
Date: 4 Nov 1995 21:44:07 -0800
Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products


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

> A customer at my local Radio Shack said he had sent a phone to a friend
> in Paris and the then found out the plug (US modular) wouldn't fit the
> jack in Paris.  He want an adapter to mate the two.

Such adapters are readily available in the US. I have seen them in

- large computer stores;
- some Radio Shack stores;
- electronic parts stores;
- some "drug and discount" stores.

They cost about USD 10.00 per adapter.

> I told him I thought the phone systems were not even compatible; a phone
> made for the US market would probably not even work on the French phone
> system.

While the French telephone company (and the French government's Direction
de la Reglementation Generale)  would like to emphasize the differences
and insist that no equipment may be attached unless it has been verified
in design reviews and laboratory tests to be officially compatible,
the differences are of no practical importance, except for the plug.

I have also used French manufactured modems here, and they worked fine,
too.


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: Sheri <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Telephone With Call Blocking
Date: 4 Nov 1995 11:56:26 GMT
Organization: Network Access Services, Inc.


[e-mail] (Stephen Chin) wrote:

> Does anyone know of a telephone manufacturer that makes a phone which
> can block out numbers by putting in a code?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you referring to the *67 code used
> to block Caller-ID?  There are a couple of companies which made
> adjunct devices to plug in before the phone which do this. When the
> phone goes off hook, the little device automatically sends out *67
> at the start of the dialing string. Or did you have something else in
> mind?   PAT]

The FANS-BM100 Blockmaster controls who sees your number/name on
caller ID.  It detects when you take your phone off-hook and will
automatically send a request for blocking signal before you start
dialing.  You can also unblock any particular call if you're already
set up with a permanently blocked number.

The FANS-F250A features caller ID with post call preset so that any
number can be preset as a preferred or as an unwanted number, red LED
to warn of an incoming unwanted call and green LED to indicate an
incoming preferred call.

B.E.L.-Tronics AD100 has a call reject feature which allows the user
to record up to 100 undesirable phone numbers and incoming calls from
this list will receive a message stating call will not be accepted.

B.E.L.-Tronics CF130 - Telephone also has a call reject feature which
allows users to reject undesirable callers with a digital voice
message.

SNI Bouncer rejects nuisance calls without ringing your phone.

I'll keep looking for other products that might fill your need.


Sheri Stritof


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sheri, can you give us any ordering
information or addresses for these products?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Fandrich)
Subject: Re: Trying to Get Info From 604-555-1212 British Colombia, No Go
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 00:06:42 GMT
Organization: Fandrich Cone Harvesters Ltd.


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

> I don't know what town this company is in I explain.  "Can't you just
> do a search for "Softlanding Software".  "No, sorry, that's
> impossible", "What do you mean impossible, how many "Softlanding
> Software"'s are there in your province?!  She says "probably only one,
> but I need the city for it".  I'd have to search the entire province."

Well, it is a big province. ;)  I don't have any details about their
directory database, but this is a problem to me on occasion as well (it
probably comes as no surprise that BC Telecom is majority owned by GTE).

It is useful to realize that their system can check cities which are in
the same local calling area or nearby the one you ask for.  Just say
"Vancouver" and you've covered close to half the province, population-wise;
if the listing wasn't found, say "Victoria" and you've probably covered 2/3.
Since you're not looking for a forestry or mining company, it's almost a
sure thing you'll get the listing.


Dan  [e-mail] / MIME email ok
finger [e-mail] for pgp key

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #465
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov  6 09:27:46 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id JAA27486; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 09:27:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 09:27:46 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #466

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Nov 95 09:27:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 466

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Selective Answering Machine From the UK (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Re: Selective Answering Machine from the UK (Martin D. Kealey)
    Re: Sharing One Phone Line With Multiple Modems (Mike Morris)
    Re: Another UK Number Change (Matthew Richardson)
    Re: ETSI Standards Needed (Sergei Anfilofiev)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Dave Levenson)
    Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: Trouble Recognizing Pound Key With Intervoice (Greg T. Schmidt)
    Environmental Education on the Web (Anne S. Crump)
    Web Page For History of the Internet (Kelly Breit)
    Re: Payphone Networking Directory ([e-mail])
    PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed (Rich Padula)
    Re: 900 Mhz Headset Wanted (Eric Friedebach)
    Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople (Ross Oliver)
    Last Laugh! Go Directly to Wall Street (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: [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, 6 Nov 95 02:21:08 PST
From: Ole J. Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Answering Machine From the UK


The cheapest and easiest way around this problem is to purchase a
so called Master Socket from a telecom dealer in the UK. (BT will
apparently not sell you this since they are the only ones who are
allowed to officially install it.). There is only one Master Socket
in each house, and everything is slaved off of it. The Master Socket
contains the magic capacitor required to make any UK phone ring
using the three wire method described by another poster.

Make a "tail" of US RJ-11 wire, that is a cord with your normal US
plug at one end and open wires at the other. Connect the red and green
US RJ-11 wires to pins 2 and 5 in the Master Socket on the input side
(you can use a UK punch-down tool made of plastic to do this). Then
use the cord with the UK plug that came with your machine to attach
the answering machine to the Master socket. The RJ-11 "tail" goes to
the US line or PBX, obviously.

[==RJ-11-------[MS]{UK--------[UK phone]

Be careful of one thing: In the UK you can get two kinds of cords for
answering machines. Both have a UK plug at one end and a US plug at
the other, but some are wired "straight through" while the other lot
have the appropriate cross over to make red/green on the US side match
up with pins 2 and 5 on the UK side. If your device has its phone
line cord wired in, you won't have to worry about this.

Good luck!


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].

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin D Kealey)
Subject: Re: Selective Answering Machine From the UK
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:02:44 NZST


Being here in NZ (probably the only other country in the world that uses BT
style wiring) I'm prompted to comment on this article.

> The UK telephone system uses a third wire not found on (most) US
> telephone systems.  The third wire is used to distribute the ringing
> signal, separate from the two wires that carry the voice signals.

It should be noted that the three-wire signal is only between CPE, not
from the exchange.  There is simply a shared capacitor decoupling the
DC line voltage from all the ringers, rather than each phone set
having its own decoupling.  The ringers are shorted out during pulse
dialing, which effectively stops the bell tinkle.

[ One of the benefits of this arrangement is that there is virtually no
limit to the number of phone sets that can be attached to a line, since they
impose no additional (capacitive) loading; of course, one might run out of
current to drive the ringers, but that's the customer's problem. ]

> I understand that a UK company makes a device called a "mod-tap" which
> makes the necessary conversion between three- and two-wire systems.

The signal accross the wire pair from the exchange is the same composite DC
+ AC ringing; however, it is conceivable that Theodore Hong's PBX could have
a separate signal wire all the way from the PBX.

However, if it is done this way, I would have expected the results to be
reversed if there was to be any distinction.

> In TELECOM Digest #460, Theodore Hong wrote:

>> I've recently moved from the US to the UK, and I brought my answering
>> machine with me.  It's hooked up to the local switchboard here, and
>> the phone part works fine.  I thought the answering machine part did
>> too, until I discovered that it didn't answer outside calls, only
>> internal ones.  Now outside calls do have a different ringing pattern
>> (two rings instead of one), but I can't see what would cause the
>> answering machine to ignore calls from outside ...?

Maybe the "extension" that the fax machine is using is actually a hybrid
trunk/extension port, so possibly it's done deliberately for inter-PBX
signalling purposes ... or maybe external trunk calls are simply
electrically connected to the extension, while internal calls run off the
local "battery".

I would be tempted to check on the extension concerned for:

(a) DC voltage inversion, and
(b) AC ringing frequency (16.7 Hz?)
(c) AC ringing voltage
(d) The adaptor connects the bell-wire from the extension socket to
    the external "phone" connector on the fax machine (it shouldn't).

I had a problem once where the fax machine internally had a bridge
rectifier across the line, and miss-wiring of the plug (involving the
bell wire) resulted in the fax machine holding the line up IFF the
line polarity was different.  If voltage inversion is provided for
signalling, then each incoming call would appear to be answered (due
to the electrical short), while the fax machine would never see the
ringing signal, and so not answer either.


Martin

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Sharing One Phone Line With Multiple Modems
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 07:26:11 GMT


[e-mail] (John S. Hope) writes:

> Does anyone know of a company that makes a modem multiplexor.   That
> is, I need a box that will accept one phone line and be able to switch
> between async posts depending on what command strings I issue.

> I will be using one phone line to dial into the management functions
> of several systems.

> Please provide any information you have including product name, model,
> company contact, and any experience with the product.

An acquantance of mine runs a billing system for trunked radio
operators, and installs a Black Box Corp. box and a Hayes compatible
modem at each site.  The BBC unit apparently has autoanswer and
passwords, and allows him to select up to 8 different DB-25 RS-232
units.

I do not know what the model number is, but BBC has some pretty sharp
people -- call 412-746-5500.  I don't thinkthey have an 800 number.

Disclaimer: I am not associated with Black Box corp, not even as
a satisfied user.


Mike Morris                                [e-mail]
#include <disclaimer.std.h>        I have others, but this works the best.
   This message assembled from 100% recycled electrons (and pixels).

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Richardson)
Subject: Re: Another UK Number Change
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 10:48:49 GMT
Organization: I.T. Consultancy Limited, Jersey


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rachael Rosen) wrote:

> Are you sure about 01734 04xxxx ?  How can you have a Reading number
> starting with 04 ?  What does a local caller dial for this ?  Surely
> no exchange numbers in UK start with a zero ?

It is true that certain Reading numbers have been issued starting with
a zero.  They can only be dialled by prefixing them with 01734, even
from within Reading, although they would then be treated as a local
call.

Not very good really!


Best wishes,

Matthew

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

From: Sergei Anfilofiev <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ETSI Standards Needed
Date: 6 Nov 1995 10:22:16 +0300
Organization: ZNIIS
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] writes:

> I need to get several standards from ETSI, specially those related
> with EURO ISDN If somebody knows where I can get them, please let me
> know.

The best idea is to contact ETSI Publications Office:

tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]

or use [e-mail]
       telnet.etsi.fr
       ftp.etsi.fr
       www.etsi.fr

Hope this helps.


Dr. Sergei Anfilofiev  | Tel:[phone]
Chief of International | Fax:[phone]
Relations Department   | E-mail: [e-mail]
ZNIIS, Moscow, Russia  |

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 13:13:41 GMT


John Shaver ([e-mail]) writes:

> Justice at last!!!

and quotes from a Bell Atlantic press release:

> Subject: Wireless Customers Can Save With Calling Party Pays

Can anybody fill in a few details on this?  In particular, if the
caller is using a payphone, somebody else's phone, or a hotel room
phone, how does Bell Atlantic handle the billing?  Is the caller given
the option of billing the call to a calling card or to his own
telephone service?  Does the AIN properly screen these calls to
prevent billing to agregators, employers, etc?


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 23:40:27 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn


If you don't think the 'long arm of the law' in the United States
can't reach outside the USA when politically charged cases are
involved, perhaps you should think again. In what is being hailed
as a 'first ever', federal prosecutors have announced the conviction
of a BBS system administrator and his wife *in Mexico* on charges
of transmitting child pornography into the USA.

Robert A. Copella, former vice-president at Rand McNally Corporation
was sentenced in federal court in Newark, NJ last Friday to  five
and a half years in prison. Pamela J. Kneeland was sentenced to 18
months.

Copella and Kneeland met for the first time in Chicago in April, 1993.
He was 49, the father of three children and an expert in security
devices for airline tickets and baggage, in addition to being a VP
at Rand McNally. She was 24, a prostitute addicted to crack cocaine,
and had been arrested 35 times in the previous year alone for soliciting
for prostitution.

After they began living togther, the government alleges they devised
a scheme to distribute child pornography on a computer bulletin board
system attached to a telephone line billed to Copella at his home in
Northbrook, Illinois.

The United States Customs Service began tracking Copella when a
customs agent in Florida (at the big child porn distribution facility
Customs operates there) learned about the Illinois operation being
planned in 1993. Copella had responded to 'Confused Teen' and a couple
other screen names Customs uses on America OnLine to entrap users.

Realizing it would be sheer folly to set up a child porn distribution
system here, Copella and Kneeland moved to Mexico early in 1994.
There they began their distribution via an ISP in the United States
using the long-distance telephone to call into the USA, download their
material, etc. During a raid on their home *in Mexico* by Customs
agents earlier this year, Copella and his lovely wife were arrested
and charged with transmitting child pornography into the USA from
another country, and brought to the USA for trial.

I honestly did not think federal agents in this country could go to
another country and charge residents of that country with violations
of laws in this country. What they got them on was (although being
elsewhere, outside the USA) sending child porn *into* the USA. I
thought federal agents could only deal with what people here in this
country did, for example, being in possession of it, or transmitting
it around internally. I guess I was wrong. Even the US Attorney's
office however agrees this is a 'first'.

Poor Pamela ... whatever she learned about the legal system and
justice in the USA after 35 visits to the women's lockup and Prostitute's
Court in Chicago in 1992-93 alone, I doubt she was quite prepared for
this, her first bigtime bust. Copella essntially said it was his thing
and to leave her out of it, but the court disagreed, and sentenced
her as well. Going from little or no knowlege at all of computers to
helping operate a child pornography site on the net; quite an intro-
duction to computers and the Internet, don't you think?


PAT

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 10:26:43 GMT
From: Greg T. Schmidt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Trouble Recognizing Pound Key With Intervoice


> I have run into this with electronic Northern Telecom Meridian sets.
> You hit the # key to activate out-bound DTMF signalling after dialing.
> This must be configurable because it doesn't happen on all Meridian
> sets.  Perhaps the switch configuration doesn't have enough DTMF
> generators.

The problem may also be related to a feature in Northern Telecom PBX's
called End-to-End-Signalling.  It needs to be set to yes in the
configuration.  (Specifically, Load 15, EEST in the Customer Data
Block) Unfortunately, many techs that set up Northern's fail to do
this.  This will eliminate some '#' trouble with IVR's and voicemail
with Northern's.


Greg Schmidt
[e-mail]
[phone]

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

Date: 06 Nov 95 05:04:19 EST
From: Anne S. Crump <[e-mail]>
Subject: Environmental Education on the Web


Dear Mr. Townson:

I gathered through your association with "Internet World" that you are
interested in following new publications and services on the Web.  You
may also be interested in letting readers know about our new Web
service.

Our new electronic magazine on the Web is entitled "Science & the
Environment."  This "zine" is an educational news summary service that
gives educators and students the latest news gathered from over 500
sources (many of which are unavailable to school libraries).  The
original articles are condensed, rewritten and enhanced by colorful
photographs and graphics.  Teachers are encouraged to select,
photocopy and distribute articles from the eight chapters that
comprise each bi-monthly edition.  These articles then act as an
up-to-date supplement for text books being used in environmental and
science lessons.

Pay us a visit the next time you are on the Web.  Our address is:

        http://www.voyagepub.com/publish

We think that you will find us quite compelling.  I would also welcome any
questions or comments you may have.  Thanks!


Sincerely,

Anne S. Crump
Managing Editor
Voyage Publishing, Inc.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, my only 'association' with
{Internet World} was that they ran a feature article about me and
this Digest in their September, 1994 issue. I do think your Web page
sounds interesting and worthwhile, and I am happy to let others know
about it.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 16:55:04 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Kelly Breit)
Subject: Web Page For History of the Internet


Passed along FYI to the Digest:

 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:30:19 -0500
 From: Russell Kahn <[e-mail]>
 To: Multiple recipients of list BESTWEB <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Re: history of the Internet

A nice compilation of the history of the Internet, complete with a
chronological discussion and graphs showing growth of the Internet can
be found at http://info.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Internet/History/HIT.html

It goes through 1995.  It includes links to other resources.


Russ Kahn   Instructor, Technical Communications
State University of New York, Institute of Technlogy
P.O. Box 3050   Utica, NY 13504

Home Page: http://www.arsc.sunyit.edu/~com400/Kahn.html

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Payphone Networking Directory
Date: 2 Nov 1995 12:12:48 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Your best bet is to contact APCC (American Public Communications
Council).

Ask them for a listing of state payphone associations ... wealth of
information.


Tel [phone]

If you are interested in the Billing and Collections side of the telecom
industry you can contact myself [Boris Gutierrez 818-794-1810].

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:41:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed


I've just received a package from BellSouth offering me Call Waiting
Deluxe in conjunction with Caller ID.  The gag is that you can get the
name and number of the person on the other side of the call waiting
beep.

I presume this is using the ADSI signalling method, and they are
offering to sell the display telephone, a PowerTouch 350, with the
service for about $150.  Does anybody have recommendations on this
telephone?  I understand that Northern Telecom (or Nortel or whatever
it is they are calling themselves nowadays) makes a PowerTouch 350
phone; I wonder if this is the same unit, only with the BellSouth logo
on the front.

I would appreciate any comments, good or bad, about the phone and/or
service.


Thanks much,

Rich Padula

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

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:19:48 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 900 Mhz Headset Wanted


[e-mail] (Ernie Holling) wrote:

> We're looking for a 900Mhz headset which has all the electronics in
> a holster with a light weight headset attached.

An extensive catalog I received from a company called Phone Central
offers two cordless headsets, but not *exactly* what you are looking
for:

Inovonics 900 MHz Cordless Headset, INO-HEADSET, $388.27. This is a
self contained unit; nothing to clip to your belt.

Plantronics Handsfree Cordless, PLA-CT460, $218.60. This offers you the
choice of two headsets; one that you slip into your ear or a headband-
style headset. The actual remote has a belt clip. But this is a 46/49 MHz
unit.

You can contact Phone Central at 800-437-2160/708-299-3500.


Eric Friedebach

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople
Organization: The Air Affair: http://www.airaffair.com/
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1995 23:16:29 GMT


I am so sick of phone solicitation that I don't even bother to be
polite anymore.  I made the mistake of donating to one of some
"law enforcement takes the kids to the circus" drive a while ago,
and now I must be on some "phone suckers" list because I have been
barraged by similar solicitations ever since, usually Saturday
mornings at 7:30am :-(  Mostly I just hang up on them, but if
I'm in a playful mood:

Me:    Hello?
Voice: Hello, I'm calling from the San Jose Mercury News.
       [they call about once a month]
Me:    Oh yes, hold on just a moment.

<put the phone down and go back to whatever I was doing>

They usually last about a minute, although the longest has hung on for
five minutes.  This works best if you have a phone that you can put on
hold that will automatically go back on-hook when they get a clue and
hang up.


Ross Oliver    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:43:06 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: Last Laugh! Go Directly to Wall Street; Do Not Pass Go


Anthony Sarivola, 40, of Allenwood, PA is a smart man. Using just his
telephone he sold stocks in fake companies and earned more than
one million dollars -- or should I say scammed more than one million
dollars -- in the process. He incorporated the fake companies using fake
names and fake addresses so that he could sell the fake stock.

A couple weeks ago, Sarivola was arrested at his residence by Postal
Inspectors and FBI agents, and charged with multiple counts of financial
fraud. What makes this unusual is that his 'residence' in Allenwood is
at the United States Peniteniary there. Already incarcerated on several
convictions for fraud, Sarivola now faces trial on several additional
charges. His entire 'office' consisted of a prisoner phone.

Sarivola went about it all wrong. You are supposed to start out on
Wall Street or at the Chicago Board of Trade and *then* wind up going
to prison, not the other way around.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #466
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov  6 16:50:24 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id QAA26525; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:50:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:50:24 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #467

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Nov 95 16:50:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 467

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CFP: 4th Intl Conf on Spoken Language Processing (Jim Polikoff)
    New NYNEX "Unlimited Usage" Rates (Bill Rubin)
    Limits to Redialing? (Bren Smith)
    Book Review: "The Mosaic Handbook for Microsoft Windows" (Rob Slade)
    All Circuits Busy ([e-mail])
    RAS Enterprise Ready? (Daryl Morey)

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: [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] (Jim Polikoff)
Subject: CFP: 4th Intl Conf on Spoken Language Processing
Date: 6 Nov 1995 15:05:46 -0500
Organization: AI duPont Institute


         Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing
                             ******
                            October 3-6, 1996
                       Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel
                           Philadelphia, PA, USA
                             ******

   ________________________ ICSLP 96 Organizers____________________________

      H. Timothy Bunnell, Chair
      Richard A. Foulds, Vice-Chair
      Applied Science & Engineering Laboratories
      Wilmington, DE, USA

   ______________________________ICSLP______________________________________

      ICSLP unites researchers, developers, and clinicians for an exchange
      on a wide variety of topics related to spoken language processing by
      humans and machines. Conference presentations range from basic
      acoustic phonetic research to clinically oriented speech training
      devices to speech-based natural language interfaces for man-machine
      interaction. ICSLP 96 will feature technical sessions in both oral
      and poster format, plenary talks, commercial exhibits, and daily
      special sessions. In addition, satellite workshops will be held in
      conjunction with the conference in the areas of interactive voice
      technology, spoken dialogue, speech databases and speech I/O, and
      the integration of gestures and speech.  A new emphasis for ICSLP 96
      will be on the clinical applications of speech technology, including
      the use of speech technology based applications for persons with
      disabilities.


   _________________________Conference Update________________________10/4/95

      Dates to Note:

        January 15, 1996    - Paper abstracts due for review
        March 15, 1996        - Acceptance notification
        May 1, 1996        - Deadline for papers (camera-ready, 4 pages)


      Prospective authors are invited to submit papers relevant to spoken
      language processing in any of the conference Technical Areas.
      Abstracts of proposed papers must be received by the ICSLP 96
      Organizing Committee no later than January 15, 1996. Only original,
      unpublished papers may be submitted. Papers will be selected by the
      ICSLP 96 Technical Program Committee and assigned for presentation
      in poster or oral format. English is the working language for the
      conference. Submission of an abstract implies a commit ment to
      submit a four page, camera-ready version of the paper and to present
      the paper in either an oral or poster for mat if the abstract is
      accepted. Participants will be expected to pay their own
      registration fees, travel, and accommodations for ICSLP 96.


    _____________________Submission of Abstracts____________________________

      Abstracts must be received by the ICSLP 96 Organizing Committee no
      later than January 15, 1996. Abstracts may be submitted either by post
      or by e-mail following these guidelines:

          + One page, 400 word maximum
          + Technical Area(s) indicated in order of preference
         using the codes (A - X) below.
          + Title of the proposed paper clearly indicated
           + Preference for paper or poster clearly indicated
          + If sent by post, submit four (4) copies of the abstract
          + If sent by e-mail, use plain text (ASCII) format only

      Each abstract must also include the following contact information:

          + Author name(s)*
          + Postal mailing address
          + Phone number
          + Fax number
          + E-mail address

      E-mailed abstracts will be acknowledged by e-mail within 48
      hours of submission. If you do not receive e-mail
      confirmation, we have not received your abstract! Please
      check the e-mail address and resubmit. Please do not e-mail
      multiple copies for any other reason.

     *Please be sure that the primary contact person is noted if it is
      someone other than the First Author.

     Mail or send abstracts to:

           ICSLP 96
          Applied Science & Engineering Laboratories
           A.I. duPont Institute
           P.O. Box 269
           Wilmington, DE 19899
           E-mail: [e-mail]

 ________________________Technical Areas___________________________________

      A. Production of spoken language
      B. Perception of spoken language
      C. Robust speech modeling and speech enhancement
      D. Speech coding and transmission
      E. Automatic speech recognition
      F. Spoken language processing for special populations
      G. Phonetics and phonology
      H. Spoken discourse analysis/synthesis
      I. Synthesis of spoken language
      J. Applications for people with speech/language/hearing disorders
      K. Databases and standards for speech technology
      L. Prosody of spoken language
      M. Speech analysis and parameterization
      N. Spoken language acquisition/learning
      O. Integration of spoken language and natural language processing
      P. Hardware for speech processing
      Q. Neural networks and stochastic modeling of spoken language
      R. Dialects and speaking styles
      S. Instructional technology for spoken language
      T. Speaker/language identification and verification
      U. Human factors and assessment in spoken language applications
      V. Spoken language dialogue and conversation
      W. Gesture and Multimodal Spoken Language Processing
      X. Other

 _____________________Registration Information______________________________

      Full registration includes:
      Admission to technical sessions, Reception, Banquet,
      Proceedings (printed & CD-ROM)

      Limited registration includes:
      Admission to technical sessions, Reception, Proceedings on CD-ROM

      Early Registration fees:
                  Member*  Non-Member  Student
          Full        $425      $525         $250
          Limited        $300      $400         $150

      Late registration:
          After June 21, add $60
          After August 9, add $100

      Additional Tickets:
          Banquet         $60
          Reception         $50

      Additional Proceedings:
          Printed        $125
          CD-ROM         $15

      * See Sponsoring and Cooperating Organizations.

 ________________________Satellite Workshops________________________________

      The following Satellite Workshops will be held immediately before or
      after the ICSLP 96 conference.

      1. IVITA

      The 3rd IEEE workshop on Interactive Voice Technology for
      Telecommunications Applications (IVTTA) will be held at the AT&T
      Learning Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, from September 30 -
      October 1, 1996. The IVTTA workshop brings together applications
      researchers planning to conduct or who have recently conducted field
      trials of new applications of speech technologies.  Due to workshop
      facility constraints, attendance will be limited primarily to
      contributors. For further information about the workshop, contact:

          Dr. Murray Spiegel
          Bellcore
          445 South Street
          Morristown, NJ, USA
          e-mail: [e-mail]
          Phone:  [phone]; Fax: [phone]

      Submit abstracts (400 words, maximum 1 page) before March 15, 1996 to:

          Dr. David Roe
          IEEE IVTTA `96
          AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2D-533
          Murray Hill, NJ 07974
          e-mail: [e-mail]
          Phone:  [phone]; Fax: [phone]

      2. ISSD-96

      The 1996 International Symposium on Spoken Dialogue (ISSD-96) will be
      held on October 2 and 3 at the venue of ICSLP 96. It is intended to be
      a forum of interdisciplinary exchange between researchers working on
      spoken dialogues from various points of view. The first day is devoted
      to invited lectures followed by sessions of both invited and
      contributed papers, which will be continued on the second day as
      special sessions of ICSLP 96. Papers submitted to ICSLP 96 (Technical
      Areas H,L,O,U,&V) may be selected for presentation at the
      symposium. For further information about the symposium, contact:

          Prof. Hiroya Fujisaki, Chairman, ISSD-96
          Dept. of Applied Electronics
          Science University of Tokyo
          2641 Yamazaki, Noda, 278 Japan
          e-mail: [e-mail]
          Phone:  [phone]; Fax: [phone]

      3. COCOSDA Workshop 96

      COCOSDA Workshop 96 will be held on Monday, October 7 at the Wyndham
      Franklin Plaza Hotel. The International Coordinating Committee on
      Speech Databases and Speech I/O Systems Assessment (COCOSDA) has been
      established to promote international cooperation in the fundamental
      areas of Spoken Language Engineering. Previous meetings have taken
      place in Banff 1992, Berlin 1993, Yokohama 1994 and Madrid 1995.
      Program and registration information for COCOSDA 96 will be forthcoming
      in later announcements.  For more information about COCOSDA, consult
      the Web Page at http://www.itl.atr.co.jp/cocosda.

      4. WIGLS

      Workshop on the Integration of Gesture in Language and Speech (WIGLS)
      will be held October 7 and 8. This Workshop will consider the
      integration of gesture and spoken language in intelligent
      human/computer interfaces, advanced assistive technology for
      individuals with disabilities, telemanipulation and robotics systems,
      and human conversation. Gestures including hand postures, dynamic arm
      movements, facial expression, and eye gaze will be considered along
      with more traditional lip shapes and handwriting movements. For further
      information, contact:

          Dr. Lynn Messing
          A. I. duPont Institute
          P.O. Box 269
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          e-mail:  [e-mail]
          Phone:   [phone]; Fax: [phone]


______________Sponsoring and Cooperating Organizations________________________

          The Acoustical Society of America
          The Acoustical Society of Japan
          American Speech and Hearing Association (Pending)
          Australian Speech Science and Technology Association
          European Speech Communication Association
          IEEE Signal Processing Society
          Incorporated Canadian Acoustical Association
          International Phonetic Association
          For additional sponsoring organizations, contact ICSLP 96.

______________For more information about ICSLP 96, contact_____________________


          ICSLP 96
          Applied Science & Engineering Laboratories
          A.I. duPont Institute
          P.O. Box 269
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: [phone]
          TDD: [phone]
          Fax: [phone]
          Email: [e-mail]
          WWW: http://www.asel.udel.edu/speech/icslp.html
          FTP: zeppo.asel.udel.edu:pub/ICSLP

      A two-page PostScript format copy of the most recent Conference
      Announcement and Call for Papers can also be obtained by anonyomus
      ftp. Connect to host zeppo.asel.udel.edu, cd to directory pub/ICSLP96,
      and get call.ps.Z in binary mode. The file must be uncompressed with a
      unix compatable uncompress program before being printed. This plain
      text version of the announcement is located in the same directory as
      file call.txt


_______________________International Advisory Board__________________________

             Hiroya Fujisaki - Founding Chair
             Science University of Tokyo
             Tokyo, Japan

      Jens Blauert                            Louis C. W. Pols
      Ruhr-Universitat Bochum                 University of Amsterdam,
      Bochum, Germany                         Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      Anne Cutler                             Lawrence Rabiner
      Max Planck Institute for                AT&T Bell Labs
      Psycholinguistics                       Murray Hill, NJ, USA
      Nijmegen, The Netherlands

      Gunnar Fant                             Katsuhiko Shirai
      Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)     Waseda University
      Stockholm, Sweden                       Tokyo, Japan

      John Laver                              Kenneth Stevens
      Humanities Research Board of            Massachusetts Institute
      the British Academy                     of Technology
      Edinburgh, Scotland                     Cambridge, MA, USA

      Joseph Mariani                          Yoh'ichi Tohkura
      LIMSI-CNRS                              ATR Human Information
      Orsay, France                           Processing Research Lab
                          Kyoto, Japan

      J. Bruce Millar                         Victor Zue
      Australian National University          Massachusetts Institute
      Canberra, Australia                     of Technology
                          Cambridge, MA, USA

      John Ohala
      University of California
      Berkeley, CA, USA

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 15:29:50 EST
From: Bill Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: New NYNEX "Unlimited Usage" Rates


NYNEX recently announced new packages for those of us in the NYC LATA
to allow you to make an unlimited number of calls in the LATA (NYC,
Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam) except your local
calling area (ie that area whose calls are presently untimed, if
you're in NYC, then it is all five boroughs).  You can also include
your local calling area for an additional fee, thereby basically
giving you the entire LATA for a flat monthly rate.  I called, they
want $22.12 for me, which is apparently based on the average of my
calls outside my local area (northern Westchester) from July 1994 thru
June 1995, and then they added 8% for some reason that I could not
understand (they originally told me they had SUBTRACTED 10%).  For an
extra $16 a month ($38.20 total) I can get northern Westchester as
well, and basically all of my non-toll calls would be included for a
set monthly fee.

The plan does have its merits.  If you're like me, and avoid making
out of area calls until after 9pm, or 11pm, then with this plan you
can call whenever you want and not worry about the time of the day,
and moving the calls to the non (or less) discounted times might make
it worthwhile.  I could also choose just the $22 plan, and I could
probably move several of my local area calls to other areas because
they are online services, so I could call the Prodigy number in White
Plains instead of the local Yorktown number and it would be free.  It
would be good for those of us in northern Westchester because most
online providers tend to forget that all of Westchester is not a
single calling area, and for us to call lower Westchester (ie White
Plains) is a timed call, making an online service without a local
number very expensive to use for extended periods.  The plan could
also be great news for people who still have two phone lines, one normal
and one flat rate, since this gives you flat rate everywhere.  On the
other hand, I checked my most recent phone bills (past June) and they
seem to be lower than the rates I had earlier in the year (they gave
me the numbers they based the rate on and the regional usage ranges
from $13.24 to 28.55 a month).  Also, it is not clear how this rate
would change in the future.  The first time I called, I was told it
would stay the same "forever".  I don't really believe that.

If you're in the NYC LATA, and want to find out what your plan would
cost, call NYNEX at 1-800-682-8555.  I think the extention you want is
103 (or is it 203)?  Just ask for the unlimited calling plans.  They
also have a deal where you can buy a block of time and pay six cents a
minute for the first hour, five cents after that.  That is apparently
geared towards people who make large numbers of short calls, and
presumably not at off-peak times.  I'd be curious to know how many
people choose to sign up for this plan and how good a deal it really
sounds like.


Bill  [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Nov 1995 10:46:28 -0800
From: Bren Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Limits to Redialing?


I vaguely remember a product called a Demon Dialer on the market about
ten years ago, that allowed you to redial busy numbers at some
phenomenal rate per minute. It then seemed to disappear from the
market.

Is it true that the Demon Dialer disappeared because of LEC's limitations
on the number of times you can redial within a certain time period?


Bren Smith            |510/253-3048 voice
Dantz Development     |510/253-9099 fax
4 Orinda Way, Bldg C  |[e-mail]
Orinda, CA 94563      |"Practice safe government - use kingdoms"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you are referring to how often
modems can redial a number automatically (over any period of time)
before they have to be reset and the process restarted. I do not
believe there were any USA regulations on this, but there are (were)
in Canada (limited to ten redial attempts before resetting) and since
all the modem manufacturers in the USA wish to sell their products in
Canada also, they complied with that ruling. The manuals for a couple
of my older modems discuss that regulation. That is not, in my opinion,
why the Demon Dialer is rarely seen any longer. Those things, like so many
adjuncts to the phone years ago were intended to provide useful 'custom
calling' features to the large number of people to whom such things
were otherwise unavailable. There were conferencing units, speed dial
units -- including one of the best I saw which was a touch tone pad
you installed in the phone in place of the existing one with the elec-
tronics built right into the pad -- and similar. Like pocket tone dialers,
which had their heyday when a lot of services used touch tones and yet
many phone exchanges were not equipped for touch tone, as the telcos
modernized their central offices, many of the features we used adjunct
equipment for in the past became available from telco.

No dummies, the people at telco, they saw an increasing number of users
in the 1970's using 'call extenders' to route calls to other numbers,
so they gave us call forwarding. They saw people purchasing external
speed dial devices (or getting phones with the same built in) and they
gave us speed dialing. Speed dial appears to be one of the custom calling
services that never did catch on, as most people still seem to prefer
loading it into their phone rather than subscribing to telco's central
office version. With busy redial however, especially since most telcos
have dropped the monthly subscription fee and allow its use on a casual
basis for a few cents each time used, it would seem more people like it
that way instead of the external devices such as Demon Dialer which were
prone to errors anyway, sometimes not catching the busy signal fast
enough, etc. I think the Demon Dialer is still being made, and I think
it comes from the people who made (make?) the Zoom modems. I have an
old Demon Dialer setting around here someplace I got about ten or
fifteen years ago. I never use it now and can't even find the power
supply for it.

Another good example was the 'Privecode' device from International
Mobile Machines in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. It was the forerunner to
'call screening' which is now offered by most telcos. It sat on the
line and grabbed incoming calls before your phone could ring even one
time. Its synthesized voice would demand of the caller, 'enter your
privecode number please', and if the caller did not enter the correct
combination of digits, he was rudely disconnected. The device stored
ten different user defined numbers which would cause the incoming call
to always go to an answering machine or cause various ringing cadences
to alert the subscriber to *who* might be calling based on the digits
the person had keyed in. Then came Caller-ID and Call Screening from
telco, and that was the end of the Privecode people. Someone still
might be making the device; I have not seen one in years, and yes,
I had one; it would have been about 1979-80.  Generally, the telcos have
taken every popular adjunct feature from ten to twenty years ago and
turned it into a central office feature, putting many of the small
telephone peripheral device manufacturers out of business in the
same way answering machines (and specifically Phone Mate back in the
late 1970's) put the live answering services out of business and
now voicemail -- in your friendly telco's central office -- has
severely dented the answering machine business.

What is the one adjunct which is moving *out* of the central office
and into the customer's hands?  Pay-per-use  or coin phone service.
We are seeing more and more COCOTS with the programming in the phone
itself rather than the phone exchange.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 12:40:48 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "The Mosaic Handbook for Microsoft Windows"


BKMOSAHW.RVW  951011

"The Mosaic Handbook for Microsoft Windows", Dougherty/Koman, 1994, 1-56592-
094-5
%A   Dale Dougherty [e-mail]
%A   Richard Koman [e-mail]
%C   103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA   95472
%D   1994
%G   1-56592-094-5
%I   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O   800-998-9938, fax: [phone], [e-mail], [e-mail]
%O   [e-mail] [e-mail]
%P   262
%T   "The Mosaic Handbook for Microsoft Windows"

Less general, and more specific to the MS-Windows product than the
companion volume for X, this work still provides one of the better
overviews of Mosaic.  The first four chapters are general explorations
of the Internet, World Wide Web (WWW or W3), and the Global Network
Navigator (GNN).  Chapters five to seven give a great deal more detail
than previous Internet guides on customization of Mosaic, multimedia
extensions, and HTML (HyperText Markup Language).  A final chapter
looks at possible future directions, contacts, and resources.
Appendices give reference guides to Mosaic and HTML.  SLIP,
unfortuantely, is only mentioned in the glossary.

A great deal of the material here is simple, but some of it is quite
important for the operation of Mosaic as a realistic tool.
Performance considerations are touched on in a number of places, and
the ability to "delay" (more accurately, "suspend") image file loading
will likely be the single most widely used "customization" for veteran
browsers.  The discussion of the use (and limitations) of Mosaic for
accessing gopher, WAIS, ftp, telnet, and news resources is also
helpful for deciding when to do a quick job "through" Mosaic, or when
to shut down and use the real tools.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1995   BKMOSAHW.RVW  951011. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.

[e-mail],   [e-mail],   [e-mail]
     "Information Superhighway" anagram - "When forming, utopia's hairy."
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: All Circuits Busy
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 11:16:34 PDT
Organization: GE Capital News Server


Follow Telecommers:

    I have been receiving a SIT tone and a message stating: "We're
sorry, all circuits are busy. Please try your call later."  when placing
on-net calls to an office connected via T1 and mapped to our network.

    This does not happen all the time, but happens randomly.  I
tried calling the office before it opened -- no one was in, so my call
should get through to voice mail. I got the "We're sorry" message. I
tried again, and the call went through.

    I know I am not undertrunked in my office (no fast busies, I
also get the same results when calling from ifferent offices). I know
the remote office is not undertrunked (1 T1 w/12 both-way DIDs and 12
CO-BWT's for local calling, 1 T1 with 22 channels four-wire E&M, DTMF
Wink signalling and two channels for Frame Relay).

    The LD carrier claims it is a PBX problem. The PBX vendor
states that if it was a PBX problem I would get a fast busy, not an
all circuits busy.

    How do I determine where the problem is?

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

From: [e-mail] (Daryl Morey)
Subject: RAS Enterprise Ready?
Date: 6 Nov 95 15:19:29 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, US


I am evaluating Remote Access products for my companies planned move
to remote node access in the next year.  Currently we use remote
control in a Cubix Communication server with US Robotics Total Control
and pcAnywhere.  I would appreciate opinions and experiences with RAS
regarding whether the members of this group believe it is ready to be
an enterprise solution.

Our plan is to move to PPP remote access with dynamically assigned IP
addresses.  We would also like there to be security hooks to ideally a
two level authentication process, like Security Dynamics SecurID card.

What kind of security does RAS support?  (CHAP, SecurID)

Is this thing ready for the enterprise and how do you feel about
Microsoft's vision for this product?  If RAS is not the answer what
would you recommend?

Anyone who would like to get my experiences with US Robotics Total
Control, Cubix Communication Servers, Novell's Netware Connect.
SecurID and pcAnywhere can write me and I will be happy to give you
advice based on my experiences.  I have about two years invested in most
of these products so I have been there.


Thank you for your time,

Daryl Morey

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #467
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov  6 18:23:56 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id SAA03228; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:23:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:23:56 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #468

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Nov 95 18:23:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 468

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    The Killer Application Myth (Mike Murdock)
    PRI/BRI Seminar Series, Southern California (Cherie Shore)
    Equal Access and Universities (Samuel Weiler)
    Bell Canada Centrex (Patrick A. Morin)
    Ascend Multiband Plus PDD Delay (Djung Nguyen)
    Need Signalling Document (Henry Stewart)
    ISC Securelink and ISDN Voice Phones (Joe Plescia)
    AT&T Mail Security Weaknesses (Greg Maydan)
    Re: US Phone Usable in France? (James Johnson)
    Re: US Phone Usable in France? (Lionel Ancelet)
    Re: Trying to Get Info From 604-555-1212 British Colombia (Jim Cobban)
    Re: Split-T or Fractional T-1 Device (John W. Pan)
    Re: Story From PacBell Very Doubtful (Bill Fenner)
    Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ? (Evan Ross)
    Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ? (Jim Cobban)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (John Dupont)
    When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones? (Mark S. Brader)
    Voice Mail Policy ([e-mail])
    Re: 888 Code Startup Not Delayed (Sid Arora)
    Re: Research Sources Wanted on Telecom Companies (Robert Virzi)
    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (Konrad Weigl)
    Re: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager (Bill Fenner)

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: [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: Mike Murdock <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Killer Application Myth
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:00:00 EST


The Killer Application Myth

With the continuing increase in competition in all telephony markets
the basic transport of a telephone call has become a commodity. Major
players in the long distance market are down to shaving pennies to
differentiate their rates. As a result, most of the marketing
campaigns are now focusing on intangible service aspects such as
quality, customer service, future technology, and customer loyalty.

The local loop has traditionally been a protected monopoly. As the
prices of cellular services decline, and with the impending
introduction of "micro-cellular" PCS services and other alternate
service providers, competition for local dial tone will inevitably
heat up.

This increase in competition at all levels is forcing Service
Providers to look for other means to distinguish their services from
the competition. Most turn to providing "Enhanced Services" such as
Voice Mail, Voice Dialing, and Single Number Service in order to
generate additional revenue and customer loyalty. Most of these
Enhanced Services require the provider to make a significant
investment in an integrated Enhanced Services Platform upon which
multiple services can easily be trialed and deployed. In order to
justify the cost of these platforms the providers are searching for
the "Killer Application". That is, the single application which will
generate so much additional usage that it will offset the cost of
installing the Enhanced Services Platform.

The Killer Application is a myth.

Many Service Providers, in trials, have deployed numerous enhanced
services and received nothing more than a modest response from users.
These services include Voice Activated Dialing, Pager Notification,
Single Number Service, Short Message Service, and others. Customers
have shied away from these offerings for several reasons. Most find
the services difficult to use, particularly when DTMF input is
required. In order to make the Enhanced Service appeal to the
broadest market, many of these services have been endowed with
seemingly endless features, options, and menus. This not only makes
the service confusing but leaves the customer with the feeling that
they are paying for too many features they do not use. The major
reason, however, for the lack luster response to these services is
basic human nature. People are intrinsically resistant to change, and
in particular, resistant to any service which requires they change
their behavior significantly.

Each of us use telephony services in a different manner, and have
unique telephony requirements. Before these enhanced services will be
widely accepted they must resolve the above stated impediments. This
means providing the user with the ability to customize the service to
their specific requirements, using a natural human interface, your
voice.

The "Killer Application" is individual choice with a natural voice
interface.

For one individual the "killer application" may be voice mail with
pager notification, for another it might be a Single Number Service
with Fax Store and Forward, and for another Voice Activated Dialing
with Call Screening. At any point the customer may decide they need to
add Conference Calling to their feature set. If the customer is
required to call a service representative to order this additional
feature it is unlikely they will ever take this step. If, however, the
customer can simply speak "Add Feature" and "Conference" and the
Enhanced Service Platform automatically adds this feature to the
customers current feature list, it is more likely that the service
will be ordered and used.

This is the concept of "Mass Customization" detailed by Alvin Toffler
in his book The Third Wave. The ability for the consumer to easily
customize their service to meet their individual telecommunications
needs. This requires that the service provider have both a broad range
of features and a natural human interface which is consistent
throughout each of those features.

Service Providers can no longer afford to look at each feature as an
individual application. They must provide a broad range of features
which when implemented are integrated with the existing features the
customer is using. That is, the individual applications are simply
features of a much larger service, which a customer can easily tailor
to their specific needs at any time and as frequently as required.

The ability for the individual services to be automatically integrated
with the customers existing services is crucial to reducing the
complexity of the service. For instance when a customer sets up a
personal dialing directory for their Voice Activated Dialing service,
and later adds Conference Calling, the new service should use the
existing dialing directory. This would permit the customer to set up
a conference call by speaking the name of the conferencees as they
would if they were dialing them individually.

Additionally, the services should always use a common human interface.
Switching between Voice and DTMF input, or even between a female and
male voice for different features is both confusing and frustrating.
Customers have a natural distaste for dealing with computer voice
systems. Much consideration should be placed in the "scripting" to
ensure that the conversation is as natural as possible. Customers
don't want a computer to annoy them with phrases like "Invalid option
selection, please try again". Its not natural. They would much prefer
a system which responded "Pardon me, I didn't understand what you
said".

The DTMF pad is a poor interface.

Not only is the DTMF pad difficult to use (especially with a cellular
phone while driving), but more importantly it is not a natural
interface. Voice commands are. The improvements in recent years in
voice recognition technology are sufficient to provide a much more
interactive voice interface. Customers are willing to "suspend
disbelief" and overlook their aversion to dealing with computer
systems when the system has a more natural "conversation" with them.

In order for customers to generate the additional revenues which
providers are searching for, the services offered must provide value,
and not simply features. Value is derived from the services ability
to simplify a customers communications needs while providing enhanced
services.

The mythical killer application is not an application at all but a
variety of features providing individual choice and flexibility, a
natural easy to use human interface, and seamless integrated
capabilities.

Existing enhanced service applications will continue to find limited
success until the user can build there own "killer application".


Author: Mike Murdock, ([e-mail])
Director of Business Development

Precision Systems, Inc.        A leading provider of interactive
11800 30th Court N.            enhanced services systems and software
St. Petersburg, Fl. 33716      to the telecommunications market.
Phone: [phone]
(c) Copyright 1995 Precision Systems Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Cherie Shore)
Subject: PRI/BRI Seminar Series, Southern California
Date: 6 Nov 1995 21:44:39 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell


Pacific Bell, in conjunction with Northern Telecom, is pleased to
present the following seminar series. These seminars will put an
emphasis on Primary Rate ISDN in a PBX environment, but will also
include an overview of Basic Rate ISDN in a variety of applications.
These seminars will be combined with a mini-trade-show, with
participation by some of the most popular vendors of ISDN equipment,
demonstrating applications of videoconferencing, remote LAN and
Internet access, including:

Ascend
Intel
Network Express
Motorola
ISDN Systems Corp
3COM
Picturetel
CLI

The seminars will be held on the following dates and locations:

Dec 5, in Anaheim, at 200 N. Harbor Place, from 1:30 to 4:30
Dec 7, in San Diego, at 525 B St, 17th floor, from 1:30 to 4:30
Dec 12, in LA , at 1010 Wilshire Blvd. , from 1:30 to 4:30

To reserve seats please call 800-655-ISDN.

Cherie Shore    [e-mail]
ISDN Technology Manager, PacBell

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

From: [e-mail] (Samuel Weiler)
Subject: Equal Access and Universities
Date: 6 Nov 1995 21:02:34 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA


I've been told that universities providing telephone service in
dormitory rooms are no longer considered "aggregators" as described
in the equal access order.  Is there any validity to that claim?  Do
the posting requirements (name and address of OSP, address of FCC
Common Carrier Bureau Enforcement division) still apply?

Secondly, with regard to rate information, must an OSP provide rate
information over the phone 24 hours a day?  The billing service used
by Swarthmore only provides rates only via paper mail, and only have
humans answering phones during business hours.

The equal access order is at:
ftp://ftp.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/legal-fcc/equal.access.rules


Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Morin)
Subject: Bell Canada Centrex
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 16:44:00 GMT
Organization: ClicNet Telecommunications


I just heard that Bell Canada is refusing to sell Centrex lines to
Internet Service Providers, at least in the province of Quebec. Just
wondering if this is legal?

Fun thing to notice, Bell is entering the ISP game, selling Internet
services to end users, not just providers like with Worldlinx.


Patrick

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 15:41 EST
From: Djung Nguyen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ascend Multiband Plus PDD Delay


Does anyone see any significant Post Dial Delay when using the Ascend
Multiband Plus?  The Ascend unit has two ports; port number one goes to
the T-1 and port number two goes to the PBX.  The Ascend unit is
basically used to separate out video signals from voice signals.  The
software version is 3.4R.

The video works fine, however, when making a voice call, there is a
12-15 seconds delay. Is this an acceptable standard?  It would appear
to me to be too long and if there is a way to minimize this delay, I
would like to know about it.  What about an alternative configuration?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.


DJ Nguyen

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 07:10:59 -0800
Subject: Need Signalling Document


I'm looking for a copy of "Telecommunications Planning:Signalling",
produced by ITT Laboratories, Madrid in 1973.

Does anybody have a copy or know where I can get one? Of course, I'll
be happy to pay copying/mailing costs.


Thanks a lot.

Henry Stewart    EFData Corporation
[phone]   [e-mail]

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

From: Joe Plescia <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISC Securelink and ISDN Phones
Date: 5 Nov 1995 04:33:01 GMT
Organization: Plescia.Com
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Anyone have a good source for the ISC securelink internal ISDN
card, s/t version.

Also does anyone know of a good cheap source for a new or used ISDN
voice set?


Thanks in advance,

Joe

Visit our WWW SITE    http://www.plescia.com
Joseph P Plescia-Plescia Photo
email [e-mail]
201.868.0065    201.868.0475fax
Photofinishing, Studio, Imaging
Paging, Beepers, Cellular Phones

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

From: [e-mail] (Maydan, Greg)
Organization: Freddie Mac
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 14:29:38 -0000
Subject: AT&T Mail Security Weaknesses


Does anyone know of any security weaknesses or break-ins of the AT&T
mail system?  I am looking for documentation to determine the security
level of the AT&T mail system.  This is a preliminary search so any
information would help.


Thanks in advance.

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

From: [e-mail] (James Johnson )
Subject: Re: US Phone Usable in France?
Date: 6 Nov 1995 14:54:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I beleive all of the telephone service in France is ISDN with a
proprietary NT1 interface.  Normal analog POTS service may be
available.  Your best bet would be to ask the local service provider
where your friend lives.

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

From: [e-mail] (Lionel Ancelet)
Subject: Re: US Phone Usable in France?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Well
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 17:22:30 GMT


Chester Howes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> A customer at my local Radio Shack said he had sent a phone to a friend
> in Paris and the then found out the plug (US modular) wouldn't fit the
> jack in Paris.  He want an adapter to mate the two.

> I told him I thought the phone systems were not even compatible; a phone
> made for the US market would probably not even work on the French phone
> system.

> Could anyone please advise if the systems are close enough for the phone
> to work there?

The friend in Paris is not supposed to use a US phone in France, for it
doesn't have the French PTT approval (sort of FCC ID counterpart in France).

However, US phone (and answering machines, and fax machines) do work
fine in France. All that is needed is an RJ11-to-french-plug adapter.
Easy to find in stores like Darty or BHV.


Lionel <[e-mail]>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:11:53 +0000
From: jim cobban <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Trying to Get Info From 604-555-1212 British Colombia, No Go
Reply-To: Jim Cobban <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada


In article <[e-mail]>, Robert Casey <wa2ise@
netcom.com> wrote:

> ... What this Canadian phone company (is it some sort of government
> agency up there?  THAT would explain it!) ...

The phone company in British Columbia is BCTel and it is a wholly
owned subsiduary of GTE.  Although some of the local phone companies
in Canada used to be either government departments or crown
corporations, that is wholly owned by the provincial government, that
was never true in BC and is no longer true in any other jurisdiction.


Jim Cobban   [e-mail]                     Phone: [phone]
BNR Ltd.     bnrgate.bnr.ca!bcars153!jcobban   FAX:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 10:47:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Split-T or Fractional T-1 Device


[e-mail] (Doug Neubert) wrote:

> I am looking for a vendor who makes a Split-T or fractional T-1 device ...

Loop Telecom makes Split-T or fractional T with drop and add feature.
Though it allows up to 4 XN-56/64k V.35/449/530, they do not, as yet,
have OCU or BRI.  You can call them at 408-254-9300 or fax [phone].

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: Story From PacBell Very Doubtful
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:34:02 PST
Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center


In article <[e-mail]>, Bren Smith
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> They tell me, and this is the real pisser part, that the PUC tariffs
> prevent them from forwarding my line.

Interesting.  When I came home to almost the exact same problem
(except in my case, the problem was PAC*Bell's), I ended up talking to
a manager because I was upset about being without phone service for
three days, which was what the original rep told me.  The manager
offered the call-forwarding solution (I hadn't thought of it myself).
Perhaps next time you should get upset enough to get transferred
higher up the chain.


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Evan Ross)
Subject: Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ?
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 14:40:09 GMT
Organization: Flashpoint Database Consulting Limited


[e-mail] (Ed Marion) wrote:

> For that matter, with NAFTA and all that, why does it cost about 25
> cents per minute to call suburban Toronto from Houston during business
> hours, when it only costs 12 cents per minute to call Seattle which is
> 500 miles more distant?  On 800 inbound, it is even worse ... 56 cents
> vs 16 cents.

If this could be explained, maybe this would tell me why Toronto to
Hamilton (about 40 miles) is C$0.34/minute (about US$0.25) during
business hours ...

Our 800 inbound was also charged at an average of 0.35 per minute.


Evan Ross  <[e-mail]>     | 238 Davenport Rd., Suite 333,
Flashpoint Database Consulting Ltd. | Toronto, ON  M5R 1J6
[phone]                     | Fax [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:02:10 +0000
From: jim cobban <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is Canada and Carribean 1+ Instead of 011+ ?
Reply-To: Jim Cobban <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada


In article <[e-mail]>, Ed Marion
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Does anyone know why Countries like Canada, Bermuda
> the British Virgin Islands, and the Carribean in general are
> all accessible from within the USA with a 1 + Area Code + number?

The simple answer is that when the area codes were first handed out
the "foreign" areas which got them were areas where the phone service
was provided by subsiduaries of AT&T or other US based phone
companies, such as GTE.  AT&T did not divest itself of its holdings in
Canada and the Carribean until the 1956 consent decree.  GTE still
operates two of the local telephone carriers and one of the long
distance carriers in Canada.

If you look at the Carribean you will notice that not all of the
islands are in area code 809.  In the case of the island of Hispaniola
half (Dominican Republic) is in 809 and the other half (Haiti) is not.
Islands/countries in area code 809 used to have their telephone
service provided by AT&T while those which use country codes had their
telephone service provided by Cable and Wireless or some other
carrier.  Prior to the revolution Cuba would also have been in area
code 809.

As to why service to Canada is more expensive there are a lot of
factors.  There has only been competition in long distance in Canada
for a little over a year.  The two main competitors, accounting for
over 90% of the total are Stentor (consortium of the local phone
companies) and Unitel (formerly owned by a consortium of the
railroads, then by one of the railroads and a cable TV company, and
now by AT&T together with the banks which hold the debt).  These two
companies are overstaffed and overequipped compared to US companies
which have spent the last 15 years pinching pennies.  Further they are
both required to subsidize local service, which is currently estimated
to be running at about $6 per month per line.  Lastly is the
legislated requirement for your call to go through separate US and
Canadian long distance carries, so there is at least one more hand in
your pocket than on a long distance call within the US.


Jim Cobban   [e-mail] | Phone: [phone] BNR Ltd.
bnrgate.bnr.ca!bcars153!jcobban | FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:24:53 +0000
From: john dupont <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.


> Research by the Yankee Group shows that 69 percent of cellular users
> think about the cost of a cellular call every time they pick up their
> cellular phone.  Also, 78 percent of cellular users say they would
> encourage people to call them if they didn't have to pay for receiving
> the calls.

I wonder if the research has determined how many of those people
encouraged to call will resent being stuck with the bill. I would.
Cellular users who choose this option may notice a drop in incoming
calls rather that a rise.

Just my opinion, not BNR's.


jdd

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 11:39:30 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones?


The current movie "Devil in a Blue Dress" is set in Los Angeles in
1948.  The protagonist and apparently all of his neighbors are black:
I mention this because it helps define what part of the city they
live in.

He has a dial phone.  Is this realistic?  When did Los Angeles get
dial phones?


Mark Brader, [e-mail], SoftQuad Inc., Toronto

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Voice Mail Policy
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 11:52:25 CST
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham


     Our university/medical center is looking into establishing a
voice mail policy to cover both individuals and departments.
Naturally the regs will be different for individuals and depts.  Is
there anyone out there who has already established such a policy who
would be willing to share it with us?

     If so please email me at [e-mail].

     Thank you for your attention to this post.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 888 Code Startup Not Delayed
Date: 6 Nov 1995 15:22:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst


The other day I called up the 800 directory (1-800-555-1212) and at
the end of the recording where the lady announced the number I heard a
little message announced to the caller something to the effect that in
1996 toll-free numbers may also start with the 888 area code.


Sid

1-500-Hi-Sid-Hi  //       [phone]
[e-mail]       [e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)
Subject: Re: Research Sources Wanted on Telecom Companies
Date: 6 Nov 1995 16:21:29 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA


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

> I am interested in acquiring information on telecommunication
> companies around the world.  I would like to know if you are aware of
> any free services that may be available, where I would be able to find
> research on Telcom companies; not only financial data, but also
> information such as digitalization%, lines per employee, etc.

Perhaps you've already looked, but I would start by going through the
past few years worth of annual reports from the firms you are interested
in.  Lots of info in those reports, although it can be hard to find
underneath the gloss.


Bob Virzi    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Konrad Weigl)
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line
Date: 6 Nov 1995 17:41:07 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis (Fr)


In article <[e-mail]>, gary.novosielski@
sbaonline.gov writes:

> Jeffrey Rhodes <[e-mail]> writes:

>> It's hard to believe that nearly every day someone asks "are two
>> cell-phones, one number legal?"

> On the contrary, I think "basic judgment," or common sense, is what's
> behind these questions in the first place.

The GSM D2 Network in Germany offers two cards with identical Subscriber
ID number for a small additional charge.

It makes already sense if you have a phone in your car and a mobile in
addition.


Konrad Weigl

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:38:04 PST
Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center


In article <[e-mail]>, Bruce Albrecht
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am looking for Unix sources to send messages to an alphanumeric
> pager.

I know of three:

1) 'sendpage', a perl script that a friend and I hacked up from an article
   in TELECOM Digest;

2) 'tpage', a few perl scripts and a couple of C programs;

3) 'hylafax', a FAX system that just happens to also do alpha paging.

I prefer 'hylafax', not only because I like being able to send faxes,
but also because I like its queueing system and in general trust the
code more than 'tpage'.  'sendpage' has always worked for me but has
no built-in queueing and error recovery depends on a human.

I don't know where to get 'tpage' any more; 'hylafax' is available from
ftp.sgi.com:/sgi/fax .


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #468
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov  7 17:56:49 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id RAA22389; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:56:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:56:49 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #469

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Nov 95 17:56:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 469

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed (Peter Polishuk)
    Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed (Navneet Patel)
    Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
    Re: Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn (Eric Ewanco)
    Re: Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn (Mike Sandman)
    Re: Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn (Michael P. Deignan)
    Re: Physical Layer Testing For Fiber Optic Transmitters/Receivers (Gaines)
    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: Another UK Number Change (David Hough)
    Re: Bell Canada Files Residential ISDN (Marcel Mongeon)
    Re: Sharing One Phone Line With Multiple Modems (Richard Barnaby)
    Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones? (Joseph Singer)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service ([e-mail])
    Re: Ascend Multiband Plus PDD Delay (Kevin Smith)
    Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople (G. Babb)
    Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople (Mike Rehmus)
    Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople (Mark Malson)
    Re: Last Laugh! Go Directly to Wall Street; Do Not Pass Go (David Whiteman)

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: [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, 7 Nov 1995 13:38:42 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed
Organization: Nortel (Northern Telecom)


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

> I've just received a package from BellSouth offering me Call Waiting
> Deluxe in conjunction with Caller ID.  The gag is that you can get the
> name and number of the person on the other side of the call waiting
> beep.

> I presume this is using the ADSI signalling method, and they are
> offering to sell the display telephone, a PowerTouch 350, with the
> service for about $150.  Does anybody have recommendations on this
> telephone?  I understand that Northern Telecom (or Nortel or whatever
> it is they are calling themselves nowadays) makes a PowerTouch 350
> phone; I wonder if this is the same unit, only with the BellSouth logo
> on the front.

> I would appreciate any comments, good or bad, about the phone and/or
> service.

The PowerTouch 350 is made by Nortel.  BellSouth is a distributor of the
phone, and Nortel does co-branding with them, so that they may place their
logo on the phone.

I am biased, but the PowerTouch 350 is a great phone.  Especially with
Caller ID on Call Waiting, you can choose to accept a call-waiting call,
send it a message, or send it to voice mail.  Once interactive services
kick in, you will be happy you already have the phone!!

For more info, call 1-800-NORTEL or contact me.


Peter Polishuk   Nortel Marketing Communications
Switching Networks   ESN 255-4295 or 992-4295
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 11:11:57 EST
From: [e-mail] (Navneet Patel)
Subject: Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed


[e-mail] (Rich Padula) wrote:

> I've just received a package from BellSouth offering me Call Waiting
> Deluxe in conjunction with Caller ID.  The gag is that you can get the
> name and number of the person on the other side of the call waiting
> beep.

    The Northern telecom makes the PowerTouch 350 telephone. The
BellSouth just provides it to it's customers. The logo on the phone is
that of Northern Telecom. We have used PowerTouch 350 to test all ADSI
service including CallWaiting Deluxe. There are other manufactures who
makes ADSI phones (Phillips), but PowerTouch is less expensive and
have proved very reliable in our testing.


Navneet Patel   Science & Technology
BellSouth       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed
Organization: GoodNet
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:05:56 GMT


[e-mail] wrote:

>   I understand that Northern Telecom (or Nortel or whatever
> it is they are calling themselves nowadays) makes a PowerTouch 350
> phone; I wonder if this is the same unit, only with the BellSouth logo
> on the front.

The '350 is a Northern Telecom phone.  USWest sells these phones in
conjunction with a service called _The Home Receptionist_<tm> which
provides screen driven custom calling and voice mail features.  It
also provides Caller Id on Call Wait.  There is also a trial of a Home
banking service.

The services are available in Grand Junction CO and various other USW
areas.  You can get the phone/service through the home office consulting
center.


Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU
Tempe, Arizona

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Ewanco)
Subject: Re: Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn
Date: 06 Nov 1995 21:28:08 GMT
Organization: XYPLEX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes:

> I honestly did not think federal agents in this country could go to
> another country and charge residents of that country with violations
> of laws in this country.

Well, we are talking about *Mexico* here, where a few well-placed big peso
notes (or better yet, greenbacks) in the hands of government officials could
probably open a lot of closed doors for you.

It was probably cheaper to go in and grab them than to try to  extradite
them (n.b. the above principle has a converse too).  That of course
doesn't make it ethical or legal.


Eric Ewanco    [e-mail]
Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.
Littleton, Mass.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ethical and legal be damned! Since when
were those considerations of any importance to a lot of people who work
in federal law enforcement?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Sandman)
Subject: Re: Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 02:50:12 GMT
Organization: Mike Sandman Enterprises


[e-mail] (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote:

> I honestly did not think federal agents in this country could go to
> another country and charge residents of that country with violations
> of laws in this country. What they got them on was (although being

If the United States can go into another country, take it over, and
bring its leader back to the United States and lock him up in jail
forever (Panama), I'm sure they have no trouble getting anybody they
want in any country.

The only thing that scares me about that, is whether the wackos that
lead other countries figure that what's good for the goose is good for
the gander -- and arrests Clinton or whoever? What can the US say to
that?

Some say it's already been done when Cuba had Kennedy killed. Pretty
scary!


Mike Sandman  708-980-7710
E-mail:  [e-mail]
WWW:  http://www.sandman.com

Our 48 page catalog of Uniqueq Telecom Products & Tools is now on the
World Wide Web.

We have a fantastic assortment of Cable Installation Tools and
Training Videos to help you use them. NEW "Basic ISDN" Training Video
is now available.

Also check out our Telephony History Page, which contains ads and
articles from telephony related magazines from the first part of the
century.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Foreign Sysadmin Jailed For Computer Kiddie Porn
Date: 6 Nov 1995 22:11:53 -0500
Organization: Ideamation, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Digest Editor
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I honestly did not think federal agents in this country could go to
> another country and charge residents of that country with violations
> of laws in this country. What they got them on was (although being
> elsewhere, outside the USA) sending child porn *into* the USA. I
> thought federal agents could only deal with what people here in this
> country did, for example, being in possession of it, or transmitting
> it around internally. I guess I was wrong. Even the US Attorney's
> office however agrees this is a 'first'.

Are you sure it was customs officials and not the BATF? The BATF
even has their own attack helicopters. I wouldn't be surprised if
the BATF had planned a night-time raid into Mexican territory to
"liberate" the evil porn-lords complete with support from the BATF
SEALS.

I wonder how many Mexican military men were slaughtered during
this operation ... unless, of course, the Mexican government gave
them permission to go into the country -- its pretty amazing what
80 billion or so in foreign aid will do to your indecisiveness ...


MD


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the papers they said it was Customs.
Anyway, I don't think the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Fire Arms has
a child pornography division do they?  Oh, maybe they do, who knows?
Its the growing rage these days, to investigate the net for evidence
of child porn in every newsgroup, at every site, etc. You have to wonder
what goes through the minds of some of these people who start these
investigations and keep on fueling them and feeding them. I mean,
could *you* deal emotionally with having employment where your duties
consisted of sitting logged in on a computer all day to America OnLine
using a bogus screen name purporting to be a child or teenager trying
to get some older person to 'start something'? And who can forget that
lady in Minnesota who (thankfully) *used to be* a proesecutor there ...
She had some fixation on child porn which led her to file criminal
charges against hundreds of people in this one little town; everyone
accusing the others; everyone convinced that *everyone else* was a
molestor, etc. No matter who you were, you could not escape the stench
and uglieness she created, she was that vicious in her fixation.

Now come reports from Wenatchee, Washington, population 17,000 that
a local police officer there is hung up on it.  He is pushing his
campaign to the limits with the result being dozens of people arrested
including *half* the membership of one church. Teachers, ministers,
parents, shopkeepers; he is rounding them all up with the most outlandish
charges of child molestation and child pornography you have ever heard
in your life. Apparently all he does each day is work on his 'investigation'.
What must go through the minds of these people in their campaigns?

It is a great way to help get this net under control: stop the world
while we investigate and prosecute child pornographers. Don't take my
word for it ... ask anyone at the FBI, Customs, etc. And you know who
the real victims are? The children ... because this has gotten to the
point that no one pays attention any longer in the real instances.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:24:08 +1000
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Gaines)
Subject: Re: Physical Layer Testing For Fiber Optic Transmitters/Receivers


On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, [e-mail] (Ilya Mirman)
wrote:

> I am curious: when do people stop testing the physical layer or fiber
> optic transmitters and receivers?  Obvously, the individual components
> get tested during their manufacture (spectral characteristics, pulse
> performance ("EYE"), Error Rate performance, etc.  Presumably, they
> are also tested once integrated into the system manufacturers' boards. >
> But, at some point (deployment, maintenance, etc.) people no longer
> look at the eye diagrams or spectral characteristics -- instead, they
> look for "higher layer" issues, such as sending packets, system
> jitter, etc.

> My question: when, exactly, does the "physical layer" testing stop,
> and higher level testing begin?

I don't have the answer to your question, but I have a related topic I'm
trying to attack:  what is the market for tools which emulate SONET/SDH
network transmission elements?

The trade press and analysts have little to say about network
emulation/simulation tools.  But surely the growing complexity of networks,
and the increasing cost of mistakes in network deployment, is driving a
trend towards greater willingness on the part of network managers (public
and private) to spend money on tools which let them simulate the
transmission and switching performance of network elements, subnets
(specifically, new subnets inserted into or added to an existing network)
or entire networks.  It seems to me that these kinds of tools will be
particularly important for SONET/SDH networks, because the cost of screwing
up is so high.  It's one thing to rewire a corporate LAN, another
altogether to dig up 1,800 miles of bidirectional, self-healing SONET loop
 ...

The only insight I might have into your question is that the physical layer
testing you describe is probably the principal consideration when one is
trying to establish the performance characteristics of the element per se,
in isolation.  That layer of testing probably mostly phases out when one
starts asking the question, how will this element behave in a network?  At
this stage the more important concern becomes higher layer characteristics
like system jitter (transmission) or cell "burstiness" (switching, esp. ATM
switching).

One might infer from this that most of the physical layer testing probably
takes place in an R&D lab or manufacturing facility; but once a vendor or
carrier gets hold of the gear, and begins to plan how to deploy that
element into a new or existing network, the testing focus shifts to network
characteristics:  how does this element perform when combined with others?


Regards,

Jerry Gaines   CiTR Pty Limited
Telecommunications Network and Services Management
Brisbane, Australia - Boulder, Colorado
[e-mail]      [phone]/phone
http://www.citr.uq.oz.au                  ....4399/fax

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

From: Jeffrey Rhodes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line
Date: 7 Nov 1995 04:09:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T Wireless Services


In article <[e-mail]>, gary.novosielski@
sbaonline.gov writes:

> The GSM D2 Network in Germany offers two cards with identical Subscriber
> ID number for a small additional charge.

> It makes already sense if you have a phone in your car and a mobile in
> addition.

GSM will probably "sound" better than cloned US cell-phones, too.
I doubt they'll ever be less expensive to use, or for that matter,
less expensive than IS-136.


Jeffrey Rhodes at [e-mail]

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

From: David Hough <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another UK Number Change
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 95 08:07:07  GMT
Organization: Chaotic


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Matthew Richardson) writes:

> It is true that certain Reading numbers have been issued starting with
> a zero.  They can only be dialled by prefixing them with 01734, even
> from within Reading, although they would then be treated as a local
> call.

The numbers aren't supposed to be dialed direct. AFAIK they were
issued to companies running premium-rate or free services. All such
numbers map onto 'real' numbers somewhere, as do other number prefixes
with special tariffs such as 0891, 0800, 0345 etc.


Dave  [e-mail]
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel  Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Files Residential ISDN
Date: 7 Nov 1995 14:19:14 GMT
Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada.


Ron Kawchuk ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Bell Canada filed for residential ISDN on October 27, 1995
>      $51 to $57 per month for 2 ISDN channels. (2B+D)
>      Pay per call in peak (Business day) times.
>      $1 per hour 7AM to 7PM weekdays per 64k channel... $2 per hour for 128K
>      bps??
>      Request CRTC approval for Dec 1, 1995

An interesting aspect of this proposal is that the peak rates for home
internet usage is more like 7 pm to 12 midnight!

Between 7am and 7pm the usage from home (unless it is a home based
business or the like) should be relatively light.


Marcel D. Mongeon
[e-mail]
President, Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
Technology Lawyer and Trade-mark Agent, Ontario, Canada
Tel: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Barnaby)
Subject: Re: Sharing One Phone Line With Multiple Modems
Organization: Business Support Services
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 07:04:28 GMT


[e-mail] (John S. Hope) wrote:

> Does anyone know of a company that makes a modem multiplexor?  That
> is,  I need a box that will accept one phone line and be able to switch
> between async posts depending on what command strings I issue.

> I will be using one phone line to dial into the management functions
> of several systems.

> Please provide any information you have including product name, model,
> company contact, and any experience with the product.

Call Baytech at 800-523-2702. They'll have more than you could possibly want.


 - a satisfied customer

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 06:42:10 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Joseph Singer)
Subject: Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] writes:

> The current movie "Devil in a Blue Dress" is set in Los Angeles in
> 1948.  The protagonist and apparently all of his neighbors are black:
> I mention this because it helps define what part of the city they
> live in.

> He has a dial phone.  Is this realistic?  When did Los Angeles get
> dial phones?

I don't know why it wouldn't be the "norm" to have dial telephones in
Los Angeles in 1948.  Dial phone central offices were installed from the
early 20s on the east coast.  The east coast cities very commonly had
panel common control switching while I believe that Los Angeles was
mostly step-by-step.  I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this.


JOSEPH SINGER    SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chicago had completely manual service
until 1939, when the conversion began. The downtown area was converted
first, followed by the neighborhoods one at a time. Conversion to dial
was halted at the start of 1942 when Western Electric was seized by
the government and put exclusively into the war effort. When industries
were released early in 1946 to go back into regular production and
service, the conversion to dial resumed in Chicago and continued until
its completion in 1951 with the conversion of the central office which
served the 'new' Ohare Airport.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: 7 Nov 1995 14:58:53 GMT
Organization: ISSC Southeast Region
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, john dupont <[e-mail]>
writes:

>> Research by the Yankee Group shows that 69 percent of cellular users
>> think about the cost of a cellular call every time they pick up their
>> cellular phone.  Also, 78 percent of cellular users say they would
>> encourage people to call them if they didn't have to pay for receiving
>> the calls.

> I wonder if the research has determined how many of those people
> encouraged to call will resent being stuck with the bill. I would.
> Cellular users who choose this option may notice a drop in incoming
> calls rather that a rise.

I agree with this one.  If I am crusing the yellow pages looking for
a plumber, for example, and I call a number and am told I will be
charged, I will hang up immediately and dial the next number in the
book.

If people are going to do this, they should provide an alternate, free
number (maybe to an answering service), or have it set up so you can
leave them a voicemail message if you don't want to pay.

Also, how is the per-minute rate billed?  What if I call a plumber who
has not used up his prepaid minutes for the month?  Is it free for me
then?  What if I call one plumber who's on a plan that charges him
$.25 per minute, and the next call reaches one who pays $.50?  Will the caller
get any feedback or control over this, or will it be a standard rate?
What about cell-to-cell?  Will I get charged for BOTH my airtime AND his?

It sounds like a good idea in many cases, but it remains to be seen how
it's implemented.  I for one am a cellular user but I would be extremely
reluctant to make a call to someone on one of these plans, since so much
of what it would cost appears to be out of my control.


Later,

Mike

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

From: Kevin Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ascend Multiband Plus PDD Delay
Date: 7 Nov 1995 18:41:41 GMT
Organization: Ascend Communications Inc.


Djung Nguyen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The video works fine, however, when making a voice call, there is a
> 12-15 seconds delay. Is this an acceptable standard?  It would appear
> to me to be too long and if there is a way to minimize this delay, I
> would like to know about it.  What about an alternative configuration?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.

This is normal and cannot be modified. The receiving side - collecting
the DTMF digits has a ten second timer to allow for "non-senderized"
PBXs to complete forwarding all dialed digits.


Kevin

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

From: gARetH baBB <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 19:07:48 GMT
Organization: Gink


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ross
Oliver) wrote:

> I am so sick of phone solicitation that I don't even bother to be
> polite anymore.  I made the mistake of donating to one of some
> "law enforcement takes the kids to the circus" drive a while ago,
> and now I must be on some "phone suckers" list because I have been

 The European Commission is at the moment coming up with a directive
which if passed will force all telephone sales outfits to get *written*
permission from people before phoning them.

 The report on the radio I heard was quite amusing, they had a represen-
tative of the UK Telesales Association on and he was obviously "distressed"
by it all.

 Serves him right :-)

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

From: Mike Rehmus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople
Date: 7 Nov 1995 14:24:08 GMT
Organization: Portal Communications (service)


[e-mail] (Ross Oliver) wrote:

> I am so sick of phone solicitation that I don't even bother to be
> polite anymore.  I made the mistake of donating to one of some
> "law enforcement takes the kids to the circus" drive a while ago,
> and now I must be on some "phone suckers" list because I have been
> barraged by similar solicitations ever since, usually Saturday
> mornings at 7:30am

The sad part is the people calling you work for a boiler-room operation
and the police/firemen/your favorite group see very little of the $.

Doubly sad is that this is the case for most charitable organizations.

A great put-off is to ask them if their organization is as efficient
as the Salvation Army.  Then ask them what percent of contributions go
to the group for which they are collecting.  Then ask them if they are
part of the group or a collection agency.

When you ask them questions, they usually get very nervous.

Fortunately, we have two of the best charities in the U.S.  here in
San Jose ... Second Harvest and the ubiquitous Salvation Army.  The
next most efficient group is a far distant third place.


Best regards,

Mike Rehmus


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While it is true that the collectors
keep the biggest portion of what is collected with the charity seeing
only a small percentage of the overall amount, the fact is that the
amount of money collected overall is so huge that the charity gets a
lot more money than they could ever collect on their own, given their
own resources and fund-raising abilities. The polioceman/fireman group
would never come close to getting the amount of money they do if they
tried to do it on their own.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Malson)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople
Organization: Xetron Corporation
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:18:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ross
Oliver) wrote:

> I am so sick of phone solicitation that I don't even bother to be
> polite anymore.  I made the mistake of donating to one of some
> "law enforcement takes the kids to the circus" drive a while ago,

I always tell the solicitor that I require a financial statement
before I would consider pledging any amount of money. In these scams
(like the one you mentioned), the fundraising organization typically
gets well over half the money raised. Move over, Jim and Tammy Bakker.

Most organizations do not want to go to the trouble, yet in many
states they are _required by law_ to send you a statement if you ask
for it. The worst offender I have had experience with is Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, who immediately HUNG UP when I asked for a
statement. Others will at least promise you one and then never send
it. Some will pressure you for a pledge so they can fill in a number
(and get their cut, no doubt) on the slip they mail you. And the rare
few I've actually gotten a statement from were still not worthy of a
donation.

The only really good financial statement I've seen is the American
Cancer Society's.


Mark Malso   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 17:57:55 MST
From: David Whiteman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Go Directly to Wall Street; Do Not Pass Go


In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> Anthony Sarivola, 40, of Allenwood, PA is a smart man. Using just his

[stuff about how he cheated people while in prison.]

> charges. His entire 'office' consisted of a prisoner phone.


Pat,

The {Los Angeles Times} and the {Los Angeles Daily News} stated that this
prisoner used a cellular phone as his office which was smuggled in.


David Whiteman      [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The {Chicago Tribune} had him using a
'prisoner phone'. No matter, it still seems pretty fantastic.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #469
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov  7 19:54:03 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id TAA02925; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:54:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:54:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #470

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Nov 95 19:54:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 470

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Digital Telephony Overview (VTW Billwatch via Shabbir J. Safdar)
    Houston CO's (Bill Blackwell)
    500 Service Information Wanted (Kathi Denial)
    The End of TelecomDocs (David Devereaux-Weber)
    Voice Mail Uses Different Frequencies Than Dialing? (Eric Levy-Myers)
    Man Accused of Scamming 1300 With Prize Notices (Tad Cook)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Gordon Burditt)
    Online Phone Book Wanted (Hank Nussbacher)
    Looking For Telecommuting Data (John Kennedy)
    Redirect/Forward Incoming Calls (Hari K. Maddali)
    Telecom Management Home Page ([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: [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] (Shabbir J. Safdar, VTW)
Subject: Digital Telephony Overview
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 23:11:31 -0500
Reply-To: [e-mail]


                        VTW BillWatch #23

   VTW BillWatch: A weekly newsletter tracking US Federal legislation
 affecting civil liberties.  BillWatch is published at the end of every
    week as long as Congress is in session. (Congress is in session)

               BillWatch is produced and published by the
              Voters Telecommunications Watch ([e-mail])
                         (We're not the EFF :-)

               Issue #23, Date: Sun Nov  5 20:44:08 EST 1995

   Do not remove this banner.  See distribution instructions at the end.


QUOTES FOR THE WEEK

We culled these quotes while watching a CNN interview with James Kallstrom
regarding the wiretap funding.  The interviewer was completely unprepared,
but it was interesting to read the quotes.  I mean, really read the quotes.
Note that the FBI is a pretty easy target these days.  Let's look at the
first one:

    The report in the NY Times was very misleading.  We do wiretapping
    based on probable cause, where it's necessary.  We do it through a
    process where every citizen's rights are protected.  We don't want
    to protect the criminals.

As we examine the above quote, it strikes the reader as curious to note
that people are not criminals until after a trial.

    We can't stand for abuses.  We have to monitor the system.  Citizens
    who are not committing crimes should have a total right to privacy.

VTW is quite relieved to see a high-ranking official of the FBI stating
support for the right to privacy.  Not just a little privacy, but TOTAL
privacy.  One wonders whether Mr. Kallstrom agrees with VTW's view
that to enforce privacy we need access to strong non-escrowed cryptography.
(probably not)

This week's quotes are from James Kalstromm (Asst. Dir of the FBI) on CNN
11/2/95 (23:15pm).


COMMENTARY ON FBI WIRETAP PROPOSALS

You'd have to be living without television, newspapers, or radio not to have
seen all the flap over the FBI's proposal for wiretap funding.  There has
been a tremendous amount of misinformation in the press and on the net, so
we'd like to take this opportunity to put all of this into perspective.
Having opposed this legislative measure last year, we are painfully well-
informed on the nature of the debate.

The wiretapping plan you're seeing debated now is actually the funding
phase of last year's "Digital Telephony" bill, now known as CALEA
(Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act)  Sponsored by Sen.
Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Edwards (previously D-CA), the bill was extremely
controversial among civil liberties groups, but received very little
mainstream press, and a moderate amount of debate on the Hill.  The FBI
had strongly suggested that advancing changes in technology would make it
impossible for them to carry out court-authorized communications
interceptions.

Although they never produced public proof of a foiled interception, the
general feel in Congress was to grant them the benefit of the doubt and
give them a bill that would accomodate their needs.  A bill was written
that would require the telecommunications industry to build in wiretap
functionality into their products, such as telephone switches.

This is where the debate in the civil liberties community began.  The
Electronic Frontier Foundation used their connections and their position
to hack up the bill to remove several provisions.  The ability for any
detective to issue an administrative subpoena (doesn't require a judge)
to get transactional information such as who you called and for how long
was removed, now requiring the approval of a judge.  In addition, any
inclusion of Internet services was removed.  This meant that Netscape
would not have to build in special wiretapping code should you fall under
an a court-authorized interception order during an investigation.

In addition, the FBI would now be forced to state publicly its requirements
for wiretapping, and the justifications for the amount of wiretapping
they wanted to do, so they could tell the communications companies what
sorts of capability to build into their products.  This probably seemed
like a good compromise for the FBI at the time.  They reduce the resistance
to their bill, in exchange for which they had to publish some information
that was probably semi-public anyway.

They're probably kicking themselves now.

The logic at the EFF was that Congress was going to pass such a bill this
year anyway, so wouldn't we rather have one that improved privacy in some
places and limited its scope in others, rather than let them get everything
they want by working with legislators that are not privacy-savvy.   Sort of
an "enemy you know is less dangerous than one you don't" argument.

Other groups disagreed.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
and the Voters Telecommunications Watch both led an online campaign to
fight the bill.  In the end, the bill was passed without much floor debate
and very little media attention.

One stickler in all of this was the cost.  The telecommunications industry
said, rightfully so, that these additional features weren't market-driven
(unless you're a Third World dictator buying telecommunications hardware
to spy on your people) so they were basically being taxed unfairly.  The FBI
responded by saying that before any changes would be expected, the Federal
Government would authorize the spending of US$500 million as reimbursement
for their loss.

This funding phase brings us to the present time.  On Monday October 16 1995,
the FBI published in the Federal Register it's requirements for
wiretapping capacity.  Civil liberties advocates salivated, knowing that
for the first time in history, this backroom process that never saw any
public accountability was going to be scrutinized in the light of day.
Many civil liberties advocates hoped the media would finally report
this as newsworthy, assuming that should the American people hear about
it, they would be appalled.

The media responded in spades, with paranoia about Big Brother and
wiretapping abuses making front page news throughout the country.  This
couldn't have come at a worse time for the Administration.  Reeling from
the media flap over Waco and Ruby Ridge, law enforcement is not having its
best public relations year.  Civil liberties advocates went on the attack,
deconstructing the published wiretap requirements and asking the FBI
exactly what they needed all these wiretaps for.

The root of the issue lies in a subtlety that no one anticipated.  Civil
liberties advocates thought the FBI, having previously conducted around 1,000
interceptions per year, would simply publish a number that gave them some
"growing room" given some assumption that crime was generally increasing.

Instead, the FBI published percentages.  The report in the Federal Register
said that if a telephone switch can accomodate X number of subscribers,
then the switch must be capable of performing X * Y% of interceptions
SIMULTANEOUSLY, where Y% has a minimum amount of .05%, but can rise as
high as 1% if you live in a geographic area with lots of crime.

Here is where the debate begins, and the misinformation seeps in.  When
you look at the number of subscribers, that number may be much different
depending on how you interpret it.  Assume that the phone switch that
serves your area has 1,000,000 subscribers on it, and you live in a
high crime area, such as VTW's birthplace, New York City.

The math is simple, 1% of 1,000,000 subscribers is 10,000 simultaneous
wiretaps.  Isn't this a little high?  Not only have there been only about
1,000 wiretaps authorized in recent years, but they weren't all at once,
and all within the same neighborhood!

To their credit, the FBI says they were misinterpreted.  A close look at
the announcement in the Federal Register shows them to be right.  However
you should be just as alarmed.  The FBI claims that just because a
telephone switch can accomodate 1,000,000 people doesn't mean they can all
pick up the phone and dial a friend at once.  If you look closely at the
notice in the Federal Register, it says:

    the percentage is applied to the engineered subscriber capacity of
    a switch

Presumably, if they had meant total subscribers, they would have said
total subscribers.  It would be uncharacteristic of the FBI is ask for
less than what they need.  However this doesn't actually make the numbers
so much better than you should be unconcerned.  The number is still
appalling higher than anything previously requested, and you should be very
concerned.

Take the phone switch in our previous example.  Assume that only half
the subscribers can actually pick up their handsets and make a call
simultaneously.  That cuts the actual number of simultaneous required
interceptions to 5,000, and that's just in New York.  It's
unreasonable for our government to fund such an activity without the
FBI explaining their reasons for needing this much capacity.  Has
there been a great leap in the last few years of crimes for which
interceptions are the only available tool?

The Electronic Privacy Information Center is fond of pointing out that
interceptions in the last few years have been primarily for drugs and
gambling.  EPIC asserts that not one wiretap has been authorized in the
investigation of domestic terrorism such as the World Trade Center or
Oklahoma City bombings.

The second misinterpretation of these figures is the common printing of
the fact that the FBI wishes to wiretap every 1 in 400 or 1 in 100 telephones.
We're not really sure how anyone came up with these numbers, as that would
apply to specific geographic areas only, not the country as a whole.  To
blanketly print these numbers without actually talking about the area they
apply to is to resort to unnecessary hysteria.  The FBI's proposal is
chilling enough that we don't need that much hyperbole to justify public
concern.

Two groups are conducting high profile campaigns on this issue.  We
urge you to follow them and stay informed.  Here is an alphabetical
list:

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) is a new organization staffed
by many of the people who previously worked on this issue at the EFF.  CDT
is attempting to answer such questions as:

* Has the FBI met all the public accountability and oversight criteria
  required by the statute?

and

* Does the requested capacity accurately reflect the needs of law
  enforcement?

You can monitor their work by checking out their World Wide Web page at
URL:http://www.cdt.org/

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is conducting a
campaign to deny funding for the bill, a continuation of last-year's
campaign to prevent the passage of the bill itself.  You can monitor
their work by checking out their World Wide Web page at:
URL:http://www.epic.org/

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

SUBSCRIPTION AND REPRODUCTION INFORMATION

You can receive BillWatch via email, fax, gopher or WWW:

To subscribe via email, send mail to [e-mail] with
"subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname" in the subject line.  To
unsubscribe from BillWatch send mail to [e-mail] with
"unsubscribe vtw-announce" in the subject line.  Send mail to [e-mail]
with "send billwatch" in the SUBJECT LINE to receive the latest version
of BillWatch.

To subscribe via fax, call [phone] and leave the information
requested by the recording.  You may unsubscribe by calling the same
number.

BillWatch can be found on the World Wide Web at
http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/

BillWatch can be found in Gopherspace at:
gopher -p1/vtw/billwatch/ gopher.panix.com

Permission to reproduce BillWatch non-commercially is granted provide the
banner and copyright remain intact.  Please send a copy of your non-commercial
publication to [e-mail] for our scrapbook.  For permission to commercially
reproduce BillWatch, please contact [e-mail].
___________________________________________________________________________

                Copyright 1995 Steven Cherry & Shabbir J. Safdar
___________________________________________________________________________
    End VTW BillWatch Issue #23, Date: Sun Nov  5 20:44:08 EST 1995

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Blackwell)
Subject: Houston CO's
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 09:13:29 -0600


I am somewhat stymied in my dealings with Southwestern Bell (SWB, or
Sharks Want Blood) in trying to find out switch-types installed in the
Houston LATA Central Offices (area code 713).  While getting a list
of the CO names is rather straight forward (it's printed in the front
of the phone book...), SWB says that there are "hundreds" of CO's in
Houston, and that getting a list of the switch-types in them would be
prohibitive.

CombiNet (before they got bought out by Cisco) had a DB of just such a
type as I'm looking for on the 'Net.  However, in the great reshuffling
that has undoubtedly occurred, this seems to have dropped off of the
planet.  (I've run the gauntlet of Voice Mail, and "Oh, that's not my
department, let me transfer you..." at Cisco to no avail).  Compunding
this problem, is that I'd kinda like to know hwo the CO's are
interconnected as well (the hip bone's connected to the jaw bone...;-)).
I can understand networks, and this is just a big network, ...right?

Help!

If any of you gurus out there have such a list compiled, know of the
location of such a list, can point me to books that have helpful
suggestions, or just have new and _creative_ ways of telling me I'm an
idiot, then I'd appreciate it.

Oh, yeah, the reason that I need this is for a study into our "telecommuting
options" and certain vendors' equipment seems to be telco-sensitive.  So,
having the desire to be an informed consumer ...


Thanks,

Bill Blackwell   [e-mail]
Houston, Texas, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Kathi Denial)
Subject: 500 Service Information Wanted
Date: 7 Nov 1995 17:15:56 GMT
Organization: N.E.T.


Does anyone have any information regarding the 500 service offered by
AT&T?  What is the suggested way to program this into the PBX?


Kathi Denial


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do we have information on AT&T 500
Service here?  Do we? Do we! Anyone want to help Kathi out with the
information she needs? Please respond to her.  Kathi, you might also
want to review the Telecom Archives and the back issues files for
this topic. It has received a great deal of attention here over the
past couple of years.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:40:27 -0600
From: David Devereaux-Weber <[e-mail]>
Subject: The End of TelecomDocs


TelecomDocs subscribers:

This is the end of the list TelecomDocs.  The FCC has implemented their own
list to distribute the Daily Digest, and it no longer makes sense for us to
provide this service.

A most heartfelt thanks to Bob Keller <[e-mail]> for his tireless
attention to this task.

As Bob mentioned in his last post:

If you want to subscribe directly to the FCC list, send an email message to:

                [e-mail]

with the following command in the body of the message:

                subscribe digest <your full name>

It will not be necessary for subscribers to unsubscribe from this list.  We
will remove it from the listserver.  Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

David Devereaux-Weber <[e-mail]>
Barry Orton <[e-mail]>

David Devereaux-Weber, P.E.            [e-mail]
The University of Wisconsin - Madison
Division of Information Technology
Network Engineering            [phone](voice) [phone](FAX)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And beleive me, many of us are sorry to
see you shutting down. Yours was a very valuable service.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 11:34:49 EST
From: Eric Levy-Myers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail Uses Different Frequencies Than Dialing?


I recently installed a four line, non KSU, telephone system from TT
Systems, Model 4012-TT.

It works great, nice features, and low price, etc.

However, in Bell Atlantic's voice mail (inside a Centrex, I guess) ,
the systems does not recognize the 3 or 6 key. For normal dialing, the
3 and 6 keys work fine. All the other keys work fine.  Bell Atlantic
blames the phones, without any suggestion as to why they work in the
normal system and not in the voice mail.  TT Systems says that some
Telecom's have recently tightened the frequency requirements and they
are working on a fix. But they seem utterly mystified as to why the
telecom's have suddenly changed ("tightened") their standards.

Anyone else have this problem? Help.


[e-mail]

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

From: Tad Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man Accused of Scamming 1300 With Prize Notices
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:00:53 PST


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- A scam that enticed 1,300 people into
sending $39 each to collect bogus $50,000 prizes ended with the arrest
of a man accused of sending the fake notices out by certified mail.

Robert William Gordon III of Atlanta faces federal fraud charges for
allegedly sending 1,400 letters telling recipients that they had won
$50,000 and just needed to sign a certificate and send a check for $39
to collect.

Responses poured in from 38 states and the District of Columbia, some
sent by overnight mail, Attorney General Winston Bryant said.
Recipients probably thought the letters were genuine because they were
sent via certified mail and contained an impressive looking winner's
certificate.

Authorities became involved when a woman contacted Bryant's office
last week to ask if the offer from Consumer Response Group was
legitimate.

Investigators dressed as Mail Boxes Etc. employees arrested Gordon
Thursday when he checked his box. He faces arraignment Tuesday on
charges of mail fraud, telemarketing fraud and use of fictitious
identification.

More than $50,000 in checks were awaiting him. None had been cashed,
Bryant said.

Gordon declined to comment, and his lawyer could not be reached.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:52:18 GMT


This announcement of caller-pays cellular service leaves out one very
important part: how do I block calls to caller-pays cellular numbers?


Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't.  You pay your phone bill
each month and be grateful that people who made phone calls on your
system behind your back or while you were asleep were able to reach
their party wherever they might be, on land or sea or in the air.
You'll probably soon find yourself in the same situation as Kathi
(earlier in this issue) who -- I assume -- found herself stuck with
some 500 charges on a PBX she is responsible for, and now wants to know
what to do about it.

I imagine what will happen is that all the cell phones equipped in
that way will have to be on their own prefix(es) for billing purposes.
Once you find out the prefix(es) involved you could block them out I
guess, the same way you block out 540 and 976.  I can't imagine they
would just leave them scattered around all over the place leaving PBX
administrators helpless. Or would they?  PAT]

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

Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:38:01 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Online Phone Book Wanted


I need to backtrack a few phone numbers in the 914 and 718 area codes.

a) Is there a system on the Web that will allow me to code in a phone
number and get back the person's name and address?

b) If the answer to (a) is no, I remember hearing of a CD that contained
this information and that allowed searching.  Where can I get such a
CD?  If someone has it -- would they be willing to do a few quick
searches for me as a favor?

Thanks,

Hank

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

From: [e-mail] (John Kennedy)
Subject: Looking For Telecommuting Data
Date: 6 Nov 1995 06:42:16 GMT


I am a graduate student at the University of Rhode Island doing some
research on telecommuting.  I am trying to build a regression model to
predict business usage of telecommuting.  I have been searchng (to
absolutely no avail) for either state by state numbers of telecommuters
(cross sectional) or monthly for the last 4 years (time series)for the
whole US.  Is there anyone out there who can help me locate some of this
info?  I would appreciate it greatly.

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

From: [e-mail] (Hari K. Maddali)
Subject: Redirect/Forward Incoming Calls
Date: 7 Nov 1995 22:03:08 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.


    Is it possible to "Re-Direct / Forward" incoming calls? If so,
how and what is needed for say two incoming and two outgoing simultaneous
call processing?

    Can we use a PC database to lookup, match and dial a forwarding
 phone number for an incoming call?

    Can we collect call traffic information and other statistics
such as connect time, idle time, caller ID etc?

    What's an approximate cost $$$ for a system including software to
handle four line traffic. I think the number of lines required depends on
estimated call traffic and average length of each call.

    Is it cost effective to go through telco for some of these
tasks if they can offer such services?  Please advise.

    With so much tele-marketing fraud going on is it legal to have
strictly a "Call Redirect / Forwarding" hub.

        Any information yuo have available on this will be very much
appreciated.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:00:09 -0600
Subject: Telecom Management Home Page


TELECOM Digest readers may be interested in Telco Research's home
page (it's 99.9% fluff-free).  On it they will see:

  - articles about telemanagement
  - a glossary of telemanagement terms
  - telemanagement FAQs
  - hot-links to other telecom resources
  - industry "quotes"
  - product & company info (.01% fluff max.)
  - Spanish translation of products & services information

  The home page is updated monthly.  More tutorials, articles, and
  hot-links will be added.  Comments on our home page are welcomed.
  Our home page address is:

  http://www.telcores.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #470
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov  7 22:16:03 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id WAA13842; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:16:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:16:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #471

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Nov 95 22:15:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 471

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecommunications Bill Fails to Serve the Public Interest (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Telecom in China (Erez Levav)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Raymond Hazel)
    Big Brother - He's Everywhere (Lionel Ancelet)
    Re: Powering the Optical Network Interface (Richard Kenshalo)
    Re: GH337 and Mobile "Modem" (Juergen Wichmann)
    Suggested Reading on Telecom Revolution (Rick Whiting)

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: [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, 6 Nov 1995 23:42:04 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications Bill Fails to Serve the Public Interest
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:

 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:10:23 -0800
 From: Andy Oram <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Paper on telecom bill, adopted by CPSR

We started talking about this paper (which grew out of my attempt to
write a "Top 10" document) a few weeks ago on these mailing lists.
CPSR has adopted and officially released this document.  I hope
members of these lists can spread it widely.  Thanks for your
encouragement and advice.

Andy

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

   U.S. Telecommunications Bill Fails to Serve the Public Interest

             6 November 1995

A bill that will change the way we use telephones, television, and
electronic networks is currently being considered by the U.S.
Congress.  The bill claims to promote industry growth, competition,
and technological progress, but may well simply end up reducing
diversity and public debate.  It also sets precedents that we expect
to be mirrored in other countries.  So non-U.S. residents also have
good reason to be concerned with the outcome of this bill.

There are four major problems in the bill:

    1.     It allows oligopolies to form that control the information we
        receive on radio, television, newspapers, and electronic
        networks.

    2.  It allows gaps to widen between segments of society (rich and
        poor, educated and uneducated).

    3.  It censors public discussion on electronic networks.

    4.  It lets rates rise too fast and too much.

This paper will examine each of these problems, after some
introductory background.  We may still have time to make significant
changes.


Why is the telecom bill important?

    Electronic media are not just another industry like shipping or
    manufacturing.  They deal with the very stuff our minds are made
    of: the information we use to take political positions, the
    choices we have in educating ourselves, the cultural resources
    through which we define ourselves.  The struggle over electronic
    media is a struggle for our thoughts and actions.

    Electronic media cover a range of giant industries, including
    radio, broadcast and cable TV, telephone companies, wireless
    communications and satellites, computer networks, and traditional
    news and publishing companies that are moving online.  The
    category even touches on financial institutions and electrical
    utilities.

    The industries involved are eager to loosen restrictions on their
    behavior.  They have poured large sums of money into influencing
    Congress, and lobbied intensively for the current versions of the
    bill: the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of
    1995 in the Senate (S. 652) and the Communications Act of 1995 in
    the House (H.R. 1555).  Unfortunately for the public, in removing
    these restrictions the telecom bill also removes historic
    protection for diversity of opinion and reasonable rates.


The intent of the bill

    The stated purpose of telecom reform is to increase technology in
    homes and institutions.  While we definitely support an expansion
    of electronic networking (the information infrastructure or
    information superhighway, as it is often called) we ask, "What
    will it be used for?"

    Many broadcasting and telecommunications companies seem to view
    their customers purely as consumers of entertainment or
    information.  But we want individuals and institutions to generate
    content as well as receive it.

    We want to see advances in telecom improve public debate on
    important issues, provide a wealth of culture, and increase our
    links with one another.  If Congress takes its role seriously in
    managing communications as a public resource, industry growth is
    quite compatible with universal service and providing an
    infrastructure for democracy.  But currently, we see this bill
    restricting options and opportunities.  Let us look at the
    problems.


Problem 1.  The bill allows oligopolies to form that control the
information we receive on radio, television, newspapers, and
electronic networks.

    The wave of highly-publicized mergers (along with less sensational
    but still important takeovers) that have reduced the number of
    people in control of broadcasting will continue after this bill is
    passed.  Although the bill prohibits mergers between telephone
    companies and cable TV companies, the House version contains many
    exceptions, waivers, and exemptions that erode this protection
    against monopolies.  For instance, mergers are permitted in
    communities with less than 50,000 population, and the two types of
    company are permitted to share some transmission facilities.

    Local telephone companies are allowed to enter the long-distance
    market too soon, before competition is likely to enter their
    traditional local market.  Local telephone users may end up
    bearing the costs of expansion.

    The bill allows cooperation between companies that should be
    competitors, assuming that abuses will be stopped by anti-trust
    laws that are not adequate or appropriate for this kind of
    oversight.

    In a direct blow to diversity, the bill raises the percentage of
    national audience that a single person or company can reach from
    25% to 35%.  A larger foreign ownership of broadcast media is also
    permitted.  Limits are removed on the number of radio stations
    that an individual can own.  The bill makes it easier for
    broadcasters to keep their licenses indefinitely, without the
    hearings that are currently held.  Finally, it gives existing
    broadcasters a large amount of unused television spectrum, instead
    of opening up the spectrum in an auction.


Problem 2.  The bill allows gaps to widen between segments of society
(rich and poor, educated and uneducated).

    The 1934 communications act guaranteed universal service, meaning
    that everyone in the country could get telephone service at
    reasonable rates.  The new bill contains protections for rural
    areas and the disabled, but leaves loopholes in the universal
    service guarantee.  Some of the advanced information services
    could well become available only to affluent people or to
    institutions in privileged areas.

    Moreover, while there are some sections supporting access for
    schools and public agencies, these are vague and need stronger
    guarantees.  Public libraries, the traditional place where all
    members of the public can get information, are given special rates
    in the Senate bill but not the House.


Problem 3.  The bill censors public discussion on electronic networks.

    Both houses of Congress have inserted sections in the bill
    criminalizing a broad range of information under the claim that it
    harms children.  These clauses of the bill, while supposedly aimed
    at pornography, have such vague language ("indecency" and "sexual
    or excretory activities") that they could be used to censor
    literary classics and public health information.

    Given the open nature of networks such as the Internet,
    restrictions on sending material that children might look at ends
    up keeping everyone from speaking freely.  The fear of being
    caught in the law's net will force many networks to shut down.
    Thus, the free flow of views we now have on the information
    highway could be replaced by a controlled set of ideas dished out
    by corporate broadcasters and monitored by prosecutors all over
    the country.

    By approving censorship, the Senate rejected a petition signed by
    107,000 Internet users.  The House voted overwhelmingly to reject
    government censorship, but sections imposing it were inserted into
    the bill almost at the last minute as part of a complicated
    amendment.

    We do not dismiss the concerns of parents who want to shield their
    children from inappropriate material.  The whole point is that
    each parent defines what is "inappropriate" differently.  There
    are more flexible and effective ways to screen what children see,
    than to have the government impose censorship on everybody.


Problem 4.  The bill lets rates rise too fast and too much.

    Cable TV rates for upper tier services (those offered for extra
    cost) are deregulated in the bill before there is adequate
    assurance of competition to keep the rates down.  Cable operators
    are also effectively allowed to deregulate any services they
    choose by moving them from the basic tier to the upper tier.  This
    would reverse the consumer protections passed in 1992.

    In other media, states can let rates for services rise with little
    justification.  Both the Department of Justice and the FCC are
    severely restricted in their traditional powers to review
    competition and rates.

    As mentioned under Problem 2, rates are not regulated for advanced
    information services.  These services could end up costing far
    more than necessary, just as cable TV companies now charge
    premiums for popular channels.  Loopholes allow companies that own
    media (cables and phone lines) to charge artificially high rates
    to others who wish to lease them, or restrict the people leasing
    them to ineffective competitors.


What we want

    Our communications channels are a public resource.  As the telecom
    bill prepares to go into conference committee, we call on Congress
    to safeguard the public interest.

    * Promote diversity of programming by requiring carriers to
      provide services to other companies at reasonable rates.

    * Protect the free marketplace of ideas by preventing yet larger
      media monopolies and oligopolies.  Keep regulatory safeguards in
      place until proof of true competition emerges.  If telephone
      companies and cable companies merge in sparsely-populated areas
      that lack competition, continue price regulation.

    * Do not raise the limits on the percentage of markets owned by
      one firm or on foreign ownership.

    * Keep the requirements for interconnection and interoperability
      (the ability of different services to use each others lines and
      identical protocols) so that users anywhere can reach each
      other.  Ensure that users can keep telephone numbers when
      switching companies.

    * Reject censorship, which is a big step backward and is totally
      unacceptable.  Leave it up to parents make their own choices.
      Strip out the provisions on "Obscene or harassing use" and
      "Protection of Minors."

    * Ensure equitable access by all segments of the population,
      including rural areas, low-income areas, and the disabled.  Make
      the Federal-State Joint Board overseeing universal service a
      permanent institution.

    * Maintain reasonable rates for enhanced cable services as well as
      basic service, either through robust competition or through
      continued regulation.

    * Make telephone companies return to consumers some of the savings
      achieved through greater efficiencies.

    * Preserve preferential access for public, education, and government
      organizations.

    * In exchange for the extra television spectrum that broadcasters
      can profit from, require extra services such as public interest
      programming or more diversity in programming.


What to do now

    Legislators have to hear from you.  They need to know that this
    bill will not slide quietly through Congress, but that the eyes of
    the public are on them.

    Write to your own legislators, to the people on the joint
    committee, and to President Clinton.  Make the points listed in
    the "What we want" section of this paper.  If the bill is not
    substantially changed in the right direction, write to President
    Clinton and ask for a veto.

    Familiarize yourself with how your representatives voted, and tell
    your friends and colleagues about it.  Let them know that this
    bill will affect them, and ask them to write too.  Contact your
    local newspaper and ask them to cover the bill.


Key legislators

    These are the Senators and Representatives on the conference
    committee that is merging the Senate and House telecom bills.  If
    you live in one of their states, write to the legislator and
    strongly indicate that censorship is unconstitutional and will be
    ineffective in protecting children.  Also write to Senator Robert
    Dole and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who have a great deal
    of power to influence the committee, and to President Clinton, who
    has said he might veto the bill.

    Senate:
    Conrad Burns (R, Montana)
    J. James Exon (D, Nebraska)
    Wendell Ford (D, Kentucky)
    Slade Gorton (R, Washington)
    Ernest Hollings (D, South Carolina)
    Daniel Inouye (D, Hawaii)
    Trent Lott (R, Mississippi)
    John McCain (R, Arizona)
    Larry Pressler (R, South Dakota)
    John D. Rockefeller IV (D, West Virginia)
    Ted Stevens (R, Alaska)

    House:
    Bob Barr (R, Georgia)
    Joe Barton (R, Texas)
    Howard L. Berman (D, California)
    Thomas J. Bliley (R, Virginia)
    Rick Boucher (D, Virginia)
    Sherrod Brown (D, Ohio)
    John Bryant (D, Texas)
    Steve E. Buyer (R, Indiana)
    John Conyers (D, Michigan)
    John D. Dingell (D, Michigan)
    Anna G. Eshoo (D, California)
    Jack Fields (R, Texas)
    Michael Flanagan (R, Illinois)
    Daniel Frisa (R, New York)
    Elton Gallegly (R, California)
    Bob Goodlatte (R, Virginia)
    Bart Gordon (D, Tennessee)
    J. Dennis Hastert (R, Illlinois)
    Martin Hoke (R, Ohio)
    Henry Hyde (R, Illinois)
    Sheila Jackson-Lee (D, Texas)
    Scott L. Klug (R, Wisconsin)
    Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D, Arkansas)
    Edward Markey (D, Massachusetts)
    Carlos J. Moorehead (R, California)
    Mike Oxley (R, Ohio)
    Bill Paxon (R, New York)
    Bobby L. Rush (D, Illinois)
    Robert Scott (D, Virginia)
    Dan Schaefer (R, Colorado)
    Patricia Schroeder (D, Colorado)
    Cliff Stearns (R, Florida)
    Rick White (R, Washington)


For more information

    If you are not online, information is hard to get.  The
    traditional media find this issue boring, so they don't report on
    it.  Write your local radio stations and newspapers and tell them
    the bill has serious consequences for the public and should be
    covered.  One fine article in print is "The Robber Barons of the
    Information Highway" by Joshua Wolf Shenk, which appeared in the
    Washington Monthly in June 1995.

    If you are online, you can read some World Wide Web pages and join
    several mailing lists that distribute information and discuss the
    telecom bill.  To get on one of the lists below, send mail to the
    address shown and include the information in the required format.
    Capitalized words should be written exactly as shown here;
    lowercase words should be replaced with your full name.

    Cyber Rights--discussion of civil liberties and rights on
    electronic networks.

    mail to: [e-mail]

    Put in body of message: SUBSCRIBE CYBER-RIGHTS your name

    Telecommunications Policy Roundtable Forum--discussion of
    telecommunications issues from a public-interest standpoint.

    mail to: [e-mail]

    Put in body of message: SUBSCRIBE ROUNDTABLE your name

    Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) Billwatch--announcements
    about bills and actions to take.

    mail to: [e-mail]

    Put in Subject line of message: SUBSCRIBE VTW-ANNOUNCE your name

    Telecomreg--discussion of technical, legal, and policy issues in
    telecommunications.

    mail to: [e-mail]

    Put in body of message: SUBSCRIBE TELECOMREG your name

    com-priv--discussion about commercial use of the Internet.

    mail to:  [e-mail]

    Request to be added to the mailing list (mail is read by a
    person)

    The Center for Media Education offers a Web page about the bill
    at:

    http://www.access.digex.net/~cme/bill.html

    The CPSR Cyber Rights group provides several documents on our ftp
    site.  Look particularly at ACLU-Censorship-Challenge,
    AllComMed-PEG-campaign, Clinton-Telecom-Position,
    Cox-Wyden-Protection, Shenk-Telecommunications-Bills,
    Telecom-Post-on-Bills, and Valovic-re-Telecommunications-Bill.

    ftp://jasper.ora.com/pub/andyo/cyber-rights/CYBER-RIGHTS/Re-Legislation

    The Benton Foundation maintains a general page about the bill at:

    http://cdinet.com/cgi-bin/lite/Benton/Goingon/HR1555.html

    and other pages about one issue, TV spectrum allocation, at:

    http://www.cdinet.com/benton/Catalog/Working13/working13.html
    http://cdinet.com/cgi-bin/lite/Benton/Goingon/spectrumalloc.html

    The Clinton administration has placed statements on the bill at:

    http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/0/congress/1555sap.html
    http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/0/congress/s652pos.txt
    http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/0/congress/lis652.txt

    Analyses from Ralph Nader and the Consumer Project on Technology
    are at:

    http://www.essential.org/cpt/telecom/telecom.html

    The Campaign for Broadcast Competition offers a page about TV
    spectrum allocation at:

    http://campaign.com/

    Many organizations and individuals have Web pages about
    censorship; one up-to-date page at the time of this writing is:

    http://jasper.ora.com/andyo/cyber-rights/free-speech

    Industry has not had much to say online about the bill.  Two
    opposing viewpoints from Regional Bell Operating Companies and
    LDDS WorldCom, a long-distance telephone company:

    http://www.bell.com/1025.html
    http://www.iquest.net/cgi-bin/gate2?|33cC9kkP://WWW.WgykEy.COM/
               COlPOltk/PlEeelEy.9kMy3x3SMKkG

    The Center for Media Education has made several fine analyses of
    the bill available by electronic mail.  Write to [e-mail] and
    put one of the following words in the subject line to get a
    position papers on the subject shown:

        alert        call to action with summaries of issues
    clinton        President's critique of House bill
    own        industry concentration
    rates        rates, industry concentration, related issues
    spectrum    spectrum give-away
        update        frequently-changing news


Redistributing this document

    This paper may be freely distributed if kept in its entirety.  A
    special short version is available which lacks contact information
    for legislators and pointers to further information.  (The short
    version is intended for distribution to the media and political
    figures.)

    You can obtain the paper as a text file (so you can email it to
    friends or post it on appropriate bulletin boards and newsgroups)
    and as a PostScript file (so you can print and distribute it in
    hard-copy form).  Contact Andy Oram at [e-mail] or
    617-641-1261 (during U.S. East Coast business hours) to obtain
    either of these formats.  On the Web, the paper is at:

    http://jasper.ora.com/andyo/cyber-rights/telecom.html

    This paper was written by Andy Oram with help from members of
    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and other people
    in the public interest community.  Computer Professionals for
    Social Responsibility has been in educating the public and the
    government for 12 years in the socially safe and beneficial use of
    computers and related technologies.  Special thanks goes to Craig
    Johnson of Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc. for his
    expert analysis of the bill.  Copyright is held by Computer
    Professionals for Social Responsibility.

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

From: [e-mail] (Erez Levav)
Subject: Re: Telecom in China
Date: 7 Nov 1995 22:47:45 GMT
Organization: Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Erez Levav)


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

> [e-mail] (Andrew Decker) wrote:

>> While the details vary depending upon the sector (and to some extent
>> the report), in general, the Government is attempting to increase the
>> aggregate number of access lines by 10+ million per year (essentially
>> building an RBOC every year!).

> Depending on who you talk to, the telephone penetration in China is one
> to five percent, with big cities like Beijing and Shanghai reaching as
> high as 30%.  Now if the government wants to increase penetration by one
> percent per year for the next ten years.  That's one RBOC per year.  It
> is not going to happen.

> The information presented here comes from newspaper articles, personal
> visits, and recent reports from visitors from China.  Disputes welcome.

[this is not a dispute, just additional info]

One of the biggest problems of adding new infrastructure is that the
cities are overpopulated -- and thus extremly dense -- there is just not
enough room to dig for the cables.  Add to that that it is ALL done by
manual labor, and the low level of motivation (at the worker level),
and the picture gets uglier.  The "solution" is (as indicated) cell-phones.
One has to have a cell-phone to be someone.  In restaurants, the most
frequent noise is the ringing of the cell-phones (followed by the matches
striken to light cigarettes ;).

A different problem is long distance calls.  Again, connectivity is
just not there.  I would assume that the best way to connect is microwave
towers, but here the reverse of the city case -- most places are very hard
to reach (physically), roads are overloaded and in terrible shape.

We had a truck carrying computer equipment "lost" en route from Beijing
to Shanghai for almost a week -- it broke down and the driver had no way
of calling ...

All of my information is from my travel to China -- very personal view.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Raymond Hazel)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 16:14:45 -0800
Organization: N.E.T.


In article <[e-mail]>, john dupont
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Research by the Yankee Group shows that 69 percent of cellular users
>> think about the cost of a cellular call every time they pick up their
>> cellular phone.  Also, 78 percent of cellular users say they would
>> encourage people to call them if they didn't have to pay for receiving
>> the calls.

> I wonder if the research has determined how many of those people
> encouraged to call will resent being stuck with the bill. I would.
> Cellular users who choose this option may notice a drop in incoming
> calls rather that a rise.

I found that USWest has installed a "caller pays" service for cellular
service when programming the local dialing table in Tucson.  I don't
remember the prefix, or if there was more than one, but in essence,
the subscriber of the cellular service chose who paid the airtime when
requesting service.  Then the number was set up for seven digit
(local) if the subscriber paid air time, and 1 + seven digit if the
caller paid.  No message was given prior to call completion.

Initially, it was confusing whether to program the PBX for 1+.  It
ended up that the programming required seven digit screening (orginal
instructions were to avoid the client having to redial calls because
of 1+ requirements); it ended up that caller-paid-air-time calls were
blocked.  I don't know how ten digit calls were handled.  I've always
wondered, though.

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

From: [e-mail] (Lionel Ancelet)
Subject: Big Brother - He's Everywhere!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Well
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:37:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael J Kuras) wrote:

> DEJANEWS SPARKS PRIVACY CONCERNS

Even "better" (depends on your viewpoint) is the Standford Filtering Service.

It is actually an agent that you can setup to monitor thousands of newsgroup
for the occurence of certain words. Whenever these words appear, you get an
email (not an email for every occurence, though: you can chose to receive an
email every day, every N days).

The URL is http://woodstock.stanford.edu:2000/

Regarding these services ... yes they can be used to invade privacy,
but our postings are public, aren't they? Hopefully it will make
posters a little bit more responsible about contents


Lionel <[e-mail]>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I happen to think that DejaNews is an
excellent service. It is an idea whose time has definitly come. In
this time of newsgroup babble -- thousands of news groups, and no way
possible for any one person to begin to review them all or even a
small percentage of them -- a service like DejaNews or Standford Filtering
provide an excellent way to summarize and analyze what is going on
here. Oh, I know the privacy freaks are screaming about it, but thier
logic in doing so defies reason. People complain a lot about others
who get into their affairs, and yet, this is nothing new. All that has
changed in the past few years is the *ease* with which we can learn
what is going on around us. Since the beginning of Usenet, we were
free to read the messages, respond to them and discuss them. Now along
comes a service which says in effect it has become too unweildy and
cumbersome to attempt to read all the messages, respond to them and
discuss them, so we will help you with it. Now all of a sudden it
becomes an invasion of privacy?

If something is not otherwise an invasion of privacy because my eyes
see it or my ears hear it, then it should seem very reasonable that
it does not become an invasion of privacy merely due to the use of
'extension eyes' or 'extension ears'. If it is legal and not otherwise
an invasion of privacy for me to observe or hear something, make
handwritten notes on the same and discuss it, then by extension it
is perfectly okay to use a camera (artificial eyes) or a recording
device (artificial ears) or a computer (an enhanced method of note-
taking) for the same purposes.

Because in the past it was not nearly so easy to accumulate information,
a lot of people simply did not know you *could* collect the information.
Those who did know, were not that concerned. Now that information is
flowing rapidly in all directions and frequently overflowing, here
come lots of people screaming about how their privacy is being violated.
No such thing is happening. *You* create records about yourself; all
the rest of us have done is invent easy ways of finding it.

Take the word of someone who spent the first thirty years or so of his
life in the pre-computer era. The first couple of *large* companies I
worked for back in the 1960's did not have a computer in sight. Instead
they had row after row after row after row of filing cabinets and
thousands of employees who did nothing but take things in and out of
the filing cabinets all day and pass them along. The same information
we have now was available back then but we had to go look *hard* to
find it. The same companies had thousands of people employed as
'bookkeepers' manually preparing invoices and balancing accounts, etc.

So privacy freaks, your complaint is with the *computer*, not with the
keepers of the records or those of us who seek them out. Possibly the
most damnable invention of the twentieth century, the computer is not
just our best friend; I'm afraid it is also our worst enemy. It works
along nicely with you at whatever you want to accomplish, but then it
snitches on you to others. I think those of us who are 'getting on in
years' who remember the 'old system' very well and yet have actively
embraced the 'new ways' are very privileged in one sense. We know how
things used to be; we can clearly deliniate things in our own mind
and see both the good and the harm that have come from computers.

I can see where the privacy freaks are coming from; indeed, years
ago security through obscurity worked just fine because there was so
much of it. They are angry that now-a-days you have to actually work
hard at it to stay private. They would have hated the 'press clipping'
services from years ago. What are press clipping services you ask?
Well years ago when there were twice as many newspapers in the USA as
there are now, and no computers to 'grep' through the text looking for
stuff, people like politicians and successful business executives were
still interested in knowing what the press said about them. So an
entire industry over a period of about a hundred years from the middle
1800's through about 1970 was built around the clipping services.

Most services employed anywhere from a dozen to two dozen people whose
job consisted of sitting around reading newspapers all day long. They
each had a list of clients they read for, looking for any and all
mentions of that client in the daily newspapers. When they found an
article about one of their clients or a mention of their client by
name they would cut the article out of the paper and send it to him.
Usually they charged something like 25 cents for each item found.
A large clipping service would get a dozen copies of each newspaper
in their region each day, and usually a dozen or so copies each day of
the national papers such as the {New York Times}, the {Wall Street
Journal}, the {Christian Science Monitor}, etc. Readers were paid by
the number of items they found, and they read *closely* and *rapidly*
through all the papers. Politicians were fond of using press clipping
services to collect data on what their opponents had been saying so
they could  compile it all and use it against their opponents.

You see, as the scripture tells us, there is nothing new under the
sun. Just new ways of doing it is all ... so blame the computer for
your problems, guys. The computer managed to put the press clipping
services out of business -- or at least radically rearrange how they
do business -- just as the computer put the answering services out
of business.  Praise computers!  Damn computers!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 12:19:11 -0900
Subject: Re: Powering the Optical Network


I too, am interested in options for powering the optical network.
Some of the issues that need to be addressed are:

Tariff issues for class of service such as tier costs for power
fail-safe lines vs. non-fail-safe lines.

What technical options exist for fail-safe vs. non-fail-safe lines.

What technical options exist for bulk power vs. distributed power.

When CPE is used for disaster relief/emergency services, how does the
Telco guarantee provision of these services, if CPE powered.

                              -----------

I am in the process of collecting various references concerning powering
the optical network.  One solution is to run fiber to the nodes where
reliable back-up power can be provided (bulk power) and then go the
short distances to the actual user on copper or coax using conventional
loop powering technologies for those media.  Let me know and I can send
a list of references I have collected.

I am very interested in this topic, and any solutions users have provided
for their public and private networks, particularly for critical need
networks such as disaster relief and emergency services.


Richard Kenshalo

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

From: [e-mail] (Juergen Wichmann)
Subject: Re: GH337 and Mobile "Modem"
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 08:22:15 GMT
Organization: Dr. Neuhaus Telekommunikation GmbH


Antnio Sousa <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I've recently seen a post referring that the DC12 "modem" that fits
> with Ericsson's GH337 only works at 2400?

Its not the DC12 card which limits to 2400bps but the GH337, that's
correct.  Next phone generation will do 9600.


Juergen

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:35:02 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Rick Whiting)
Subject: Suggested Reading on Telecom Revolution


There is some good reading on the future of telecommunications in the
following peridicals:

The Economist, Vol. 336, No. 7934 (Sept. 30, 1995):
"The Revolution Begins, At Last," pp. 15-16, and especially,
"Telecommunications, The Death of Distance," pp. SURVEY 1-28.

National Geographic, Vol. 188, No. 4 (October 1995):
"Information Revolution," pp. 5-37.

I thought I'd mention it because these aren't the periodicals in which one
expects to find good telecommunications-related articles.


Richard A. (Rick) Whiting    Phone:  + 1 612 550 1213
5780 Rosewood Ln. N.         E-mail: [e-mail]
Plymouth, MN 55442-1411      Packet: W0TN @ WB0GDB.MN.USA.NOAM
U.S.A.                       Fax:    Number on request

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #471
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Nov  8 00:34:15 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id AAA24102; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:34:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:34:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #472

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Nov 95 00:34:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 472

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Searching For Unix->Alpha Pager (Michael Coxe)
    Re: Limits to Redialing? (Ed Ellers)
    Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Steve Cogorno)
    Private Line No. 7 Finally Online; No. 8 Free on Request (Tom Farley)
    Obituary: Harry F. Tubergen (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Let's Get That Address Changed Now! (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: [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, 7 Nov 1995 07:53:12 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Michael Coxe)
Subject: Re: Searching for Unix->Alpha Pager


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Bruce
Albrecht) writes:

> I am looking for Unix sources to send messages to an alphanumeric
> pager.  I've been told that there was one posted a while back, perhaps
> to alt.sources.  Does anyone know a location for this, or an
> approximate posting date?  For that matter, are the ixo files in the
> telecom-archives/technical directory adequate for writing one from
> scratch?


An excellent stating point for pagin info on the WEB is the Airnote Web site:

    http://www.airnote.net

To go directly to the paging software info, try:

    http://www.airnote.net/ww/paging.html#software


And Here's some info from the paging FAQ:

IXO Mailing List FAQ

This FAQ is posted monthly to the IXO mailing list at [e-mail].  It
is a compilation of answers to what we hope are the most frequently
asked questions on the list.  Some care has been put into the compilation of
these answers but no warranty is given as to their accuracy or usefulness.

This is version 1.2beta of this FAQ produced 7 June 95.
The latest copy of this FAQ is available as:
    ftp://ftp.airnote.net/pub/paging-info/ixo.faq

                              -- Brian Coogan  [e-mail]

Section 2     Paging programs

2.1   Tpage

      Tpage was one of the earliest available paging programs using the TAP
      protocol.  Originally developed and maintained by Tom Limoncelli (and
      copyright by him), it is probably the most widely used implementation
      as it is relatively simple.  Tom passed the maintenance of tpage to the
      net some time ago and it was maintained for a while by Gary L Schaps
      [[e-mail]] who produced v2.40.  Gary has had to move on to other
      things and tpage has not really acquired a new parent since.  For a
      summary of tpage features, see the excerpt from the package README
      below.  Tpage is also called 'ixobeeper' now and then.

      Note: Tpage requires Perl 4.036 to run (it will not work with Perl
      5.0! [yet]).

      The latest version of tpage available [as of June 1995] is version
      2.40.  2.40 is known to have some bugs.  Tpage 2.0/2.1 were in fairly
      wide use before 2.40.

      Archive sites:
        ftp://ftp.geo.mtu.edu/pub/ixo/{README.tpage,tpage-2.40.tar.gz}
        ftp://cirrus.com/pub/tpage/tpage2.4.tar.Z

      Known 2.4 bugs:
          getpacket() doesn't cope with text responses any more
          problems with modem locking under HP-UX and others

      As I remember, there was no Makefile provided prior to 2.1 - it is
      mentioned in the documentation somewhere but is not required for
      compilation (generally, "make ixocico" worked anyway).

      Excerpted from the README:
      "tpage" or "Tom's Pager System" is a set of programs that let
      you send messages to alpha-numeric pagers using the "IXO" protocol.
      It can also talk to numeric-only pagers using touch-tones.
      It supports a dialing directory, a "who's on duty now" schedule,
      and can do special tricks with RFC822-format email.

      The system has the following features:

      ...sends pages to any pager system that supports the IXO protocol
              or can be accessed with via a touch-tone phone.

      ...additional protocols can be added.

      ...can parse email messages and extract the interesting info from
         them resulting in shorter messages.

      ...can copy it's input to stdout and therefore can be used as a "tee".

      ...maintains a directory of people's phone numbers/PINs.

      ...can page "the person on duty" (searches a schedule).

      ...schedule can have slots that are empty, but find someone anyway if
         the message is marked "urgent".

      ...with programs like procmail, permits you to send certain email
         messages to your pager.

      ...a list of modems can be given to the daemon.

2.2   Sendpage

      Sendpage was written by Mark A. Fullmer of OSU [[e-mail]] and is
      currently actively being maintained by him.  Sendpage is written
      entirely in C and does not require perl.   Sendpage seems to be gaining
      popularity rapidly which is a good sign!   It has a great set of
      aliases and has much more flexible paging definitions.

      The latest version is Sendpage v4 alpha.  See separate FAQ entry on
      that release.

      Available from:
          ftp://ftp.net.ohio-state.edu/pub/pagers/sendpage3a.tar.gz
          ftp://ftp.net.ohio-state.edu/pub/pagers/sendpage4a.tar.gz (latest)

      Taken from the sendpage README:
      $Id: README,v 1.3 1995/05/24 00:59:30 maf Exp $

          Disk based message queue
              Each message is first queue'd to disk, and then picked up
              for delivery.  Failed deliveries are retried.  A list queue
              option is included.

          Built in aliases support
             multiple recipients
             indirect files
             programs may be run to list recipients

          Multiple pages can be sent per phone call to paging central.
              So if a page is sent to "x" and "y", and both "x" and "y" are
              resolve to the same paging central, only one phone call will be
              made to send the page.

          Built in Modem dialer

          Works with sendmail
              Adding a few lines to your sendmail.cf will allow an e-mail
              interface to sendpage.  Instructions included to implement
              "[e-mail]" or "[e-mail]" style
              interface.

          E-mail notification
              A mail message is sent on all successful pages, and on the
              first failure.

          Speaks the PET (aka TAP/IXO) protocol
              Implemented from "Programmers Guide To Paging Data Interface
              Modules" by Motorola (12/88).

          Written in C.

          Being actively developed and maintained.

          Con: no manual pages or documentation exist (yet). [volunteers??]

      [Ed note: this list of features was taken from the sendpage
       documentation; I suspect it leaves out rather a lot of features]

2.3   Sendpage latest version

      Alpha 4 of sendpage is available from URL:
      ftp://ftp.net.ohio-state.edu/pub/pagers/sendpage4a.tar.gz

      This is portability and bug fixes only, as previously I can only test
      this fully under SunOS.  I did compile and test up to trying to connect
      to paging central on HP/UX, IRIX, and Solaris though.

      from the changelog:

      workaround for syslog() and report() static buffers.
              - report() uses a 4K buffer (same as syslog)
              - all calls to report with unknown size strings use %.512s
                instead of %s

      config.c: pcinfo.modeminit not terminated properly
              - [e-mail]

      signal.c: added POSIX_SIGNALS code.  Use sigaction() for signal()
              instead of signal().

      merged most of the AIX patches from [e-mail] &
      [e-mail]

      sendpage.h can control a little more of the modem hardware setup --
              specifically the DTR toggle for hangup and RTS/CTS flow
              control.

      merged in HP/UX patches from Mike Lutz & Heath Kehoe @ norand.com

      minor changes to compile under IRIX -- untested.

      added Solaris compatibility -- untested.

      fixed race condition in queue.c which would result in a spurious
      warning message about not being able to unlink() a queue file.
      -- ["Mark A. Fullmer" <[e-mail]> 23 May 95]

2.4   Other Free IXO/TAP/PET paging programs:

      This list is by no means complete;  it just consists of a quick
      collation of what I could find mentioned in ixo over the last 6
      months.  [Authors: please consider yourself invited to contribute
      comments on your package and the particular features and benefits it
      offers! Please also correct any mistakes!]

      HylaFax:
      "You might want to look at HylaFAX v3.0pl0; it comes with IXO support
      and was intended to handle broadcast-style work of this sort (though it
      does not batch jobs like Mark Fullmer's sendpage software).  You can
      find all the information about HylaFAX at http://www.vix.com/hylafax/."

      HylaFax is written in C++ and is a large system that also provides Fax
      support.  Pros: robust job scheduler and great modem independence.
      Con: C++, IXO/TAP support is only a small part of HylaFax.
      [Sam Leffler <[e-mail]> 13 Mar 95]

      QuickPage:
      QuickPage is available from ftp://ftp.cts.mtu.edu/pub/QuickPage
      [Thomas Dwyer III <[e-mail]> 31 May 95]

      EasyPage:
      Thanks to Cam Clarke, my program EASY PAGE is now posted on airnote.net
      for FTP.  My thanks to everyone on the list for helping me getting it
      running.  Try it and if you want a registered copy (free) send me an
      email.  I would also appreciate any comments you have regarding the
      program.  [[e-mail] (Mike Willis) 9 Mar 95]

      AlphaPage:
      [No known ftp site available for this as yet]
      It is a telnet'able perl daemon (alphapaged). Unix clients need
      "alphapage" and expect. Or they can telnet in. PCs can telnet in. You
      can delete jobs from the queue, suspend jobs, list, etc. There is no
      security.  [written by Bill Houle;  8 Feb 95]

      LPD solution:
      Uses lpd to ensure pages arrive in order and to handle client server
      aspects.  Sits on top of tpage.  Possibly still available AS-IS to
      anyone wanting it from Doug.  (works for SunOS 4.1.3) [Doug Neuhauser
      <[e-mail]>  8 Feb 95]

      [See also the commercial solutions below]

2.5   Commercial solutions

      FirstPAGE:
        Check with a company called NETCON Technologies in Canada they have a
        platform independent IXO solution. It's called FirstPAGE and is in
        BETA now.  [phone] is their number.  [20 Jan 95  Scott Burns]


      EtherPage(TM):  (originally called PageMe)
           EtherPage(TM) HP-UX Beta Test Announcement

        "If you would like to beta test our EtherPage(TM)
        alphanumeric paging software, version 2.0 for HP, please
        send email to [e-mail].  You will need an HP series
        700 workstation running HP-UX 9.0.x, an unused serial port,
        a hayes compatable modem, and a dedicated phone line to participate
        in the beta test." [David R Coelho <[e-mail]> 9 Apr 95]
        The [e-mail] people are very helpful and will send info
        on request.


      Check out the Motorola Third Party Referral Guide for a comprehensive
      list of paging application vendors, and it's free!  The guide is being
      converted to html (www.mot.com), or, call 800-542-7882 for a hard
      copy.  The list includes freeware and commercial app's.

      Tom Limoncelli has collated unedited information about some commercial
      packages [currently 4: BeepTool, PageMe(EtherPage), Notable,
      TelAlert].  This information is held in a file on plts.org which can be
      retrieved from Majordomo via a message of the form:
              mail [e-mail] <<!
              send ixo products
              end
              !
      Please be warned that this is a raw, unedited collection of information
      and no assessment has been made of the worth of the products listed.
      The information is also old.

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

Enjoy,


Michael Coxe - Sys Admin Project Manager and Computer Room Administrator
HaL Computer Systems Inc, 1315 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008
email: [e-mail]   phone: [phone] x1046   fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: Limits to Redialing?
Date: 8 Nov 1995 01:59:32 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online! [Usenet News Server for hire]


In article <[e-mail]>, PAT said:

> No dummies, the people at telco, they saw an increasing number of users in
> the 1970's using 'call extenders' to route calls to other numbers, so they
> gave us call forwarding. They saw people purchasing external speed dial
> devices (or getting phones with the same built in) and they gave us speed
> dialing.

Those were in trial in the Bell System's ESS offices in the 1960s --
first in Morris (1960-62), then in Succasunna (the first commercial
1ESS, cut over in 1965) and Los Angeles (the second 1ESS, in 1966).  I
don't know when the Custom Calling services went commercial, but it
was almost certainly in the late 1960s in the few ESSs then in
service.

(A side note: I was told by an AT&T person on comp.dcom.telecom.tech a
few months ago that the Succasunna 1ESS was replaced with a 5ESS a
couple years ago.  That switch was designed to last forty years in
service; it remains to be seen if any 1ESSes will be in that long.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first ESS in Chicago was on the
near north side in the Chicago-Superior office in 1972. Then the
downtown area was converted in a couple parts during 1974-75. It
was installed throughout the city by 1983.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed
Organization: GoodNet
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 02:45:16 GMT


> For more info, call 1-800-NORTEL or contact me.
                            ^^^^^^

Did they run out of seven digit 800 numbers so they are assigning six
digits??   :)


Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU    Tempe, Arizona


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh-oh! Well, that one got past me.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:37:19 -0800 (PST)


john dupont said:

> I wonder if the research has determined how many of those people
> encouraged to call will resent being stuck with the bill. I would.
> Cellular users who choose this option may notice a drop in incoming
> calls rather that a rise.

I'd be pretty annoyed too.  If someone wants me to call them on
*their* cellular phone for *their* conveinence, then *they* should pay
the airtime charges.

This is just another headache for PBX administrators, since the
caller can be charged for air-time at certain times and not at others.
What I think will happen is hotels/schools/payphone will block off
these cellular numbers altogether.  Bell Atlantic should at least put
this new "Feature" in its own prefix so "caller-pays" can be blocked
without giving the rest of us "regular" cellular users a bad reputation
for air-time rip-offs.


Steve    [e-mail]

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

From: Tom Farley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private Line No. 7 Finally Online; No. 8 Free on Request
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 21:51:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


The text of _private line_ No. 7 (July-August, 1995), is now up at the
ETEXT archive at Michigan. Gopher over or FTP to take a look.
_private line_ No. 8 continues to be free upon request. Send me a
snail mail address and I will send it to you.

Here's how to look up No. 7:

 Gopher or FTP to:

    etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Zines/PrivateLine

Another useful URL is:

    gopher://gopher.etext.org:70/11/Zines/PrivateLine

The table of contents for the electronic version is as follows:

I EDITORIAL PAGE
II LETTERS
III UPDATES AND CORRECTIONS
    Magazine List
    Text of Cloning Regulation 47 C.F.R. 22.919
    Misc. Stuff
IV. A QUICK AND DIRTY GUIDE TO EIA/TIA STANDARDS
V. CLASS OF SERVICE AND PAYPHONES
VI. THE PAYPHONE CORNER
VII. PAYPHONE STATISTICS
VIII. OUTSIDE PLANT, PART 1
IX. A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE TELECOM DIGEST
X. BOOK REVIEWS
    Old Time Telephones
    The Straight Scoop
    ISDN: A User's Guide To Services, Applications and
    Resources in California
XI. DEBIT CARDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
XII. TELEPHONE REPAIR COLUMN
XIII. CAPTIONS TO THE OUTSIDE PLANT ARTICLE

_ private line_ is a hardcopy, alternative publication about the
telephone system. The hardcopy of No. 7 contains over 30 photographs.
Send me $5.00 and I will send you a copy.  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

I don't take credit cards but I can bill you. Back issues are $5.00
apiece.  E-mail me if you want a list of their table of contents.
Corrections and comments are always welcome. Submissions are also
encouraged.  Voice is [phone]. My fax number is [phone]
and my e-mail address is [e-mail]

By-the-way, the November-December issue of _private line_ (No. 9) is
now out. It contains a look at an AT&T cable station, an update to the
Digital Telephony Bill, an index to volume 2 of _private line_, a
review of Def Con III and an article on propagation basics of point to
point microwave systems. Among other things.  It's my best effort so
far and it contains 17 photographs.

September-October, the free sample issue, contains a long article
introducing Canadian telecom. It also has an article on Outside Plant.
The feature article was written by Damien Thorn on cellular test mode
scanning. Its four parts are: Accessing Diagnostic Modes, Oki Test
Mode Commands, Motorola Diagnostics, and a Motorola Test Mode
Command Summary.


Thank you!

Tom Farley

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Obituary: Harry F. Tubergen
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 23:00:00 EST


Harry F. Tubergen would not be well known to many of you, but
he passed away at age 74 about a week ago. Mr. Tubergen was the
person who brought computers into banking here in the Chicago
area in 1966. Prior to about 1960 no banks anywhere had
computers. All record keeping was done manually, by legions of
bookeepers and clerks including customer statements, check
sorting, loan and interest payments, etc. In the middle sixties,
a couple of the larger banks in New York began using computers,
and under Mr. Tubergen's leadership as president of Merchandise
National Bank here in Chicago, that bank began installing a
computer system in 1966.

Two much, much larger banks here, First National Bank of Chicago
and Continental National Bank of Chicago both held off with any
plans to computerize their operations until they could evaluate
the results of the 'new automated system' at the much smaller
MNB. They both began computerization in 1968 after seeing how
it would work in the other bank. In fact, most banks around the
United States were watching the 'experiment' at Merchandise
National Bank with much interest.

Harry Tubergen's pioneering efforts to bring computers into
banks led the way for banks around the USA to retire their
armies of clerks and put their trust in machinery. To insure
that indeed computers could handle the job correctly, MNB
and most other banks ran parallel accounting systems for
six months to a year. That is, they had the computer do it all
while the clerks did it also in the traditional way, making
sure the books balanced and the answers all came out the same.

Tubergen was not without his critics in the industry and among the
customers, many of whom (the customers) were frightened to death
that the new invention would lose track of their money or other-
wise cause them many hardships. As computers began to spread
throughout the finance industry in the early sixties the banks
began to notice what was going on, but they were reluctant to
install computers of their own.

For example, American Express and Diner's Club, the two 'grandfathers'
in the credit card business, having begun in the early 1950's both
began massive computerization of their credit card operations about
1960. Yes, Amex credit cards originally were entirely manual in their
bookkeeping if you can imagine such a thing, as was Diners and the
oil company cards. Bank of America began using computers in about
1962 primarily because of their new product 'BankAmericard' which
of course today we know as Visa. But other than BoA, and a couple
of the big east coast banks like Chase Manhattan, the other banks
in the USA would have nothing to do with computers until they saw
the success that Harry Tubergen had at Merchandise National Bank in
Chicago.

Tubergen started at the bank at age 30 as their controller in 1952.
He became president in 1965 and retired in 1977. So the next time
you have business with your bank, remember the man who essentially
started modern banking as we know it back in 1966.


PAT

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's Get That Address Changed Now!
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 00:15:00 EST


This is just a reminder that if you still have not changed your
address for the Digest you should do so today. I am still getting
mail filtering in from eecs.nwu.edu, and would like to get all
of you on the new address as soon as possible.

Effective now, please send all TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom
mail only to the address '[e-mail]'. If you are
a news admin, please adjust the newsgroup pointers as well.

Furthermore, the Telecom Archives is now ftp.lcs.mit.edu.


Thank you.

PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #472
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov  9 03:05:15 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id DAA02555; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 03:05:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 03:05:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #473

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Nov 95 03:05:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 473

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    More 708/847/630 Split Details (David W. Tamkin)
    Book Review: "The Mosaic Handbook for the Macintosh" (Rob Slade)
    Seattle Phone Scam Solved (Jeremy Schertzinger)
    *67 Now Works in New Orleans! (Mark J. Cuccia)
    New Voice File Conversion Package-Press Release ([e-mail])
    Spies on the Net, or "The CIA Controls EUnet" (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: [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] (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: More 708/847/630 Split Details
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 17:08:20 CST


These are the towns that will switch from 708 to 847 or 630 or stay
in 708 in the 1996 area code splits in northeastern Illinois per
http://www.ameritech.com/areacode/, proofread against Ameritech's
printed brochure on the subject.

Permissive dialing for the 708/847 split runs from January 20 through
April 19.  Permissive dialing for the 708/630 split runs from August 3
through November 29 and will overlap the transition for the 312/773
split, which is scheduled to begin in October, 1996.  [On that sub-
ject, on Monday the Illinois Commerce Commission hearing examiner re-
commended the plan to keep Chicago Zone 1 in 312 and assign 773 to the
rest of the current 312 to the full ICC board.]

Cellular and pager numbers will not change area codes, though
individual customers may decide to change numbers to get into a
preferred area code.

Some customers in towns marked with an asterisk will get new telephone
numbers.  I'll give details on border anomalies below.

Municipalities retaining 708:

Alsip, Bedford Park, Beecher, Bellwood, Berkeley, Berwyn, Blue Island,
Bridgeview, Broadview, Brookfield, Burbank, Burnham, Calumet City,
Calumet Park, Chicago Heights, Chicago Ridge, Cicero, Country Club
Hills, Countryside, Crestwood, Crete, Dixmoor, Dolton, East Hazel
Crest, Elmwood Park, Evergreen Park, Flossmoor, Ford Heights, Forest
Park, Forest View, Glenwood, Goodenow, Harvey, Harwood Heights, Hazel
Crest, Hickory Hills, Hillside, Hines, Hodgkins, Hometown, Homewood,
Indian Head Park, Justice, La Grange, La Grange Park, Lansing, Lyn-
wood, Lyons, Markham, Matteson, Maywood, McCook, Melrose Park, Merri-
onette Park, Midlothian, Mokena, Monee, Norridge, North Riverside,
Northlake, Oak Forest, Oak Lawn, Oak Park, Olympia Fields, Orland
Hills, Orland Park, Palos Heights, Palos Hills, Palos Park, Park
Forest, Peotone, Phoenix, Posen, Richton Park, River Forest, River
Grove, Riverdale, Riverside, Robbins, Sauk Village, South Chicago
Heights, South Holland, Steger, Stickney, Stone Park, Summit, Thorn-
ton, Tinley Park, University Park, Westchester, Western Springs,
Willow Springs, Worth

Municipalities moving to 847:

Algonquin, Antioch, Aptakisic, Arlington Heights, Bannockburn,
Barrington, Barrington Hills, Beach Park, Biltmore, Buffalo Grove,
Burlington, Carpentersville, Cary, Deer Park, Deerfield, Des Plaines,
Diamond Lake, Downey, Dundee, East Dundee, Echo Lake, Elgin, Elk Grove
Village*, Evanston, Forest Lake, Ft. Sheridan, Fox Lake, Fox Lake
Hills, Fox River Grove, Fox River Valley Gardens, Franklin Park, Gages
Lake, Gilberts, Gilmer, Glencoe, Glenview, Golf, Grandwood Park, Grass
Lake, Grayslake, Great Lakes, Green Oaks, Gurnee, Hainesville, Half
Day, Hampshire, Hawthorn Woods, Highland Park, Highwood, Hoffman Es-
tates, Hubbard Woods, Huntley, Indian Creek, Ingleside, Inverness, Is-
land Lake, Ivanhoe, Kenilworth, Kildeer, Lake Barrington, Lake Bluff,
Lake Forest, Lake in the Hills, Lake Villa, Lake Zurich, Libertyville,
Lincolnshire, Lincolnwood, Lindenhurst, Long Grove, Long Lake, Loon
Lake, McGaw Park, Mettawa, Milburn, Morton Grove, Mt. Prospect, Mun-
delein, Niles, North Barrington, North Chicago, Northbrook, North-
field, Oakwood Hills, Old Mill Creek, Palatine, Park City, Park Ridge,
Pingree Grove, Pistakee Highlands, Plato Center, Prarie View, Prospect
Heights, Riverwoods, Rolling Meadows, Rondout, Rosecrans, Rosemont,
Round Lake, Round Lake Beach, Round Lake Heights, Round Lake Park,
Russell, Schaumburg*, Schiller Park, Silver Lake, Skokie, Sleepy Hol-
low, South Barrington, South Elgin, Sylvan Lake, Techny, Third Lake,
Timber Lake, Tower Lakes, Venetian Village, Vernon Hills, Wadsworth,
Wauconda, Waukegan, West Dundee, Wheeling, Wildwood, Wilmette, Win-
netka, Winthrop Harbor, Zion

Municipalities moving to 630:

Addison, Argonne, Aurora, Bartlett*, Batavia, Bensenville, Big Rock,
Bloomingdale, Bolingbrook, Bristol, Burr Ridge*, Carol Stream,
Clarendon Hills, Darien, Downers Grove, Elburn, Elmhurst, Eola,
Geneva, Glen Ellyn, Glendale Heights, Hanover Park, Hinsdale, Itasca,
Kaneville, Keeneyville, La Fox, Lemont, Lily Lake, Lisle, Lombard,
Maple Park, Medinah, Montgomery, Mooseheart, Naperville, North Aurora,
Oak Brook, Oakbrook Terrace, Ontarioville, Oswego, Plano, Roselle,
St. Charles, Streamwood*, Sugar Grove, Villa Park, Virgil, Warrenville,
Wasco, Wayne*, West Chicago, Westmont, Wheaton, Willowbrook, Winfield,
Wood Dale, Woodridge, Yorkville

Border anomalies:

630 will cover a single geographical area.  847 and the new 708 will
each be divided into three discontiguous pieces.

To keep all of incorporated Bartlett, Streamwood, and Wayne in 630,
customers in the parts of those towns wired from the Elgin switch will
get new phone numbers.

To keep all of incorporated Schaumburg and Elk Grove Village in 847,
customers in the parts of those towns wired from the Roselle switch or
in the part of Schaumburg wired from the Bartlett switch will get new
phone numbers.  [Note that that's the Roselle _switch_, not the Ro-
selle Exchange.  Almost all of Schaumburg lies in the Roselle Exchange
but is served from other central offices (Willowcrest, Schaumburg, and
Schaumburg North) which will go entirely into 847.]

To keep all of incorporated Burr Ridge in 630, customers in the part
wired from the LaGrange switch will get new phone numbers.

To prevent dividing Rosemont or assigning new phone numbers there,
Franklin Park and Schiller Park will follow Rosemont into 847 instead
of remaining in 708 as earlier maps showed.  Much of the Franklin
Park/River Grove border runs through the middles of blocks, so there
will be yet more places where next-door neighbors will need to dial
eleven digits to call one another.

Norwood Heights will be divided; it is unincorporated, so there was
no need to avoid splitting it.  Ameritech phones there will stay in
708 (the prefixes in use in the eastern portion of Norwood Heights
also serve Harwood Heights and those in the southwestern part also
serve Norridge), but Centel-Illinois lines in the northwestern part
are on Park Ridge prefixes and will go to 847.

The Chicago-Newcastle and River Grove central offices will each serve
pieces of three area codes: 847, 708, and 312 (to become 773).

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

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 17:23:12 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "The Mosaic Handbook for the Macintosh"


BKMOSAHM.RVW  951023

"The Mosaic Handbook for the Macintosh", Dougherty/Koman, 1994, 1-56592-096-1
%A   Dale Dougherty [e-mail]
%A   Richard Koman [e-mail]
%C   103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA   95472
%D   1994
%G   1-56592-096-1
%I   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O   800-998-9938, fax: [phone], [e-mail], [e-mail]
%O   [e-mail] [e-mail]
%P   171
%T   "The Mosaic Handbook for the Macintosh"

Of the three titles in this series, this is the most general, and the
least platform specific, but still provides one of the better
overviews of Mosaic.  The first four chapters are general explorations
of the Internet, World Wide Web (WWW or W3), and the Global Network
Navigator (GNN).  Chapters five to seven give a great deal more detail
than previous Internet guides on customization of Mosaic, multimedia
extensions, and HTML (HyperText Markup Language).  A final chapter
looks at possible future directions, contacts, and resources.
Appendices give reference guides to Mosaic and HTML.  As with the
Windows version, unfortuantely, there is almost no material on
installation, or dialup IP accounts (or software) for the Mac.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1995   BKMOSAHM.RVW  951023


Vancouver          [e-mail]
Institute for      [e-mail]
Research into      [e-mail]
User               [e-mail]
Security           Canada V7K 2G6

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

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 14:32:38 PST
From: Jeremy Schertzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seattle Phone Scam Solved


Two Seattle television stations, KOMO and KING were recently scammed by
an artist calling and identifying himself as a US West representative.
He said that US West was testing the lines and he needed access to a
specific extension.  That extension was the long distance lines of the
two businesses.  Over three days, he racked up hundreds if not thousands of
dollars in long distance calls all over the world. (The stations would
not comment on the amount of the bills.)

After KOMO figured out what was going on, they tried to keep him on the
line for awhile.  He got nervous, hung up, and has not called back.

In a later segment on KOMO News:

US West says they can test their own lines without your help.  If
anyone ever calls claiming to be from the phone company and wanting to
be transferred to a specific extension, they are probably not telco
employees.


Jeremy Schertzinger                    <URL:http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/>
     [e-mail] -- [e-mail] -- [e-mail]
Unofficial Rush Limbaugh Home Page      http://www.eskimo.com/~jeremyps/rush/
        The Best of Kidopedia   --   http://rdz.stjohns.edu/kidopedia/
    Seattle Community Network Teens Moderator  telnet: scn.org  "go teens"

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

From: Mark J. Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: *67 Now Works in New Orleans!
Date: 8 Nov 1995 22:36:06 GMT
Organization: Tulane University


*67, the Caller-ID number privacy prefix was never allowed in
Louisiana. From the time 'Touchstar' (CLASS/CCS-7) features began to
be introduced sometime in 1991, we were not allowed a per-call number
blocking, nor was anyone allowed an option of default per-line number
blocking. Only certain classes of customers (Police undercover,
political animals, schoolteachers, YWCA/Battered Women's Centers, etc)
were allowed to have a 'phony' phone number to be transmitted/displayed
on their outgoing calls.

Everytime I tried to dial 11-67 or enter *67, I always received one of
two recordings. From #1AESS offices, I got "We're sorry, your call
cannot be completed as dialed. Please check your _instruction manual_
or call the _business office_ for assistance." From DMS offices, I got
"We're sorry, you have dialed an invalid Touchstar option code" or
something. similar. I don't know which recording the #5ESS offices
used.

Even without a per-line or per-call 'Private Call' option, some calls
did show up as 'Private' on my ID box every now and then. They were
calls comming from local PBX or ISDN systems, some of them with a US
Governmental office.

With the anticipated National/Interstate Caller-ID and the FCC
mandates that per-call number blocking be made available, I was trying
*67 (11-67) every several days. Only about a week ago I still received
the recordings.  Yesterday, I received my monthly bill from SCBell-
excuse me- BellSouth. In it was an insert explaining that *67 (11-67)
was now available, and that Caller-ID would soon be going Nationwide.
I tried *67 and got a 3-beep confirmation follwed by second dialtone.
It *does* prevent the number from displaying. While the bill insert
didn't mention anything about per-line blocking nor did it mention *82
(11-82), that code is also now programmed into the local central
office switches. It *could* be that *82 (11-82) will transmit/display
the *true* telephone number (on POTS lines) if that line is default to
display a 'phony' phone number.

Regarding Inter-Lata/State Caller-ID, I did have a friend in Baton
Rouge call me via WilTel (10-555/101-0555+) a few months back. I
received his number *and* his name on my ID box (along with the
date/time). Baton Rouge is a different LATA than mine, altho' both
Baton Rouge and New Orleans are both still under NPA 504 (for the time
being).

I also have *69 (11-69) Call-Return on my home line. I did a *69 on
the call from my friend in Baton Rouge. Here in Louisiana, *69 has
quoted back the number (if it was not 'Out-of-Area') and then gave you
the option of connecting to that number (in most cases). Sometimes, if
the call was from a Payphone or a PBX trunk line, I did get the number
(and name) on my ID box, and I did get the number on a *69 quote back,
but I was told that I could *not* use *69 to connect back. I could
however, manually dial back that number. I did get a full number (and
date/time) quote back on *69 on the call from Baton Rouge, but I was
*not* allowed a 'connect-back'.

However, on calls which had been 'Privatized', I got the following:
"This is your automatic callback service" (so far the same)
"The number of your last incoming call is" (okay, no change) (now a
'different' audio quality- kinda like a splice) "A Private Number and
cannot be announced".  I was, however allowed the choice to
connect-back to that number. But what if that number was toll to me?

I don't know if Bell is going to offer 'Block the Blocker', but if
'Private' calls are a problem from telemarketers, I'll just let those
calls roll over to cellular/voicemail, even when I am at home!

I'm looking forward to the eventual introduction of Caller-ID-on-Call-
Wait in the New Orleans area, along with other ADSI features- such as
Visual List Editing. To determine the Caller-ID of a 'beeping' call, I
have to hang up on my call in progress and let the new call 'ring-in'.
When C-ID on CW is eventually offered in New Orleans, I won't have to
do that anymore- and I can ignore a 'Private call' beeping in on me!


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] (Tatro Enterprises)
Subject: New Voice File Conversion Package-Press Release
Date: 9 Nov 1995 01:54:18 GMT
Organization: interQuest Online Services -- Huntsville, AL


For more Information, contact Joane Stephens, 205-650-0095 or send
email to: [e-mail].

Huntsville, 8 November, 1995

Voice File Format Converter Version 2.0

For Immediate Release:

    Tatro Enterprises is pleased to announce the update to their
telephony voice file format conversion program, ver. 2.0. The program
will enable all IVR developers to convert voice files from all
generally used vox-formats to all commonly-used wav-formats and back.

    This updated version includes the Wave Editor, a utility with
which you can record and listen to Wav-Format files instead of having
to use additional software in the Windowsb environment. Your
recordings are graphically displayed on the screen and you can
increase and decrease the volume or increase and decrease the speed of
the recording. Wav files can be converted back to vox-format for
inclusion in IVR-applications. Bulk conversion of files in one
directory with directory synchronization is possible.  The program
runs under Windows 3.11b, Windows NTb 3.51 and Win 95b.

The full program retails for US $20.00 plus $3.00 shipping and handling in
North America (incl. Canada and Mexico), $6.00 for international shipping.

A demonstration program is available which will let you convert files from
vox- to wav-format using the default settings. The Wave Editor contains
all functionality except that recorded or modified wav-files can not be
saved.

The following file-formats are supported:

VOX-Format Options:
PCM (8 bit) (ALaw-encoding possible)
ADPCM (4 bit)
- both 6000 Hz and 8000 Hz

WAV-Format Options:
8000 Hz
11025 Hz
22050 Hz
44100 Hz
- 8 bit or 16 bit per Sample
- Mono or Stereo

The demonstration program can be downloaded from the following
internet site: ftp: vespucci.iquest.com  /tatro-enterprises/demo/vfc.zip

or

http://iquest.com/~btatro

c. Tatro Enterprises. All other brands and product names are trademarks
and/or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

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

From: TELECOM Digest Edtior <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spies on the Net, or "The CIA Controls  EUnet"
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 12:50:00 PST


Forwarded to the Digest, for your entertainment:

  Subject: Spies on the net, take 2, or "The CIA controls EUnet"
  Forwarded-by: Larry Hunter <[e-mail]>
  From: [e-mail] (Jim Warren)
  Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 18:31:11 -0800
  To: [e-mail]

Is Someone Already Watching All International Net Traffic?

The following is the transcript of an actual communications trace that a
friend ran, while I was sitting next to him, watching -- reprinted here
with his permission.

He did a "traceroute" of two messages that he sent from his machine in
Switzerland (he'd telneted into it while we were at a computer conference
in California).

Traceroute automatically reports each Internet node through which a message
passes, as it proceeds from origin to destination.

He did two traceroutes.  The first was from Switzerland to an addressee at
Netcom in San Jose, California.  The second was from Switzerland to an
addressee in Israel.

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 02:54:58 +0200
From: [e-mail] (John Walker)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Traceroute

> /usr2/kelvin> traceroute netcom11.netcom.com
traceroute to netcom11.netcom.com (192.100.81.121), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
 1  eunet-router (193.8.230.64)  2 ms  2 ms  2 ms
 2  146.228.231.1 (146.228.231.1)  326 ms  345 ms  307 ms
 3  Bern5.CH.EU.NET (146.228.14.5)  447 ms  408 ms  364 ms
 4  146.228.107.1 (146.228.107.1)  127 ms  37 ms  36 ms
 5  Zuerich1.CH.EU.NET (146.228.10.80)  37 ms  38 ms  175 ms
 6   (134.222.9.1)  65 ms  109 ms  252 ms
 7  lp (134.222.35.2)  196 ms  179 ms  405 ms
 8  Vienna1.VA.ALTER.NET (137.39.11.1)  191 ms  179 ms  313 ms
 9  fddi.mae-east.netcom.net (192.41.177.210)  336 ms  204 ms  303 ms
10  t3-2.dc-gw4-2.netcom.net (163.179.220.181)  182 ms  251 ms  187 ms
11  t3-2.chw-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.186)  305 ms  586 ms  518 ms
12  t3-2.scl-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.190)  537 ms  693 ms  797 ms
13  t3-1.netcomgw.netcom.net (163.179.220.193)  698 ms  549 ms  754 ms
14  netcom11.netcom.com (192.100.81.121)  890 ms  1922 ms  1696 ms

> /usr2/kelvin> traceroute jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
traceroute to jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il (192.114.21.101), 30 hops max, 40
byte packets
 1  eunet-router (193.8.230.64)  2 ms  3 ms  2 ms
 2  146.228.231.1 (146.228.231.1)  933 ms  853 ms  874 ms
 3  Bern5.CH.EU.NET (146.228.14.5)  1040 ms  450 ms  525 ms
 4  146.228.107.1 (146.228.107.1)  453 ms  424 ms  188 ms
 5  Zuerich1.CH.EU.NET (146.228.10.80)  64 ms  61 ms  47 ms
 6   (134.222.9.1)  80 ms  312 ms  84 ms
 7  lp (134.222.35.2)  270 ms  400 ms  216 ms
 8  Vienna2.VA.ALTER.NET (137.39.11.2)  660 ms  1509 ms  886 ms
 9  dataserv-gw.ALTER.NET (137.39.155.38)  1829 ms  1094 ms  1306 ms
10  orion.datasrv.co.il (192.114.20.22)  1756 ms  1280 ms  1309 ms
11  ...

Notice that both messages went through an unnamed site -- 134.222.9.1 and
then a strangely-named site, "lp (134.222.35.2)" -- then through the same
Vienna, Virginia (USA) site ... and thereafter, on to their destination.
I.e., the second message went through Virginia to get from Switzerland to
Israel.

The whois servers at the InterNIC and at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information
report, ``No match for "134.222.9.1". '' and `` No match for
"134.222.35.2".''

Now let me see ... which spy agencies are located in or near Virginia?


jim

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #473
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov  9 20:23:22 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id UAA02664; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 20:23:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 20:23:22 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #474

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Nov 95 20:23:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 474

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Old Western Electric CPE (Mark Cuccia)
    Book Review: "The Windows Internet Tour Guide" by Fraase (Rob Slade)
    V120 in Japan (Gregory Zamarski)
    IPL Service to Japan (Gregory Zamarski)
    Taking Bids to Purchase PBX (K. Smith)
    SS7 Questions (Jean-Marc Garin)
    High Speed Data Over Radio (Sven Palmersjo)
    500 Service ... What's the Deal? (Joseph Singer)
    Basic Conversion Program For New Dutch Phone Numbers (Peter Zijderveld)
    Looking for Speakerphone with Full Duplex (Paul King)
    Wanted to Buy: 19"-25" Racks (Les Kula)

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: [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: Old Western Electric CPE
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 95 16:38:00 CST


Recently there was a discussion about coiled handset cords, cloth v.
rubber (or plastic) cords and old telephones.

I will be referring to Western Electric (WE or WECO) here, but
Northern Electric (NE) in Canada was associated with Western Electric
for many many years, under various cross patenting arrangements. NE
was the equipment company for Bell Canada, and more or less still is,
although its name changed to Northern Telecom sometime in the 1970's
or so, and they now choose to be called Nortel. Bell Northern Research
was formed in the early 1970's, out of NE (or NT) to be something like
the Bell Labs in Canada.

The 'French' phone came out in the mid 1920's. It was Bell/WE's first
'combined handset' telephone for the general public. I think that Bell
had a lineman's handset prior to the 'French' phone. The original
'French' phones had a *round* base. I've seen references to the model
number `201' for the round base, however I've also seen it referred to
as the `102' phone. The oval base phone known as the 202 came out
about a year after the round base phone. This phone had *no* built in
ringer nor induction coil. An associated box mounted to the wall
contained a ringer and induction coil. This box was known as the
*subscriber subset* but popularly known as a ringer box.

The `211' phone was a little steel rectangular cube box mounted with a
bracket to the side of a desk or shelf. Sometimes this phone was known
as a `hanger phone'. The handset hook was on the side, and a dial was
mounted by another bracket on top. A non-dial model could be arranged
by removing the entire dial-mounting perched on top, rather than just
removing the dial from its mounting.

Both of these phones originally had a 'French' type of handset -- with a
small hornlike cup protruding from the mouthpiece part. These handsets
were not as ornate nor fancy as the actual phones used in France and
other parts of the world (or the 'decorator' phones of today), but the
handsets were a bit more ornate than some later handsets. This handest
was known as an `E-1' handset, and is *quite* heavy compared with
those of today. The sound quality was also inferior to later models.
Originally it had a large round module for the carbon transmitter
insert, while the receiver part was more 'built in' with a flat metal
disk diaphram which can be 'slid' off or popped out.

In 1937, Bell came out with the `302' phone. The early ones were in a
steel case, but bakelite ones came out later -- I don't know if they
switched to bakelite right before the War or right after. This phone
was the first desk phone from Bell/WE with the ringer and induction
coil built in the phone itself. The handset was the `F-1' model,
somewhat arched back. It had improved sound quality over the `E-1' and
had 'removable' transmitter and receiver inserts. The `352' was the
wall version in the 300-series; I've only seen it in bakelite.

The first combined multi-line key phone from WE/NE was a `302' type phone.
It came out in 1938, with six *round* clear *glass* buttons, even for
'hold'. Prior to 1938, multiline keying functions were controlled by a
separate box associated with a 202 phone. There are pictures of those
pre-302 key functions in the book "A History of Engineering & Science in the
Bell System- Switching Technology, 1925-75" published in the early 1980s by
AT&T/Bell Labs, edited by Amos E. Joel (now retired from Bell Labs). The
first 302 type keyphones were probably steel- I don't know if WE made them
in bakelite later.

The 500 deskset was introduced in 1949. This was the first non-coin
phone to have the larger dial assembly- the dials themselves had been
3-inches, but the 500 set had the ring with digits/letters around the
outside of the dial, making the full assembly 4.25 inches. The first
models were, of course, black, and had *metal* fingerwheels on the
dials. The 554 was the wall version which came out around 1954. Also
about this time was the *color* 500 series phones. They were really
'two-tone' models (and here I dont mean DTMF- but color <g>), with a
black dial assembly (the 'ring' around the dial was black along with
the metal fingerwheel). Some other parts were black as well -- I think
that the cords were black, but the handset might have been either
black or the color of the base -- I can't remember right now). Full
color phones came out about a year later, but the two-tone models were
still being marketed as well -- but I think that there was a lack of
interest in the two-tone ones after full solid color models came out.
Also, the full color models had *plastic* fingerwheels on the dials-
but a *harder* plastic than used today. And the center of an older
plastic fingerwheel was open -- it didn't have the top all covered up
with the same molded plastic. These early plastic fingerwheels had a
grinding sound when the dial was spun, while later ones were softer.

Early 500 keysets also had six round glass clear buttons, including
the hold button. A 554 wall version could be used on a multi-line
setup, but it usually had a separate box mounted next to it with the six
keys.

As for cords and handsets:

I've seen coiled handset cords on phones as early as the 202 model. It
might have been 'added' to the phone some years later. And cloth cords
weren't exclusively used on 202's and 302's -- rubber cords, plastic
cords, and even coiled cords were used as well. You did pay extra for
a coiled handset cord over a straight cord for a while, but eventually
the coiled cord became the de-facto standard. BLACK was the standard
color for older models, but you could also pay extra for a color
bakelite 302 phone. 202's and steel 302's could be painted a different
color -- usually a metalic color. Stright plastic cords were used on 500
sets, but coiled cords also date back to the early years of the 500.

The F-1 handset (the arched back ones) began to be put on 202's
probably as a replacement handset, although the original handset for
202's was the E-1 (the French handset). I *have* seen some pictures of
a 302 phone with an E-1 handset, but I always thought it looked 'funny'.

Another interesting 'hybrid' with interchangeable parts was the 5300
phone.  (I've also seen it referred to as the 3500). It was really a
302 desk phone but had a 500 housing. The 302 phones were *smaller*
than the 500's, so it was a smaller 500's housing. The cradle was
designed to take either an F-1 handset or the 500's handset, the G-1.
As for the dial, a 4.25 inch wide dial assembly (the 500 style) could
be used, or a 'blank' ring insert could be mounted in the dial hole in
the housing, with an older 3-inch dial mounted in that. Unless you
looked carefully, you might think that this was a 500 phone especially
if it had the wider dial assembly and a G-1 handset, however it still
had a B-type ringer (with its 41-A and 41-B gong pair) and 'rang' like
most 302/352 style phones. There is an article about the 5300 phone
(3500?) in a 1950's era issue of Bell Laboratories Record.

These phones were built to last for *years* -- they might have been
heavy, but they were *sturdy*. You could spin a dial without having
the phone slide all over the table. Even with touchtones today, I find
that today's ultralight platic phones still slide around when using
them. You could use older phones as a paperweight -- when writing down a
phone number on a slip of paper, you could put a corner of the paper
under the part of the phone. And the phones *ring* with authority and
clarity -- real electromechanical ringers with real metal bell gongs.
Except for my cellular phone, the phones for my personal use (both at
home and here at work) are real Western Electric phones -- I have at
least one of most of the WE/Bell phones of the 1920's thru the 1960's
described above. I do have a pocket battery powered touchtone dialer
for those times I want or *have* to enter touchtones, however, since
all of my personal use phones are rotary dial. And these phones will
also work on such digital offices as DMS, #5ESS, even digital PBX's if
the line is still an analog line.


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, 08 Nov 1995 01:00:52 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "The Windows Internet Tour Guide" by Fraase


BKWNINTG.RVW  951011

%A   Michael Fraase [e-mail]
%C   P.O. Box 2468, Chapel Hill, NC 27515
%D   1994
%G   1-56604-081-7
%I   Ventana Press, Inc.
%O   U$24.95 919/942-0220 FAX [phone] [e-mail]
%P   344
%T   "The Windows Internet Tour Guide"
"The Windows Internet Tour Guide", Fraase, 1994, 1-56604-081-7, U$24.95

Fraase's book is a real grab bag.  It has some good information, some
excellent writing, some gaps, some errors, some promises and a lot of
graphics (of which the author seems inordinately fond).  It isn't so
much Windows specific as (NetManage's) Chameleon specific.

Overall, the discussion of Internet applications and use covers the
major topics, and gives the new user a reasonable understanding of the
basic tools.  The chapter on "Getting Connected" proposes a very
broadly based and helpfully divided overview of the various options.
It starts with talk of the university, government, and corporate
options, of which many potential users remain unaware.  The difference
between dedicated dial-up IP and dial-up terminal is raised, although
the promised discussion of dial-up terminal and commercial "email
gateway" access never seems to materialize.  The personal and
community aspects of the net get a lot of space.  Some important, but
often neglected, aspects of file characteristics and transfer are
raised, albeit briefly.  The "Neat Stuff" section really does have
some interesting and little known resources.

On the other hand, the quality of the information is very uneven.  The
setup of the included programs is said to be easy, but I suspect that
a very thorough familiarity with modems would be needed in view of the
extremely brief instructions for the Chameleon software configuration.
(The Chameleon Sampler software is included with the book.)  The
"points of interest" are interesting, but seldom have anything to do
with the surrounding text.  (A pleasant exception to this are some of
the useful and helpful points in the email section.)  The directions
on how to use and access resources on the net are *not* going to be
helpful unless you are using the included software (and that type of
dial-up connection).  Every set of directions assume a full, or at
least dial-up, IP connection.  Interestingly, the heavy reliance on
gopher apparent in "The PC Internet Tour Guide" seems to be somewhat
reduced (though not eliminated) here.  There are a number of dated
addresses, as well as some that are just plain wrong (one suspects
through bad editing).  Seasoned Internauts will be able to correct
these errors, but then, seasoned Internauts aren't likely to be using
the book.

At one seminar I was told to promote this book because it had
software.  The software included may be useful, depending upon the
user's level of access to the net, but is neither necessary nor
unique.  Most local Internet providers use dynamic address allocation,
and that isn't covered in this book.  In any case, the included
materials are demonstration software, and available online.

An interesting feature is the promise of an electronic update to the
guide, distributed via electronic mail.  The book has a coupon for two
of the quarterly updates free; regular price is $25 per year.
Although I've reviewed two other books in this series, I have not seen
any of the updates.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1995   BKWNINTG.RVW  951011. 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] (Gregory Zamarski)
Subject: V120 in Japan
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 19:07:51 -0500
Organization: Magic Online Services Toronto Inc.


Does anyone know if the International Telecommunications Union (ITU-T)
recommendation V120 associated with ISDN is supported in Japan?

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

From: [e-mail] (Gregory Zamarski)
Subject: IPL Service to Japan
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 19:17:51 -0500
Organization: Magic Online Services Toronto Inc.


Has anyone had any recent experiences with ordering and/or using
International Private Line (IPL) service to Japan from North America? How
would you rate the service you received from KDD, ITJ or IDC?

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

From: [e-mail] (K. Smith)
Subject: Taking Bids to Buy PBX
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 22:16:08 GMT
Organization: scruz-net


We are in the market to buy a new or used digital PBX system and voice
mail to serve a minimum of 12 lines and 65 stations. We would like
Auto Attendant features and need to have an integrated T1 card. Please
send questions and proposals via email:


Sincerely,

Kevin Smith, President    [e-mail]
TeleSource U.S.A.         [phone] voice
2405 Beechwood Avenue     [phone] fax
San Jose, CA 95128        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jean-Marc Garin)
Subject: SS7 Questions
Date: 9 Nov 1995 14:39:37 GMT
Organization: BULL Les Clayes, FRANCE


I am a beginner to the SS7 world (MTP1/2/3 + SCCS + user parts), and would
appreciate some information about it.

Q.1: Where can I find a good description of the protocols, and the
reason why they were defined? I can read the ITU-T standards, but I
miss the real (that is, practical) understanding of these standards:
roles, uses, weight of the past, ...

To give you an idea of the level of answers I expect, I have
fundamental questions such as for instance "Is a platform only
equipped with MTP1/2/3 (i.e. without SCCS and user parts) of any
interest? and where does it take place in a network (in which network
element?)?", or again "In which situation is SCCS required? Only for
interconnection of national networks?", ...

Q.2: What typical applications are there directly on top of MTP3? on top
of SCCS? on top of TCAP? on top of ISUP/ITP/...?

That leads to another question:

Q.3: At which level do you think APIs are really required? And why?
Is there a consensus (industry or standard body) upon these APIs? If
no, does that mean that the SS7 stack must come from the same provider as
that of the SCE that will be used?

Q.4: Are there significant differences between SS7 platforms used in Europe
and platforms used in North America (= are the standards the same? Is this
one only applicable in N.A.? Is this other only for Europe? ...).
Where could take place in the SS7 platform the geographical specificities?

Please reply by e-mail since I am only occasionally connected. If some are
interested I will post the replies as well.


Thanks in advance,

JM.   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sven Palmersjo)
Subject: High Speed Data Over Radio
Date: 9 Nov 1995 21:16:06 GMT
Organization: Palax Elektronik


I am looking for a commercial data radio which is certified within a EG
country to have it automaticaly certified in Sweden.

Demands for it is:

420-430 Mhz
0.5 watts or more
Small
9600 bd or more
Protocol with error correction

Please let me know.


Best regards,

Sven

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 07:04:41 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Joseph Singer)
Subject: 500 Service - What's the deal?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Just a little background.  I'd heard about the new personalized 500
service being first offered by AT&T and then MCI started to issue these
numbers also.  In order to have 500 service from either AT&T or MCI they
told me that I had to be presubscribed to their service (i.e. I had to
have them as my 1+ provider for long distance.)  I am presubscribed to
MCI and made the inquiry to set up service.

They were doing a promotion that the service would be no charge until
January of 1996 and then $1/month thereafter.  It took about three or
four weeks to set up the service.  They let me choose my number from a
choice of prefixes and I could choose the last four digits as I chose.

At any rate the service was finally installed and I explored my
various options.  With the MCI service you supposedly have only two
options: 1) have your party dial 1-500 and have the call billed to the
line that dials that number or dial 0-500 to have the call billed to a
card.  This is where it gets interesting.  I have tried from numerous
places, coin phones, business phones and my second line to dial my
number (1-500-484-2327 [aka 1-500-HUG-BEAR]) and have never been able
to complete a call.

When you dial 0-500 you get some chimes that say "friends and family
500 service please wait for the operator."  The operator then asks for
your card number.  You ask "what card number does she want a telco
calling card or a MasterCard/Visa".  She answers calling card.  You
dictate the number (which I think is horrible for security) and then
she announces "thank you I am placing your call."  (wait, wait,
momentary sounds of reorder), Operator: "I'm sorry sir the line is
busy."  I ask the operator "is that a regular busy or a fast busy."
She answers "Fast busy."

I then call F&F 500 service customer service number.  The rep tells me
that I must use a "credit card" such as Visa/MasterCard.  I try the
routine again and use a credit card.  Still no go.  I've come to the
point that I see that the service is marginally useful at all.  Evidently
MCI cannot make the service work with anything other than 1+ and that
this number cannot be reached by a good number of people.  It cannot be
reached from a pay telephone, from a cell phone or from most businesses.
It is essentially a useless service.  On top of this I've heard that some
unscrupulous people are using it for the phone sex business and that
calling their 500 numbers will result in huge call charges.  This
technology has not arrived by a longshot.


 JOSEPH SINGER             SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA           [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried it just now from here in Skokie,
Illinois (708-329) and the results were that when I dialed 1-500 and
your number, I did get the MCI branding then I was automatically put
on hold after bieng told "once you are connected with your party if
you wish to call the second number on his reach list press the pound
key for two seconds." There were short beeps about every ten seconds
for a minute or so, the the recording advised me that you could not be
reached and to try my call again later.

When I did 0-500, the results I got were the same as how you described
it. An operator asked for 'card number please' and I read off my
Ameritech calling card number. Long wait ... perhaps 30 seconds, and
the operator reported that 'the number you are calling is out of
order.' When I questioned what that meant, and how the operator knew
it was out of order, I was told it was because of the 'fast busy' signal.
I told the operator I did not hear anything at all, and the operator
said that's because I had been on hold while the number was dialed.
The operator did ask me to repeat the number I had dialed, and seemed
sort of incredulous at seeing such a number on the screen.

I think you had better tell them to fix it. They are not alone though;
AT&T had an obscure little bug in theirs which was reported here a
few months ago. It involved something to do with intra-lata calls
via 500 numbers which were being handled by Ameritech.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Zijderveld)
Subject: Basic Conversion Program For New Dutch Phone Numbers
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 21:32:20 GMT
Organization: Planet Internet


We developed an enhanced conversion program for the new Dutch
telephone numbers.  It can be used for Thoroughbred Basic, BBx and MAI
Basic Four.  This tool will search for all files to find fields that
contain phone numbers. In a few hours we can arange the whole
conversion for you. If someone is interested please contact me.


Peter Zijderveld
Zilverahorn 41
5237 HB  's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands
Phone:    [phone]
Fax:    [phone]
E-mail:    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul King)
Subject: Looking For Speakerphone With Full Duplex
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 22:54:49 GMT


Hi,

I am trying to buy a speakerphone with full duplexing capability.  I
know there are many of speakerphones without duplexing, but I just
like to know if there is one. If there is I would like to buy one at
any cost.

Please e-mail me your help advice since I don't follow up this newsgroup.


Thanks,

Paul

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

From: [e-mail] (Les Kula)
Subject: Wanted to Buy: 19"-25" Racks
Date: 9 Nov 1995 23:31:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Looking for 19", 23" or 25" racks for electronics equipment.

Quantity     : 1-2 x 19" and 1 x 23" or 25"

Brand        : preferably Chatsworth (*)

Color        : preferably black (*)

Height       : 7' for 19", will consider shorter ones for 23" or 25" (*)

Shelves      : at least 4-5 per rack, for wider racks at least 2 heavy
               duty shelves for laser printer and dot matrix printer

Base         : need base with casters (they come on separate square-frame
               attachement) since the racks are for my residence, I must
               be able to move them, can't drill holes for anchores in
               the floor like in the lab.

Attachments  : any extra parts like slide trays, cable guides, handles, extra
               mounting   bolts etc. are of interest.

Location     : I'll pick-up anywhere in San Francisco Bay Area


(*) means - I'm flexible


Les

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #474
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Nov 10 08:31:58 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id IAA04533; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 08:31:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 08:31:58 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #475

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Nov 95 08:31:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 475

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Bill Dripps)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (David E A Wilson)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Dennis G. Rears)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Michael Franz)
    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (Curtis Wheeler)
    Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line (James E. Bellaire)
    Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Josh Rubin)
    UK Answer Phone in Belgium (Dominic Hanlan)
    AT&T Partner Mail on PC Hardware Remote Access (Anthony W. Collins)
    Updates About Israeli Number Scheme Plans (Amos Shapira)
    Re: Limits to Redialing? (Mike Sandman)
    Re: Voice Mail Uses Different Frequencies Than Dialing? (Andy Spitzer)

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: [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] (Bill Dripps)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: 9 Nov 1995 23:09:49 GMT
Organization: The National Business Network Inc


In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Levenson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

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

>> Justice at last!!!

> and quotes from a Bell Atlantic press release:

>> Subject: Wireless Customers Can Save With Calling Party Pays

> Can anybody fill in a few details on this?

I cannot answer the specific questions you asked, but I can fill in a
few details. I called Bell Atlantic Mobil's local agent who of course
knew nothing of this. He was very interested though, because it could
help him to sell more cell phones.

He called his rep at Bell Atlantic Mobil who called his rep at Bell
Atlantic proper who, I am told, said: The service is not currently
available anywhere in BA land and they do not have any dates or other
information as to where or when it might be available. This was simply
an announcement of an intention to provide a service, not even a firm
commitment to do it. BA did want to know about any responses in case
they might want to offer a test of the service.

My local agent speculated that perhaps someone else was going to
actually offer this service and BA was attempting to forstall the
competition. Personally I don't believe BA would stoop to that.
Obviously, there was simply an honest mistake.

But I would love to see this service; I was ready to buy!


Bill Dripps 814-234-7975x31 [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: 10 Nov 1995 11:56:38 +1100
Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.


[e-mail] (Steve Cogorno) writes:

> Bell Atlantic should at least put this new "Feature" in its own
> prefix so "caller-pays" can be blocked without giving the rest of us
> "regular" cellular users a bad reputation for air-time rip-offs.

Here in Australia we have always (as far as I know) had caller pays
for calls to mobile phones and our mobile phones have their own
prefixes (015, 018 and 019 for analog, 041 for digital). The calls are
charged at the 2nd highest STD rate for calls up to 745km and the same
as landline calls over this distance.

The explosion in cellular phone usage has not caused the same problems of
are code splitting here as it has in the USA -- we just add another mobile
prefix.


David Wilson    Dept CompSci Uni Wollongong Australia    [e-mail]

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

From: Dennis G. Rears <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U.S Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:45:58 GMT


Last December, I went to Australia to visit family.  They have two
telephone companies, Telecom Australia and Optus.  Both companies have
cell service.  Each company has a country wide area code for their
cell service.  My brother uses '015'.  The caller pays for the call.
The caller knows he's paying for the call because of the area code.  I
think this system is far better than the US system.  They also don't
have the land based charges we do.  When I call his cell phone from
the states I get charged the same rates as if if I called his regular
number.


dennis

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Franz)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:42:05 +0200
Organization: Institute for Computersysteme, ETH Zurich


As far as I know, all European GSM networks are caller-pays.

The cellulars are usually on a separate area code so that it is obvious
that you are calling a special number. However, the "specialness" of the
area code is visible only from within the country that the GSM is
registered in.

When you call a GSM phone from another country, you only pay the normal
long-distance fee of the country you are calling from. For example, it can
be cheaper to call a Swiss cellular from Britain than placing a call to it
from within Switzerland.

It might have been a better idea to put all GSM phones on a separate
country code.


Michael

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

From: Curtis Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line
Date: 8 Nov 1995 06:30:47 GMT
Organization: CCnet Communications


I removed the names associated with the quoted text since I had a hard
time figuring out who said what after I snipped it up...

>> No, you can't have it because it looks too much like fraud when roaming."

>> Having two phones with the same number is intrinsically no more
>> "fraudulent" than hooking up an extension phone in one's own home.

> Having a second line installed with the same number costs money
> everywhere I have been.  These are NOT extensions within a single
> building.  Cell phones are 'extensions' from the MTSO.

> A fair price should be paid for 'extension' phones, either wired off-
> premises or celluar.  If you want a lock so that only one phone in
> your shared setup can make a call at a time then PAY for the software
> to do that.  Otherwise PAY for the ability to use the phones
> independently.

> Cloning gives a FREE service to customers, without the provider's
> consent.  It is the right of any company to sell their product at the
> price they want.  It is NOT the right of the consumer to take product
> without paying that price.

One of things used in determining cellular rates is access.  One ESN, one
phone.

If you want to compare a cloning to adding an extention in your house,
you need to look at it this way:  Think of your cellular telephone as
your demarc from the cellco.  You can only add equipment on YOUR side of
the demarc.  Cloning a phone and using it on the network is comparable to
adding an extension on the telephone company's side of the demarc.

I used to install cell phones (back when there were bigger bucks in that
business).  We used to install phones with "limo kits", that is a usable
handset in the front and back seat of a car.  Not a problem -- just like
adding an "extension".  But we effectivly did it on the customer's side
of the demarc -- both handsets went through one transceiver.

You should also keep this in mind when trying to determine what you
have control over, and access to, when it comes to your cell phone:
You use your cellular phone (technically a radio station) under the
license of the service provider -- you don't have to go out and get
your own station license.  The cellular service provider maintains
effective control of your phone -- the only thing you do is enter phone
numbers, press the "send" and "end" keys, and turn the power on and
off.  But the cellular carrier controls the transmitter -- from power
level to channel selection -- to signalling and other call supervision.
They own the radio link, they control the radio link, you don't.  Your
just allowed to communicate over it -- you get access with your type
accepted equipment in accordance with the FCC rules and carrier's
tariffs.


Curtis Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA

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

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 02:05:54 -0500
From: James E. Bellaire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Phone on Cellular Line


Previously I wrote:

>> Having a second line installed with the same number costs money
>> everywhere I have been.  These are NOT extensions within a single
>> building.  Cell phones are 'extensions' from the MTSO.

>> A fair price should be paid for 'extension' phones, either wired off-
>> premises or celluar.  If you want a lock so that only one phone in
>> your shared setup can make a call at a time then PAY for the software
>> to do that.  Otherwise PAY for the ability to use the phones
>> independently.

At 06:30 AM 11/8/95 GMT, Curtis Wheeler <[e-mail]> wrote:

> One of things used in determining cellular rates is access.  One ESN, one
> phone.

> If you want to compare a cloning to adding an extention in your house,
> you need to look at it this way:  Think of your cellular telephone as
> your demarc from the cellco.  You can only add equipment on YOUR side of
> the demarc.  Cloning a phone and using it on the network is comparable to
> adding an extension on the telephone company's side of the demarc.

> I used to install cell phones (back when there were bigger bucks in that
> business).  We used to install phones with "limo kits", that is a usable
> handset in the front and back seat of a car.  Not a problem - just like
> adding an "extention".  But we effectivly did it on the customer's side
> of the demarc - both handsets went through one transceiver.

So should I be able to install a second demarc for my single line service
anywhere I feel like?  If the cell phone is the demarc, then operating two
phones is having two demarcs.

How far away can I install my second demarc?  In the wired system I would
have to use the telco wires to get a second demarc off premisis.  In cell
phones that second demarc could be anywhere in World Zone 1, if roaming.

"Limo Kits" do not require cloning and are simple transciever sharing
devices.  The tranciever has the MIN and ESN, not the handset in these
setups, just like the demarc has the telco wire number and phone number
that you chain your extensions in parallel to.

As far as licensing goes, you pay the cellco for permission to use their
FCC granted license based on the offer they make.  If they choose to say
"one phone per number" then you must abide by that rule or you lose your
permission to use their license.

You can't take services from a company just because you want them, you
must contract for them and pay for them, following agreemenents between
you and the company.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Josh Rubin)
Subject: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 02:07:35
Organization: InfoRamp Inc.


Hi Folks,

My query has probably already been covered in an FAQ somewhere, but
just in case, I'm wondering how a Telco could guarantee that any
particular call on an ISDN line would be digital. It strikes me that
unless you're in a closed system such as a university or corporation,
that they really couldn't gurantee it. The reason is that a number of
places still don't have fully digital networks.

If I am trying to call a BBS in an area code that has an all digital
network from another similarly-equipped region, what guarantee do I
have that the call doesn't have to go through some analog switches on
its way to the other area code, thus slowing data down immensely (i.e.
getting regular service at premium ISDN rates)?

Posted or e-mailed responses would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Josh Rubin
[e-mail]
http://www.inforamp.net/~jrubin/

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

From: [e-mail] (dominic hanlan sh37 7786)
Subject: UK Answer Phone in Belgium
Date: 10 Nov 1995 09:20:51 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Bell
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hi,

Anybody out there in Belgium know how to get a UK answer phone (or any
UK phone for that matter) to detect a ring when connected to the
Belgian network? I understand that the Belgian system only uses two
wires and each phone detects its' own ring. The UK has a master box
which splits this off to the second pair of wires.  I tried using a
Belgian phone plugged into the same socket as the UK phone which then
appeared to have a voltage on its' ring pair but still no ring from
the phone.

Apart from this problem the phone works perfectly !!

Anyone have any solutions, ideas ..... ??


Cheers,

Dominic

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

From: Anthony W Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Partner Mail on PC Hardware Operating System
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 04:39:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Does anyone know what the operating system on the Partner Mail
is? It appears you could pop in a video card connect a monitor
and keyboard and find out ... anyone done this? DON'T ASK AT&T;
they won't tell you.

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

From: [e-mail] (Amos Shapira)
Subject: Updates About Israeli Number Scheme Plans
Date: 10 Nov 1995 10:42:09 GMT
Organization: Inst. of Comp. Sci., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel


Hello,

In relation to a question posted here a few weeks ago, here are a
couple of datagrams from Israeli newspapers:

1. Within one year all numbers will be seven digits.  During the next year
   (1996) all 1/2 million numbers which still have six digits will get another
   digit in front of them.  Bezeq (the Israeli PTT) promises that
   after these changes there won't be any changes in phone numbers for
   two decades.  This week (November 5th) the first stage begins in the
   Haifa area were all the numbers beginning in 2-7 will have 8 in front
   of them.  Later on the numbers in Rehovot (December), Bat-Yam, Holon,
   the South (the Negev and Arava areas), Jerusalem, the Sharon area, and
   the nourth will be changed until the end of '96.

   All owners of changing numbers will be notified at least three months
   ahead.  They will also get free calls in order to notify others about the
   change.  Also until the updated directories are out the directory service
   (144) will be free.

2. Bezeq's marketing dept. is about to finish within a few weeks checks
   about the possibility of making the entire country a single calling
   area.  This change also includes a recommandation for FREE LOCAL
   CALLS (same exchange).

Hope you find this interesting.


Cheers,

Amos Shapira
133 Shlomo Ben-Yosef st.
Jerusalem 93 805
ISRAEL   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Sandman)
Subject: Re: Limits to Redialing?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:30:12 GMT
Organization: Mike Sandman Enterprises


Bren Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I vaguely remember a product called a Demon Dialer on the market about
> ten years ago, that allowed you to redial busy numbers at some
> phenomenal rate per minute. It then seemed to disappear from the
> market.

> Is it true that the Demon Dialer disappeared because of LEC's limitations
> on the number of times you can redial within a certain time period?

We sell a product called the Powerdialer which is many times faster
than the old Demon Dialer -- which I loved! The Demon Dialer was made
by Zoom, who it looks like still puts their modems in the same box as
the Demon Dialer.

This thing dials up to ten times a minute (250 times in ten minutes). It
actually learns how fast it can go on your telephone line.  After
every ten times, it dials a different number for a second, then
returns to dialing the busy number. One of these days I'll try to put
a .voc file up with the picture and description that's already in our
web catalog. In the mean time, you can give us a call at our office
and we'll dial it over a speakerphone for you. Unbelievable!

It will also do last number redial and unanswered redial (a little
slower pace). It can be hooked up to a single line phone or on a line
in front of a key system. On the down side, it only stores ten numbers
in memory as opposed to 194 in the Demon Dialer ... so it's tied to a
specific application. It does a heck of a job at winning phone call-in
contests!


Mike Sandman  708-980-7710
E-mail:  [e-mail]
WWW:  http://www.sandman.com

Our 48 page catalog of Unique Telecom Products & Tools is now on the
World Wide Web.

We have a fantastic assortment of Cable Installation Tools and
Training Videos to help you use them. NEW "Basic ISDN" Training Video
is now available.

Also check out our Telephony History Page, which contains ads and
articles from telephony related magazines from the first part of the
century.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 18:43:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (Andy Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Uses Different Frequencies Than Dialing?


Eric Levy-Myers <[e-mail]> wrote:

> However, in Bell Atlantic's voice mail (inside a Centrex, I guess) ,
> the systems does not recognize the 3 or 6 key. For normal dialing, the
> 3 and 6 keys work fine. All the other keys work fine.  Bell Atlantic
> blames the phones, without any suggestion as to why they work in the
> normal system and not in the voice mail.  TT Systems says that some
> Telecom's have recently tightened the frequency requirements and they
> are working on a fix. But they seem utterly mystified as to why the
> telecom's have suddenly changed ("tightened") their standards.

The DTMF detectors used for dialing, are completly different (physically)
than those used by CO Based v-mail equipment.  Those used for dialing only
need to detect DTMF in the presence of pure dialtone (aka the switch is
sending out dialtone, some of which is leaking back due to sidetone from your
phone, and other reasons).

The v-mail equipment, on the otherhand, has a much more difficult task.
It must detect DTMF in the presence of voice!  This means they must be
able to detect DTMF while they are playing your messages, or menus, or
whatever, back to you, so that you can press a digit and get instant
action.

DTMF was designed to be used in the presence of dialtone, not voice!  It
is a very difficult problem to quickly and accurately detect DTMF, while
not 'falsing' and thinking that the voice being played out (of which some is
leaking back) is NOT DTMF.  So v-mail DTMF detectors have different
requirements for detection than the CO's.  The CO only has to deal with
locally generated DTMF in a close to ideal environment:  a known signal
(dialtone or silence) on the line.  V-mail has to be able to handle
DTMF generatred by a pay-phone at a noisy airport, while playing out
random (from it's point of view!) signals.

As for "Telecom's have recently tightened the frequency requirements",
I doubt it! DTMF specs are a well known, well documented standard.
There are three parts to a valid DTMF tone: frequency, twist, and
volume.  Frequency says that both tones must be within some % of the
standard frequency.  Volume says that the total energy of the tones
must be so strong, but not TOO strong.  Twist says that the energy of
each frequency must be close to the energy of the other frequency.

I have seen problems similar to what you describe.  Only the culprit
was an ISDN phone which didn't generate the correct DTMF tones (for
some digits!)  when the far end was a non-ISDN circuit.  Other times
I've seen DTMF not detected correctly are when it is too loud, or in
the presence of ALOT of noise.

I'd suspect the phones.  As an experiment, try a pocket DTMF dialer.  See
if that works.  If it does, its the phones.


Andy Spitzer         [e-mail]
The Telephone Connection   301-417-0700

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #475
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Nov 10 17:02:30 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id RAA12435; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 17:02:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 17:02:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #476

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Nov 95 17:02:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 476

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Killer Application Myth (Christoph F. Strnadl)
    Some BellSouth Notes (Stan Schwartz)
    RCMP Charge Seven People With Telemarketing Fraud (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Big Brother - He's Everywhere! (Michael J. Kuras)
    New Jersey Residential ISDN ([e-mail])
    Book Review: "Data Communications: From Basics to Broadband" (Rob Slade)
    A Unique Pan-European Country Code? (Mark Cuccia)
    Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service (Scott Nelson)

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: [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] (Christoph F. Strnadl)
Subject: Re: The Killer Application Myth
Organization: Philips C&P Austria/VAN Services
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 16:57:09 GMT


Mike Murdock <[e-mail]> wrote:

> the "Killer Application". That is, the single application which will
> generate so much additional usage that it will offset the cost of
> installing the Enhanced Services Platform.

> The Killer Application is a myth.

Concerning just telephony services (i.e., the so-called enhanced telephony
features) I quite agree.

> widely accepted they must resolve the above stated impediments. This
> means providing the user with the ability to customize the service to
> their specific requirements, using a natural human interface, your
> voice.

> The "Killer Application" is individual choice with a natural voice
> interface.

* Individual choice from a range of options of telephony features: agreed
* natural voice interface: not necessarily so.

What immediately comes to my mind is the ADSI standard suitable for
really easy access to all those enhanced telephony features (CIDCW,
Call Waiting deluxe,...)  thru a suitable CPE, e.g. a screen phone.

> add Conference Calling to their feature set. If the customer is
> required to call a service representative to order this additional
> feature it is unlikely they will ever take this step. If, however, the

True.

> customer can simply speak "Add Feature" and "Conference" and the
> Enhanced Service Platform automatically adds this feature to the
> customers current feature list, it is more likely that the service
> will be ordered and used.

But what if the customer is already engaged in a call and receives a
Call Waiting alert? How is she then going to "tell" the CPE that

    - the new caller shall hear a busy signal, or that
    - the new caller shall be re-routed to a standard text message, or that
    - the new caller shall be re-routed to a voice-mail box, or that
    - she is going to take the new call (temporarily) and suspend
          the old one?

(to the best of my knowledge: these are some features of some Call
Waiting deluxe packages). The ADSI standard is able to solve that via
state-dependent, softkey-activated CPE resident features (so-caller
ADSI scripts).

> Additionally, the services should always use a common human interface.

I would rather put it: "the services should always use a
    - consistent
    - easy-to-use
    - well understood interface".

This *may* be a natural language interface for some people, but may
also be a screen & softkey based interface with screen phones. As you
are right in pointing out that not everybody is going to use every
offeree enhanced service, it is also most probable that not
everybody's satisfied with the same interface.

> The DTMF pad is a poor interface.

That's why Bellcore proposed the ADSI specification. Nobody'll every remember
the '*' access codes without a manual. And then, those codes (theoretically?)
may vary ...

> The mythical killer application is not an application at all but a
> variety of features providing individual choice and flexibility, a
> natural easy to use human interface, and seamless integrated
> capabilities.

Agreed.

I have got one more comment to make concerning the non-existence of a
single killer application.

The one application (or idea therof) I have come across which may has
a fair chance to be eventually realised and become something like a
killer application could be the following:

Idea: Home ATM:
    * phone with smartcard reader
    * user has a stored value smartcard (aka electronic purse)
    * user dials into his home-banking application somewhere on the
      (POTS!!) network and transfers money from his bank account to
      his electronic purse

This is not home-banking per se but, as a matter of fact, just one
single application of a possible home-banking package. It is, though,
a feature which to my opinion offers tremendous added value to the
user, don't you think?


Christoph F. Strnadl, Product Mgmt/VANS
PHILIPS C&P / VAN Services
Tel: [phone] FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some BellSouth Notes
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 23:49:21 -0500


I'd like to share some recent experiences with my "new" phone company,
Bell South.

 - Last month, I received a postcard to tell me that the price of my
"Memory Call" (voice mail) service was being reduced by $2.00 per
month.  In addition, the "reminder/wake-up call" feature was added to
the service automatically, and at no additional charge (and I still
get the $2.00 discount).

 - *69/return call service is offered here.  Before returning your
call, though, it reads the date and time of the number back to you.
It will tell you if the calling number was "Private", but it will
still return the call for you (unlike NY, where if the calling number
was private you can't use *69 to call back).

 - CID Deluxe (Name and Number) was recently added here.  This does a
great job of uncovering the flaws in the telco database.  Here are
some interesting "names" I've received:

      -calls from two different numbers at NationsBank displayed
either "Nations Bank" or "N CNB" (the former name);

      -a call from the office where I'm working displayed as LOWER
CASE "charlotte, nc" (with punctuation - and I'm not working in or for
the City of Charlotte.

      -a call from the voice mail reminder service showed up as the
central office "CHARLOTTE CARM EL".

      -a call (via TotalTel) from the 212 area code displayed
"NWYRCYZN01, NY" (I assume that means New York City Zone 01".

      -a call (also via TotalTel) from Nassau County in 516 displayed
as "NASSAUZN04, NY".  Similar translation as above.  It also sometimes
is displayed in lower case.

      -a call received when I was out of the house showed up as "PAY
PHONE".  I don't know any Mr. Phone.

   So what's the deal with lower case and punctuation?  Is it whatever
is in telco's records?  How large is the name field?

 - A call from the City of Charlotte (Bell South) to 803-548-XXXX is
within Charlotte's local calling area.  However, returning the call
from Fort Mill, SC, the Fort Mill Telephone Company charges for an
extended area call.  Does anyone else find this strange?


Stan

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

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 01:29:18 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: RCMP Charge Seven People With Telemarketing Fraud
Organization: Internex Online


Here is a press release from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.  I
found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at
http://newswire.flexnet.com/ I don't work for the RCMP, bt I thought
TELECOM Digest readers would be interested in the arrests.


    SEVEN CHARGED WITH TELEMARKETING FRAUD

            MILTON, Ont., Nov. 9 /CNW/ - On November 9th, 1995, seven
people were arrested for Conspiracy to Defraud the Public and
Conspiracy to Launder Money Obtained by Crime by the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, Milton Detachment, Commercial Crime Section.

            CHARGED ARE:

            Albert MALKA, age 42, of Thornhill, Ontario
            Avraham BENMOISE, age 40, of North York, Ontario
            Paul KURLANDSKI, age 45, of North York, Ontario
            Lawrence BRESLOW, age 52, of North York, Ontario
            Warren ALBERT, age 31, of North York, Ontario
            Elie VIDAL, age 20 of Thornhill, Ontario
            Selijdin SALI, age 59 of Etobicoke, Ontario

            The accused were arrested by warrant and appeared in Provincial
Court, College Park, Toronto for bail hearings.

            The charges resulted from a 10 month joint investigation
with the RCMP Newmarket Proceeds of Crime Section and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation into a boiler-room which operated in the
Markham, Ontario area. The telemarketing scam involved the fraudulent
sale of semi-precious metals and/or gem stones to or on behalf of
numerous unsuspecting individuals.

            It is alleged the boiler-room operated under various
corporate names such as Global Trading Services or Columbus Financial
Group and represented themselves to be in Nassau, Bahamas and Phoenix,
Arizona.  The victims were all contacted via telephone with offers to
sell their holdings of semi-precious metals (Indium/Germanium) or gem
stones (rubies, sapphires, etc.). However, in order for the sale to be
completed, the victims were required to make a security deposit as a
sign of good faith or were required to make an additional purchase of
the investment commodity. In some cases, the victims were charged a
fictitious storage fee in order to release the goods prior to the
sale. The victims' holdings were never liquidated and in some cases
the investments did not exist.

            The victims, all residents of the United States, suffered
losses estimated at $250,000 U.S. Dollars from this fraudulent
boiler-room operation.

   For further information: Inspector W.C. (Ches) Somers, Officer In
   Charge, Milton Commercial Crime Section, Office - [phone],
   Pager - 1-800-640-RCMP (pager no. 92349)

   16:26 Eastern 09-Nov-1995

forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada      [e-mail]
Web page:  http://www.io.org/~ndallen

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

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:01:20 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Kuras)
Subject: Re: Big Brother - He's Everywhere!
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University


Pat,

I have to admit you're right about your whole train of thought
regarding the DejaNews service.  While I will always find it most
disconcerting that someone can find out what I posted in the last x
months with little more than a few keystrokes, I still *wish* that
people would have to at least put an EFFORT into the process.

If someone wants to find out what I wrote, that's completely ok with
me; it's just that I'm a bit concerned that this service will be used
to specifically log what *I* post over a period of time.

I'm a member of the US military, and while I love my country and
genuinely want to serve it to the best of my ability, don't think that
posting to "bad" newsgroups (e.g. rec.drugs.*, alt.sex.*) should be
counted against me.  I don't think I'd ever post to these groups, but
is that because of mere morality or the fear or being tracked down and
losing a career?

Granted, the potential for abuse is rather limited, just as is Spam
King's et al, but what if someone really wanted they could invest in a
load of RAM/disk storage and develop profiles on specific people that
are just as accurate as the credit reports supplied by TRW, Equifax,
etc?  (take that for what it's worth)

Trust me, I'm an extraodinarily responsible person; but I wanted to
post to something racy, well, dammit, I don't want it immediately
available to the world.  I want them to at least put _some_ effort
into finding it!


michael j kuras      www.ccs.neu.edu/~mkuras       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Jersey Residential ISDN
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 16:28:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom


The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities is about to consider Bell Atlantic's
proposed residential ISDN tariff.

If you have any comments on it, please send your comments in a letter to:

Mr. James Nappi
Secretary,
Board of Public Utilities
Two Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102

Send a copy of your letter to:

Ms. Blossom Peretz
Division of Ratepayer Advocate
31 Clinton St
Newark, NJ 07102

The Board is interested in hearing comments on this matter from
interested members of the public.  They have assured me that letters
will be read and considered.

Largely as a result of letters from the public, the Boards in other
Bell Atlantic states have recently rejected all or part of BA's
proposed residential ISDN rates and told them to come back with a more
"consumer friendly" plan.

You can get more information about this at:  http://www.essential.org/cpt

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Slade)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 12:17:07 EST
Subject: Book Review: "Data Communications: From Basics to Broadband"


BKDCFBTB.RVW   951023

"Data Communications: From Basics to Broadband", Beyda, 1996, 0-13-366923-8
%A   William J. Beyda
%C   One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ   07458
%D   1996
%G   0-13-366923-8
%I   Prentice Hall
%O   [phone] fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   311
%T   "Data Communications: From Basics to Broadband"

Beyda's aim was to provide a clear readable textbook with a broad
overview of the field of data communications.  He has succeeded with
this work which is not only suitable for an introductory course in
communications, but also for the working technical professional who
needs a quick but thorough background in the field to add to other
knowledge.

Telecom professionals may find that the material does not give
sufficient depth for their purposes.  Indeed, it does not come up to
the technical quality of works such as McNamara's "Technical Aspects
of Data Communication" (cf.  BKTCHDCM.RVW) for those who want to know
the "how" of the technology.  Beyda does, however, touch on a number
of very recent topics which are not covered in more traditional
textbooks.  (There is even an acknowledgement that RS-232-C is *not*
the last standard in the series.)

Teachers will find the end-of-chapter questions to be fairly
simplistic, and not much use as assignments.  The overall level of the
material, however, is quite suitable for first or second year courses
as a "communications literacy" introduction.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKDCFBTB.RVW   951023. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associatedd 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: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Unique Pan-European Country Code?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 15:33:00 CST


According to Oftel, the Office of Telecommunications in the UK, which
is the regulatory and numbering administrative governmental body, in
Numbering Bulletin 17 (Oct.1995),

Europe is to request that the ITU make Country Code 388 available for
Pan-European services. Should this not occurr, then the European
telephone standards organizations are considering a national numbering
approach for Pan-European services, using the unused 00 capacity
behind existing County Codes. ie: 44-00 for Pan-European services
located in the UK, 33-00 for those located in France, etc. These
Pan-European services would be billed at a Pan-European premium rate.

I wonder if Pan-European services could also include a Freephone
(Toll-Free) service or a 'local-call' or 'national call' rate
services.

I also wonder how '00' would be dialed for Pan-European services
within the same country, since 00 is supposed to be the standard
International Exit code for most European countries (and also many
countries all over the world as well).

There is also mention in Bulletin 17 that Country Code 800 has officially
been made available by the ITU for International Freephone.

Oftel can be accessed at:
http://www.open.gov.uk/oftel/oftelwww/oftelhm.htm
ftp://ftp.open.gov.uk/pub/docs/oftel

A webpage version of the numbering bulletins are at Oftel's www
address, while a more detailed version (in MS-Word) can be downloaded
from Oftel's ftp address.

The ITU can be accessed at:
gopher://info.itu.ch
http://www.itu.ch
as well as several other URL's.

They recently updated their MS-Word downloadable Telephone Country
Code lists (both alphabetical and numerical lists) to reflect the
official assignment of Code 800, as well as another 87X code (I don't
remember which one right now) for some 'new and improved' version of
International Maritime Satellite service. These Country Code lists are
under 'Lists Annexed to ITU Operational Bulletin' on both the ITU's
webpages and gophersites.

Oftel Numbering Bulletin 17 also gives details about the new code &
numbering for Reading in the UK.


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: 08 Nov 95 09:51:21 EST
From: Scott Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exchange Radio Telephone Service


> On 30 Oct 1995, Scott Montague ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Does anyone else know if their phone company offers such a
> service?  Does it operate the same?  Or is Bell Canada unique
> in this service, as much of its covering area is remote
> locations.  I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's
> adventures with this service.

While working for Rockwell International about 1989-1991, I sold a
product for what the FCC called BETRS (Basic Exchange Radio Telephone
Service).  The product was called the CXR-424 which was Rockwell-ese
for "Collins Exchange Radio, 450 MHz band, 24 channels". Due to poor
availability of frequencies, Rockwell discontinued making the CXR-424.
Also, Rockwell sold that division to Alcatel in 1991, but Alcatel
still supports CXR-424s that are in the field.

The CXR-424 was a digitally modulated radio that could carry one DS0
in a 8QAM modulated 450 MHz UHF carrier.  (FYI, A DS0 is a digitally
encoded voice circuit at 64 kb/s.)  Actually, the channel could be
either one toll-quality voice circuit or two voice channels using 32
kb/s ADPCM.  A base station could have up to 6 RF channels, which was
sufficient to support 24 subscriber lines under typical traffic
engineering rules.

Our biggest competitor was International Mobile Machines who built a
product called Ultraphone.  It used a high order voice compression
they called RELP (I cannot remember what that stands for) that got 64
kb/s voice down to 14 kb/s, so they could get four digital voice channels
in a single 20 kHz UHF carrier.  It could serve a lot more
subscribers, but had a high up-front cost due to a rather large base
station configuration and complex echo cancellation circuitry.

Alas, the FCC never saw fit to allow BETRS to run primary, but they
made it co-exist with mobile radio at 150 MHz (VHF) and 450 MHz (UHF).
The mobile systems never quite went away, and in fact, a number of
illegal systems were also in operation.  The mobile radio systems are
all analog and use high power transmission, whereas the digital
systems like the CXR-424 and Ultraphone operate with a much lower
power and higher receiver sensitivity.  Therefore, the CXR-424 and
Ultraphone could not be use in very many places in the United States.
As I said before, Rockwell discontinued the CSX-424, but I do not know
what became of Ultraphone.

There are probably 20-30 telcos using the CXR-424 and Ultraphone in
the United States, but I only know of three.  The one system I sold
went to Rye Telephone's exchange in Kim, Colorado.  It served about 96
subscribers (4 base stations) and was a real bear to work with due to
the interference problems.  IMM sold their first system to Sunflower
Telephone in Kansas, then *I believe* they sold one to Silver Star
Telephone in Freedom, Wyoming.

The only remnant of this short era that I know of is a small outfit
called Carlson Communications that sells some analog, single channel,
point-to-point radios for VHF and UHF operation. Their product is
called the Optaphone.  As a small company, Carlson can make a living
selling 20-30 radios a year for niche applications (like yours).  They
can be reached at:

              Carlson Communications
              P.O. Box 4000
              Redway, CA  95560
              [phone]

If you (or anyone else) call, tell Jim (James Carlson, president) I
said hello.


Scott Nelson - ANTEC
Rowlett, Texas (Dallas area)
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #476
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov 13 01:11:52 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA17384; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 01:11:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 01:11:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #477

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Nov 95 01:11:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 477

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    What's This DC Phone Number? (WSJ Editorial via Danny Burstein)
    Canadian vs US Long Distance Rates (Lis Angus)
    Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing? (Steve)
    This 500 Thing Is Getting Rediculous (Jeff Buckingham)
    UCLA Short Course on "Intelligent Software Agents" (William R. Goodin)
    Bell Canada and Canadian ISP's (Brian Tao)
    Sprint to Ignore *67? ([e-mail])
    New Telecom Technology: Real-Time Fax/Voice-Mail on Data Net (Bob Stone)
    Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was Re: Limits to Redialing?) (Les Reeves)

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: [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] (danny burstein)
Subject: What's This DC Phone Number?  WSJ Editorial: 11/10/95
Date: 11 Nov 1995 18:19:51 -0500


The following is reposted from the {Wall Street Journal}, as relayed via
the Usenet whitewater group. (I've confirmed they ran an editorial but
haven't been able to get a print copy to confirm the exact wording).

Perhaps someone here (TELECOM Digest) could give these folk a hand?

(I've also included the comments made by the Usenet poster. I don't
particularly agree or disagree with the sentiments, but I am curious
about the number involved).


Matt Rearwin <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hi,
> As you read the following editorial, think about several things.
> - what sort of person or agency has a phone number the phone company
>   does not acknowledge, in the Washington DC area code?
> - why would Hillary know this person?
> - why would Hillary have any dealings with this person?
> - why would Hillary call this person on the day Vince Foster was killed?
> - what would this say about the activities that Hillary and/or Foster
>   are involved in?

> It should be clear to the most ardent nay-sayers by now, that something
> more than a simple suicide occurred with Foster.

> Have a happy Veterans day,
> Matt

> and now, the WSJ:

> [phone]?

>  Does anyone know anything about this mysterious phone number?  Bell
> Atlantic says it hasn't been in service since 1978.  If you dial it
> today, you'll get a recording saying it's not in service.  But someone
> seemed to be there on July 20, 1993.

>  At least is shows up in the list of phone records turned up by the
> Senate Whitewater Committee's investigation of the aftermath of the
> suicide of Vincent Foster.  From the Tuesday discovery of the body
> through the Friday funeral, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was staying
> at the Rodham household in Little Rock.  The flurry of telephone calls
> from the Rodham home included a call to the mysterious [phone]-ten
> minutes at 10:41 p.m. Little Rock time on July 20.

>  The list includes calls to Maggie Williams and Susan Thomases, as
> widely reported.  Also to the Department of Justice Command Center
> (Webster Hubbell, perhaps) and Carpinteria, CA, which is Harry Thomason.
> There is also a 15-minute call on the 21st to someone staying at the
> Sunnyside Lodge in Tahoe City, CA.  But committee investigators are
> especially stumped by the unidentified Washington number.

>  The indefatigable Sen. Lauch Faircloth displayed the number at the
> hearings and suggested that since Ms. Thomases and Ms. Williams couldn't
> explain it, perhaps Mrs. Clinton could.  The first lady has not been
> forthcoming, so anyone with information about the mystery number should
> contact the Senator.  Or fax us at [phone], attention Editor.


[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My source believes that Bell Atlantic
was in error in stating the number had not been in service since 1978.
His belief is the number (at that time, in 1993) was a non-published
number in the private living quarters of President and Mrs. Clinton
at the White House, or perhaps in the bedroom of their daughter. He
believes Bell Atlantic mistakenly said it had not been in service
since 1978 because *billings had not been issued* on the number since
that time; in other words it was a 'hunt-line' in a rotary hunt
group and billed under some other number _*or*_ through clerical
error had been turned on at some point, stood alone as its own number
(in the President's living quarters) but the accounting department
(from whence the most immediate and likely source of BA's answer
in response to subpoena) had never been notified by 'plant' that
the number was turned on. The White House account with Bell Atlantic
is sufficiently complex -- with almost daily activity involving
service turned on/off, new installs, service changes etc, that this
seems plausible.

In any event, he is reasonably certain the number was intended for
the personal use of the president and his family in their private
quarters.  He believes the line was terminated -- or made an
appearance -- on a button on a key phone in the family's second floor
suite, plus an appearance on a button on a key phone in the president's
office; and a third appearance on the main switchboard at the White House
which functioned (for that line) as 'answering service'.

He seemed rather amused at the implications in the 'what sort of
person or agency would have a number telco will not acknowledge'
message presented here. Rather than being any sort of massive
plot -- although that remains to be seen with Whitewater generally --
in this instance it was probably some sloppy clerical work by BA either
in reference to the number itself or in response to the subpoena
asking for data. A mother/wife calling to say goodnight to a daughter/
husband perhaps?  PAT]

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

From: Lis Angus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian vs US Long Distance Rates
Date: 12 Nov 1995 19:53:07 GMT
Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group


[e-mail] (Evan Ross) wrote:

> [e-mail] (Ed Marion) wrote:

>> For that matter, with NAFTA and all that, why does it cost about 25
>> cents per minute to call suburban Toronto from Houston during business
>> hours, when it only costs 12 cents per minute to call Seattle which is
>> 500 miles more distant?  On 800 inbound, it is even worse ... 56 cents
>> vs 16 cents.

> If this could be explained, maybe this would tell me why Toronto to
> Hamilton (about 40 miles) is C$0.34/minute (about US$0.25) during
> business hours ...

Two points:

1. Canadian ld basic rates continue to be higher than US rates (which
is why the CRTC just ordered that the $2/mo increase in local rates be
taken off basic long distance rates.) Canadian ld rates have come down
considerably, but primarily on targeted programs for businesses and
high-volume callers.

2. For some reason, rates for calls from the US to Canada (provided by
AT&T & other US carriers) are now higher than calls from Canada to the
US.

The relationship between PRICES and COSTS in long distance charges is
still far from close. The CRTC recently concluded, after a lengthy
benchmarking exercise, that the COST of providing a long distance
minute is virtually the same in the US and in Canada (comparing major
Canadian telcos and US ld carriers -- primarily Bell Canada and AT&T).
So PRICE differences must reflect other considerations.


LIS ANGUS                       Tel: [phone] ext 221
Angus TeleManagement Group      Fax: [phone]
8 Old Kingston Road             e-mail: [e-mail]
Ajax Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7     http://www.angustel.ca

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve)
Subject: Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 22:58:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I'm running into something wierd with my telco.

I've been doing work on my Fax-On-Demand system, and I was submitting
a lot of jobs to it.  I used the same phone number for all of them (
my fax server ), but I had the system configured to assume my fax
server was a long-distance number, because I didn't want the call to
actually go through.  The only problem was, the calls were working.
The Telco was allowing a long-distance call to a local number!

My Area-code is 314.
My telco switch is 968.

My Fax number is (314) 968-xxxx,  which is a local call.

I was dialing 1 314 968-xxxx, and the call was going through.

Several Questions:

I can think of two ways this worked.  One being the local switch was
stripping the 1 and the 314 and routing it right back to me.  The
other would be the number was going to the Long-distance provider, and
then back to me.  I'm leaning toward the Long-distance provider doing
it because I can do it into another switch that is also local.

Nobody can seem to tell me what kind of a switch the Telco has
installed for 968.  I get dead air when I ask the question to their
support people.

I'm wondering if this is something that works elsewhere.  Does this
charge me for a long distance call?  If it's free, and works
elsewhere, I'd like to be able to do that for all of my local calls.
314 has some numbers local & some long distance, and it would
mean I don't have to keep track of which is which.

Any information would be appreciated.


Steve

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 95 20:01:22 -0800
Subject: This 500 Thing Is Getting Rediculous
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am writing to express my total frustration with the whole 500 number
situation. Joseph's comments regarding MCI's service are just the
latest.

I can not see how this problem is ever going to go away unless we make
1- 500 work as called party pays (like 800). I can not see how 0-500
can ever work since no other carrier other than the owner of the 500
prefix can know how much to charge so they are forced to block the
numbers.

The way I see it 1- 500 is only going to work from private homes and
some businesses. Who wants a locator number that does not work from
payphones, hotels, most businesses and everywhere in between?

I think we have created a useless product here folks. Can anyone think
of a good reason to have 500 set up this way?


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)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not a question of 0-500 not working
because 'other carriers do not know how much to charge' ... like 800
numbers are routed directly to the issuing carrier. The issuing carrier's
operator is the person on the line asking for billing information (in
the case of MCI) or else it is a computer asking (in AT&T's case).
Futhermore, it is 1-500 that is getting blocked where blocking is done,
because those truly are the ones which get billed to the phone without
permission, etc. 0-500 always asks for billing advice, and never
allows billing to the phone being used.

Jeff, I can understand your prejudice in this matter in view of the
perfectly wonderful 800 'MyLine' service your company operates; but
its not the entire 500 scheme which is at fault; just those carriers
which have not yet gotten it working correctly, as seems to be the
case with MCI. I have one of each -- a 500 and a MyLine account -- and
although I do prefer MyLine, I make good use of the 500 number as
well. Actually, I have two 800 numbers, two 700 numbers, one 500
number, three Skokie local numbers, a number for my pager and one
San Fransisco 'local' number which rings here. I may get a few more
800 numbers installed so Judith Oppenheimer and her clients can
look at me with consternation. <grin> ... ummm .. you still have
an ample-plenty supply of 800 numbers there for new MyLine customers
don't you?

Readers: Jeff Buckingham and Steve Betterly <[e-mail]>
would like you to have a MyLine number if you don't already. You
should get one now while 'genuine, original style' 800 numbers
are still available. Don't wait until its too late and you get
stuck with an 888 number. Write Steve for details.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (William R. Goodin)
Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Intelligent Software Agents"
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 15:53:42
Organization: UCLA Extension


On January 17-19, 1996, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Intelligent Software Agents", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles.

The instructors are Cindy Mason, PhD, School of Medicine, Stanford
University, Henry Lieberman, PhD, MIT Media Laboratory, and Ted
Selker, PhD, IBM Almaden Research Center.

Agent technology is one of the fastest growing areas of computer and
information science.  Intelligent software agents are essential to
manage the growing complexity and volume of information in our
environment.  Recently, agents have been created that can act on our
behalf to sort electronic mail, navigate and retrieve information on
the Internet, negotiate for resources, and schedule meetings.  In the
future, agents may navigate and drive automobiles, or perform shopping
functions according to budget constraints and personal preferences.

This course explores the design, implementation, and use of two types
of computational agents: interface agents and collaborative agents.
Interface agents support the learning and use of computer tools, such
as operating systems.  An interface agent can observe the actions
taken by the user in the interface, learn new capabilities
dynamically, suggest courses of action to the user, provide
context-sensitive help, adapt the interface automatically to the
user's personalized requirements, or automate tasks that would
otherwise require tedious sequences of manual operations.  The design
of interface agents draws on representation, learning, and reasoning
techniques used in other branches of artificial intelligence, but
carefully integrates principles of good human-computer interaction.

Collaborative agents interact and cooperate with other agents to
perform tasks on behalf of a user.  The design of collaborative agents
involves problem solving, communication, and coordination strategies
for agents to maintain autonomy, yet benefit from the network as a
whole.  Agent collaborations may involve heterogeneous or homogeneous
groups of agents, and agents with similar or differing goals,
languages, and knowledge representation facilities.  Collaborative
agent technology draws on principles of artificial intelligence,
sociology, organizational theory, animal behavior, economics, and
distributed systems.

This course describes the utility of current and experimental software
agents as assistants and advisors, as well as the technologies
involved in their design.  In addition, the course examines the social
implications of software agents.  Agents are discussed in the contexts
of electronic mail, browsing the World Wide Web, digital libraries,
graphical editors, and tutoring systems.  Current agent software and
preview future agent technology are also demonstrated.

The course fee is $1295, which includes course materials.

For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:

[phone]
[phone]  fax
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 02:05:49 GMT
From: Brian Tao <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada and ISP's


Hello all,

    I was informed that you may be interested in the following press
release.  The topic matter is the controversy surrounding Bell
Canada's recently announced intention to hike their rates for Centrex
service by up to 300%.  The is widely seen as a move by Bell Canada to
clear out the existing ISP business in Canada, just before they
introduce their own WorldLinx service early next year.

    I am the system administrator for Internex Online, an Internet
service provider with local dialup in the Toronto area.  On Wednesday,
November 15, 1995, Bell Canada cut the service to all our Centrex,
ISDN and voice lines (close to 500 in all).  Apparently, five other
major ISP's across Canada suffered the same fate.  They have resumed
full service to our switchbox, but Bell's activities in recent weeks
have been cause for alarm in the Canadian online community.


>>>>>

Montreal, November 9, 1995 --- A group of independent Quebec and
Ontario Internet Service Providers (ISPs) says Bell Canada is
threatening their economic survival by suddenly denying them access to
additional Centrex lines that the public uses to access Internet
gateways. Bell is attempting to force the ISPs to take a much more
expensive form of access which will raise their rates by approximately
300%. Bell is taking this arbitrary step to raise the ISPs costs at
precisely the moment that it is poised to launch its own Internet
service.

The ISPs, who after hundreds of thousands of corporate and residential
consumers various Internet high speed access services, today said they
intend to file a petition with the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) seeking immediate orders
requiring Bell Canada to continue providing Centrex III service in
accordance with the existing tariff.

Failure to obtain this injunctive relief from the CRTC will likely
mean significant rate hikes for all Internet users.

Bell has been providing Centrex III lines to the ISPs, based on
written agreements varying in duration from one to five years. The
telephone lines link ISP customers with the Internet.

Rory Olson, President of Accent Internet, a Montreal service provider,
said Bell's unilateral action flies in the face of fair business
practices. "Bell has knowingly serviced the providers and has, in
fact, encouraged us to use Centrex III by entering long term
agreements with them. Bell has also forced the ISPs to incur large up
front installation costs to obtain this service. We are a fledgling
industry and now that we have pioneered the technology and have
developed the market at significant expense, Bell wants to take over.
We are like ants about to be trampled by an elephant."

Olson said it appears that Bell is attempting to become the Microsoft
of the Canadian Internet market. "While Microsoft earned their
position through ingenuity, technological advancements and
groundbreaking developments, Bell is trying to assume its place on the
backs of ISPs who have laboured long and hard to establish a market."

The providers state that between October 26 and November 3, 1995,
without prior notice. Bell Canada sales representatives in Quebec and
Ontario began advising the ISPs orally that Bell would no longer
provide them with access lines pursuant to its Centrex III tariff. The
ISPs were advised that orders for additional Centrex lines would not
be filled.

Olson said the matter must be dealt with quickly. "Due to the urgency
of this situation and the potentially devastating economic of Bell's
arbitrary increases on ISP services, we will be asking the Commission
to immediately deal with this matter. Any delay will simply advance
Bell Canada's own position in the Internet access market by harming
our businesses."

Jean Louis Bouthillete, of Internet Login, said that some providers
received a letter from Bell earlier this week acknowledging that a new
policy on access line charges had been misinterpreted by Bell
representatives. The letter further states that Bell will not increase
rates on existing services for six months, but that they will begin
charging the higher tariffs immediately on any new lines ordered.

"This is all part of Bell's smoke screen. They somehow got wind of our
strategy to go public and tried to diminish any announcement we would
make. The facts remain clear. Without any prior notice, Bell started
refusing to fill our Centrex orders, despite signed agreements and
they want to apply new rates which will boost per line costs by up to
300%.   Then we learn that Bell wants to launch its own Internet
access service," said Bouthillete.

Bouthillete added that unless Bell is forced to reverse its stance.
the pubic will pay dearly. "Individual line rates will increase from
$25 to $30 per month to as much as $90 monthly."

Robert Quance, President of Metrix Interlink, said the ball will be
placed squarely in the CRTC's court when the ISPs file an application
early next week. "The Commission has decided on prior occasions that
Bell Canada cannot arbitrarily discontinue a tariffed service. This
was done in the case of 976 service providers. If Bell wants to
discontinue a service they must first apply to the Commission. They
have not even had the decency to give us, their customers, any prior
notice."


      -- 30 --

THE INTERNET ACCESS MARKET
A Brief Backgrounder

In Quebec and Ontario:

* Currently some 150 Internet Service Providers (lSPs).

* A half million Internet users in both provinces:  300,000 subscribe
  to ISP services.

* Growth has been in the order of 10% per week.

In Quebec:

* ISP companies employ close to 1,000 people full time, plus 450
  part-time.

* An additional 1,700 jobs are expected to be created during the next
  year.

* $29 million invested in the industry to date by ISPs. A further
  investment of $40 million is expected over the next year.

* Quebec ISPs have led the world in the development of French Internet
  services. Numerous francophone nations have turned to Quebec for
  guidance.

<<<<<


Brian Tao (BT300, [e-mail])
Systems Administrator, Internex Online Inc.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint to Ignore *67?
Date: 10 Nov 1995 15:22:40 GMT
Organization: Exec-PC BBS - Milwaukee, WI


I heard that Sprint has filed with the FCC to ignore *67 per call
blocking on interstate long distance ... that would appear to be a
direct violation of the FCC rules. Anybody know the details?

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

From: Bob Stone <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Telecom Technology: Real-Time Fax/Voice-Mail on Data Net
Date: 12 Nov 1995 17:52:14 GMT
Organization: JT&T, Inc.


If your interested in achieving maximum value on your investment in the
enterprise data network, take a look at Terra Globe - Virtual Global
System <http://www.fairfield.com/terra_globe>.

Terra Globe is the world's first, truly global multimedia messaging
solution. Terra Globe is voice-mail, fax-mail, and real-time fax
packetized and transmitted across the data network.

Your existing LAN/WAN provides the transparency for node connectivity at
local, national, or international levels.

No longer can stand-alone technologies, geographical separation of
worksites, high international toll charges, or lack of computer literacy
keep vital corporate information from flowing freely across the entire
multi-location, multinational organization.

Terra Globe brings the whole "corporate family" together under the
umbrella of the enterprise data network. Normally the data network is
used for data and e-mail, the media of the sophisticated users. With
Terra Globe everyone in the corporation, including the non-sophisticated
users whose media of choice is voice, voice-mail, and fax, gains the same
benefits of low cost and high reliablity that the data network formally
offered only to the experts.


Visit our web page <http://www.fairfield.com/terra_globe> and learn more
about Terra Globe.

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

From: [e-mail] (Les Reeves)
Subject: Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was: Re: Limits to Redialing?)
Date: 12 Nov 1995 08:55:59 -0800
Organization: CR Labs


Ed Ellers ([e-mail]) wrote:

> (A side note: I was told by an AT&T person on comp.dcom.telecom.tech a
> few months ago that the Succasunna 1ESS was replaced with a 5ESS a
> couple years ago.  That switch was designed to last forty years in
> service; it remains to be seen if any 1ESSes will be in that long.)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first ESS in Chicago was on the
> near north side in the Chicago-Superior office in 1972. Then the
> downtown area was converted in a couple parts during 1974-75. It
> was installed throughout the city by 1983.   PAT]

On Saturday, Nov. 11, the 1AESS in Peachtree Place in Atlanta, GA was
cutover to a 5ESS.  This switch was originally installed as a #1ESS in
the second or third quarter of 1969.  It was upgraded to a #1AESS in
1978.  It has been in continuous operation since 1969.

This was the first #1ESS installed in Atlanta.  I believe it holds
the record for longest continuous operation of a #1ESS in the US.


Les     [e-mail]       Atlanta,GA      404.874.7806  --

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #477
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov 13 10:09:15 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id KAA04841; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:09:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:09:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #478

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Nov 95 10:09:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 478

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Old Western Electric CPE (Ed Ellers)
    Re: RIP ISDN? GlobeSpan (ADSL) (Rupert Baines)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Philip Treuer)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Hugh H. Tebault)
    Re: The Killer Application Myth (Steve Schear)
    Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Limits to Redialing? (Duncan Campbell)
    Re: Limits to Redialing? (Chip Sharp)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: Old Western Electric CPE
Date: 11 Nov 1995 23:20:48 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online! [Usenet News Server for hire]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...

> The 500 deskset was introduced in 1949. This was the first non-coin phone to
> have the larger dial assembly- the dials themselves had been 3-inches, but
> the 500 set had the ring with digits/letters around the outside of the dial,
> making the full assembly 4.25 inches. The first models were, of course,
> black, and had *metal* fingerwheels on the dials. The 554 was the wall
> version which came out around 1954.

Am I the only person who's seen an actual instruction book for a 500
phone?  I saw an "antique phone" book today that mentioned that the
ridges on the top of the 554 were to let you rest the handset there
temporarily, but the author claimed that no one knew this because no
instructions were available.  However, when my family moved across
town in 1970, we got a new (not reconditioned) 500 set, in its nice
two-color-printed box, with a small instruction book that applied to
all the single-line 500 series (desk and wall, rotary and Touch-Tone)
which explained this and other items.  (I didn't keep the instructions,
though.  Rats.)

> Also about this time was the *color* 500 series phones. They were really
> 'two-tone' models (and here I dont mean DTMF- but color <g>), with a black
> dial assembly (the 'ring' around the dial was black along with the metal
> fingerwheel). Some other parts were black as well -- I think that the cords
> were black, but the handset might have been either black or the color of the
> base -- I can't remember right now). Full color phones came out about a year
> later, but the two-tone models were still being marketed as well -- but I
> think that there was a lack of interest in the two-tone ones after full
> solid color models came out. Also, the full color models had *plastic*
> fingerwheels on the dials-but a *harder* plastic than used today. And the
> center of an older plastic fingerwheel was open -- it didn't have the top
> all covered up with the same molded plastic. These early plastic
> fingerwheels had a grinding sound when the dial was spun, while later ones
> were softer.

These may simply have been painted, as were the older "colored" 302s
and 200-series desk stands were; obviously you couldn't repaint the
large dial circle because you'd cover the numbers.  Some BOCs did this
on a custom basis long before WECo started offering sets in different
colors, which I believe occurred in 1954.

> These phones were built to last for *years* -- they might have been heavy,
> but they were *sturdy*. You could spin a dial without having the phone slide
> all over the table. Even with touchtones today, I find that today's
> ultralight platic phones still slide around when using them. You could use
> older phones as a paperweight -- when writing down a phone number on a slip
> of paper, you could put a corner of the paper under the part of the phone.

One exception was the original version of the Princess set -- the one that
used the external ringer.  Those slid around quite readily when dialing, so
WECo drastically redesigned the set to have both non-skid rubber on the base
and a built-in ringer to add mass.  (The built-in ringer, of course, made
things a lot easier both for the customer and for installers, since the
Princess finally could be installed just like a 500 set and could use normal
plugs and jacks.)

> Except for my cellular phone, the phones for my personal use (both at home
> and here at work) are real Western Electric phones -- I have at least one of
> most of the WE/Bell phones of the 1920's thru the 1960's described above. I
> do have a pocket battery powered touchtone dialer for those times I want or
> *have* to enter touchtones, however, since all of my personal use phones are
> rotary dial. And these phones will also work on such digital offices as DMS,
> #5ESS, even digital PBX's if the line is still an analog line.

Hmmm ... why not just use some 2500 and/or 2554 sets with 12-key pads?
(I do have some old WECo phones that still work just fine, but my
personal favorite is the current AT&T Trimline 210/230.  The 230 has a
number memory, the 210 doesn't.  No one claims that they could survive
for 20 years in lease service as a 500 was designed to do, but they
*are* quite well built and work very well.)

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

From: Rupert Baines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RIP ISDN? GlobeSpan (ADSL)
Date: 11 Nov 1995 14:14:56 GMT


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original message on this topic
did not appear in the Digest. It appears to have come from the
uk.telecom group.  PAT]

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

> Subject: Re: RIP ISDN? GlobeSpan
> From: Malcolm Herring, [e-mail]
> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:11:15 GMT

<snip>

> I was NOT saying that telcos may not in the future sell a wideband
> asymmetrical service. Indeed, in the UK, BT are busy trying to persuade
> the government to let them sell Video-on-Demand. This would require a
> very asymmetrical-bandwidth local loop and network.

> My view is that the type of wideband service suitable for Internet usage
> is more likely to come from cable TV operators as they already have
> suitable infrastructure. Their networks are inherently asymmetrical and
> they have wideband cabling in the ground. Their subscriber drops are very
> short (<250m) and this makes possible very high bandwidth (~50MHz)
> connections.

True, but as the Cable Modems thread points out, there are some problems,
which level the playing field a bit.

1)  The Noise is horrifying ("Ingress"), which savages the data rate
2)  The network they have is in worse condition and poorly maintained
    (perhaps 80% uptime vs >99.9% for telco ?)
3)  The cable is common, so total BW is shared between all users -
    reducing BW per subscriber (perhaps not too important), coupling noise
    (a problem) and giving security worries.
4)  Everyone hates the cable cos
5)  The cable companies do not, in general, have loads of excess money.
    (Looked at the balance sheet of a Telco lately? How do you spell C A
    S H !)

> Telcos would not install the necessary NETWORK on the basis of Internet
> users alone (We are a tiny proportion of their customer base!), but would
> do so for a much bigger market (Like Video-on-Demand). The existence of a
> particular local loop technology does not imply the existence of a
> matching network. When AT&T announced their Globespan/SDSL service, the
> implication is that they can offer 384kbaud network connections (i.e. H0
> channels or 6xB Channels). This is great for video conferencing users but
> will no doubt cost 6x toll charges!

"Up to a point Lord Coper", Evelyn Waugh,Scoop

To start with, most economic models I've seen show that *no* single app
(VOD, Inet etc) makes sense, but that the combination of all of them
might well do so.  Internet may well make more sense than VOD from a
charging point of view; the number of users is less, but so is the
competition. Also I suspect the cost elasticity is better (look at the
ISDN based services)

And the whole attraction of ?DSL for the Telcos is the extent that they
can leverage existing assets. If the loop rates go up, they can offer
more services (as you say, at some cost per bit !), but I don't see that
the network costs would go up significantly.  After all, there *already*
is an Internet infrastructure shared amongst all users. Any upgrades
benefit all users, but those with big pipes benefit more. And those
upgrades will be necessary no matter what the local access is (unless
cable companies go into the long distance data business)

Question. How overloaded is the backbone now?   What upgrades will be
required?   Would cable companies have any advantages here?


Rupert Baines
Broadband Marketing
Analog Devices

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:10:22 PST


Josh Rubin said:

> My query has probably already been covered in an FAQ somewhere, but
> just in case, I'm wondering how a Telco could guarantee that any
> particular call on an ISDN line would be digital. It strikes me that
> unless you're in a closed system such as a university or corporation,
> that they really couldn't gurantee it. The reason is that a number of
> places still don't have fully digital networks.

Actually, unless you are in podunk nowhere,  nearly all calls travel
over digital links.  Once a traditional (analog) call reaches the
central office, it is converted into a digital signal there and
transmitted to other switching points digitally.

I don't know exactly where you are, but I bet your Bell company has
universal digital service.  Pacific Bell (my RBOC) has digital services
available thought the state.  Some areas may not have ISDN, but
switched digital (SDS 56K is basically the data componet of ISDN) has
been available universally since the late 70's.

If you concern is over long distance traffic, your IXC should already
know that your line is ISDN provisioned.

Actually, from a technical standpoint, your call CANNOT go through an
analog line; the protocol will not be able to handle the signal loss
from the conversion from digital to analog and back.  More intuitively
though, your central office switch will not open a non-digital path
since ISDN (at least B service) is channel switched.


Steve    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:53:06 -0900
From: [e-mail] (Philip Treuer)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?


Josh,

  I think you've asked a great question, and if you don't mind, I'd like to
ask that you copy me with any good responses you get that aren't also posted
on the Digest.  (I asked a similar question no to long ago but never got
much of a response.)

  I believe the answer to the question you've posed is "no" (Can a telco
guarantee whether any particular call on an ISDN line will be digital?)

  In my state, Alaska, the two major interexchange carriers, AT&T Alascom
and GCI, have indicated that they won't even carry a switched 56 or 64K ISDN
call unless they can charge extra for the call -- which will require data
users to dial special access numbers on interexchange calls.  The only
exception to this so far is that switched 56 calls to the lower 48 from
Anchorage (the only community so far that has switched 56 service; ISDN is
not available any where in the state) are transported intact and at no extra
charge.

Furthermore, these IXCs will only guarantee data transmission over
their (intrastate) digital networks of 9.6 kbps for modem and fax
users.  In other words, there's no point getting a modem or fax faster
than 9.6 kbps in Alaska if you plan to use it primarily for interexchange
calls. This is because the IXCs compress multiple voice calls onto a
single channel.  The compression technique doesn't work as well for
data calls.  Anything faster than 9.6 will bite the dust (and in rural
areas the problem is even worse).  I've been told that there is
special detection equipment that could be used to isolate the higher
speed data traffic of modem and fax users; however GCI has asserted
that installation of this equipment would increase its capital cost by
10%.

  In your example, you speculate about analog switches as the potential
culprits.  I believe that analog transmission or other non-fiber
transmission facilities could also be potential drags on through-put,
particularly in rural areas.  In Alaska all local and interexchange switches
are digital, however significant portions of the interexchange network are
still analog.  AT&T Alascom, which is the only IXC permitted to operate
interexchange facilities statewide, still uses analog transmission to about
200 of the approximately 250 locations statewide.  There is plenty of demand
for switched 56 and ISDN in rural areas, but it makes little sense for LECs
to offer these services locally if the interexchange network won't support it.

  Clearly Alaska is a special case, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's
rural areas of the U.S. that have similar problems.  I also wonder what the
future holds in store for the rest of the U.S. as the nation's data
requirements increase.  My previous question that went unanswered sought
information about whether the major IXCs also use compression on their fiber
systems.  It may be that they don't.  However, will fiber bandwidth always
be so inexpensive that the IXCs don't have to consider the efficiency
associated with compressing voice calls.  I've been told that its possible
to transport a voice call with less than 10 kbps.  Given that the standard
uncompressed digital voice circuit is 64 kbps it seems that there's a lot of
room for efficiency. If and when the IXCs decide to compress 3, 4 and 5
voice calls onto a single 64 kbps channel, will they still be willing to
carry switched 56 and ISDN at no extra charge?  In Alaska the answer has
been "no."

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

From: Hugh H Tebault <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?
Date: 12 Nov 1995 20:30:27 GMT
Organization: ascend.com


If you request a service type of SW56 or SW64 over an ISDN facility, the
only way to get to the other end is digital. If you are asking of you
call with a service type of VOICE, then the telco MAY use analog
circuits in some part of the path because they are only obligated to
deliver you "Toll Quality voice" service and could actually use ADPCM
(32kbs voice) to do this.

Best is simply to use digital equipment, IDSN terminal adaptors, or
equipment that includes the ISDN TA functions and provides routing and
bridging functions like Ascend products.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:33:12 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Schear)
Subject: Re: The Killer Application Myth


Christoph F. Strnadl <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have got one more comment to make concerning the non-existence of a
> single killer application.

> The one application (or idea therof) I have come across which may has
> a fair chance to be eventually realised and become something like a
> killer application could be the following:

> Idea: Home ATM:
>        * phone with smartcard reader
>        * user has a stored value smartcard (aka electronic purse)
>        * user dials into his home-banking application somewhere on the
>          (POTS!!) network and transfers money from his bank account to
>          his electronic purse

> This is not home-banking per se but, as a matter of fact, just one
> single application of a possible home-banking package. It is, though,
> a feature which to my opinion offers tremendous added value to the
> user, don't you think?

Might you have come across your "Killer Application" due to Philips having
worked for some years on such instruments?  I too have some familiarity
with smart phones.  I worked at Citicorp's TTI group in the late '80s and
early '90s.  As I recall, Citicorp was the 'inventor' of the Smart Phone
(SP), later partnering with Philips for its manufacturing expertise.

As you probably know, SP customer trials have not been resounding
successes. The common telephone also had acceptance problems.  Early in
this century telephones were unable to find a place on the desk of U.S.
business managers.  The telephone was almost always on the desk of the
secretary.  Managers of that period were used to dealing face to face and
observing a decorum of regarding the control of visitor access. Telephones
succeeded in business only when the generation resisting them retired.

Citicorp's reason for SPh was as a Trojan Horse to 'sneak' computer
technology (in a familiar form) into the homes of older, upscale, customers
whose VCRs have been blinking midnight for the past five years.  Citicorp
hoped that SPs would enable them to develop deeper relationships with these
valued customers.  It hasn't worked.

Look at the demographics of those who use ATMs.  Their mostly under 45.
Those most comfortable with computer technology already have a home
computer.  Why would they want a SP?  Their computers are connecting to
on-line networks at a phenomenal rate.  All they need to perform secure
on-line transaction processing is a Smart Card and an inexpensive Smart
Card reader attachment to their home PC.  Both are now available.

Most troubling to established banking companies is the spectre that with
the advent of electronic purses, especially those from third parties, the
need by many for banks (as we now know them) may disappear.  Secure,
anonymous, electronic payment methods (such as David Chaum's CyberCash) may
well bring about a revoultion in world commerce at the expense of
governmental authority.


Steve Schear, N7ZEZ      | Internet: [e-mail]
Former Chairman          |
Part 15 Coalition        | Voice:
655 West Evelyn Avenue   | Voice: 1-510-657-1200 (U.S., messages)
Suite 2-9326             | Cellular:
Mountain View, CA 94041  | Fax:

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 01:09:04 PST


Richard Eyre-Eagles said:

>> For more info, call 1-800-NORTEL or contact me.

> Did they run out of seven digit 800 numbers so they are assigning six
> digits??   :)

It's actually 1-800-4Nortel.


Steve   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 95 17:43:51 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PowerTouch 350 Telephone Information Needed


[e-mail] wrote, apparently in error:

> For more info, call 1-800-NORTEL or contact me.

Doubtless this six-digit number makes up for all those years Northern
Telecom had the eight-digit one 1-800-NORTHERN.


Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (Duncan Campbell)
Subject: Re: Limits to Redialing?
Date: 13 Nov 1995 08:16:47 GMT
Organization: Punknet Internet Cooperative, San Luis Obispo, CA


Bren Smith  <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Is it true that the Demon Dialer disappeared because of LEC's limitations
> on the number of times you can redial within a certain time period?

(Pat's lengthy and informative reply snipped)

The only limit on redialing I have ever run into was through an MCI
calling card.  I redialed my sister's line, which was busy, ten or
twenty times in a minute or two.  They stopped accepting calls billed
to that calling card.  Another fraud prevention algorithm gone awry ...


Duncan

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 01:23:18 EST
From: [e-mail] (Chip Sharp X-6424)
Subject: Re: Limits to Redialing?


Bren Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Is it true that the Demon Dialer disappeared because of LEC's
> limitations on the number of times you can redial within a certain
> time period?

The FCC Part 68 regulations have restrictions on the number of times
equipment can redial automatically without human intervention. Many
countries have similar restrictions.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #478
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov 14 18:02:42 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id SAA06365; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:02:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:02:42 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #479

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Nov 95 18:02:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 479

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Reality Ccheck re Toll Free NPRM (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Using Cellular Phones to Link Classroom to Outside World (Nigel Allen)
    AT&T Cutbacks Affect Customer Service (John Thompson)
    Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal? (Corey Hauer)
    Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming (Scott Drown)
    FITCE Congress 1996 (Dominic Pinto)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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.
    The "Information Appliance"- A Telecom Point of View? (Robert Jacobson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:55:40 -0500
Subject: Reality Check re Toll Free NPRM


Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.  20554

In the Matter of                )
Toll Free Service Access Codes        )    CC Docket No. 95-155


RESPONSE OF INTERACTIVE CALLBRAND

    Interactive CallBrand, a small telecommunications consulting
firm in New York, submits this response on behalf of itself and
similarly situated small businesses, users whose revenues are
dependant on toll-free numbers.


I.    THE PUBLIC RESOURCE ARGUMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE
    RECOGNITION OF LEGITIMATE USER INTERESTS.

    There is only one thing wrong with the Public Resource
argument, as set forth in the NANP.  It isn't that it's a bad policy,
not at all.  It's an admirable policy, a policy that was a model for
it's time.  There is, as we said, only one thing wrong with it.

    It's built on a misstatement of fact.

    That is, a statement of fact which was true at the time but
that is no longer true, today.  The statement is: All telephone
numbers are the same.

    The North American Numbering Plan is an elegant creature,
which became, not only the model, but the standard, throughout the
world.  Many of the people commenting in this proceeding are people
who were present at the inception of the plan, in every sense of the
word, and presided over its growth.

    Those who were part of developing it have every right to be
proud of what they have done.

    But let us be frank.  Where there is pride, there is always
the desire to protect; to keep this elegant creature free from outside
interference and, especially from the dreaded forces of
commercialization.

    Is there anyone reading this document who seriously doubts the
ability of ICB or anybody else, given a reasonable fact finding
process, to demonstrate beyond any existing burden of proof, that , in
commercial reality, there is no business application imaginable in
which all numbers are the same?

II.    THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF LEGITIMATE USER INTERESTS

    Worse yet, this is the issue that is not going to go away.
Not only is it not going to go away, there are irresistible forces
driving it as we speak.

    The first is the growth of telecommunications itself.

    The more numbers a consumer dials, the more different
telephones he uses, the more services of which he takes advantage, the
more he depends on numbers he can remember.  He doesn't know he's
twisting the numbering plan into something it wasn't designed to do.
He thinks he's functioning efficiently.

    The second is the popularity and versatility of vanity
number-like applications.  You can't sell things or raise money or run
for office -- or even get tried for murder -- without a toll free
number.  The quicker it's going to go by on the TV screen, the more
competitors it has for attention, the more it needs to be the one
remembered the next morning.  Do you think this is going to change?

    How successful, generally, are democracies in reversing
behavior that makes life easier, is cheap, harmless and healthy and
thrills the marketing Vice President of every organization in the
world?

    Finally, there's portability.  Location/geographic portability
snips the last wire linking the subscriber's number to the numbering
plan.  The customer is left holding in his hand, guess what, his very
own telephone number that he can take with him wherever he goes his
whole life.  I-XXX-JohnDoe.

    Are you going to stop portability?

III.    IT IS AN ISSUE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSED,
    PREMATURELY, IN THIS PROCEEDING WHICH IS LIMITED TO
    THE ISSUE OF REPLICATION.

    Complicated and fraught with peril as this issue is, obviously
what is needed is careful thought and sober consideration.  The most
harmful thing this forum could do to users would be to make any
premature pronouncements one way or another.

    We have a business that is dependant on that telephone number.
When you tell us you're going to make changes that effect it, we get
nervous.

    Moreover, the whole point of this whole enterprise is to
encourage us to take this number and use it as creatively and
productively as possible. Are we not correct that is what you want?
Well, you can't have it both ways.  You can't say, on the one hand,
invest in this.  And then, on the other, say as publicly as possible,
that this number is so ephemeral and absolutely beyond your control
that your accountant says you'd have to be an idiot to rely on it.
Not only your accountant, your lawyer will help him double team you.
Is this what you want?  It would be like trying to get pregnant women
to smoke cigarettes.

    The point is that the only thing at issue here is replication.

    This is not about the question of whether or not anybody owns
anything.  Nobody yet knows the answer to that question and it
certainly won't, finally, be settled by this proceeding.

    Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for this proceeding to
address the issue.

POSITIONS

l.    This rulemaking is not addressing the issue of whether or not
anybody owns anything and should explicitly so state.

2.    Replication is entirely appropriate as an accommodation to the
legitimate interests of users.

3.    As replication is an accommodation to users, it is users which
should have the ability to initiate and confirm the process, not the
RespOrgs.


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: +1 800 The Expert.    Fax: [phone].

Interactive CallBrand (ICB) is a leading source of information and support
on 800 and related issues.  ICB publishes inTELigence, the telecom users'
newsletter that separates fact from fiction.  Call or email for a sample
issue, and subscription information.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 02:11:09 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Cellular Phones to Link Classroom to Outside World
Organization: Internex Online


A Florida cellular company is helping a school in Fort Myers use
cellular phones to link classrooms with the outside world.  It's a
cute idea, although I suspect most schols need other things a lot more
than they need cellular phones. Still, I suppose anything that
increase school-parent communication has some value.

Here is the press release from Palmer Wireless, Inc., which I found on
the PR Newswire web site (http://www.prnewswire.com/).


    CELLULAR ONE OF LEE COUNTY AND EDGEWOOD RENAISSANCE ACADEMY
    CELEBRATE SUCCESS OF CLASSLINK

    FORT MYERS, Fla., Oct. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Students, parents, and
teachers at Edgewood Renaissance Academy got the chance yesterday to
tell Congressman Porter Goss, Lee County School Superintendent Bobbie
D'Alessandro, and two members of the Lee County School Board how
ClassLink, a concept that links the classroom via cellular phones to the
outside world, has changed their lives for the better.

    "It really makes my day when I pick up the phone and hear a little
tiny voice say 'Mommy I got a hundred on my spelling test'," said Parent
Susan Case.  "It's a real boost to my daughter's self-esteem and she has
all day to look forward to that chocolate chip cookie I'm gonna bake her
because she got a good grade."

    Parent Tammy Baughn likes the security she feels knowing that her
three children are just a cellular phone call away.  "My son Jeremy has
asthma and allergy problems, so I am very relieved to know that if he
has an attack then the teacher would be able to call for help directly.
Normally, the teacher would have to call the office and then someone in
the office would call for help."

    Baughn also said that she will probably not hesitate to let her
children go on school field trips without her now, since teachers will
have their cellular phones in case of emergency.

    In August, Cellular One of Lee County, owned by Palmer Wireless,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PWIR), donated fifty-five cellular phones with
accessories, air time for the 1995-96 school year, two personal digital
assistants for wireless data applications, and cellular voice mailboxes
for teachers and support staff at Edgewood.  Every teacher has his or
her own cellular voice mailbox called the "Homework Hotline", for
communicating homework and other class information as well as for
communicating with parents, students, other teachers, etc.

    Parents really like the voice mailbox feature of ClassLink which
makes teachers more accessible -- even on weekends.  "I was really
impressed recently when a teacher returned my call within a couple of
hours on a Saturday," said Case.  "My son was having some speech
problems and a few hours later the teacher called to let me know he
could be enrolled in a speech class."

    In the 45 minute presentation held in front of the school yesterday,
students and teachers also demonstrated how to call voice mail (Homework
Hotline) and played some of the messages left by students and their
parents.

    Laura Henning, a first grade teacher, lets her students record the
homework for the week.  "When they are selected to leave their voice on
the Homework Hotline it increases their self-esteem," Henning said.  "It
also makes parents and other students keep up with the homework because
they're calling the Hotline in order to hear their child's voice or the
voice of a classmate," Henning added.

    Paula Barnes, a 5th grade teacher, uses the phone for behavior
modification, positive reinforcement, and to increase productivity.
"When I get to school in the morning and on my breaks, I use the phone
to make several calls without leaving my room," said Barnes.  "This
enables me to get a lot more accomplished during the day."

    Congressman Goss urged the students to learn as much as they could
about technology and he applauded Cellular One of Lee County and the
Edgewood Renaissance Academy for participating in the ClassLink
initiative.

    After the demonstration, Officer David Webster instructed students
about safety and when they should call 9-1-1.  Students practiced
calling 9-1-1 on cellular phones then showed Congressman Goss what they
had learned.

    Cellular One of Lee County and Edgewood Renaissance Academy became
the first in the state and the fourth in the nation to launch ClassLink.
The wireless industry created ClassLink in response to a challenge by
House Speaker Newt Gingrich to bring modem communications technologies
into the schools.  The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
has committed to helping break down the walls of the classroom and
improve education in 100 schools across the United States.

    Palmer Wireless, Inc., headquartered in Ft. Myers, Florida, operates
13 nonwireline cellular systems in Florida, Alabama and Georgia serving
a total estimated population of 2.6 million with over 155,000
subscribers.  All of the company's systems are Cellular One affiliates
and members of the North American Cellular Network.

    For the 1996-97 school year, Palmer Wireless, Inc. will select one
school in Alabama and one in Georgia to participate in ClassLink.  Any
schools interested in applying should write to:  Palmer Wireless, Inc.,
Marketing--ClassLink, 12800 University Dr., Suite 500, Ft. Myers, FL
33907.


    CONTACT: Valerie Thompson, Public Affairs Associate, 941-432-5631, or
    Margaret Osborne, Vice President of Marketing, 941-433-8237 both of
    Cellular One; or Catherine Witt, Edgewood Principal, 941-334-6205

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

From: John Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Cutbacks Affect Customer Service
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:59:45 -0500
Organization: Monmouth Internet Corporation


I recently called AT&T Residential Customer Service (1-800-222-0300),
and got a recording stating their hours of operation (7am - 9pm EST
Mon-Sat).  I knew that AT&T would be cutting back, but this seems
quite a bit drastic.

In the recording, it listed an "emergency" number (1-800-451-3231).
The person that answered that number seemed to help, even if there
wasn't an "emergency", but I'm annoyed that I can't call them at
night, or all day Sunday without calling an "emergency" number.  The
world does not work on an 8am to 9pm schedule.  Has AT&T forgotten
that?

But, what really ticks me off is this: call 1-800-CALL-ATT at 4am.
Follow the prompts to select the "sign-up for AT&T" option.  A
representative will answer immediately.  So, you can sign up 24 hours
a day, but once you need to talk to customer service, they basically
say "screw you".

I have switched my long distance to MCI.  Besides 24 hour customer
service, I can access my account on the 'Net (soon, anyway).  I will
be switching my 800 number from AT&T too.  They don't deserve my
business if they won't provide me with 24-hour customer service.  And
no $15 check is going to change that!


John Thompson   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Corey Hauer)
Subject: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 01:43:42 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


I am providing internet service to several communities in a rural
area.  A very-small community serviced by GTE near one of my POPs is a
long distance call from me but a local call to another GTE-serviced
community that can call me without a long-distance charges.  I want to
enable people in the small town to call my service without
long-distance charges.

Maybe mistakenly, I called GTE and asked them if I could get a line in
the community and have it forwarded to my main number.  GTE told me
"no way, that would be violating the tariff".

I know of many ISPs and BBSs that use call forwarding in the same
manner to extend their service area.  Is GTE correct, would I be
violating a tariff.

What could happen if I had a friend of mine in this town get a line
pointing to me?  Or is GTE blowing smoke?


Corey     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are two considerations here, one
being the legality of what you propose; the second being the practical
or pragmatic side. Strictly speaking, schemes to avoid payment of toll
are illegal. A 'scheme' is any plan which has not been tariffed. Since
Foreign Exchange service years ago was tariffed, therefore using it
to avoid toll charges was not illegal. Call forwarding on the other
hand is tariffed as a way to conveniently have your telephone calls
reach you wherever you may be, not as a way to string phone calls
together in a way to avoid or bypass local calling areas, etc.
Therefore when used in the latter way deliberatly, it becomes illegal.
If this result is only coincidental to the reason you are using call
forwarding, i.e. a convenient way to have your phone calls reach you,
then it is not illegal. A reasonable person might conclude that a call
forwarding link left permanently in place was not being done so much
for the convenience of the subscriber in receiving his calls (after
all, is the subscriber always in the same remote place which 'just
happens to coincidentally' extend outside the local calling zone of
the persons placing the calls) as it was being doen as a method of
toll-avoidance, thus it was being done illegally.

A couple of telcos have had the bright idea in the past of handling
call forwarding much like the cell carriers handle 'follow me roaming';
that is they say 'since you may have forgotten <snicker> to unlink your
call forwarding and because we want to help you avoid unneccessary
charges as a result of the forwarding being left up in error <bigger
guffaw at this point> we will automatically unlink it for you every
day at 3:00 AM if it has not been up less than an hour or so at that
point. (i.e. you chislers will have to get out of bed at 2:30 AM each
day and institute a fresh call forwarding link within a few minutes
before 3:00 AM each day, otherwise we will pull it down and make you
set it up again the next day or whenever you notice it is down and you
have lost a lot of calls to your BBS or Internet server or whatever
that we are not supposed to listen to and therefore cannot prove
otherwise that you are skirting the tariff on.) So legally speaking,
it is a very grey area. Subscribers play games, and telcos play games.

The practical or pragmatic aspects of what is proposed is another
matter. The only time 'chain forwarding' to avoid toll becomes less
expensive than simply paying the long-haul toll is when there are
unlimited local districts right next to each other. If you live in an
area like Chicago, where you are billed three to five cents every time
you pick up the phone to make a call, then rarely will the cost of a
call from A --> C cost more than the costs of a call from A -> B plus
B -> C combined. Generally the short links added together (and after
all, you pay your total telecom bill, not just the separate links)
will wind up costing more. Don't forget to add in the cost of
*installing* the intermediate phone line and the cost of its monthly
billing for network access, etc. Generally you need to have that
incoming line really packed -- in use continually with the most
favorable local calling plans on both sides of the link in effect --
in order to amortize the fixed expenses of the link itself. Even then
it is quite 'iffy'. BBS operators and ISP's who want to provide the
essence of a local phone call to their users are probably as well off
or better off using an 800 number. Remember, most call forwarding
links only allow one call at a time to get thorugh (additional callers
get a busy signal) while 800 numbers are usually only limited in what
they can pass at a time by the capacity of the receiving end to accept
the call. Plus, you get non-blockable 'caller id' (really ANI) for
security and control purposes on your network, and frankly, it just
does not look quite so klutzy as some call-forwarded lines strung
together.

If you are saying you don't want to have to cover the entire cost of
the call yourself (as you would with an 800 number) and want the user
to have some of the expense (as he would if he paid for a local call
to the call-forwarding link and you paid for the call from that point
forward) then bear in mind the two of you together will probably wind
up paying more (in total) than either of you would pay if one end or
the other paid for the whole thing (either he dialed direct and paid
the toll or he dialed your 800 number and you paid the toll.) Consider
having an 800 number for 'authorized' users (i.e. those users who have
agreed to pay you some sum of money per month for the use of your
'toll-free line' while the rest of the users simply dial direct at
their own expense. Now the user gets to make the choice: is sending
you some sum of money in exchange for using your 800 number to his
advantage or not?  Compuserve does this now. Either dial into them at
your own expense (albiet they do have a lot of 'local access numbers')
or use the 800 number and pay them six or eight dollars per hour. The
customer does it however he thinks it works out best.    PAT]

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

From: Scott Drown <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 12:43:33 EST
Subject: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming


Hi,

I just got off the phone with the Cell-One/Boston service representative.

I tried to make a call over the weekend, and my phone wouldn't work.  I
seems that I had crossed out of the Cell-One/Boston area, and was
roaming.  Why wouldn't the call go through?  I've roamed before in that
area?  It seems that Cell-One/Boston has summarily DISABLED ROAMING on
ALL phones that have not roamed in the past XXX days.  The helpful
service person did not know how long XXX was.  He did inform me that
this move was to combat massive fraud in roaming.

I had tried to make a call to tell friends that I would be late, as the
road was closed due to a car burning in the middle lane.   It is a good
thing that I was not trying to call for help for that driver (the FD was
already there), as the State Police in NH have a 800 number for
emergency cellular calls, not 911 or *911.  It's a good thing that NYNEX
pay phones are plentiful. :-)

I asked the Cell-One person why they didn't tell me beforehand that they
were going to do this.  He assured me that a notice would be in my next
billing statement, and all I have to do is call and ask for roaming to
be turned on.

If you are a Cell-One/Boston customer, and you might want to roam, you
might want to call and have them turn roaming back on.


Scott Drown <[e-mail]>                   Phone:[phone]
Annex Software Quality Assurance                   Phone:[phone]
Xylogics Inc, 53 Third Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803  Fax:[phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for passing along this warning.
Like Sprint, with calling cards summarily disabled under some policy
that no one seems to understand for sure or will talk about if they
do, these folks take the attitude that they are accountable to no one
but themselves don't they? Far too often, telcos like other large corp-
orations seem to forget that customers are not an interupption to
their work, they are the *purpose* of it.   PAT]

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

From: Pinto, Dominic <[e-mail]>
Subject: FITCE Congress 1996
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 16:20:00 GMT


The Federation of Telecom Engineers in the EC (FITCE) is a European Union
wide professional body linking engineers and managers within the European
telecommunications industry - with partcipation from the competinmg PTOs,
manufacturing industry, value added services suppliers, as well as the
traditional PTTs. Our last annual Congress, held in Bologna, Italy,
September 11th - 16th, took the theme of Telecommunications Management. with
some 36 papers being presented covering a wide range of issues and topics.

Whether or not members of FITCE, all professionals in the industry are
welcome to attend and participate.

Further details about the group are available from Paul Nichols ph +44 171
356-8022, or  fax [phone].  I am the UK delegation organiser -
registration and congress program details will be available from me
 (Dominic Pinto ph [phone], e-mail: [e-mail], and fax
[phone],) but not until well into 1996.

Best wishes,

Dominic

          FEDERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS
               OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (FITCE)

           35th European Telecommunications Congress

                        CALL FOR PAPERS

Multimedia  is  the  new  buzzword in telecommunications.  Its
roots  are  in  computers, telecommunications and  information
providers.  All three areas are now converging into  a  single
market.  Personal  computers become TV  sets  and  play  audio
compact  disks; telephones include video cameras  and  modems;
broadcasting  is  evolving to video  on  demand  and  becoming
interactive. The digital coding of video signals  is  allowing
bandwidth to be reduced and new applications to be created.

What  is multimedia really, and where is it heading? Who needs
multimedia, who makes it, who controls and influences it,  and
who  is influenced by it? Is it really the growing market  for
the  future? Which standards will succeed? What is the content
that will determine the new services?

The  35th  FITCE  Congress, which  will  be  held  in  Vienna,
Austria, from 27 August-1 September 1996, will focus on:

  `Multimedia Services on the Telecommunications Networks of
                            Europe'

FITCE  is inviting papers on this topic, covering one or  more
of the following aspects:

l   broadband networks and broadband access (FITL, ADSL,  HFC,
ATM, etc.);
l  video on demand and interactive video;
l  requirements for multimedia servers;
l  regulatory issues concerning multimedia (ONP and
interconnection);
l  field trials on multimedia and experiences in Europe;
l  multimedia standardisation (B-ISDN, MPEG, MHEG, ODA, etc.);
l  multimedia applications in science, education, health care,
publishing and others;
l  multimedia market forecast and evolution;
l  human factors and social impacts of multimedia.

Guidelines for submission of papers:

If  you  are  interested in submitting a presentation,  please
prepare  an  abstract, which should be in  English,  giving  a
clear  indication of the theme and coverage  of  the  proposed
paper.  The abstract, which should be prepared on the standard
FITCE form, should be sent before 13 February 1996 to:

Paul  Nichols, FITCE UK Papers Coordinator, Post  Point  G012,
2-12  Gresham Street, London EC2V 7AG (Telephone:  (0171)  356
8022; Facsimile: [phone]).


Copies of the FITCE standard form are available from the above
address,  and  will  be  sent  on request.  Papers  should  be
unpublished.   The   abstracts  will  be   reviewed   by   the
International   Papers  Selection  Committee  for   relevance,
technical content and originality. Authors will be informed by
15  April  1996 whether their proposed paper has been selected
for  presentation.  The full text of the selected  papers,  in
English, is required by 15 June 1996 and should allow for a 25
minute  presentation,  which should be  supported  by  slides.
Requirements  for  special presentation  equipment  should  be
indicated in the abstract.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View?
Date: 13 Nov 1995 08:47:18 GMT
Organization: Worldesign Inc., Seattle


Lately, all the talk in the computer industry -- and at Comdex this
week -- has been about the "Information Appliance," a concept recently
given wide publicity by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Sun CEO Scott
McNealy.  In a nutshell, the information appliance is a small device
with a big screen, a keyboard, and the ability to call up programs and
data from a big server(s) somewhere on the Net.  The idea is to get as
much stuff off the local platform as possible, to hold down the cost
and produce a simple tool capable of email, wordprocessing, Net
surfing, and graphics/sound display.  Period.  The microwave oven of
communications.

So far the concept has been severely criticized in the computer
industry, mostly by people who need 1GB of memory on their hard drive
just to sleep at night.  No one from the telecom industry has yet
spoken out on the matter.  In fact, when I was touting the idea back
in 1989 (and right up to today), the reaction from telecom executives
has been, "Huh?"  Yet the concept will not fly without a big pipe
between the servers and the end users.

If the telecom industry is serious about getting big pipes down to the
little folks, this is one hell of a good reason for doing so.  So ...
where's the response?


Bob Jacobson    Worldesign Inc.  Seattle


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you propose is a very interesting
idea and one that some of us have used for years and years already.
For example, much of what I do on this Digest and the Archives is
accomplished with nothing more than a Wyse-50 terminal, a printer
attached and a 9600 baud modem. I let the ISP (in this case, LCS at
MIT) keep all the software and storage on their end. I dial in, and
run all the scripts from there. Now I could use a new terminal as
this one is getting sort of cranky and a faster 28.8 baud modem in
case anyone would like to donate them to the Digest (hint! hint!) and
a new printer instead of one that is twelve years old (Epson MX-80)
wouldn't hurt either, but the bottom line is people do not need to be
computer literate with massive amounts of computational equipment to
use the net and benefit from the many things it has to offer. I also
have an old 386 sitting here which does not even have enough memory in
it to run Windows, but I make do (somehow). I'd like to see something
like your information appliance be mass-produced in sufficient quantity
that every single person in America could afford one. I'd like to see
the same push for universal service which drove the telcos in the
early years of this century now become a driving force on the
Internet.

The Illinois State Lottery was up to some outrageous amount a few weeks
ago. Somewhere around forty million or sixty million dollars. The way
I can tell how large the pot has grown is by observing the size of the
line as it snakes from the lottery agent at the corner store out the
door and down the sidewalk, people waiting patiently in line for the
chance to give their money away to someone else. I guess I live in a
dream world of my own. If I were to win a lotterly like that I would
see to it that that every public school and every public library in
Chicago was hooked to the net immediatly with 'information appliance'
type devices. Oh well, I can dream I guess. But indeed, you can do a
lot with very little, and that may be the way most people eventually
get 'wired and on line'.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #479
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov 14 19:14:31 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id TAA11073; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 19:14:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 19:14:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #480

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Nov 95 19:14:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 480

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Table of Intercity and International Dialing Prefixes (Toby Nixon)
    Cellphones Cause Accidents? (Ron Bean)
    AT&T Fires Its First Shot? (Paul L. Moses)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (C. Weisgerber)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 15:16:23 PST
Subject: Table of Intercity and International Dialing Prefixes


Here is the latest version of this table, which I submitted recently to
the ITU for publication in the Operational Bulletin and on www.itu.ch.

   --Toby

          Table of Intercity and International Dialing Prefixes

This table lists the intercity and international dialing prefixes for
all countries in the world. It is intended as an aid to producers of
computer software and devices which must be able to dial telephone
calls from any country. It may also serve as an aid to international
travelers. This table is sorted in ascending numeric order by the
country codes assigned in ITU-T Recommendation E.164.

The Intercity Dialing Prefix is the digit or digits which must be
dialed before a city (or area) code when dialing a call to a city or
area other than the one from which the call is being placed. If the
entry in this column is blank for a particular country, it means that
country has a single nationwide numbering plan that does not use city
codes; all calls to anywhere in the country are dialed by using the
entire "local" number.

In some countries, the Intercity Dialing Prefix is traditionally
treated as part of the city code. For the purposes of this table, a
digit or digits that occurs at the beginning of all city codes in a
country is considered to be an Intercity Dialing Prefix, instead of
part of the city code, when that digit or digits is omitted when
calling into the country from another country. For example, the city
code for central London, England, is normally stated as "0171" inside
the United Kingdom, but when it is dialed from the United States of
America, the "0" is omitted (US callers would dial "011-44-171..."
instead of "011-44-0171...".

The International Dialing Prefix is the digit or digits which must be
dialed before a country code when dialing a call to a country other
than the one from which the call is being placed. If the entry in this
column is blank for a particular country, it means that country does
not facilitate the direct dialing of calls to other country (in other
words, international calls must be placed through an operator).

The letter "W", when appearing in a prefix, indicates that it is
necessary to wait for a second dial tone before proceeding with dialing.

This table contains information available as of the date of
publication. Readers of this document discovering errors or omissions
in any aspect should send notice of the need for correction to the
editor. The editor of the document is:

    Toby Nixon
    Microsoft Corporation
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, Washington  98052-6399, USA

    Email:      Internet: [e-mail]
                X.400: c=us; a=mci; p=msft; s=tnixon
    Fax:        [phone]
    Telex:      160520 Microsoft BVUE
    Voice:      [phone]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.164                                              Intercity   International
Country  Country                                   Dialing     Dialing
Code                                               Prefix      Prefix
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1        Anguilla                                  1           011
1        Antigua                                   1           011
1        Bahamas                                   1           0011
1        Barbados                                  1           011
1        Bermuda                                   1           011
1        British Virgin Islands                    1           011
1        Canada                                    1           011
1        Cayman Islands                            1           011
1        Dominica                                  1           011
1        Dominican Republic                        1           011
1        Grenada                                   1           011
1        Jamaica (1)                               1           011
1        Montserrat                                1           011
1        Nevis                                     1           011
1        St. Kitts                                 1           011
1        St. Vincent and the Grenadines            1           0
1        Trinidad and Tobago                       1           01
1        Turks and Caicos Islands                  1           0
1        Barbuda                                   1           011
1        Puerto Rico                               1           011
1        Saint Lucia                               1           011
1        United States of America                  1           011
1        United States Virgin Islands              1           011
20       Egypt                                     0           00
212      Morocco                                   0           00
213      Algeria                                               00
216      Tunisia                                   0           00
218      Libya                                                 00
220      Gambia                                                00
221      Senegal Republic                          0           00
222      Mauritania                                            00
223      Mali                                                  00
224      Guinea                                                00
225      Ivory Coast                                           00
226      Burkina Faso                                          00
227      Niger                                                 00
228      Togo                                                  00
229      Benin                                                 00
230      Mauritius                                             00
231      Liberia                                               0
232      Sierra Leone                                          00
233      Ghana                                                 00
234      Nigeria                                               009
235      Chad                                                  15
236      Central African Republic                              19
237      Cameroon                                              00
238      Cape Verde Islands                                    0
239      Sao Tome and Principe (2)                             00
240      Equatorial Guinea                                     00
241      Gabon                                                 00
242      Congo                                                 00
243      Zaire                                                 00
244      Angola                                    0           00
245      Guinea-Bissau                                         099
246      Diego Garcia                                          00
247      Ascension Island                                      01
248      Seychelle Islands                                     00
249      Sudan                                     0           00
250      Rwanda                                                00
251      Ethiopia                                  0           00
252      Somalia                                               19W
253      Djibouti                                              00
254      Kenya                                     0           000
255      Tanzania                                              0900
256      Uganda                                    0           00
257      Burundi                                               90
258      Mozambique                                            00
260      Zambia                                    0           00
261      Madagascar                                            16
262      Reunion Island                                        19
263      Zimbabwe                                  1           110
264      Namibia                                   0           09
265      Malawi                                                101
266      Lesotho                                               00
267      Botswana                                              00
268      Swaziland                                             00
269      Mayotte Island                                        10
269      Comoros                                               10
27       South Africa                              0           09
290      St. Helena                                            01
291      Eritrea                                   0           00
297      Aruba                                                 00
298      Faeroe Islands                                        009
299      Greenland                                             009
30       Greece                                    0           00
31       Netherlands                               0           00
32       Belgium                                   0           00
33       France (3)                                16W         19W
33       Monaco                                    16W         19W
34       Spain                                     9           07W
350      Gibraltar                                             00
351      Portugal                                  0           00
352      Luxembourg                                            00
353      Ireland                                   0           00 (4)
354      Iceland                                               00
355      Albania                                   0           00
356      Malta                                                 00
357      Cyprus (5)                                0           00
358      Finland (6)                               9           990
359      Bulgaria                                  0           00
36       Hungary                                   06W         00
370      Lithuania                                 8           810
371      Latvia                                    8           00
372      Estonia                                   82          810
373      Moldova                                   8           810
374      Armenia                                   8           810
375      Belarus                                   8           810
376      Andorra                                               00
378      San Marino                                0           00 (7)
380      Ukraine                                   8           810
381      Yugoslavia                                0           99
385      Croatia                                   0           00
386      Slovenia                                  0           00
387      Bosnia and Herzegovina                    0           00
389      Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia     0           00
39       Italy                                     0           00 (8)
39       Vatican City                              0           00
40       Romania                                   0           00
41       Switzerland                               0           00
41       Liechtenstein                             0           00
42       Czech Republic                            0           00
42       Slovak Republic                           0           00
43       Austria                                   0           00
44       United Kingdom                            0           00
45       Denmark                                               00
46       Sweden                                    0           009
47       Norway (9)                                            095
48       Poland                                    0           00
49       Germany                                   0           00
500      Falkland Islands                                      0
501      Belize                                    0           00
502      Guatemala                                 0           00
503      El Salvador                                           0
504      Honduras                                              00
505      Nicaragua                                 0           00
506      Costa Rica                                            00
507      Panama                                                0
508      St. Pierre and Miquelon                               19W
509      Haiti                                                 00
51       Peru                                      0           00
52       Mexico                                    91 (10)     98 (11)
53       Cuba                                      0           119
53       Guantanamo Bay                            0           00
54       Argentina                                 0           00
55       Brazil                                    0           00
56       Chile                                     0           00
57       Colombia (12)                             9           90
58       Venezuela                                 0           00
590      Guadeloupe                                            19W
590      French Antilles                                       19W
591      Bolivia                                   0           00
592      Guyana                                    0           001
593      Ecuador                                   0           00
594      French Guiana                                         19W
595      Paraguay                                  0           00
596      Martinique                                            19W
597      Suriname                                              00
598      Uruguay                                   0           00
599      Netherlands Antilles                      0           00
60       Malaysia                                  0           007 (13)
61       Australia                                 0           0011
61       Cocos-Keeling Islands                     0           00
62       Indonesia                                 0           001
63       Philippines                               0           00
64       New Zealand                               0           00
65       Singapore                                             005 (14)
66       Thailand                                  0           001
670      Saipan Island                             1           011
670      Rota Island                               1           011
670      Tinian Island                             1           011
671      Guam                                                  011
672      Christmas Island                          0           00
672      Australian Antarctic Territory            0           00
672      Norfolk Island                                        0101
673      Brunei                                    0           00
674      Nauru                                                 115
675      Papua New Guinea                                      05
676      Tonga                                                 00
677      Solomon Islands                                       00
678      Vanuatu                                               00
679      Fiji Islands                                          05
680      Palau                                                 00
681      Wallis and Futuna Islands                             19W
682      Cook Islands                                          00
683      Niue                                                  00
684      American Samoa                                        00
685      Western Samoa                                         0
686      Kiribati Republic                                     09
687      New Caledonia                                         00
688      Tuvalu                                                00
689      French Polynesia                                      00
690      Tokelau                                               00
691      Micronesia                                            011
692      Marshall Islands                          0           00
7        Russia                                    8           810
7        Kazakhstan                                8           810
7        Kyrgyzstan                                8           810
7        Tajikistan                                8           810
7        Turkmenistan                              8           810
7        Uzbekistan                                8           810
81       Japan                                     0           001
82       Korea (Republic of)                       0           001
84       Vietnam                                   0           00
850      Korea (North)                                         00
852      Hong Kong                                             001
853      Macau                                                 00
855      Cambodia                                  0           00
856      Laos                                                  14
86       China                                     0           00
871      INMARSAT (Atlantic-East)                  00 (15)     (16)
872      INMARSAT (Pacific)                        00

873      INMARSAT (Indian)                         00
874      INMARSAT (Atlantic-West)                  00
880      Bangladesh                                0           00
886      Taiwan (Republic of China)                0           002
90       Turkey                                    0           00
91       India                                     0           00
92       Pakistan                                  0           00
93       Afghanistan                               0           00
94       Sri Lanka                                 0           00
95       Myanmar                                               0
960      Maldives                                              00
961      Lebanon                                               00
962      Jordan                                                00
963      Syria                                     0           00
964      Iraq                                                  00
965      Kuwait                                                00
966      Saudi Arabia                              0           00
967      Yemen                                     0           00
968      Oman                                                  00
971      United Arab Emirates                      0           00
972      Israel                                    0           00
973      Bahrain                                               0
974      Qatar                                                 0
975      Bhutan                                                00
976      Mongolia                                  0           00
977      Nepal                                                 00
98       Iran                                                  00
994      Azerbaijan                                8           810
995      Georgia                                   8           810

Notes:

(1) In Jamaica, when direct dialing intercity or international calls
from private telephones, it is necessary to first dial 113 and a
10-digit subscriber authorization code before dialing the intercity or
international prefix.

(2) When calling Sao Tome and Principe from other countries, it is
necessary to prefix the subscriber number with the digits "12".

(3) In France, the intercity dialing prefix will change to "0" and the
international dialing prefix will change to "00" in October, 1996. The
"0" intercity prefix must be used on all domestic calls including those
within the same city, but the "0" is omitted when calling into France
from other countries.

(4) When calling from Ireland to Northern Ireland, the city code may be
prefixed by "080" instead of "0044".

(5) Some cities on the island of Cyprus are reached by dialing the
country code for Turkey (90) instead of 357.

(6) In Finland, the intercity dialing prefix will change to "0" and the
international dialing prefix will change to "00" effective 12 October 1996.

(7) When calling from San Marino to Italy, the city code and subscriber
number must be prefixed by "0" instead of "0039".

(8) When calling from Italy to San Marino, the subscriber number must
be prefixed by "0549" instead of "00378".

(9) In Norway, the international dialing prefix will change to "00"
effective 31 January 1996.

(10) In Mexico, calls to cellular subscribers use the prefix "94"
instead of "91".

(11) When calling from Mexico to countries in World Plan Area 1, the
area code and subscriber number must be prefixed by "95" instead of "981".

(12) In Colombia, the intercity dialing prefix will change to "0" and
the international dialing prefix will change to "00" in September, 1996.

(13) When calling from Malaysia to Singapore, the subscriber number
must be prefixed by "02" instead of "00765".

(14) When calling from Singapore to Malaysia, the city code and
subscriber number must be prefixed by "0" instead of "00560".

(15) When calling from one Inmarsat terminal to another, the "00"
prefix is followed by the "country code" (871 through 874) and the
terminal subscriber number, followed by "#".

(16) Calls from Inmarsat terminals to other (non-Inmarsat) country
codes must be made through an operator by dialing "00#".

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 16:50 CST
From: madnix.uucp![e-mail] (Ron Bean)
Subject: Cellphones Cause Accidents?


   My employer periodically hands out a magazine that consists
mainly of useless factoids. Sometimes I scan it briefly before I
throw it away. This item recently caught my eye:

  "Your risk of being in an automobile accident increases 34% if
you have a cellular phone in your car."
Source: Rochester Institute of Technology.

   That's a pretty amazing statistic, if it's true. Do insurance
companies charge extra if you have a cellphone?


madnix![e-mail] (Ron Bean)

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:23:52 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Paul L. Moses)
Subject: AT&T Fires Its First Shot?


I was talking on the phone with my mom tonight and she read a piece of mail
to me.  Mom lives in Pittsburgh (412), and this flyer from AT&T was
encouraging her to use 10ATT + 412 XXX YYYY  for all the *toll* calls she
is going to make in the Pittsburgh area.

Now this seems a bit strange because 1) it's kind of complicated to have to
use 10xxx + AC to dial what is basically a local call and 2) Pittsburgh has
a pretty wide local calling area, so local toll calls are unusual.  Is this
AT&T first step into the local market?

Btw Mom sends her regards to all.


Paul

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:32:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service


Raymond Hazel ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I found that USWest has installed a "caller pays" service ...
> the number was set up for seven digit (local) if the subscriber
> paid air time, and 1 + seven digit if the caller paid.

Presumably, the caller-pays dialing plan has now changed to 1-NPA-7D?


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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 21:28 MET
From: [e-mail] (Christian Weisgerber)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service


Steve Cogorno <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'd be pretty annoyed too.  If someone wants me to call them on
> *their* cellular phone for *their* conveinence, then *they* should pay
> the airtime charges.

Well, the polite way to do it is this: you advertise / give your friends
your regular office / home number. When you're out and want to be
reachable through your cell phone, you use call forwarding to transfer
calls from your regular line to your cell phone. Thus, the caller pays
the same as always, and you pay for the "luxury" of receiving the call
on your cell phone.

Of course one can recognize cellular numbers by thier prefix around
here. (In Germany, that is.) Whether you use the above forwarding scheme
for your office line or have potential customers call you directly on
the more expensive cellular number depends on your competitive situation
and line of business, I guess. I noticed that many of the numbers in the
(somewhat euphemistically so-called) "contacts/modelling" ad section in
our newspaper are cellular ones.


Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber                         [e-mail]
  See another pointless homepage at http://www.rhein-neckar.de/~mips/.
-- currently reading: Robert L. Forward, Indistinguishable From Magic --

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #480
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov 14 20:27:52 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id UAA16694; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:27:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:27:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #481

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Nov 95 20:28:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 481

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Canada and the Caribbean (Mark Cuccia)
    Personal 800 Horror Story: PNG Telecommunications (Linc Madison)
    11 Months to the Numbering Change in Finland (Kimmo Ketolainen)
    European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Jeroen Doucet)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Canada and the Caribbean
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 12:13:00 CST


Recently, there were some postings about Canada and the Caribbean (at
least those points in +1-809) being charged a higher rate from the US
than calls to domestic points but longer in distance. There were some
questions as to why they are integrated within the North American
Country Code of +1 instead of not having a different Country Code.

For PBX and other business telecommunication equipment (as well as
COCOTS and motel/hotel systems), all points in Canada are contained in
uniquely Canadian Areacodes and could be flagged as such. As for the
Caribbean, for those points in +1-809, only Puerto Rico and the *US*
Virgin Islands are billed at domestic type mileage rates, while
'non-US' Caribbean points are billed at actual *Interantional/Overseas*

rates. Some programmable toll-restriction systems might have trouble
going down to the Central Office Code NXX level to 'block-out' the
'non-US' points, but it is quite possible that each island/island-
group of the Caribbean might be getting their *own* NPA codes in the
near future. Bermuda is the first with 441, which is presently under
'permissive' dialing. One other reason for each Caribbean island/country/
etc. to get their own areacode within +1 is that calls to those points
>from *other* parts of the world have had problems analyzing digits
all the way down to the Central Office Code level for billing and
identification purposes. Many countries can analyze down to six digits,
but this includes the *Country* code of `1'.  Therefore while there
may be many different island countries in +1-809-46X, the originating
equipment could only analyze down to +1-809-46, due to the maximum of
six-digit screening. If each Caribbean country/island group had their
own unique NPA code, calls to them from other parts of the world could
be properly identified as such for billing purposes.

Also, there was mention about the cultural and political associations
between the US and Canada as well as between the US and the Caribbean, and
also the ownership of telcos there by US telcos. Bell Canada still had a
close association with AT&T (The Bell System) up until the early 1970's. I
think that AT&T still owned 2% of Bell Canada at that time. Even when the
Bell System went to the present day logo, Bell Canada was *still* using the
older Bell logo -- the more realistic looking 'bell', but instead of `Bell
System' being printed inside of the bell, the words `Bell Canada' were.
Also, Bell Canada operated telephone service in the western provinces
(Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta) in the earlier years of this century,
until the provincial governments took over telephone service. Bell Canada,
at least the holding company BCE, still owns some of the telephone companies
or _at least_ the present day *holding* companies for the eastern provinces
(New Brunswick, Nova Scotia's Maritime Telephone & Telegraph and its Island
Telephone Company of Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland including
Labrador).

GTE has had holdings in BC Tel, which is the local & toll carrier for *most*
of British Columbia. (The town of Prince Rupert City BC has its own local
independent telephone company, while the northern extreme of BC has service
from Northwestel). GTE also has holdings in Quebec Telephone, which provides
local & toll services for *most* of southeastern PQ. If I'm not mistaken,
Quebec Telephone was formed from several smaller local independent telcos in
that region. There are *still* many other independents (usually small local
municipally owned ones) scattered all over PQ and ON, including parts of
southeastern PQ.

As far the Caribbean:

The two traditional carriers which domintated the Caribbean as a whole were
ITT and Cable & Wireless. C&W serves the British (and formerly British)
Caribbean, while ITT's `All America Cables & Radio' served the remainder. I
don't know if AT&T used to own any large share of ITT, but I think that ITT
(formerly IT&T) was deliberately named as such to make it appear that they
were associated with AT&T. AT&T/Bell used to either own shares of, or at
least license telcos in other countries (primarily in Latin America and
Europe) during the earliest years of telephony, but much of that was turned
over to ITT, as well as the individual governments' PTT departments in the
1920's.

But ITT/AACR did provide the trunking to/from such Caribbean points as
Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Is, the Dominican Republic, as well as presently
non-NANP points as Cuba (+53), Haiti (+509), and the various French/Dutch
(or formerly French/Dutch) points (+590, +596, +599, +297, and probably even
+508).

C&W and ITT/AACR have also been major telex carriers to/from these points as
well as other parts of the world, in addition to RCA, WUI, etc.

ITT/AACR had also been the major trunking carrier to/from most other Latin
American countries (Central & South America- Country codes beginning with
`5'), except for British (former British) locations such as Belize (+501),
Guyana (+593), Falklands (+500) which were associated with C&W for major
to/from trunking.

About a year ago, my contact at Bellcore (who has since returned to the BOC
he came from), told me that the Caribbean was assigned NPA 809 in 1958.
There were no CCITT (ITU) Country Codes assigned or planned at that time,
however he was under the impression from old AT&T material that NPA 809 was
originally intended to cover the *entire* Caribbean. However, I've always
been under the impression that the French/Dutch points were not originally
intended to be part of the NANP since they use numbering schemes similar to
their parent country, and I think that they are (were) part of their parent
country's PTTs. Cuba was on good relations with the US until about 1959/60,
and that terminated any possiblities that they would have been part of
+1-809. Haiti also seems to have used a French approach to numbering, even
tho' they share the island of Hispanola with the Dominican Republic; and
Haiti has also had its rocky history. When I refer to a French/Dutch
approach to numbering, I'm referring to the length of local numbers, as well
as the scheme used for access codes for toll, international, directory,
operator, repair, etc. altho' that may be changing these days. Also, there
are some provisions for points not in, but near other NANP points to be able
to request admission into the NANP. This may happen in the next few years
for US islands in the Pacific (Guam, Saipan, Marshall Is, American Samoa,
Marianna Is, etc.). However, there would have to be negotiations among the
carriers and regulatory bodies of various NANP countries and the requesting
non-NANP locations before admitting a new country into the NANP. (BTW, GTE
and RCA were quite involved in telecommunications trunking throughout the
Pacific area. GTE still owns the Hawaiin Telephone Company and RCA used to
operate many Pacific area telex networks.)

*Within* the various Caribbean points, American ownership of telcos is/was
also noticeable:

Codetel in the Dominican Republic is *still* associated with GTE. A brief
history of Codetel since 1930/31 (in Spanish) is available by clicking away
on their homepage at  http://www.codetel.net.do ...
Codetel has provided local service as well as the 'DDD' toll service for the
Dominican Republic.

ITT had a portion of the Virign Islands Telephone Company in the *US* Virgin
Is, as well as the Puerto Rico Telephone Company. As for Puerto Rico, the
'DDD' Toll carrier for the island (as well as the Telex company) was known
as the Puerto Rico Communications Authority. PRCA also provided local
service in the more populated exchanges, while ITT's PR-Telco provided
service elsewhere. I think that ITT sold its share of PR-Telco to PRCA a few
years back, and PRCA consolidated the operations.

As for the British (or formerly British) points in +1-809, Cable & Wireless
has also been quite involved in the local service within each island point,
along with the island's government telcos, however today many of these
PTT-like operations have been privatized. But another American telco was
also very much involved in some of these (formerly) British points- The
Continental Telephone Company (CONTEL), back in the 1960's, 70's and early
80's. I don't think that they are involved down there anymore, but Contel
owned/operated portions of the Jamaica Telephone Company, the Barbados
Telephone Company, the Trinidad & Tobago Telephone Company and the Grenada
Telephone Company. In the Bahamas, C&W and the Bahamas government (BaTelCo)
provided local and 'DDD' service, however the island of Grand Bahama
(includes the towns of Freeport & Lucaya) were served by *Contel's* Grand
Bahama Telephone Company. I think that Contel sold its Bahamas operations a
few years back, to BaTelCo. But when Contel had these holdings in the
Caribbean, many of its locations used 'standard' NANP 3-digit service codes
for Information (411), Repair (611), etc. while most other +1-809 parts of
the Caribbean used other numbering schemes for service codes. I don't know
if this has changed yet- many of these points *could* now be using current
NANP dialing standards.

BTW, Cable & Wireless has a *number* of webpages/homepages (under *several*
URL's) and all are hypertext-linked togather. They describe current C&W
products/services/etc for locations in North America & the Caribbean, as
well as other parts of the world where C&W has been involved. They do have
some good descriptions of the *history* of C&W involvement in
telecommunications both in N.America as well as other (former) British
territories all over.

Calls between Mexico and the US/Canada have been handled on a 'direct' basis
rather than going through an International Carrier. While the US/Canada now
uses 011/01+52+ for dialing to *all* of Mexico rather than those special
'patch' arecodes which only reached *parts* of Mexico, signaling and
switching/routing to Mexico has used North American standards rather than
international/overseas protocols. Mexico itself uses special toll access
codes to reach the US/Canada, different from their own internal toll access
codes, *and* different from their international exit codes. Rates to Mexico
from the US/Canada differ from rates to probably *anywhere* else in the
world- and they have been probably some of the most *expensive* rates known.
It *is* measured on both distance in the US/Canada as well as distance in
Mexico, but the rate timeperiods as well as operator surcharges for
collect/person/card have been some of the most unique <and expensive> when
compared with rates/timeperiods/surcharges to other locations.

I wonder if the Philippines had ever become a state in the US rather than
becomming a country in 1948 if it would have become a part of the NANP.

Another example of US communications companies having been involved in the
Caribbean and the Pacific involves radio & TV broadcasting. I've seen old
(circa 1950's, 60's, 70's) lists of affiliate stations (in back issues of
such as 'Broadcasting Yearbook', etc) of the major US radio & TV networks
(CBS, NBC, ABC, Mutual) which include affiliates located in Bermuda, the
Bahamas, even the Philippines, etc. in addition to Puerto Rico, the US
Virgin Is, and US islands in the Pacific. There were even Cuban radio/TV
stations identified as US network affiliates in the lists from the 1950's.
Since Canada has its own developed radio & TV networks (CBC, CTV, etc),
there were few if any Canadian stations identified individually as US
network affiliates. Most new US programming has been distributed to Canada
via a contract with the CBC or CTV rather than first-run syndication to
individual Canadian stations, nor Canadian stations being directly
affiliated with US networks. Most *overseas* distribution of US programming
has been handled through separate international distribution- either
separate companies, or a separate international subsidiary of a US network.
But as for those Caribbean and Pacific stations, I don't know if they
carried any 'live feeds' from the US networks, or if they were shipped tapes
& films from the networks themselves- and if commercials for US companies
were included or not.

So, there had been cultural, political, *business*, and technical
considerations which made Canada and most of the Caribbean parts of the
NANP. I only wish that *all* rates within the NANP were more 'standardized',
but remember that a toll call withIN a state usually has cost *more* than an
interstate call of greater distance. Similarly, a call from Florida to the
Bahamas costs *more* than a call from Florida to Alaska or Hawaii. Even a
call from Washington state to Puerto Rico probably costs less than a call to
British Columbia.

Some of this (ownership, toll-rates, etc) may change even further over the
next several years, as it has been changing already. These days, competition
in both Canada *and even in the Caribbean* continues to grow.


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: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 08:01:43 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Personal 800 Horror Story: PNG Telecommunications


Executive summary: if you value your sanity, DO NOT sign up for 800
number service from PNG Telecommunications, American Travel Network,
or Hospitality Services Group.  They have displayed an astounding
lack of competence in completing the simplest of tasks.  I don't know
what PNG is supposed to stand for, but I wonder if it's Persona Non
Grata.

Well, okay, earlier this year I stopped off to get some of my favorite
authentic Texas-style Barbecue, and while I was standing around waiting
I picked up a brochure from AMERICAN TRAVEL NETWORK, also d.b.a.
HOSPITALITY SERVICES GROUP, extolling the virtues of their calling card
(from LDDS, a deal I've been reasonably pleased with), and the wonders
of a personal 800 number (provider not named, but it turns out to be
an outfit called PNG Telecommunications in West Chester, Ohio).

I sent in the application, got the LDDS calling card, which works
just fine.  Got a postcard a couple of weeks later notifying me that
the terms of the 800 service had been changed, that there was now a
$3.00/month minimum bill.  If the new terms are not agreeable, please
notify within ten days to cancel processing of your application.  I
figured I could live with a $3/month minimum, so I didn't call to
cancel.  A month or two went by with no further word, so I dug out
the brochure and called to inquire.

"Oh, we don't have any application from you in our files."  Yes, you
do.  You sent me an acknowledgement.  "Oh, well, we'll have to contact
the company that does the 800 numbers, but it's after 5:00 there, so
I'll have to fax them and call you back tomorrow."  No word from them
the next day, so I called the following day.  "Oh, we don't have any
application from you in our files."  Yes, you do.  You were supposed
to call me back yesterday.  A couple more phone calls, each with a
promise from ATN/HSG that they would promptly attend to the matter and
get back to me.  No word was forthcoming.  I more or less gave up and
let the matter rest for a while.

A few weeks later, I received a bill in the mail from PNG Telecommunications
for my first month's service, $3.00 plus $0.11 tax.  Of course, the bill
did not anywhere mention WHAT THE 800 NUMBER IS.  I called the number for
billing corrections to get a credit for the $3.11, since I don't consider
my service to begin until they give me the actual number.  I also asked
them to have someone call me and tell me what the number is.  I also left
FIVE messages on the voicemail for the customer service number making the
same simple request.  I even told them they could just call the 800 number
to be sure they weren't giving it out to someone without the owner's
permission.  It was not until my sixth attempt that I actually reached
a human being.  You see, their system rolls over to voicemail if the call
is not picked up within a very brief period of time, although, of course,
their voice mailbox is often full.

When I did finally reach a human being, she was able very quickly to
locate my record and tell me what my 800 number is.  I tried it, it works,
everything is fine.  For a brief while, at least.  I used the number a
couple of times, but didn't really give it out to very many people yet,
since its main purpose is for me to be able to reach my answering machine
when I'm on the road.  Then, in October, I was in Albuquerque for the
Balloon Fiesta, and decided to check my machine for messages.  I got a
recording that the number had changed or was no longer in service.  I
called customer service, but, of course, the voice mailbox was full,
AND they took Columbus Day off.  I finally got through to voicemail on
Tuesday and left a message demanding that they reconnect my 800 number.

I tried the 800 number again, and it rang!  Oh, good, it's working....
but then some strange man answered the phone.  He was definitely not my
answering machine, nor was he anyone who had any business being in my
apartment.  I explained to him that I had dialed an 800 number that was
supposed to ring to my home number.  I asked him if he had an 800 number
from PNG; no, he doesn't have an 800 number, period.  I asked him if his
number was anything close to 415-xxx-xxxx; no, not even close -- he's in
area code 970, which is in Colorado.

Another call to customer service voicemail, asking that they connect my
800 number TO MY NUMBER.  I left them that number, and also left them
my daytime phone number in case they had any questions.  A couple of days
later, I tried the 800 number.  It returns a standard busy signal (not a
fast busy) every time.  I tried the POTS number; it rings right through
to the answering machine.  I called customer service voicemail and left
yet another message.  They left a message on my voicemail at work that
the number seems to be working from their location in Ohio, so if I am
still having trouble, I should tell them from what areas I am unable to
dial the number.

I called the friend I had stayed with in Albuquerque and asked him to
dial the 800 number, and if it worked, to just leave a message on the
answering machine.  A couple of minutes later, my phone rang, and it was
Rob calling from Albuquerque.  He told me it seemed to work fine; we
chatted briefly and hung up.  Then it occurred to me: I hadn't asked
him to call me at work to tell me what had happened.  A quick call
confirmed my suspicion: PNG had connected my 800 number to my *work*
phone instead of my home phone.  I had been getting a busy signal
because my call was trying to loop back to the phone I was dialing out
on!  I called customer service voicemail _yet again_, and this time
they got things sorted out.

The happy times did not last very long, though.  I tried my 800 number
last week, and it rang through to a very pleasant-sounding woman, who
told me that she is in South Dakota.  Yet another call to customer
service voicemail, demanding that they reconnect my number to the
correct destination AND LEAVE IT ALONE.  The following day, the 800
number was again ringing to my home number.

That brings us to 5:25 this morning.  My phone rings, but it's not the
collection agency looking for the guy with exactly the same name, it's
a man who seems slightly confused that I answered and asks for Pam.  I
tell him that he has a wrong number, and he rings off.  A minute later,
the phone rings again, same guy.  He explains that he dialed an 800
number that is supposed to ring his home number in ... South Dakota!
He was calling to wish his wife a happy birthday.  I inquired, and he
has an account with PNG Telecommunications, which assigned him the
same 800 number I have, effective 9/19.  (They had finally assigned
it to me some time in July.)

Well, that explains why my number was ringing in South Dakota, but it
doesn't explain why it was giving a "number has been changed" recording
and going to Colorado, both of which it was doing after 9/19.

Anyway, to repeat, it has been my experience that PNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
of West Chester, Ohio, is massively incompetent in handling the simplest
of tasks.  They have repeatedly bungled my service and deserve to go
directly into bankruptcy without further ado.  To that end, I will be
looking for other service providers.  I hope that ATN/HSG (which acts
as a reseller for LDDS and PNG) will also elect to do business with a
better-run company, for the sake of their own reputation, if not for
the sake of their customers.


Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, California  *  [e-mail]


[TELEOCM Digest Editor's Note: Give up on them! Did you know that when
I first signed up with Call America for their MyLine 800 service it
took them exactly five minutes to take down all the required information
and turn the number on. No problems have been encountered since. Of
course it costs a bit more than three dollars per month. I think they
now get ten dollars per month plus the cost of calls, but that includes
'call waiting' and 'three way calling' on your 800 number along with
automatic switching between voice and fax on incoming calls, immediate
changes in forwarding to where you want the number to ring (it is a
user programmable option) and a 408/415 number instead of (in addition
to) an 800 number if desired; mainly for people who get a lot of
international calls where the international telco stumbles on 800.
Seriously, I have yet to find a better 800 service although I also
have an 800 number from Call Home America (I think they go through
Allnet) which costs me only three dollars per month. For MyLine infor-
mation contact [e-mail].   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kimmo Ketolainen [phone])
Subject: 11 Months to the Numbering Change in Finland
Organization: Turun yliopisto =B7 University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:11:09 GMT


The largest single numbering change in Finland this far occurs on
Saturday 12 Oct 1996 at 00.00 (22.00 UTC). The change affects most
numbers in the country:

    * All current 74 area codes are rearranged to only 13
    * Mobile phone and pager networks retain their codes
    * The trunk prefix 9 changes to 0
    * 00 is introduced as a neutral international access code


BACKGROUND

The process of harmonizing the different access codes and emergency
numbers with those of the Western Europe began in early 1990's. One of
the major differencies has been the emergency number which has been
throughout the years 000 (and 002, 005) in Finland, whereas in many
other countries 00 has been used as the international line access
code. To free up the 00 ... number space, the standard EU emergency
number 112 was introduced in Finland in 1992, and a recording was
later put behind 000 to tell callers to dial the proper number.

During the last five years the number of different area codes has been
coming down slowly with occasional merges. Currently, the number of
them is 74, and it will remain the same until next October.

The year 1994 brought finally competition to all the remaining
monopoly fields of telecommunications. At the same time, the concept
of 13 large billing areas was introduced, and area code billing was
abolished making all calls within a telecommunications area billable
at the local call rate. The 13 areas are approximately the same as
the provinces of the country with a few small local exceptions, and
a separate code of the capital area.

Subscriber numbers have been changed gradually to make most of them
seven digits long. The largest changes occur in 1995 and 1996, and the
last numbers change in 11 Oct 1996, on the last day of the old area
code system. On 12 Oct 1996 none of the old area codes is usable.


NEW AREA CODES

    Area/Province   New code Old codes
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Aland Islands   018      928
    Central Finland 014      941 942 943 944 945 946 947
    Hame            03       916 917 918 919 931 932* 933 934 935 936 937
    Kuopio          017      971 972 977 978 979
    Kymi            05       951 952 953 954
    Lapland         016      960 9692 9693 9694 9695 9696 9697 9698
    Mikkeli         015      955 956 957 958 959
    North Karelia   013      973 974 975 976
    Oulu            08       981 982 983 984 985 986 988 989
    Turku and Pori  02       921 922 923 924 925 926 930 932* 938 939
    Uusimaa I       09**     90
    Uusimaa II      019      911 912 914 915
    Vaasa           06       961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968

    *) Exception: the current area code 932 splits as follows: the
       municipality of Huittinen belongs to the new area code 02; the
       four other municipalities of Mouhijarvi, Suodenniemi, Vammala
       and Aetsa belong to the new area code 03.
    **) Capital area

    Example 1, national dialing: [phone] changes to [phone]
    Example 2, int'l dialing: [phone] changes to [phone]
    Example 3, national dialing: (90) 1234 5678 changes to [phone]
    Example 4, int'l dialing: [phone] changes to [phone]


MOBILE PHONES AND PAGERS

Mobile phone and pager networks retain their codes. Only the trunk
prefix 9 changes to 0 which is dropped when dialing from abroad.

    Example 1, national dialing: 940 555 5508 changes to 040 555 5508
    Example 2, int'l dialing: [phone] does not change


INTERNATIONAL ACCESS CODES

The new neutral international access code 00 is taken into use to
accompany the various operator-specific codes such as 990, 994 and 999.


SPECIAL SERVICES CODES

The trunk prefix changes on all special service codes except 9600,
9700 and 9800.


Kimmo Ketolainen   Internet <[e-mail]>   Telefonkartensammler
Yo-kyla 84 A 10    WWW http://iki.fi/kk   IAP http://www.sci.fi
FIN-20540 Turku    GSM [phone]   Tel [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:18:24 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Jeroen Doucet)
Subject: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (was Re: Bell Atlantic)


[e-mail] (Michael Franz) wrote:

> As far as I know, all European GSM networks are caller-pays.

> The cellulars are usually on a separate area code so that it is obvious
> that you are calling a special number. However, the "specialness" of the
> area code is visible only from within the country that the GSM is
> registered in.

Well, you are right and you are wrong. Although the matter is quite
complicated (especially when there are three different countries involoved)
there is a situation when the receiver pays. If I am in Spain with my
Dutch GSM phone (and I *do* have coverage :) and you call my Dutch mobile
number, I pay the difference between the Dutch cellular tarif and the
regular international tarif.

But what happens if you call me from Italy on my Dutch GSM while I am in
Greece? And if I am in France and use my Dutch GSM to call my French
neighbour on his French GSM? Nobody knows.


Regards,

Jeroen Doucet
                   [e-mail]
 Office: (+31) (0)30-6665800   Facsimile: (+31) (0)30-6662893
     Member of Instant - http://huizen.dds.nl/~instant

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #481
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov 14 23:46:58 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id XAA29413; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:46:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:46:58 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #482

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Nov 95 23:47:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 482

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Robohn Scott)
    Re: Some BellSouth Notes (Mark Cuccia)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Bill Sohl)
    Re: A Unique Pan-European Country Code? (Sergio Gelato)
    Re: A Unique Pan-European Country Code? (Jean B. Sarrazin)
    Belgian Phonebooks Now Online! (Alex van Es)
    Question About Local Rates (Scott Anderson)
    My Rights Against US West? (Pete Kruckenberg)
    Free Text on Resampling Statistics (Peter Bruce)
    Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones? (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones? (Andrew C. Green)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Robohn Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 08:13:00 PST


We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support
staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming
phone calls.  They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome
and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third,
fourth time that hour.  Cellular reception is very poor in some areas
of the building, so that doesn't look like an option.

One option could be a 900 MHz cordless phone with multiple base
stations and a single handset; does anyone sell these?  Web pages for
Panasonic and Sony are no help on this option, but I'll try some
others.  I've also heard about special internal wiring in situations
like this, but this sounds like a pretty expensive solution.

Any ideas on specific products and/or services?  We'll entertain all
options.  The basic requirement is for a person within the office to
have continuous access to a single incoming phone line as they roam
about the office.  A lightweight, small handset would be nice; a
headset option would be even nicer.  Approximate cost information
would also be appreciated.


Thanks,

Scott [e-mail] (until 11/9/95;
          [e-mail] starting 11/13/95)
James [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some BellSouth Notes
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 14:37:00 CST


In TD 15:476, Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]> stated several experiences
with CID Deluxe (Name and Number) in Charlotte NC, BellSouth (formerly
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.) territory. I've had similar
situations here in New Orleans, also BellSouth (formerly South Central
Bell).

I too received a call from Nassau County NY (516) during the day on
Friday.  I saw it on my ID box when I got home. Other calls had come
in since that one, so I couldn't *69 to see if I would get a quote on
the ten-digit number. I assume that I would, as I've *69'd other
occasional inter-LATA calls on my ID box, and did get a quote back,
altho' I couldn't get a direct connect back. The call yesterday showed
up in Uppercase as NASSAUZN08, NY.  I've heard that many inter-LATA
calls won't always show the customer name, but rather the city
(ratecenter) and state. I even had a *local* call show up as (and I'm
not misplacing punctuation here): NEWORLEANS ,LA

Yes, the comma was a space AFTER New Orleans and just before the
state. This showed up that way for about a week, but it was a new
service. It was a friend who'd recently separated from his wife and
was living in an apartment and had gotten additional service there in
his own name. After about a week his name began to show up with the
number.

I also have another friend who is a merchant seaman. He ships out to
sea for one to six months at a time, and usually has his telephone
service changed to 'vacation' service or 'inactive' service. While his
service is 'inactive' or 'vacation', I've gotten 'Number that has been
disconnected or is no longer in service' recordings direct from his
switch, but other times I've gotten routed to centralized intercept
with 'Number you are calling- NNX, XXXX- has been temporarily
disconnected' and other similar type recordings from central
intercept. When he returns from sea and re-establishes service always
with the *same* telephone number, I have at times gotten dashes along
the entire name portion of the CID box for about a week when he calls
me, however the last time he shipped out and had his service
'put-on-hold', I got a full name with number when he returned and
reconnected.

As for 'PAY PHONE' in the name portion, I too don't know anyone known
as 'Mr./Ms./Miss/Mrs. Pay' nor 'Mr./Ms./Miss/Mres. Phone', but I *do*
like to know that a call is comming *from* a payphone! I usually
answer those calls (and 'Anonymous Call' or 'Private Call' in a
deadpan voice if I choose to answer at all! As for 'Anonymous' v.
'Private', they are both *67 calls. It is the manufacturer of the box
which determines what word will display! My older number-only ID box
stated that 'Private Call' could show, yet the newer name & number box
states that 'Annonymous Call' could show. Both boxes were from Radio
Shack, and even tho' we didn't have neither per-call or per-line
blocking in the 'usual' sense, I did get some 'Private Call' displays
on my number-only box when I had number-only service. These calls came
from someone I knew who worked at a government site locally, on an
ISDN or PBX system.

As for the call from Nassau County, NY, I called up 516-555-1212 when
I saw it when I got home last night. I *assume* I was speaking with
NYNEX or AT&T directory listings operators and not some boiler room
private DA. She tried to look up the number for me, but had *no
further info*. I used to get that when calling up local 1-411 when I
hadn't upgraded to the Name with CID. PBX outgoing trunks, private
non-pubs, payphones, etc. aren't usually in the 411's databases.
Payphones *could* be in there *if* the actual telephone number of the
business is the payphone there! And calls from those situations have
shown up at different times as both 'PAY PHONE' and also the name of
the business. I spoke with the 516 DA operator for a few minutes and
explained that I was from New Orleans and I had that number and the
Nassau Zone 8 NY on my ID box. She told me that she'd gotten a call
from someone in *Charlotte NC* just the other night with a similar
question about a 516 number and the name Nassau Zone (whatever) NY on
their caller-ID box.

As for WilTel, I've had friends nearby in the Baton Route & Lafayette
LA Latas as well as the Gulfport & Jackson MS Latas call me recently
with WilTel's code 10-555+ (101-0555+) and all I've gotten was
"Out-of-Area". I remember reading in TD a couple of months ago that
WilTel wasn't transmitting CID between places that they *used* to. Of
course, we might be seeing CID between *most* LATAs and via *most*
carriers starting next month.  And when WilTel *did* work for some
calls, I got NAME with the number- the name of the customer, not the
city!

One more thing -- since MCI has 'passcoded' 800-MY-ANI-IS, there has
been more mention of 10-732 plus `1' plus an Atlanta (404 NPA) number.
I've been told by others that it is never charged on your bill. I
always prefered the idea of an 800 number for ANI readback, since many
PBX's and private payphones and the like (including cellular) might
block 10-XXX (101-XXXX) codes while not necessarily blocking 800. My
cellphone does NOT allow me to use ANY 10-XXX override codes at this
time. Some private payphones allow only certain 10-XXX codes to be
used, and the others get a synthesized 'invalid' recording *from the
COCOT*, not Bell's line/office. Even for the 10-XXX codes that COCOTS
allow, they wouldn't let a `1+' go thru and only let `0+' instead.

Even Bell's payphones don't allow 10-XXX-1+ route to other carriers
since not many other carriers provide true Coin service. They only
exception I've run across (other than reading about the PA/NJ & NJ/NY
corridors) is 10-288-1+ InTRA-LATA. I haven't tried 10-732+1+404...
from a Bell payphone yet to see what happens, tho. BUT I tried it from
my Cellular phone (both 10-732-1+404... AND 10-732+404... without the
1+. I forgot to try 10-732+0+404...) Instead of getting BellSouth
Mobility's 504+seven-digit trunk number (which I did get on
800-MY-ANI-IS), I got a ten-digit quoteback of MY OWN Cellular's
number!!! I wonder if the PBX here allowed me to access that number-
if I'd get an outgoing trunk of the PBX or if I'd get the actual
dial-in 'extension' number.


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] (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?
Date: 11 Nov 1995 22:42:40 GMT
Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ


Josh Rubin ([e-mail]) wrote:

> My query has probably already been covered in an FAQ somewhere, but
> just in case, I'm wondering how a Telco could guarantee that any
> particular call on an ISDN line would be digital. It strikes me that
> unless you're in a closed system such as a university or corporation,
> that they really couldn't gurantee it. The reason is that a number of
> places still don't have fully digital networks.

If you make a voice call (voice bearer capability) then the call may
transit a non-digital transmission path.

> If I am trying to call a BBS in an area code that has an all digital
> network from another similarly-equipped region, what guarantee do I
> have that the call doesn't have to go through some analog switches on
> its way to the other area code, thus slowing data down immensely (i.e.
> getting regular service at premium ISDN rates)?

If you make a data (data bearer capability) then the call will not be
completed unless there is an end-to-end digital connection available.
The data call can complete to either another ISDN line or to a
switched 56 line/network.


Cheers,

Bill Sohl  K2UNK     (Budd lake, New Jersey)      ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Sergio Gelato)
Subject: Re: A Unique Pan-European Country Code?
Date: 14 Nov 1995 21:32:11 GMT
Organization: SISSA, Trieste


In article <[e-mail]>, Mark Cuccia <mcuccia@
law.tulane.edu> wrote:

> According to Oftel, the Office of Telecommunications in the UK, which
> is the regulatory and numbering administrative governmental body, in
> Numbering Bulletin 17 (Oct.1995),

> Europe is to request that the ITU make Country Code 388 available for
> Pan-European services.

Please define "Europe".  Does this mean the Commission of European
Communities? The CSCE? Some other body? Which countries would be
covered by such a proposal, and who would be administering the number
space within "country" code 388?

> Should this not occur, then the European telephone standards
> organizations are considering a national numbering approach for
> Pan-European services, using the unused 00 capacity behind existing
> Country Codes. ie: 44-00 for Pan-European services located in the UK,
> 33-00 for those located in France, etc. These Pan-European services
> would be billed at a Pan-European premium rate.

Bad thinking. That would make it difficult for a "pan-european" (I hate
that word) service to be provided from multiple locations, with routing
based on location and time of the day. Additionally, as Mark Cuccia points
out, how do you dial providers in your own country? +<own country code> is
already used for "Country Direct" operator services in some places.

I also dislike the +388 proposal, since it could create a precedent for
many other groups of countries to request additional country codes to be
used in this way. The worldwide +800 code is more acceptable since it
is unique by definition.

Far better than either approach, in my view, would be to reserve a prefix
in each country for supranational services (it would not have to be the
same in all countries at first, although it would be nice to agree on a
preferred prefix) and assign numbers behind that prefix on a continent-wide
basis.

> I wonder if Pan-European services could also include a Freephone
> (Toll-Free) service or a 'local-call' or 'national call' rate
> services.

What is "national call"? In most places there isn't a single rate for all
long-distance calls within the same country. Even if there were one now,
the impending breakup of the long-distance monopolies would change that.
(Are Mercury and BT charging the same rates for calls?)

The proposal mentions a "Pan-European premium rate"; I assume there
would actually be a set of different rates to choose from, some such
that calls will earn money to the service provider and others that
will cost it money (by being free or discounted to the caller). Let's
just hope that the rate can easily be determined by inspection of the
phone number ...

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:30:58 MET
From: Jean B. Sarrazin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Unique Pan-European Country Code?


International toll free is already available in Europe for calls
terminating in the Netherlands. The customer in the foreign country
dials his international exit code (00, normally) + 31-800 * the
assigned tool free number.

Part of the recent Dutch renumbering plan was to allow more space in
the 8XX range for such services.

As for a global country code for Europe, I can't start to imagine the
implications! To avoid re-shuffling all the number assignments in the
various countries, we would probably end up with a "country code
within a country code".


Jean B Sarrazin   [e-mail]
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:47:53 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Alex van Es)
Subject: Belgian Phonebooks Now Online!


Hi Al,

To be honest, I don't know if this is any news to you people
out-there, but I read that the Belgian phonebooks can now be accessed
via http://www.infobel.be. You can search on name and address.


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

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

From: Scott Anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About Local Rates
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:29:59 -0600
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


In MN, USWest charges a Federal Access Charge of $3.50 and $1.20
for Touch Tone Service. I am interested to find out if this is
the norm and/or what are the rates in other states or other local
phone companies in MN.

I have heard that you do not have to pay the Federal Access Charge
and am wondering if that is true.

Send me an email at: [e-mail]
or post to this newsgroup if you can answer some of my questions.


Thanks,

Scott Anderson

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Kruckenberg)
Subject: My Rights Against US West?
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:59:36 GMT
Organization: inQuo Internet [phone]


I have a couple of frustrating situations, and wanted to find out what
recourse I have against US West to make them move faster. I'd also like
to know what others do in situations like these to make US West do their
thing.

These are all frame-relay related:

 - small city, facilities are available from the location to the CO,
   but there is no bandwidth between the FR switch at the CO to the
   next FR "hub". They supposedly have "several" other orders on hold
   waiting for another T1 to be installed to the next switch (originally
   scheduled for Dec. 18, but my complaining has "expedited" the order,
   so it "may" be sooner than that). I found this out *five weeks* after
   placing the order for a 56k FR line, after two weeks of serious
   prodding and screaming;

 - larger city (within 15 miles of their newest, best-connect CO in Utah)
   Order for 56k line, after three weeks a tech informs customer that there
   are no facilities and it'll be another 1-30 days. I don't know more
   (put in my *3rd* call in as many days to get more information on this
   situation);

 - larger city, customer already has 56k FR line, but wants to put in
   another T1 line. Customer is ISP, so had to pay $4k to run a 100-pair
   entry line. After *7 WEEKS* of waiting, US West tells customer that
   there are only 50 pairs to the pole where his 100-pair line ends, and
   they're all used up. Customer also has five POTS lines waiting because
   of this problem. Customer went to PSC and SBA (after talking to
   his Small Business Group rep's supervisor) two weeks ago, still no
   action. US West says first available install would be Dec. 1.

 - two weeks ago, we order a facilities check for the building we're in
   still haven't heard anything, in spite of mentioning it three to
   five times/wk to our rep (that was along with the other problems.)

Now, what I need to know is what rights I have (if any) to expect:

 (1) US West informs me within a reasonable amount of time if there
     will be a facilities problem (a week would be reasonable);

 (2) Frame-relay services installed within a specific amount of time,
     even if there are facilities problems, or US West comes up with
     another solution for me (not charging more than frame-relay
     services would cost);

 (3) Facilities checks within a reasonable amount of time (a week would
     be reasonable);

 (4) If I pay to have 100 pairs run to my building, I get some kind
     of guarantee that I can actually use those 100 pairs within a
     reasonable amount of time (again, a week would be reasonable);

If I do have such rights, how can I enforce them? It seems that since I
can't tell US West "fine, I'll go buy from XYZ competitor", I should have
equivelant leverage some other way. Do I?

If I have a complaint about US West's services, whether rights are
involved or not, what's the best way to take care of it? What I've done
so far is to call the Executive Office in Denver and Utah, but so far,
not even *they* call back to let me know what's up.

At this point, I'm thinking I'm going to just start filing formal/informal
complaints with the local PSC every time US West has a delay doing
*anything*, because it takes less time to deal with the PSC than US West,
and hopefully I'll get better results through the PSC.

The most frustrating thing is that it seems that the more you pay US
West, the less they care about you and the less service you get. If I
were running a business and I knew that *every one* of my higher-paying
customers *hated* my company, I would do something about it. Seems to not
be the case with US West, in spite of the fact that telecom is being
deregulated in Utah.

Anyways, any suggestions or ideas would be greatly appreciated.


Pete Kruckenberg   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What happens with many/most complaints
to utility commissions -- or for that matter the FCC -- is that the
PUC's rarely make any pretense of knowing anything about the subject
matter at hand. They just take your complaint and put it on the telex
or fax machine and send it to their contact at telco for a response.
This will probably get you an answer back from telco faster than by
contacting telco directly, but there still is no guarantee it will be
the sort of answer you want to hear.

It has been said that telcos have a sort of pecking order they use to
respond to complaints. See where you stand on the list:

First come the commission complaints. When that telex machine on the
dedicated tie-line to the commission starts chattering, they go over
and look at it and respond to that. Now days, perhaps it is a fax
machine on a tie-line to the commission. None the less, when the PUC
hears from a complaining customer, typically it just goes on the
telex/fax to the service rep(s) at telco designated to deal with those.
You are not unique, maybe a hundred people daily call or write the
PUC in their state seeking assistance. Telco responds to the PUC
and the PUC responds to the customer. For years -- maybe still --
telco kept a file of 'complainers'; i.e. the people who would not
accept whatever answer telco gave them until the PUC intervened.
Telco reps stay busy answering commission complaints all day long.
The customer goes away pleased knowing that 'when you turn the
screws on telco, and get the government involved, telco will
respond.'  Oh yeah?

Second come management complaints. These are people that have called
the chairman of the board at telco or the president. Typically, what
he knows about telephony could be stated in a few sentences or less.
So the 'assistant to the chairman' -- actually a highly placed
flunky at telco -- takes the call, tries to sooth the customer's
ruffled feathers, fills out a form describing the complaint, and
sends it downstairs to the service reps for handling, the same way
the commission does on their dedicated fax/telex line. The service
reps resolve the problem (or not) and pass the message back upstairs
to the highly placed flunky who has limited authority to respond in
the name of the chairman/president to let the customer know that the
chairman apologizes for the problem and thanks the customer for bringing
it to his attention.  Customer gets a 'personal response from the
chairman' and is pleased knowing that 'when you turn the screws on
those people and report them to their supervisors you can get action.'
Oh yeah?

Third, a now mostly obsolete form of communication with telco, that
of writing them a letter or visiting the business office in person.
Are there any public offices any longer?  There are *none* here in
the Chicago area any longer. If you go to where the public office
used to be located in the headquarters building downtown, you will
see a couple rows of phones with little privacy walls around them
where, if you take the phone off the hook it rings direct to the
reps at some undisclosed location. Rumor has it they are in the
telephone building at 77th and Constance Avenue but I have never
been able to verify that. Rumor has it the reps were moved away for
safekeeping after too many disgruntled customers began showing up and
acting out their agressions due to their phone being shut off for
non-payment or their repair service/installation request being
ignored/mishandled for the umpteenth time.

Finally come the telephone callers like yourself. As time permits
each day, the reps handle those calls and complaints. You say it
sounds like they don't have much time left after responding to the
commission, the flunky assigned the duty of apologizing for the chair-
man of the board, and the walk in customers who 'go postal' on
them? You may be right. You are correct that you will get a faster
response via the commission; you will not necessarily get any more
accurate a response than had you asked directly as you are doing now,
since the commission only knows what telco tells them just as the
chairman of the board only knows what the people downstairs tell
him via his flunky.

The real solution? You don't spell it c-o-m-m-i-s-s-i-o-n, you spell
it c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n. Not 'competition' where the 'competitors'
lease cable and central office facilities from the local telco, but
competition where they have nothing whatsoever to do with the local
telco except interconnect with them for the exchange of traffic.
Their own central offices, their own cable and wire, their own business
procedures and *held to the same legal requirements and commission
rules as the existing locals.*  Then you will see some radical changes
in how things happen.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 05:16 CST
Subject: Free Text on Resampling Statistics
From: [e-mail]


    Resampling methods (including the bootstrap and other
simulation procedures) have revolutionized the field of statistics in
the 1980's and 1990's.  To help spread the word about resampling, the
Resampling Project offers you free a copy of the only introductory
text on resampling.  Just reply "yes" to this message.  We'll send
instructions on how to download it from the internet.

    Please include your regular address ("snail mail") -- we'll
send you a printed article about resampling from Science News and
other printed material.

    Alternatively, U.S. residents can get it on disk (send us your
formatted high density IBM disk plus return label in a disk mailer) or
in hard copy (send us $6 to cover shipping/printing).  In return,
would you please state in a sentence or two how you use statistics.

* With resampling procedures you use the given sample data to
repeatedly simulate hypothetical "re-samples", recalculating the
statistic of interest.


Peter Bruce            Resampling Stats
phone [phone]     612 N. Jackson St.
fax   [phone]     Arlington, VA  22201
[e-mail]       USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Wes Leatherock)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:59:00 GMT
Subject: Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones?


[e-mail] (Mark Brader) wrote:

> The current movie "Devil in a Blue Dress" is set in Los Angeles in
> 1948.  The protagonist and apparently all of his neighbors are black:
> I mention this because it helps define what part of the city they
> live in.

> He has a dial phone.  Is this realistic?  When did Los Angeles get
> dial phones?

        Most of Los Angeles had dial phones before World War II.
In fact much of Los Angeles had operator toll dialing to the distant
phone (in the metro area) by then.

        Pacific Telephone (and probably the independents, too; there
were a lot of them in the greater Los Angeles area) had step-by-step
equipment, so originally the operators had to dial variable numbers
of digits to route to distant locations, depending on the routing.

        As they thought of adding subscriber toll dialing, they had
to develop their own version, since Bell Labs (and Western Electric)
were not supporting anything of the sort for step offices.  After all,
those were only in small and unimportant places, and large cities and
metropolitan areas were what the Labs cared about.

        In 1948 almost all of the Los Angeles metropolitan area
was dial, probably no "almost" to it.

        After all, Oklahoma City, where I live, has been all dial
since 1928.


Wes Leatherock
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:16:01 -0600
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones?


[e-mail] (Joseph Singer) writes:

> I don't know why it wouldn't be the "norm" to have dial telephones in
> Los Angeles in 1948.  Dial phone central offices were installed from the
> early 20s on the east coast.

Gee, I was waiting for Telecom history expert Mark Cucchia to jump
all over this one. Perhaps he's off sick... :-)

Perhaps we can take Jack Benny's radio shows from that time period
as a guide. He was forever calling the switchboard operators (Gertrude
Gearshift and Mabel Flapsaddle) in an effort to get a call through to
somewhere, usually unsuccessfully, while we listen to Gertrude and
Mabel discussing various things between themselves. The fact that he
couldn't dial the call directly seems to be a given with the audience.
Occasionally someone on the show will dial a telephone, but those two
operators were minor recurring characters for years.


Andrew C. Green            [phone]
Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology)
Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: [e-mail]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498    FAX: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #482
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Nov 15 10:11:47 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id KAA23794; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:11:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:11:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #483

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Nov 95 10:11:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 483

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Matt Woodling)
    Re: Personal 800 Horror Story: PNG Telecommunications (Stu Jeffery)
    Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View? (Henry Baker)
    Re: Old Western Electric CPE (Mike Curtis)
    Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal? (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
    Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming (Ralph Becker)
    Re: Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing? (Linc Madison)
    Re: Sprint to Ignore *67? (Raymond Hazel)
    Re: Sprint to Ignore *67? (Robert Bulmash)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?
Date: 15 Nov 1995 05:26:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, Philip Treuer
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I believe the answer to the question you've posed is "no" (Can a telco
> guarantee whether any particular call on an ISDN line will be digital?)

The IXC can guarantee that an ISDN data call will in fact be digital,
and indeed if it is not the call cannot be completed.  A voice call
might not (and need not) be all digital.

> In my state, Alaska, the two major interexchange carriers, AT&T Alascom

Before proceeding, let me point out that I am an AT&T Alascom
employee.  I am not paid to speak for the company, and I don't.  It
should also be understood that AT&T purchased Alascom from Pacific
Telecom Inc.  only this fall.  The historical faults of Alascom do not
reflect on AT&T, but on Pacific Corp, the owner of PTI.

> and GCI, have indicated that they won't even carry a switched 56 or 64K ISDN
> call unless they can charge extra for the call -- which will require data
> users to dial special access numbers on interexchange calls.  The only
> exception to this so far is that switched 56 calls to the lower 48 from
> Anchorage (the only community so far that has switched 56 service; ISDN is
> not available any where in the state) are transported intact and at no extra
> charge.

AT&T Alascom (and I believe GCI also) has offered ISDN and SW56
service for a number of years to all major locations in the state.  I
know of no requirement for special dialing.  The difficulty is that
neither IXC can offer service to a customer without a leased line
interconnect through a local LEC, which is relatively expensive.  I'm
not sure if ATU in Anchorage is now offering ISDN or SW56, but the
last that I knew not one single LEC in the state offered either, and
such service could only be purchased through the IXC's at the
mentioned rather expensive rates.

The State of Alaska and the federal government (through FTS-2000) both
use SW56 and ISDN to some degree.  I really can't comment in any depth
on how much difficulty GCI might be enountering with ISDN calls switch
through their network.  Compression, for example, might be a
significant problem for them.  I can comment that AT&T Alascom does
not have any such problem ...  ;-)

> Furthermore, these IXCs will only guarantee data transmission over
> their (intrastate) digital networks of 9.6 kbps for modem and fax
> users.  In other words, there's no point getting a modem or fax faster
> than 9.6 kbps in Alaska if you plan to use it primarily for interexchange
> calls. This is because the IXCs compress multiple voice calls onto a
> single channel.  The compression technique doesn't work as well for
> data calls.  Anything faster than 9.6 will bite the dust (and in rural
> areas the problem is even worse).  I've been told that there is
> special detection equipment that could be used to isolate the higher
> speed data traffic of modem and fax users; however GCI has asserted
> that installation of this equipment would increase its capital cost by
> 10%.

The above is true of GCI's infrastructure, but it is not true for AT&T
Alascom. (However that doesn't mean all is rosey with AT&T Alascom
either...) AT&T Alascom's network will handle high speed modems to
over 90% (I've seen the figure, but can't remember it exactly ... 93%
sounds right.) of the subscribers in Alaska, and of course to
interstate locations too.  I personally have and use a 28.8 modem for
mostly interexchange calls. (I live in a rural location, too.)

However, since most of my extended family lives in bush areas of the
state, and are amongst the 5% or so who do not have modern digital
service, my sympathies are perhaps weighted toward being annoyed at
the poor service to small bush areas.

> In your example, you speculate about analog switches as the potential
> culprits.  I believe that analog transmission or other non-fiber
> transmission facilities could also be potential drags on through-put,

That is very true.  There are no analog switches of any kind still
operating in Alaska.  But there are some analog transmission
facilities still in use.  In addition to the many analog small earth
stations in bush Alaska, the entire George Parks Highway north of
Talkeetna to Fairbanks is served by an old analog microwave system!

> particularly in rural areas.  In Alaska all local and interexchange switches
> are digital, however significant portions of the interexchange network are
> still analog.  AT&T Alascom, which is the only IXC permitted to operate
> interexchange facilities statewide,

There are, I believe, four IXC's permitted to operate statewide.  GCI
and AT&T Alascom are the only two that currently operate switching
systems, but United Utilities Inc.  operates a significant amount of
the bush transmission infrastructure.

> still uses analog transmission to about 200 of the approximately 250
> locations statewide.  There is plenty of demand for switched 56 and
> ISDN in rural areas, but it makes little sense for LECs to offer these
> services locally if the interexchange network won't support it.

I'm not sure what the precise numbers are, but the above gives a false
impression.  A true impression is _not_ good, just different!  There
are no "major" locations in Alaska served by analog transmission
systems.  That means there are few if any population centers with more
than 500 or so people that are not digital.  In the "rural" (quoted
because that includes what we in Alaska would call bush and what we
would call rural; two distinct entities to us) locations where digital
facilities are available not one LEC offers ISDN.  That would include
such bush locations as Nome, Barrow, Dillingham, Bethel, and Kotzebue.
AT&T Alascom has operating SW56 services to FTS-2000 customers in all
of those locations.

The lack of ISDN service is not primarily the fault of the IXC's, but
lies with the LECs.  My personal complaint is that Alascom under PTI
refused to push the LECs by making neigher competative moves to bypass
them, nor any other attempt to force the issue.  That was an explicit
management decision, not an accident.

Also it is worth noting that a plan put forward in about 1990 would
have essentially digitalized transmission facilties to every location
within the state by 1995. Many bush locations, and specifically those
with larger populations such as the list above, and those locations
with the oldest analog satellite earth station equipment have been
converted to digital; but for many other bush customers the complaint
about poor data connections is very true.

In particular the difficulties with double satellite hops for calls
between nearby villages is very annoying to school systems!  As bush
teachers read about and attempt to implement technology that will
connect students with the "information highway" they discover that
calls placed over 20 year old analog systems are subject to cutoffs,
dropouts, and low speed at best connections.

> requirements increase.  My previous question that went unanswered sought
> information about whether the major IXCs also use compression on their fiber
> systems.  It may be that they don't.  However, will fiber bandwidth always
> be so inexpensive that the IXCs don't have to consider the efficiency
> associated with compressing voice calls.

The only domestic market with a limited fiber bandwidth is Alaska.
However ... under "normal" circumstances AT&T Alascom does not
compress traffic on the North Pacific Fiber cable.  GCI however does,
and because of that Alascom some time back filed a tariff to provide
identical service to GCI, and an identical rate (cheaper than
non-compressed service) in order to compete with GCI's lower priced
offering!  It was a basic response to customer demands.  (That is also
a leased line service, and has no effect on switched message traffic
through AT&T Alascom facilities.)

> I've been told that its possible to transport a voice call with less
> than 10 kbps.  Given that the standard uncompressed digital voice
> circuit is 64 kbps it seems that there's a lot of room for efficiency.
> If and when the IXCs decide to compress 3, 4 and 5 voice calls onto a
> single 64 kbps channel, will they still be willing to carry switched
> 56 and ISDN at no extra charge?  In Alaska the answer has been "no."

Note that the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System not only refuses to
offer digital services, they also refuse to connect to the SS7 network
and offer no CLASS services at all!  Imagine where ISDN is on their
priority list ...


AT&T Alascom Fairbanks Toll Center
Floyd L. Davidson           Salcha, Alaska           [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matt Woodling)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:21:42 GMT
Organization: Minn Net


[e-mail] (Josh Rubin) wrote:

> My query has probably already been covered in an FAQ somewhere, but
> just in case, I'm wondering how a Telco could guarantee that any
> particular call on an ISDN line would be digital. It strikes me that

The best answer is probably that ISDN services can't be carried by
analog switches.  I believe that all public phone/data connections are
carried over the carriers' digital networks -- this would include voice
(POTS), ISDN, T1, Frame Relay, etc.


Matt Woodling    [e-mail]   Minneapolis, MN, USA

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:31:23 -0900
From: [e-mail] (Stu Jeffery)
Subject: Re: Personal 800 Horror Story: PNG Telecommunications


On Mon, 13 Nov 1995 08:01:43 -0800 [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
wrote:

> Executive summary: if you value your sanity, DO NOT sign up for 800
> number service from PNG Telecommunications, American Travel Network,
> or Hospitality Services Group.  They have displayed an astounding
> lack of competence in completing the simplest of tasks.  I don't know
> what PNG is supposed to stand for, but I wonder if it's Persona Non
> Grata.

You sure had your problems, but I also have an 800 number from PNG and
have had no trouble. Line went in smooth, bills have been correct. I
also use it for checking Voice Mail and everything has been smooth.


Stu Jeffery           Internet: [e-mail]
1072 Seena Ave.                voice:   415-966-8199
Los Altos, CA. 94024           fax:     [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:07:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Robert Jacobson) wrote:

> Lately, all the talk in the computer industry -- and at Comdex this
> week -- has been about the "Information Appliance," a concept recently
> given wide publicity by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Sun CEO Scott
> McNealy.  In a nutshell, the information appliance is a small device
> with a big screen, a keyboard, and the ability to call up programs and
> data from a big server(s) somewhere on the Net.  The idea is to get as
> much stuff off the local platform as possible, to hold down the cost
> and produce a simple tool capable of email, wordprocessing, Net
> surfing, and graphics/sound display.  Period.  The microwave oven of
> communications.

> So far the concept has been severely criticized in the computer
> industry, mostly by people who need 1GB of memory on their hard drive
> just to sleep at night.  No one from the telecom industry has yet
> spoken out on the matter.  In fact, when I was touting the idea back
> in 1989 (and right up to today), the reaction from telecom executives
> has been, "Huh?"  Yet the concept will not fly without a big pipe
> between the servers and the end users.

If the 'network is the computer' (Sun (tm)), then you are now at the
mercy of the network/computer.  What amazes me about the 'information
appliance' is that it gets rid of one of the cheapest and most useful
parts of the whole system -- the large hard disk.  The single biggest
add-on device (behind modem upgrades due to telcom idiocy) is the large
hard disk.  Just look at the leader in Fry's newspaper ads -- it is a
> 1Gbyte disk drive.

With a large hard disk you have an infinitely customizable machine.
Without it, you are at the mercy of some marketeer who doesn't know
which socket of a computer to stick his finger into.

A really cheap information appliance would dump the expensive Intel chip
instead, which is now the single biggest cost in the entire system.


www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Curtis)
Subject: Re: Old Western Electric CPE
Date: 14 Nov 1995 22:24:43 -0800
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279,818-756-0180,909-785-9712)


> These phones were built to last for *years* -- they might have been heavy,
> but they were *sturdy*. You could spin a dial without having the phone slide
> all over the table. Even with touchtones today, I find that today's
> ultralight platic phones still slide around when using them. You could use
> older phones as a paperweight -- when writing down a phone number on a slip
> of paper, you could put a corner of the paper under the part of the phone.

I've run into customers who objected to the lighter weight phones sliding
around, or "these handsets feel like toys", etc.  I've used various sizes
and shapes of lead (e.g. sinkers, etc.), epoxied or hot-glued into place.
"Red head" bolt anchors stuffed inside handsets along with some cotton,
etc., to keep them from rattling around will give a "more rugged" feel to
too-light handsets.

Even in this day and age, we still have a very large percentage of customers
with old 1A2, etc., multiline systems.  We're one of the few interconnects
in Los Angeles that still actually fixes them instead of recommending a new
electronic key, PABX, etc., every time someone pops a B battery fuse.  But
every once in a while, the customer succumbs to pressure (not from us!) and
tires of the "old fashioned phones" and wants a "nice shiny new system".
Once installed, they're occasionally not happy with "the feel" of the newer
phones.  Weighting them really helps!  And of course, the redheads can be
easily removed once the customer has adjusted and decides that handset
fatigue is a higher priority than handset weight :-)


Mike Curtis    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal?
Organization: GoodNet
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:13:02 GMT


Corey Hauer ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I am providing internet service to several communities in a rural
> area.  A very-small community serviced by GTE near one of my POPs is a
> long distance call from me but a local call to another GTE-serviced
> community that can call me without a long-distance charges.  I want to
> enable people in the small town to call my service without
> long-distance charges.

> Maybe mistakenly, I called GTE and asked them if I could get a line in
> the community and have it forwarded to my main number.  GTE told me
> "no way, that would be violating the tariff".

> I know of many ISPs and BBSs that use call forwarding in the same
> manner to extend their service area.  Is GTE correct, would I be
> violating a tariff.

> What could happen if I had a friend of mine in this town get a line
> pointing to me?  Or is GTE blowing smoke?

There is another factor to consider.  Will your telco forward more than
one call at a time?  In California, GTE there is known to only allow 1
forwarded call at a time.

As far as tariff compliance, when I worked as a Service Rep at
Pac*Bell, I got an executive complaint.  It was a BBS operator
complaining about an advertisment about another BBS advertising
forwarding numbers which are residence class of service (which is flat
rate, business is all measured), and the complaint is "if he can do
that, why can't I".  It turns out that we had to either disconnect or
change the forwarding lines to business class of service.
California's tariffs are still strict about business on residential
service.

Now I am at US West.  We have a "choice" tariff.  Bottom line, if you
have you service in your residence, you may choose residential or
business.  The only determining factor is DIRECTORY advertising.  If that
complaint happened in US West territory, that would not have happened!


Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU   Tempe, Arizona

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph Becker)
Subject: Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:39:06 GMT
Organization: Xyplex Customer Support


Scott Drown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I just got off the phone with the Cell-One/Boston service representative.

> I tried to make a call over the weekend, and my phone wouldn't work.
> It seems that I had crossed out of the Cell-One/Boston area, and was
> roaming.  Why wouldn't the call go through?  I've roamed before in that
> area?  It seems that Cell-One/Boston has summarily DISABLED ROAMING on
> ALL phones that have not roamed in the past XXX days.  The helpful
> service person did not know how long XXX was.  He did inform me that
> this move was to combat massive fraud in roaming.

I just spoke to Cell One also.  I had them check the accounts for both myself
and my wife's phones; both have roaming enabled.  He stated that they will
automatically disable roaming if roaming is not used for six months.  I asked
that this "feature" be disabled from these accounts, and he did so.


Ralph Becker (mailto:[e-mail])
http://www.iii.net/users/ralphb

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:07:43 GMT


Steve ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I had the system configured to assume my fax server was a
> long-distance number, because I didn't want the call to actually go
> through.  The only problem was, the calls were working.  The Telco was
> allowing a long-distance call to a local number!

> My Area-code is 314. My telco switch is 968.
> My Fax number is (314) 968-xxxx,  which is a local call.
> I was dialing 1 314 968-xxxx, and the call was going through.

Nothing mysterious here.  There is a Bellcore/NANP Administration
recommendation, which to its credit Southwestern Bell is following in
Missouri in spite of ignoring it in other states, which states that any
call, local or toll, same area code or different, should be PERMITTED to
be dialed 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX (in your case, 1-314-968-XXXX).  The idea is
that there is a uniform, universal method for dialing the number that
will work from anywhere in the North American system, provided that you
are willing to pay a toll *IF* it applies.

The fact that you dialed the area code did not route the call to your
long distance company, nor should you pay a toll for the call if it
completed.

I can understand that in many areas consumers want to keep the notion
that you must dial '1' for any toll call.  However, what makes no sense
at all is the notion that you MUST NOT dial '1' for a local call.  That
setup (as used in Texas, for example) serves no useful purpose.  It does
not protect the consumer against unwanted tolls, it only makes it more
difficult to complete calls.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Raymond Hazel)
Subject: Re: Sprint to Ignore *67?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:19:49 -0800
Organization: N.E.T.


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

> I heard that Sprint has filed with the FCC to ignore *67 per call
> blocking on interstate long distance ... that would appear to be a
> direct violation of the FCC rules. Anybody know the details?

I, too, am curious.  I didn't know anything of *67 until I started
reading this newsgroup (11/4).  I actually tried it from home
(510-887-xxxx) to an 800 MCI-customer number.  That customer has
phones with the calling number displayed on the set.  With or without
the *67 (although I do get a triple-beep acceptance tone), the full
number was displayed.  My first question is, where is there
information that covers this feature?  (PAT, the archives are
fantastic, but *67 is a hard one to get hits on in a search...)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Nte: Discussions abotu *67 show up quite
frequently in the back issues. The important point to remember is
that *67 does *not* work where calls to 800 numbers are concerned;
nor calls to 900/976 and certain other categories.  Those places, and
800 in particular in your example, will and do get the number of the
phone calling them. You cannot withhold it from them. It has nothing
to do with Sprint or any other carrier. That is how 800 is set up.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Prvt Ctzn)
Subject: Re: Sprint to Ignore *67?
Date: 14 Nov 1995 11:42:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Prvt Ctzn)


I suggest that you review the FCC page on the Web that lists and details
such filings.  Please let me know what you learn.


Robert Bulmash    Private Citizen, Inc.  1/800-CUT-JUNK


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What he will learn is when dialing an
800 number, you cannot hide. Your number is known to the recipient of
the call since they are paying for it. I do not think this is a
thing Sprint is doing different than anyone else. On 800 calls, they
provide ANI (automatic number identification) to the called party.
We have covered this topic several times here.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #483
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 16 14:42:16 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id OAA02717; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:42:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:42:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #484

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Nov 95 14:42:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 484

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Canada's Story on Internet Service Provider Line Rates (Dave Leibold)
    Current Bell Canada Commercial Campaign (Dave Leibold)
    ATT5E Hunt Group Specifications ([e-mail])
    Companies Plead For National Caller ID Delays (Greg Monti)
    Telecom Consultant Wanted (Robert F. Krepps)
    Private Data Network Service From ISPs ([e-mail])
    Running Sync Signal (T1) Over Fiber? (Pete Kruckenberg)
    Re: Personal 800 Horror Story: PNG Telecommunications (Jeff Bein)
    New Area Code 320 in Minnesota (Charles Gimon)
    Laptop Use and PBX Baud Rates (Tom Crofford)
    Re: More 708/847/630 Split Details (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place? (Al Varney)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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] (Dave Leibold)
Date: 15 Nov 95 22:58:40 -0500
Subject: Bell Canada's Story on Internet Service Provider Line Rates
Organization:  The Super Continental - North York, Canada


[from Bell News, 13 Nov 95; Bell Canada's version of events follows...]

Rates for Internet service providers to be adjusted

To the accusation by some Internet users that we are raising our
rates in an attempt to hurt Internet service providers (ISPs) who
will be competing with the Internet access service soon to be
launched by our WorldLinx subsidiary, we're pleading: NOT GUILTY.

What the fuss is all about stems from a recent discovery that a
number of Internet service providers have not been charged the
appropriate tariffed rates for dial-up telephone services they were
receiving from Bell.

Because moving these customers to the correct rate would involve
substantial increases, a number of ISPs are angry and have gone
public with their concerns over the Internet.

Some are working to mobilize opposition to the change from customers
and government policy makers.

To rectify the situation, we have developed a transition strategy to
ease the impact on ISPs who have been charged incorrect rates.

Effective immediately, Bell proposes to apply the correct rate only
to new services.

We will not move existing customers to the correct rate until May 1996.

In the meantime, we will work closely with ISPs to attempt to find
other ways of serving their needs, including lower price solutions.

 ..........

More specifically...

We discovered that we have been charging a number of ISPs Centrex
rates, or individual business line rates, which are based on normal
voice communication levels (i.e., about 10 minutes of usage per line
per hour).

However, since ISP usage of the telephone network is typically much
higher than this (i.e., 55-60 minutes of usage per line per hour),
the company must  now charge business trunk rates, specifically those
set out in its Information Service Access Line (ISAL) tariff. In
fact, since we have discovered the error, we are legally bound to
rectify it.

The error applies to the majority of our ISP customers, and some
other customers with similar applications.

The price impact on those ISPs affected will be substantial.

Today, they pay about $23 per Centrex line adn as much as $51.85 per
individual business line including equivilancy for the lines they
lease from Bell to provide service to their Internet customers. Under
the ISAL rates, these customers could pay as much as $84.35 per line
per month.

The corrected rate will be comparable to that which other telephone
companies charge ISPs for the same services.

                               ----------

Fidonet:  Dave Leibold 1:259/730
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Date: 15 Nov 95 22:58:48 -0500
Subject: Current Bell Canada Commercial Campaign
Organization:  The Super Continental - North York, Canada


[from Bell News, 13 Nov 1995 - this is Bell's view of things]

Latest commercials take our customers on road to the future

A railway track and telephone lines brought the country together.

These historic symbols serve as the backdrop in a new TV commercial
introducing a new "thread in the Canadian fabric": one which will
provide Canadians with new ways to communicate among ourselves, and
with the world.

It features our president and CEO, John McLennan explaining to our
customers how we will bring the newest technologies into their lives.

As part of our new mission ... the 60-second commercial will be followed
by a series of three others, each highlighting new technologies we are
currently involved in and/or developing - medical imaging, distance
education and home entertainment.

In the first commercial, which debuted last Thursday at 8 p.m. on Global,
McLennan tells the public that Bell is "creating ideas and technology that
will give you more choice and power than ever before... choices your
parents never thought possible."

The next 60 second commercial, debuting November 20, will focus on our
commitment to distance education. It will show how education in the
future will be accessible to everyone, no matter where they live.
Featured is a part-time student living in Paris, Ontario.

"As our business evolves, we must ensure our customers understand the
role we want to play in bringing the future to them. We want them to
be aware of how we're developing and searching for technology that
will give them the power to change their lives for the better," says
Bruce Barr, group vice-president, Marketing.

"With our new mission in place, we need to build awareness with our
business and residential customers that we're more than just a
telephone line into their homes. We will continue to be the company
that will bring them the newest technologies, quickly and affordably."

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

Fidonet:  Dave Leibold 1:259/730
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: ATT5E Hunt Group Specifications
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 08:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am looking for the setup specifications of a rather specific hunt
group on a 5E.  We are a attempting to setup internet provider sites
and most of the telcos we are working with have 5Es.  But when I ask
the telco for a hunt group I normally get a sequential hunt and I am
unable to directly dial the hunt group because it is the pilot number.

What I want is:

 1.   A virtual pilot number - no physical line associated with it or
busy out that line.

 2.   A uniform call distribution hunt group - do not always go to the
next sequential phone number for the hunt - if that modem is broke,
unanswered, or whatever pick another.

 3.  16, 32, 48, 64, other lines that if you dial the pilot number
they will hunt - but if you directly dial each individual line it will
NOT hunt and will ring busy if it is.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.


Please respond to [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 00:02:02 PST
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Companies Plead For National Caller ID Delays


The November 10, 1995 issue of the electronic newsletter
_Communications Today_ ran a story which said that the California
Public Utilities Commission says it needs until June, 1996, to work
with California phone companies to develop a plan for educating
consumers about the inter-carrier pass-through of calling party name
and the blocking options available.  The petition was made to the FCC,
which set the December 1 deadline.  The PUC petition supports those of
Pacific Bell and GTE California for a limited waiver of the FCC's
Caller ID rules.  The PUC also wants the waiver of the December 1
deadline extended to all California carriers.

The story notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
is to hear oral argument November 16 on the PUC's appeal.  A provision
preempting the PUC's default blocking requirement for unpublished
numbers is the issue.

In other national Caller ID news, Competitive Telecommunications
Association (a trade organization of smaller long distance companies)
has sought a waiver of the national requirement until 60 days after
some of its member companies receive software patches to enable
blocking of calling party numbers over SS7.

Sprint also asked for a waiver (until March 1) and Southwestern Bell has
opposed Sprint's waiver.


Greg Monti     Arlington, Virginia, USA     [e-mail]

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

From: Robert F Krepps <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Consultant Wanted
Date: 14 Nov 1995 19:14:26 GMT
Organization: Cowles Magazines


We use AT&T Definity phone switches and have them networked together
via private point-to-point T1 circuits. The T1 is shared between voice
and data using a Cray multiplexor. We have been experiencing
intermitant fade out/ drop out on the voice side between our Stamford
CT office and our Harrisburg PA office. AT&T hasn't been able to help.
I'm looking for a guru who knows the equipment and would be willing to
work on a consultancy basis to resolve this problem. Can anyone help?

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

From: [e-mail] (smgna)
Subject: Private Data Network Service From ISPs
Date: 15 Nov 1995 00:05:34 GMT
Organization: Sirius Connections


Here's a topic for dicussion: Would it be plausible that Internet
Service Providers may one day be a threat to private data network
providers? They are building fairly large networks, a few nationwide,
and are offering sophisticated services like Frame Relay. The ISP
market is going to get squeezed, as the telcos and others move in.
Margins are going to drop as access becomes a commodity. So why
wouldn't it be natural that ISPs get into one of the telcos' businesses
that they have capacity for: private/corporate data networks?

Any thoughts? Technical or cost obstacles? Is it even an issue?

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Kruckenberg)
Subject: Running Sync Signal (T1) Over Fiber?
Date: 14 Nov 1995 01:39:45 GMT
Organization: inQuo Internet [phone]


I need to be able to get a sync (B8ZS, ESF T1) signal between two
buildings using some existing fiber strands. I'm assuming that since there
is a lot of bandwidth available on a strand of fiber, we could possibly
put several async signals through a single strand.

What I need to find out is where I can get such a device (hopefully
inexpensively) to let me plug the 2 pairs in on one side, and extract
them on the other side.

It'd also be nice to be able to run some 10BaseT over the same strand,
though I guess that'd be dreaming to have so much functionality in a
single device.

The connection will be used to connect a Cisco router in one building to
an Internet access provider in the other building. We'll be connecting
Adtran CSU/DSU's back-to-back. The lines from the CSU/DSU's to the fiber
will be copper pairs (Cat 3 or 5).

The optional 10BaseT connectivity would be used to connect back to
potential customers in the same building as the provider, though doing
another sync connection would work fine (it's just that Ethernet cards are
cheaper than CSU/DSU's).

The fiber is multi-mode, so we'd like to get as much use out of it as
possible (multiple T1's, multiple 10BaseT, etc, etc).

Any suggestions or recommendations are appreciated.


Thanks,

Pete Kruckenberg   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Bein)
Subject: Re: Personal 800 Horror Story: PNG Telecommunications
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GoodNet
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:48:26 GMT


To Pat,

Thank you very much publishing information about our company in your
newsletter. I would have loved the ability to respond to your reader's
problem within the same newsletter. I would have thought that as an editor
you would have gotten both sides.

American Travel Network has just surpassed its 100,000th  customer and our
monthly revenues exceed $1.7 million per month (for Aug numbers). We try
to focus on providing great programs with great rates. Our calling card at
17.5 cents per minute with no surcharge has placed us in Consumer reports,
Money Magazine, American Express's Our Company, Conde Naste, National
Geographic, Travel Smart as well as many other places such as CBS This
Morning. It is the best calling card in the country from a major carrier
(LDDS Worldcom) and it is only available from my company. We take pride
that we are saving people over $2 million per month.

Our 800 number as well is a great program (with 6 second billing and only
18 cents per minute). Customers save money over the major carriers as well
as many smaller companies. It is true that PNG (our rebiller) has had some
customer service issues. We have insisted upon better service and they now
provide it.

At ATN, we installed a $30,000 digital phone system, a T-1 and have an ACD
group just for the 500 calls we get every day. Hold times are usually
under 3 minutes and we have great audiotext to help customers. You can
even try it at 800-477-9692.

It is unfortunate that this customer received a level of service that is
unacceptable, and I aplogize. We also have tens of thousand of customers
who love us every month they save money.

On behalf of our 2000 dealers and the staff of ATN, we are sorry. This
person's story happened many months ago. He would have applied over six
months ago. Why he wrote about it now, I do not know. Customer service is
not like that today.


Jeff Bein, President
American Travel Network
800-705-4000 ext 101
800-477-9692 customer service
800-700-4387 fax


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your response. I appreciate
your concern at having the original article and your response run at
the same time. That becoems difficult at times in this media, but at
the very least, responses can be published promptly, which is what I
try to do. You note that Linc Madison 'must have applied several
months ago, and indeed, I think he said this in his article; that he
applied, heard nothing for a month or so, inquired again, and repeated
this over a period of time. Re-reading his article, my impression is
his problem was an ongoing one over a period of several months, not
something that happened several months ago and since has been fixed.
Whatever went wrong, I am sure you have corrected it, and for this I
imagine Linc sends his thanks.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Gimon)
Subject: New Area Code 320 in Minnesota
Date: 15 Nov 1995 20:16:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


We just got the official brochure on area code 320 in our USWest bills
up here. The new area code covers St. Cloud, Alexandria, and the rest
of the 612 area code outside the greater (and I mean greater) Twin
Cities area. Eight exchanges will move from 612 to 507 at the same time.

There were public hearings this summer where some people, in Clear Lake
for example, were complaining about having to be moved into 320. The
PUC and USWest decided to let them stay in 612. The list in this
brochure appears to be after that announcement, so it's most likely the
final one. Also, people in Red Wing and some other southeastern towns
didn't want to move into 507 -- they will stay in 612.

Here's the list of exchanges:

These will change from 612 to 320 starting March 17 1996, permissive
dialing until September 15 1996.

202    203    214    231    233    234    235    236
238    239    240    242    243    245    246    249
250    251    252    253    254    255    256    259
264    265    267    268    269    272    273    274
275    276    277    278    279    283    284    285
286    289    294    314    324    325    327    328
329    346    352    354    355    356    358    360
363    365    366    367    369    382    383    384
387    390    392    393    394    395    396    398
453    468    485    495    523    524    528    532
543    547    548    549    554    556    558    562
563    564    567    568    573    584    587    589
592    594    596    597    598    599    629    630
632    634    654    655    656    664    668    669
676    677    679    684    685    692    693    695
697    709    732    734    743    745    746    748
749    752    760    761    762    763    764    765
766    769    792    793    795    796    826    833
834    836    837    838    839    841    842    843
845    846    847    848    852    855    857    859
864    875    876    877    886    963    965    967
968    974    978    979    981    983    986    987
995

These will change from 612 to 507 over the same dates:

237    248    326    357    364    665    756    964

All other 612 numbers will stay in 612.


[e-mail]
http://www.info-nation.com

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:00:33 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Tom Crofford)
Subject: Laptop Use and PBX Baud Rates


I am looking for information regarding growth in laptops owned during the
past five years.  I'm also looking for information about baud rates
supported via POTS through commonly installed PBXs.

Thanks in advance for any sources you can direct me to.


Tom Crofford   [e-mail]   918-664-6876 fax

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: More 708/847/630 Split Details
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:48:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
W. Tamkin) writes:

> To prevent dividing Rosemont or assigning new phone numbers there,
> Franklin Park and Schiller Park will follow Rosemont into 847 instead
> remaining in 708 as earlier maps showed.  Much of the Franklin
> Park/River Grove border runs through the middles of blocks, so there
> will be yet more places where next-door neighbors will need to dial
> eleven digits to call one another.

I'm in Schiller Park.

To me, it means that I will have exactly ONE number that I call with any
regularity which won't require eleven digits. (My upstairs neighbor, who
I call about once every two weeks.) Even the family pagers will be moving
to a different area code.


Cliff Sharp  WA9PDM
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting With Caller ID - Is it Actually in Place?
Organization: AT&T Company number 2
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:23:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Stephen Knight
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
> Atwood) wrote:

>> US West in the Phoenix (AZ) area is suppose to have Call
>> Waiting-Caller ID sometime before the end of the year ... (yeah right).

>> I have read a few threads regarding the spec's, but all refer to the
>> BellCore TR-NWT-000030 document.  Is this spec available on the net,
>> or libraries or does one have to shell out the $$ to receive it?

> Northern's PowerTouch 350 (aka Vista 350) can do CallerID w/ Call Waiting.

>> So far I have gathered that after the CW signal is sent the caller-Id
>> unit must [mute the handset] , send one of the [A,B,C or D] Touch
>> Tones at which time the CO will send the Caller_ID burst.

> From TR-NWT-000030:

> "For data transmission, however, a CPE alerting signal (CAS),
> consisting of a pair of frequencies will be used.  When the CPE
> receives this signal correctly, it will reply with an ACK to the SPCS
> indicating readiness to receive information (see SR-TSV-002476).  The
> SPCS will then send the relevant data to the CPE".

>> Am I even close to what is necessary?

> Yep.  Altho, it should be pointed out that it's not limited to just the CO
> sending the information (which could make for some confusion).

   Per USWest Network Disclosure Number 233, 7/7/95:

   Maybe.  USWest says Type 2 CPE is compatible with this service.
Type 2 handles off-hook messages and Multiple Data Message Format messages.

   (Please note that TR-NWT-000030 (now called GR-30-CORE) is a specification
for SWITCH vendors, not CPE vendors.  That is, it describes the basic Caller-ID
data transmission rules from the switch perspective (loudness, open intervals,
etc.).  Don't build a CPE interface from that.)

   Instead, Bellcore has specs for CPE vendors -- describing operation from
the customer line perspective.  These are:

  SR-TSV-002476 - CPE Compatibility Considerations for the        $80
        Voiceband Data Transmission Interface, Issue 1, Dec. 1992
        (basic Caller ID)

  SR-INS-002461 - CPE Compatible guidelines for the Analog        $150
        Display Services Interface, Issue 1, Dec. 1992
        (screen display with soft keys)

  SR-TSV-002578 - A Method and Apparatus for Detecting a DTMF      $80
        signal in the presence of speech, Issue 1, Apr. 1993
        (too bad some voice mail manufacturers haven't read this....)

  Also, specific to the Calling Identity Delivery on Call Waiting (CIDCW)
service is:

   TR-NWT-0000575 - CLASS Feature Calling Identity Delivery on     $45 total
         Call Waiting, Issue 1, Oct. 1992 + Revision 1, Dec. 1994
         (delivery of caller name & number)

   GR-416-CORE, Call Waiting Deluxe, Issue 1, Apr. 1995            $85

   Bellcore is on 1-800-521-CORE, USWest contact for CPE vendors for
this service is James Reynolds on 602-351-5292.  There is no
additional charge to customers with both Call Waiting & Caller
Identification.  (!!!)


Al Varney

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #484
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 16 16:32:45 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id QAA11125; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:32:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:32:45 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #485

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Nov 95 16:32:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 485

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Some BellSouth Notes (Stanley Cline)
    Re: Some BellSouth Notes (Ronell Elkayam)
    Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View? (Oppenheimer)
    Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View? (Jim Borynec)
    Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View? (Giles Heron)
    Re: Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing? (G Novosielski)
    Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones? (Mark Cuccia)
    Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones? (Ed Ellers)
    Re: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Juha Veijalainen)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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] (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: Some BellSouth Notes
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 22:52:56 GMT
Organization: Catoosa Computing Services


Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Even Bell's payphones don't allow 10-XXX-1+ route to other carriers
> since not many other carriers provide true Coin service. They only
> exception I've run across (other than reading about the PA/NJ & NJ/NY
> corridors) is 10-288-1+ InTRA-LATA. I haven't tried 10-732+1+404...
> from a Bell payphone yet to see what happens, tho. BUT I tried it from
> my Cellular phone (both 10-732-1+404... AND 10-732+404... without the
> 1+. I forgot to try 10-732+0+404...) Instead of getting BellSouth
> Mobility's 504+seven-digit trunk number (which I did get on
> 800-MY-ANI-IS), I got a ten-digit quoteback of MY OWN Cellular's
> number!!! I wonder if the PBX here allowed me to access that number-
> if I'd get an outgoing trunk of the PBX or if I'd get the actual
> dial-in 'extension' number.

Mark, if you dialed 1+404xxx from your BellSouth cellphone, you would
in fact hear your own number.  I have called people from my cellphone
and they have seen my REAL cell number.  But if I used ANI-IS, I'd get
the trunk ID.  (My IXC is LCI International)

Also with LCI, I see the NAME of the caller if they're in a BellSouth
area and have LCI.  I have tried this with my LCI 800# and calling
card, and IT STILL WORKS!

Seems odd that BellSouth allows 10xxx+1+ on cellular there.  They do
not here.  They DO allow 10xxx+*0*+ for card, colletc. etc.  But we
have an ancient Motorola EMX that I wish they'd get RID OF.


Stanley

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

From: [e-mail] (Ronell Elkayam)
Subject: Re: Some BellSouth Notes
Date: 16 Nov 1995 03:32:14 GMT
Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468


On Tue, 14 Nov 95 14:37:00 CST, Mark Cuccia (email: [e-mail].
edu) posted:

> The call yesterday showed up in Uppercase as NASSAUZN08, NY.  I've
> heard that many inter-LATA calls won't always show the customer
> name, but rather the city (ratecenter) and state.  I even had a
> *local* call show up as (and I'm not misplacing punctuation here):
> NEWORLEANS ,LA

The CID name-fields of these calls probably weren't sent as uppercase,
but rather sent as lowercase, and only shown as uppercase on your
Caller ID box which doesn't support lowercase.  I have the AT&T 85,
and a BelTronics 100.  The AT&T 85 can't display lowercase.  The
BelTronics will show some calls as lowercase -- the AT&T will show the
same call as uppercase.

I've logged over 17,000 CID entries on my voice board, and have never
seen a city&state name sent as uppercase.  I've seen "north dade ,fl",
"miami, fl", etc.  All of these calls came from new phone subscribers.
Eventually, the person's name replaced the location in the name-field.

Some of the strangest CID names I've seen are "               " (15
blanks, NOT no-name-message-AKA-15-dashes), " ANYNAME       "
(started in a space), and about 10% of the calls had a name field
smaller than the 15 character limit.  Most calls (of subscribers whose
name is smaller than 15 chars) are padded with spaces at the end, so
you'd receive "JOHN SMITH     ".  CID-names that are of locations
always showed in lowercase, and were never padded with spaces at the
end (but I've only seen 305 calls of that nature).

I've also had calls from "HOME DEPOT     " which were actually from
the payphones at Home Depot.


W/love,   | Owner & Programmer:  The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468
          | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are
Ron       | allowed.    Under 42 must get parents' permission to call.
Miami, FL | "THIS  IS  WHAT  YOUR  MOTHER  ALWAYS  WARNED  YOU  ABOUT"

    Don't bother to call...  FCC disconnected the line on basis of
    board being "obscene".  New number coming soon!   Tapes avail.

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

From: [e-mail] (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View?
Date: 15 Nov 1995 12:38:44 -0500
Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM)


In comp.dcom.telecom Pat Townson said:

> I'd like to see the same push for universal service which drove the
> telcos in the early years of this century now become a driving force
> on the Internet.


> If I were to win a lottery ... I would see to it that that every
> public school and every public library in Chicago was hooked to the
> net immediatly with 'information appliance' type devices.

Pat, put me down for New York.


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: +1 800 The Expert.    Fax: [phone].


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sure, and I will put you down for Los Angeles
also while I am thinking about it. Let's face it, it isn't going to
happen anytime soon. I *barely* manage to keep this Digest up and running
along with meeting my limited (very limited these days!) personal expenses
these days. I have decided this Digest will probably be the extent of
my contribution to the net, at least as things look now. Still though,
I can't help but dream about what *could* be done, if only the money
was present. After all these years, we still do not have a Freenet in
place here. Long ago I wanted to work on that. I've also thought about
starting an organization for new publishers and moderators, to help
them get the software in place they need and develop electronic journals
of their choosing. Lotsa luck! First I need to worry about keeping my
own phone bill paid and my own journal moving each day.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Borynec)
Subject: Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 00:48:57 GMT
Organization: AGT Ltd.


[e-mail] (Henry Baker) wrote:

> A really cheap information appliance would dump the expensive Intel chip
> instead, which is now the single biggest cost in the entire system.

For me, this is just not true.  My single biggest cost is memory.  16M
of memory cost me almost twice my 100Mhz 486 CPU expense.

Does anyone know why memory prices haven't fallen at the same rate
that CPU prices have fallen?  What's the scoop?  The technology curves
would see to indicate that memory would get cheaper faster than CPU's
(after all memory chips are "easier to design".)


j.b.

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

From: [e-mail] (Giles Heron)
Subject: Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View?
Date: 16 Nov 1995 00:33:50 GMT
Organization: CLEAR Communications Limited
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Giles Heron)


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
Baker) writes:

> With a large hard disk you have an infinitely customizable machine.
> Without it, you are at the mercy of some marketeer who doesn't know
> which socket of a computer to stick his finger into.

The problem is that only "techies" seem to know how to customise
their machines without getting into strife.  I'm sure the computer
helpdesk here at CLEAR would *love* to remove all the customizations
from user's machines!  Developers could always have a second box to
hack around to their hearts' content (it's in our nature...)

In the home environment companies could compete to offer the central
server you connect to.  That way you can always change if you don't
like what you're getting.  With the Hot Java technology you'd only
be beholden on the central server to bootstrap your box anyway.

IMHO the only reason to have a disk on a networked PC is lack of
communications bandwidth or server capacity.  This is where the
Telecom world comes in (bandwidth), and Oracle and Sun get all
excited (server capacity).  The only risk is 100% reliance on the
network and the server -- but it seems we're 99% reliant on them
already.

In the office sufficient bandwidth could be here soon.  In the home
you might have to wait a while!

> A really cheap information appliance would dump the expensive Intel chip
> instead, which is now the single biggest cost in the entire system.

But this is only true because people are so obsessed with CPU speed,
and neglect more important factors like memory and I/O.  The 24MB
RAM on this desktop is worth a lot more than the DX2/66 CPU!

It suits Intel just fine to have us believe that CPU speed is the
single most important performance factor (so we'll make it "the
single biggest cost in the entire system")

Nevertheless, given that an "information appliance" could drop
Windows there wouldn't be any need for x86 code -- and you could go
for the best price/performance CPU.


Giles Heron           CLEAR Communications, Auckland, New Zealand
[e-mail]    ph [phone]     fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Small Business Administration
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 19:27:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Here in 201-land (Northern NJ) 11-digit (1+ten) dialing is accepted by the
local switch for any number, from local up to and including long-distance.

The way it works *here* (your mileage may vary) is that the number is
handled by a long-distance carrier *only* if it is truly an inter-LATA
number. Local numbers are handled as local ("free") calls, even if the
full 1+ten number is dialed, and short-distance non-local calls are
handled by Bell Atlantic (BA) by default. I routinely program all 11
digits in my modem and tone-dialer, (making travel easier) and they've
never caused a difference on my phone bill.  Local calls do not show
up at all. There is no time delay, audible difference, or clue of any
kind which would lead me to suspect that 11-digit calls are being
handled any differently than 7-digit calls (and I've got a pretty good
"ear").

Of course, like <[e-mail]> (Steve), I have had no luck
getting any hard information out of my local customer service reps,
apart from dumfounded silence.

But that's not the whole story. We do have the beginnings of
competition here.  We can now route short-distance calls on carriers
other than BA by dialing the 10xxx Carrier Access Code (CAC) first, on
home-npa or 908 (Central NJ) calls, (which are intra-LATA in spite of
the area code). I'd suspect that choosing a carrier for a truly local
call *would* result in being charged for it, but I haven't verified
that.

The strange thing is, if I *do* use a CAC, I can no longer dial 11
digits for all calls. I *must* dial 7-digit (i.e., 201) calls as
10xxx+seven only.  Otherwise, the call is intercepted, and I get:

   "<ring> <ring> <SIT> We're sorry; the number you dialed cannot be
   reached with the carrier access code you dialed. Please check the
   number, or call your carrier for assistance."

which is pretty misleading. In truth, the number *can* be reached with the
carrier access code I dialed, as long as I leave out the 1-201.


Gary Novosielski       GPN Consulting          [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 09:56:00 CST


Los Angeles was a major Step-by-step city for a number of years, and I
would guess it was started to have dial phones back in the twenties
(in Bell exchanges). But how do we define Los Angeles? Is it the
actual city limits of the City of LA? or is it Los Angeles *County*?
or is it the Southern California metro area. And how contained was
Southern California at any particular time in question? Southern
California also has various parts served by Pac*Bell with other areas
served by GTE.

I remember reading here in TD that there were *competitive*
independent telcos in the Southern California area back before WW-II.
Independent telcos were the ones who invented & developed (stepper)
dial service back in the 1890's and early 1900's. Bell areas began to
have customer dial in 1919, and *that* original operation used
Automatic Electric (GTE) manufactured equipment as well as AE
engineers to install it. Bell (WECO) Panel equipment began to be cut
into service in the early 1920's in many areas, and Bell/WECO *did*
devolop its standards and manufacturing for Step switching. But I have
read that the Independents in Southern California had dial service
*prior* to Bell's exchanges, probably in the 1900's and 1910's.

As for '39-forever' Jack Benny, mentioned in Andrew C. Green's post
([e-mail]), I think that the switchboard operators Gertrude and
Mabel (who also made cameos in the 1950's on Jack's TV show) were
*PBX* switchboard operators. Jack Benny's radio and TV shows were unique
in that they were about Jack Benny, star of Stage-Screen-Radio-Violin
<g>, and later TV, and had episodes of his life at home and at the
radio (or TV) studio.  The PBX operators Gertrude and Mabel were
characters in the program who 'worked' for The National Broadcasting
Company when Jack's radio program ran on NBC, while they 'worked' for
The Columbia Broadcasting System when Jack's radio (and later TV)
program were on CBS.

But just because an city/town had dial service didn't mean that *all*
exchanges were dial. The New Orleans local calling area *still* had three
manual exchanges as late as 1955- UPtown, ALgiers, WAlnut. And many
locations cut only one or two manuals to dial at any one time. A previously
100% manual local area would only have one or two of its several exchanges
cut to dial for the first time, while the bulk of exchanges would remain
manual. There would be later cuts to dial here and there, while *new*
exchanges (dial) were being added -- both in new suburbs, as well as new
exchanges being added (overlayed) to existing manual exchange Central
Business District areas to handle growing traffic.

Eventually there would be only one remaining manual exchange in a
city, and when telco announced that it would be cut to dial, there
might be media attention (Newspaper, radio, and even TV) lamenting
about this 'loss'. Compare this to the 1920's or 30's when a the first
dial office was cut from manual in a particular city -- the local press
would applaud and cheer this new technology.

This seems to be how most local exchange service existed in many
cities/towns from the 1920's thru the 1950's, and by the early 1960's
most manual exchanges had already been cut to dial.

As for Los Angeles, I hadn't yet made any posts on subject, as I don't
know all of the specific EXchange names or when they were introduced,
although I have enjoyed reading the various posts, and I do hear some
quoted in old Radio/TV/Movies if the story took place in Los Angeles
itself. Also, Southern California is *quite* complex, with various
local and toll zones within an urban/metro area.


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: A very good, very funny movie starring
Jack Benny made about 1945 was titled "The Horn Blows at Midnight".
Does anyone remember it? A native of Waukegan, Illinois here in the north
suburban Chicago area, Jack Benny was always very funny just playing
and being *himself*. Like Oliver Hardy, he was always the straight man
imposed upon by those around him.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: When Did Los Angeles Get Dial Phones?
Date: 16 Nov 1995 02:22:38 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online! [Usenet News Server for hire]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...

> As they thought of adding subscriber toll dialing, they had to develop their
> own version, since Bell Labs (and Western Electric) were not supporting
> anything of the sort for step offices.  After all, those were only in small
> and unimportant places, and large cities and metropolitan areas were what
> the Labs cared about.

FWIW there used to be a rather drastic lack of communication between
the Bell operating companies and Bell Labs; the BOCs could of course
talk to Western, and WECo could work closely with Bell Labs, but the
BOCs were not allowed to have any discussions with BTL unless in a
meeting attended by a representative from AT&T headquarters!  This
changed shortly after the Chicago central office fire of 1975.

> In 1948 almost all of the Los Angeles metropolitan area was dial, probably
> no "almost" to it.

> After all, Oklahoma City, where I live, has been all dial since 1928.

Lucky Okies!  By comparison, Louisville got its first dial service in
1930 (shortly after Southern Bell, having absorbed a competing
independent, built its new downtown building) and finally cut over
from the last manual office in (so help me) 1959.  We got long-distance
dialing in the early 1960s; the first ESS was cut over in 1975, and
the last crossbar office in the metro area went down in the mid-1980s.
(Most of the old Louisville COs were step-by-step; unlike some other
areas, we never had Touch-Tone service except in the crossbar offices
until each ESS cutover, and even in the areas that had crossbar
switches some customers had to change phone numbers to get Touch-Tone
because the offices were part crossbar and part step-by-step.
Fortunately we never had mixed ESS/electromechanical in each area,
though now at least one office is part 1A ESS and part Northern
Telecom DMS.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was *no* Chicago central office
fire in 1975. The big fire in Chicago was in May, 1988. Perhaps you
are thinking of the big central office fire in Manhattan, New York.
That would have been about 1975 or so. Another telco fire which has
been largely forgotten was in the early 1960's at Richmond, Indiana
which was then an all manual exchange. It was a small, privately owned
independent telco at the time. With nowhere near the money needed to
rebuild and restore service -- even with their insurance -- the
fire essentially forced the telco into bankruptcy. I beleive the day
of the fire itself -- Easter Sunday about 1962 or so -- the owners
sold out to Indiana Bell.  Anyone remember the details on this?   PAT]

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

From: Juha Veijalainen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (was Re: Bell Atlantic)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 21:05:23 +0200


Jeroen Doucet wrote:

> [e-mail] (Michael Franz) wrote:

>> As far as I know, all European GSM networks are caller-pays.

> But what happens if you call me from Italy on my Dutch GSM while I am in
> Greece? And if I am in France and use my Dutch GSM to call my French
> neighbour on his French GSM? Nobody knows.

1. Caller pays international charge from Italy to Holland.  Dutch
GSM owner pays a fixed per minute charge for receiving the call
in Greece.

2. If you use your Dutch GSM in France to call a French GSM phone,
your Dutch phone will be charged the local GSM tariff for that
call.

Also, there is a 5 % surcharge if you make outgoing calls when
roaming.

This is how I'm charged, as far as I know (my home network is Telecom
Finland).  Charges for receiving calls depend on where you are
roaming. The basic rule is the longer the distance from your home
country, the more you pay.


Juha Veijalainen (Helsinki, Finland)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #485
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 16 21:19:53 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id VAA01237; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 21:19:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 21:19:53 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #486

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Nov 95 21:20:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 486

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint to Ignore *67? (S. Bapat)
    Re: Sprint to Ignore *67? (Eric Ewanco)
    Selling an 800 Number (Gary D. Shapiro)
    Device to Forward Calls to a Cell Phone? (Christopher Zguris)
    Any Scoop on Sprint Outage? ([e-mail])
    Need a Bridge With Good Temp Specs (Greg Herlein)
    ISDN and SLCs (Herman Pickens)
    Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal? (Chris Gettings)
    Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot? (Babu Mengelepouti)
    Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot? (Ed Ellers)
    Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot? (J. Giles)
    Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents? (Daniel Ganek)
    Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents? (Brian Elfert)
    Last Laugh! Usenet and the Path to Salvation (Gary Bouwkamp)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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] (S. Bapat)
Subject: Re: Sprint to Ignore *67?
Date: 16 Nov 1995 03:49:43 -0500


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

> I heard that Sprint has filed with the FCC to ignore *67 per call
> blocking on interstate long distance ... that would appear to be a
> direct violation of the FCC rules. Anybody know the details?

Apparently Sprint has filed with the FCC for an exemption from
respecting *67. The ostensible reason is the new software Sprint has
in its switches is smarter than it ought to be.

According to the filing, if the software encounters a blank callerID
field, it assumes that it must be because the originating LEC is some
small hick rural telco that cannot supply callerID. So, it grabs the
ANI, substitutes it for the callerID, and delivers it in-band to the
called party as regular callerID.

Sprint claims it cannot distinguish whether the callerID field is blank
because the telco cannot supply it, or because it is blocked.  It also
apparently argues that its switches cannot be reprogrammed to respect
*67 without excessive expense. (I for one do not believe this line of
argument).

As a side note, the state of California has claimed that it cannot
permit any callerID to be transmitted by the IXCs out of California
or interLATA within California, since it has not had time for a public
education program to alert its population to the change. Therefore,
the rollout of nationwide CallerID may be postponed yet again from
its current Dec 1 scheduled date.


Subodh Bapat     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Ewanco)
Subject: Re: Sprint to Ignore *67?
Date: 15 Nov 1995 20:03:02 GMT
Organization: XYPLEX


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What he will learn is when dialing an
> 800 number, you cannot hide. Your number is known to the recipient of
> the call since they are paying for it. I do not think this is a
> thing Sprint is doing different than anyone else. On 800 calls, they
> provide ANI (automatic number identification) to the called party.
> We have covered this topic several times here.   PAT]

What I wonder is why businesses have had access to inter-LATA,
non-blockable caller identification for many years but your average
Joe has to put up with Caller ID which is not only blockable, and not
only intra-LATA only (virtually, though that hopefully will change
next month), but even then only of spotty coverage within the LATA.

If I order an 800 line in my home (since residential 800 has become
quite common), can I get full service ANI? Or do you have to get the
full service, costly business WATS line with special hardware?


Eric Ewanco    [e-mail]
Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.  Littleton, Mass.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not big companies versus little
people although it would be convenient for a lot of people around here
if it could be dealt with in that way. It is a matter of *who* is
paying for the phone calls. On calls *you* pay for (regardless of who
originates the call) then yes indeed, you get the details since you
are entitled to know what you are paying for. Regards residential 800
numbers, we who have them do indeed get a list of what numbers called
us. If it is satisfactory to get this in the form of a printout once
per month with your bill, then there is no extra charge. If we want to
have it delivered in realtime when the call is going on, there is an
extra charge, just as there is an extra charge for Caller-ID now. It
does not matter if you are a residence or business user, you pay for
it and you can have it. In reality however, most residential users
would not have any need for realtime delivery of ANI on their 800
number unless they could get it for free or next to nothing. It is
sort of an expensive service relative to what most 800 residece users
are paying otherwise.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary D. Shapiro)
Subject: Selling an 800 Number
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:19:35 -0800
Organization: Emperor Clothing Co.


I have an 800 number that spells something that some company MIGHT want.
Are there brokers for such a thing or am I on my own?  Or do I just wait
until someone decides they want it and discover that I have it?


Gary D. Shapiro         http://www.rain.org/~gshapiro/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know of any brokers, so I guess
you are on your own. And I would not wait too long, since by next
April or so when the supply is *really* running short, expect a few
of the major players on the business side to be so frantic about the
situation that they try a power-play to force telco to move all the
residence users out of 800 and into 888, freeing up a few hundred
thousand 'traditional' toll-free numbers in order to postpone
the inevitable for themselves. Like the *small* handful of businesses
in downtown Chicago who insisted it would be better that the other two
million, nine hundred thousand residents of the city change their area
code (and in about a hundred thousand cases the entire phone number as
well) in order that they would not have to purchase new stationary or
otherwise risk anything different, expect a lot of commotions when big
 -- really big, nationwide in scope -- businesses finally realize they
can't have just any 800 number they want anytime they please. A lot
of people in Chicago are greatly annoyed by the 312/773 split, especially
when they found out their choices in some neighborhoods would be to
have neighbors on both sides of them with a different area code *or*
have their own number changed so that everyone in the immediate
vicinity would be in the same area. Exactly why they could not have
taken the dozen or so largest businesses downtown and put *them* in
773 leaving everyone else alone remains a mystery.

Technically speaking, your number is not yours to sell. Read the tariff.
Telco can grab it back at any time they choose to do so in the conduct
of their business. I guess someone could use money to convince you to
turn off your 800 service, thus making the number available for
someone else, but you probably would begin the process by advertising
the number and saying in effect that you are willing to consider
discontinuing your 800 service. Note, you cannot legally say you have
the number 'for sale'; at least I don't think you can. I think all you
can say is you are willing to discuss discontinuing your service via
that number and that you can make no representations or promises that
telco will assign it to the company/person with whom you are discussing
the matter, however you will take the money up front and in consideration
appoint them as your representative or give them your power of attorney
to deal with the telco on your behalf in having the number disconnected
where you are concerned. Legally then you are not selling the number
which some would contend is not yours to sell; you are just giving a
quit-claim to any rights that still others might contend you have by
telco's assignment of the number to you. Obviously you make no warranties
of any kind about who telco will assign the number to *next*, if
anyone at all. Naturally there is some administrative expense involved
you need to have covered; you will want your calls courteously referred
for some period of time to a new number; but most important, you want
the money up-front before you give them a quit-claim or power of attorney
to act on your behalf with telco. What happens at that point is between
them and telco.  Especially if it is a large corporation, *make them pay
first*, so they cannot weasel out of it if telco won't go along.

Naturally you have to say *what number* it is that you think you may be
disconnecting, and that you will accept sealed bids from anyone interes-
ted in convincing you to do so. Say NOTHING about 'this number may be
of value, etc ...'. Remember the value is not yours to sell. Any value
derived is coincidental to your decision to turn off your service.

Part of your administrative expense will be the large number of people
who now choose to call the number to discuss your offer, just to chat
and snoop around, etc. The winning bidder has to pay those costs also.
Good luck!     PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:14:32 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Zguris)
Subject: Device to Forward Calls to a Cell Phone?


What I'm looking for is a device that will hook up to my primary
telephone line so that when someone dials my telephone, the device
will call out to my cell phone (dialing on a second line, of course).
If I pick up the cell phone, I'd like the device to connect me to the
caller. If I don't, I'd like the answering machine to pick up. I'm
sure I could build such a device, but I'd prefer not to. I'm thinking
this is a pretty common application for cell phones, so _please_ tell
me there's a simple device out there to solve my problems!


   Christopher Zguris,  [e-mail]  -or- [e-mail]
                        or any one of several other addresses/variations

                     BEAR RESISTANT FOOD CONTAINERS
    Made of high impact ABS plastic with stainless steel latches. The
    container is entirely flush and cannot be opened unless the bear
    has a coin or screwdriver.
                              - CAMPMOR catalog, Spring 1995, page 65


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why would re-inventing the wheel in
this way be preferable to using telco's call-forwarding service with
a transfer to some other number (voicemail?) on no answer?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Any Scoop on Sprint Outage?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 23:31:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Anyone have any info regarding an outage Sprint had last week on their
Internet services?  I thought it was just an isolated case but a
friend was OOS last week in Arizona at the same I was down in South
Carolina (coincidence?)


Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (Greg Herlein)
Subject: Need a Bridge With Good Temp Specs
Date: 15 Nov 1995 19:06:24 -0800
Organization: CRL Network Services      [phone]  [Login: guest]


I am in the very early stage of specifying some equipment for a
project.  I need to bridge a small LAN at a remote site to a local
site.  The remote site might get very warm in the summer - I have yet
to figure the exact temperature specs I need, but it will certainly be
hotter than a typical air conditioned wiring closet!

Can anyone recommend a good bridge that will accept 10BaseT on one side and
a leased line on the other, that has good to excellent temperature range?


Thanks in advance, and vendors are welcome to reply!

Greg  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Herman Pickens)
Subject: ISDN and SLCs
Date: 16 Nov 1995 02:47:53 GMT
Organization: HiWAAY Information Services


The telephone company tells me I can't get ISDN because the SLC that
serves my area is a Mode 2 and what we need is a Mode 1.  Does this
denote T1 versus PRI?  We have ISDN where we are now and use it for
simple testing of ISDN products.  The problem stated above relates to
where we want to move the business.  Any enlightenment would be welcome.


Herman L. Pickens <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:28:03 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Chris Gettings)
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal?


This practice developed into a full blown industry in Canada because
there is no measured service for business lines.  Hundreds of small
companies, and a few large ones such as Metrowide/ACC Long Distance
and Distributel built extensive "networks" of centrexes which call
forward between local calling areas. They use a PC with caller id
boards to allow only subscribers with valid accounts to dial a second
number in the city after dialing the call forwarding number. The
problem is that the CO gets pretty full and the "exchange hopper" only
paid for a single line in each exchange.  They changed the tariff to
charge based on the number of calls up at one time, and the CRTC
(Canada's FCC) ruled that one hop was legal, multiple hops was not.
(Imagine, hopping across an entire state or province!).


Chris Gettings
Internet: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Visit us on the World Wide Web: http:/www.econnect.net

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

From: [e-mail] (Babu Mengelepouti)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 22:48:22 CST
Subject: Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot?


> I was talking on the phone with my mom tonight and she read a piece of mail
> to me.  Mom lives in Pittsburgh (412), and this flyer from AT&T was
> encouraging her to use 10ATT + 412 XXX YYYY  for all the *toll* calls she
> is going to make in the Pittsburgh area.

> Now this seems a bit strange because 1) it's kind of complicated to have to
> use 10xxx + AC to dial what is basically a local call and 2) Pittsburgh has
> a pretty wide local calling area, so local toll calls are unusual.  Is this
> AT&T first step into the local market?

AT&T is undoubtedly doing this to steal intra-LATA toll calls from the
LEC.  However, it can have the unexpected effect of customers being
billed for calls that should be free, if they dial the carrier access
code prior to a local number.  In the Portland (OR) area, USWest and
GTE have blocked local calls from being routed through long distance
carriers, due to customer complaints about such practices.

Incidentally, when I compared AT&T's intra-LATA rates to the LEC, I
found their rates to be anywhere from 15-25% HIGHER.  Sprint, on the
other hand, charges their flat rate of 10 cents per minute on the
Sprint Sense plan for calls within or outside the LATA (I'm not sure
it's supposed to work that way but it does if you use the Sprint
carrier access code for intra-LATA toll calls).  Often, this is
substantially cheaper than the LEC -- in Arizona, for instance, for
calls between Phoenix and Tempe.

Be wary of carriers encouraging you to use carrier access codes ...
they are rarely offering a good deal when they do so.  This whole
thing brings to mind Wiltel's phone sex scam: 10555+1+305/450.7877.
The call only goes through using Wiltel and they charge something like
$3.00 per minute for the call.  Actually this is kind of clever,
because the call is billed like a direct-dialled long distance phone
call.  Sure, the charge is exorbitant ... but they don't have to worry
about uncollectibles like with 900 numbers; there is no law against
charging high rates (I used to administer a PBX that got broken into,
and we got billed for some of these types of calls by Wiltel and
Pilgrim Telephone).


Rob

I'm calling from Saudi Arabia...

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot?
Date: 16 Nov 1995 02:26:50 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online! [Usenet News Server for hire]


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

> I was talking on the phone with my mom tonight and she read a piece of mail
> to me.  Mom lives in Pittsburgh (412), and this flyer from AT&T was
> encouraging her to use 10ATT + 412 XXX YYYY for all the *toll* calls she is
> going to make in the Pittsburgh area.

> Now this seems a bit strange because 1) it's kind of complicated to have to
> use 10xxx + AC to dial what is basically a local call and 2) Pittsburgh has
> a pretty wide local calling area, so local toll calls are unusual.  Is this
> AT&T first step into the local market?

It does seem nonsensical -- what's happening here is that AT&T is
simply providing intra-LATA service now that the commission in
Pennsylvania is allowing it.  Probably when she makes a call like this
it will go to the AT&T point of presence, be switched and go back into
the local network from the same POP without ever traveling over AT&T's
"Long Lines;" it's possible that they are able to do this more
cheaply, even after paying for the connection to the local network,
than the phone company can do under current tariffs.

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

From: [e-mail] (Giles)
Subject: Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 02:46:15 GMT
Organization: SDSU


We've been using 10ATT (10288) - NXX - XXXX for quite a while now.  In
Southern California at least, you don't have to dial the area code for
local calls, but you do of course have to dial the 10288 code to get
on the AT&T network, bypassing Pacific Bell.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What have been the results? How would
you compare your bills now and several months ago before you started
this procedure?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel Ganek)
Subject: Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:27:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


In article <[e-mail]> madnix.uucp!zaphod@
nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean) writes:

> My employer periodically hands out a magazine that consists
> mainly of useless factoids. Sometimes I scan it briefly before I
> throw it away. This item recently caught my eye:

> "Your risk of being in an automobile accident increases 34% if
> you have a cellular phone in your car."
> Source: Rochester Institute of Technology.

>   That's a pretty amazing statistic, if it's true. Do insurance
> companies charge extra if you have a cellphone?

Don't know about insurance companies -- but the first thing a lawyer
will do is get the cell phone records to see if either party was
on the phone when an accident occurs.


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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Elfert)
Subject: Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents?
Date: 16 Nov 95 02:47:16 GMT
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc


A short article on this very subject was in today's newspaper.  In 1991,
the accident report form that all police departments in the state use
was amended to include use of cellular phone as a contribuating factor in
an accident.

A cellular phone was a contributing factor in only .1% of accidents since
1991.


Brian

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 16:35:53 EST
Subject: Last Laugh! Usenet and the Path to Salvation


Pat,

When I saw this I couldn't help but think that you would appreciate
it, judging by some of your past comments on Usenet groups.


Gary Bouwkamp
Frontier Communications


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for passing it along. The author
is unknown. I hope everyone enjoys it.   PAT]

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

NETNEWS: SERIOUS BUSINESS

A woman approached the Pearly Gates, and Saint Peter asked for
her  social security number.  The woman told him, and Saint Peter
typed on his  workstation:

    pearly-gates:^/peter grep 212-53-6432 /earth/human/status

The computer responded:

    212-53-6432  Cindy Smith  [e-mail]!earth
    naughty   pearly-gates:^/peter

Saint Peter then told her she was eternally damned, and that a
mini-van to hell would be arriving shortly.  Cindy began to
protest.  "But what did I do wrong?  I loved my fellow neighbor
as I loved myself,  I was a kind, warm, gentle person!  Surely
there must be a mistake!"

So, Saint Peter looked up on the files, and saw, lo and behold
that  she truly was a kind, warm, gentle person...until he saw
the entry for  jan 7, 1994-earth, which read:

   ***DAMNABLE VIOLATION #69***
   Posted irrelevant article to newsgroup.

After probing a little more, Saint Peter explained to the woman,
"It  seems that on Jan. 7, 1992 you posted an article to
Alt.religion.computers.  This article gave no praise of Emacs, no
snide  remarks toward Microsoft, and not even a comment on the
proper definition  of 'hacker'!  In fact, the article was not
even relating to computers at  all, and discussed, of all things,
human religion!  There wasn't even a  reference to Bob or
Discordianism, Zen, or the Tao of programming.  Oh,  dear!  This
is terrible."

"You see, heaven is a perfect place, and we only have room for the
most perfect people.  Ever since we ran the T-3 line up from New
Jersey  we've been particularly harsh on breakers of netiquette.
Didn't you read  RFC-23654?  The one proposing commandments 11
through 15?"

He opened up an XTerm window and searched for some files. After a
few  moments, the laser printer spat out a crisp sheet of paper.
It read:

  11: Thou shalt not flame spelling or grammar.
  12: Thou shalt not have a .sig file longer than 3 lines.
  13: Thou shalt not send "All fags must die" messages to 19
      random groups.
  14: Thou shalt not request post a frequently asked question.
  15: Thou shalt not post to a group without first reading a
      week's worth of posts, thereby avoiding irrelevant
      articles.
  16: Thou shall not post administrative requests to the main
      list.

When he was done, she began to stammer, but Saint Peter stopped
her,  saying "I'm sorry.  There's nothing I can do.  To register
a complaint,  you'll have to send mail to:

     [e-mail]

We have a group of cherubim who manage such requests.  But don't
send  it to:

     [e-mail]

otherwise your request will be distributed to the whole mailing
list.  They HATE that!  In fact, there's some discussion about
making that the  16th commandment..."

At that point, a Dodge minivan drove up and came to a stop.
Satan,  in the form of an IBM salesperson, stepped out.

"Welcome!" she said.  "We've been waiting for you..." Cindy,
almost  in a trance, stepped into the minivan and was whisked
away to the  netherworld, a world of COBOL, System 36's, punch
cards, incompatible  network standards, and irresponsible news
posters. Satan turned to Cindy,  and smiled.  "You'll like it
here," she said.  "We have netnews, but  we've greatly simplified
it.  We have only one group; it's:

     alt.talk.sci.comp.soc.rec.misc!"

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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just one thing more: I wonder if
Chick Publications has considered printing one of their comic-book
tracts based on this little parable?  <grin>  Everyone have a great
weekend in case we don't chat again before Monday.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #486
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 16 23:44:16 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id XAA11339; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 23:44:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 23:44:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #487

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Nov 95 23:44:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 487

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATT5E Hunt Group Specifications (D. Ptasnik)
    GSM in America: How Far Along? (Paul Bishop)
    Re: Bell South Notes (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Using Cellular Phones to Link Classroom to Outside World (Ed Ellers)
    Re: My Rights Against US West? (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Babu Mengelepouti)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Steve Schear)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Richard Kenshalo)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Kenneth Blackney)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Linc Madison)
    Re: Canadian vs US Long Distance Rates ([e-mail])
    Re: Research Sources Wanted on Telecom Companies ([e-mail])
    Re: The Killer Application Myth (Lionel Ancelet)
    Re: Belgian Phonebooks Now Online! (A. Okapuu-von Ve)
    Re: Private Data Network Service From ISPs (Tony Harminc)
    Re: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Axel Schmidt)
    France Telecom New Web Page (Philippe Montubert)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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] (D. Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: ATT5E Hunt Group Specifications
Date: 16 Nov 1995 22:33:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


You want a Terminal Hunt Group.  This first line should have tariff
HSHPG.  Each subsequent line should have the tarrif HSGPN.  This blocks
hunting to the next number when dialing a specific line in the group.


Dave Ptasnik     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phbishop)
Subject: GSM in America: How Far Along?
Date: 16 Nov 1995 19:11:19 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Phbishop)


Can anyone provide an update on the status of GSM/PCS1900 standardization
in the U.S.?  I know that ANSI has standardized the 1.9 MHz air interface
(J.STD-007), but I am not sure about the operational and numbering issues
such as:

-Phone numbers: Will the North American Numbering Plan be extended to
assign an NDC to each network?  If so, have NDCs been assigned?

-What about the subscriber number (IMSI) ? There is a portion called the
MNC, which also identifies each GSM network.  Have PCS1900 operators been
assigned MNCs?

- The IMSI is also prefixed with a Mobile Country Code, which is usually
different from the Country Code used in the phone number.  What is the MCC
for [USA/Canada/Caribbean]?

- Will PCS1900 operators use the GSM TAP format for roaming records, or
will they use CTIAÆs CIBER?

- Is an Equipment Identity Register (EIR) being set up?  Who will
administer it?

I am curious to know which of these have been resolved, and which
forum has decided or will decide, (Bellcore, ANSI, TIA, CTIA, PCIA
etc.).  I would like to make contact with anyone who is involved with
the standardization process.


Paul Bishop
[e-mail]
[phone]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 19:34:43 EST
From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell South Notes


Someone at Bell South must be reading the Digest.

A while back, someone asked why the RBOCs don't list new area codes in
the bills.  Bell South did this month.  The insert first explains the new
format area codes and has a cut-away view of a map of the Southeaster US
with the new regions highlighted.  They describe the changes as follows
(most of this information has already appeared in lists in the Digest):

 Alabama: 334 was introduced 1/15/95
 Florida: 954 was introduced 9/11/95
          352 will be introduced in the Gainesville area on 12/3/95
 Georgia: 770 was introduced 8/1/95
 South Carolina: 864 will be introduced in northwestern SC on 12/3/95
 Tennessee: 423 was introduced 9/11/95

There's also a quick Telecom quiz (if anyone's interested I'll post it).

In the answering my own question department, ANOTHER insert in this
months bill was dedicated to CID/CID Deluxe (name/number).  Some
interesting facts:

  - The first 15 characters, last name first, of the primary listing
    are displayed.  In the case of a dual listing, the first 15 characters
    of the dual listing, also last name first, are displayed.

  - Bell South reiterates the 12/1/95 interstate CID cutover

  - "Beyond that date, for most calls made from BellSouth locations, both the
    name and the number of the calling party will be delivered.  For calls
    made from locations not served by BellSouth, the telephone number an the
    caller's city and state will be displayed."

I don't remember ever hearing about the city and state rule, but that
might explain why I'm seeing "Charlotte, NC" on some calls while they get
some kinks worked out.


Stan

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: Using Cellular Phones to Link Classroom to Outside World
Date: 16 Nov 1995 02:11:43 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online! [Usenet News Server for hire]


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

> A Florida cellular company is helping a school in Fort Myers use cellular
> phones to link classrooms with the outside world.  It's a cute idea,
> although I suspect most schols need other things a lot more than they need
> cellular phones. Still, I suppose anything that increase school-parent
> communication has some value.

I smell a publicity stunt here on the part of the cellular carrier --
it would probably have been easier to install a small PBX and
extensions in each classroom, then use maybe one or two extra CO lines
per school, than to pay for cellular air time charges.  (For that
matter, schools in some areas have had intercom phones in each
classroom for decades, although the actual systems vary.  The
Louisville school district used to have a Stromberg Carlson PBX in
each school with dialless 554-style wall phones in the classrooms,
allowing teachers to call the front office or be switched to other
classrooms.  When I was in school these were not interconnected to
telco lines for various reasons, but they could be now.  Considering
that teachers and students occassionally get shot at in class -- as
happened today in a Tennessee high school -- having at least 911
access would seem prudent!)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: My Rights Against US West?
Date: 16 Nov 1995 02:33:43 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online! [Usenet News Server for hire]


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

> Second come management complaints. These are people that have called
> the chairman of the board at telco or the president. Typically, what
> he knows about telephony could be stated in a few sentences or less.

Maybe, maybe not.  I'm reminded of an incident (perhaps apocryphal) in the
1920s when the CEO of a major New York bank had phone trouble in his office
and asked his secretary to call New York Telephone to report the problem.
She asked who at NYTel she should call, and was sarcastically told to call
the president of AT&T.

The next day a man in work uniform showed up and dropped his box of
tools, loudly, on the executive's carpet.  It was AT&T president
Walter S. Gifford.   :-)

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:21:06 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Babu Mengelepouti)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?


> Furthermore, these IXCs will only guarantee data transmission over
> their (intrastate) digital networks of 9.6 kbps for modem and fax
> users.  In other words, there's no point getting a modem or fax faster
> than 9.6 kbps in Alaska if you plan to use it primarily for interexchange
> calls. This is because the IXCs compress multiple voice calls onto a
> single channel.  The compression technique doesn't work as well for
> data calls.  Anything faster than 9.6 will bite the dust (and in rural
> areas the problem is even worse).  I've been told that there is
> special detection equipment that could be used to isolate the higher
> speed data traffic of modem and fax users; however GCI has asserted
> that installation of this equipment would increase its capital cost by
> 10%.

It is very curious that GCI asserts this given that one of their techs
told me that they already intercept all FAX calls, store them at the
local toll centre, then block transmit them to the lower 48 via leased
line.  If they can already do it for faxes I don't see how detecting
data is any different.  They may be evasive about this because they
want to initiate service in bush areas using their 1-metre satellite
dishes (I spoke to a tech in Washington DC who was lobbying Congress
to do this -- he also told me about the interception of FAX calls),
which have limited bandwidth.  I'd be interested to hear if anyone
knows anything more about this.


I'm calling from Saudi Arabia...

[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 19:34:28 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Schear)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?


All communication media are analog.  The physics of the universe aren't
digital, so any signal in it is therefore analog.  What is commonly called
digital is only a coding system whose physical expression, in whatever
transmission medium (sound, electromagnetic, etc.) is analog. :-)


Steve

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 11:03:57 -0900
From: Philip J. Treuer <[e-mail]> (via [e-mail])
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?


  ---------- Forwarded message ----------

 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:35:37 -0900
 From: [e-mail]
 To: [e-mail]
 Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?

I read your comments in Telecom Digest, and being a fellow Alaskan
interested in Switched-56 service, I have a few questions for you.

At Matanuska Telephone Association, we interface with Alascom/AT&T
over their analog microwave radio facilities.  We currently send
non-switched 56 special circuits over Trans-mux facilities, which
implement the DS-1 digital multiplexed service over the FDM facility.
This seems to work fine.

My understanding for switched-56 service, is that the CPE is
technology dependent (Type I, Type II, or Type III), but if the
switched service could be hauled from the customer, to the nearest
end-office that supported the switched-56 service (probably Type I,
4-wire), once into the IXC network, end-to-end service is possible,
even with ISDN, since switched-56 is defined as one of the bearer
services for ISDN.  The end office has to establish dedicated trunk
groups, with special routing that allows only digital facilities
terminating on digital switches throughout the IXC network.  This is
done by using routing codes and switch translations.  With SS7,
dedicated trunk groups are not required.

So, as the LEC, if we could provide switched-56 OCUDP channels to
Alascom/AT&T at the DS-1 level, and they could provide the routing codes
and switch translations necessary via dedicated trunk groups, this
service should be possible throughout the state, as long as the LEC can
offer the service, and as long as Alascom/AT&T can provide a Trans-mux to
carry the DS-1 over their analog micro-wave.

I would appreciate your comments on this.  Feel free to forward this
to the Digest if you think others would be interested.


Richard Kenshalo
Matanuska Telephone Association

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth S. Blackney)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: 13 Nov 1995 20:20:56 GMT
Organization: Drexel Univ Telecom & Networking


Gordon Burditt ([e-mail]) wrote:

> This announcement of caller-pays cellular service leaves out one very
> important part: how do I block calls to caller-pays cellular numbers?

As the person who does the billing here at Drexel, I had the same concern.
My Bell rep just returned my call and provided the following information:

 1. Bell Atlantic is offering this service to other carriers, not to end
    users.

 2. The other carriers (Comcast, Bell Atl/Nynex Cellular, etc) can buy the
    service then offer it to their subscribers.

 3. No one is using the service yet and won't be for two to three months.

My rep explained to the product manager that customers like us (who do
internal bill-back) have reservations about this service since we don't
and can't know how much to bill.  For what it's worth, they are looking
into this.  (Why is it that phone companies (carriers and equipment
manufacturers) always act as if I'm the first customer who ever thought
of something.  "Oh, no one ever asked us that before," is all I ever hear.)


Ken

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 18:57:28 GMT


Christian Weisgerber ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Steve Cogorno <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I'd be pretty annoyed too.  If someone wants me to call them on
>> *their* cellular phone for *their* conveinence, then *they* should pay
>> the airtime charges.

> Well, the polite way to do it is this: ... use call forwarding to transfer
> calls from your regular line to your cell phone. Thus, the caller pays
> the same as always, and you pay for the "luxury" of receiving the call
> on your cell phone.

This brings up a question about the "caller-pays" cellular setups in the
U.S.  Suppose I forward my POTS line to my cell phone on a caller-pays
setup.  Since I forwarded the call, I will pay the cost of the airtime
on my bill for the POTS line.  However, it seems to me, from what I've
heard, that the original caller will still hear the "you will be billed
for airtime" recorded message when the call is transferred.

Is there some provision for squashing the recording in such a situation?
It seems like it would be common enough that there should be some
accommodation made.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (MSal765)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US Long Distance Rates
Date: 15 Nov 1995 13:38:05 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (MSal765)


If you are interested in long distance telephone rates around the world
you might want to call on a company that tracks tariff and services data
for PTT's and Carriers in over 200 countries. They are LYNX Technologies
and their WWW site can be found at http://www.lynxtech.com - check it out!


Hope this helps,

MitchS.

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

From: [e-mail] (MSal765)
Subject: Re: Research Sources Wanted on Telecom Companies
Date: 15 Nov 1995 13:37:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (MSal765)


There is a company in the US that primarily tracks tariffs and services
from PTT's and carriers around the world, but they also as a subset have
data on the addresses, phone and fax numbers of these telecom carriers as
well as background and financial data from annual reports. This is a for
profit organization so you would have to pay for the info, but give them a
try anyway. They are LYNX Technologies, Inc. and their phone number is
[phone]. Or check out them on the internet at WWW.LYNXTECH.COM.


Hope this helps,

MarcS.

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

From: [e-mail] (Lionel Ancelet)
Subject: Re: The Killer Application Myth
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Well
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:27:29 GMT


[e-mail] (Christoph F. Strnadl) wrote:

> The one application (or idea therof) I have come across which may has
> a fair chance to be eventually realised and become something like a
> killer application could be the following:

> Idea: Home ATM:
>    * phone with smartcard reader
>    * user has a stored value smartcard (aka electronic purse)
>    * user dials into his home-banking application somewhere on the
>      (POTS!!) network and transfers money from his bank account to
>      his electronic purse

> This is not home-banking per se but, as a matter of fact, just one
> single application of a possible home-banking package. It is, though,
> a feature which to my opinion offers tremendous added value to the
> user, don't you think?

The device you describe already exists in France. It is a recent
generation of Minitel terminals with a built-in smartcard reader.
These were launched on the French market about one year ago. Before
that, you could always attach an external smartcard reader to any
Minitel, through a kind of serial port.

Don't forget that charge cards (VISA) have had embedded chips for
years in France. And that home banking (account statement, transfer,
bill paying) from your Minitel (or computer) has been existing for
years there as well as in many european countries. These two
technologies (smart cards and computer-based home banking) seem to be
only emerging now in the US.

Interestingly enough, in France there are smartcard readers in many
phone booths now, since most of them can be used with prepaid calling
smartcards, charge cards, or regular calling smartcards with the added
functionality of being able to be "refilled" with money for phone
calls. This is the electronic purse.

I think some banks in other countries like Spain have been studying
the smartcard-based electronic purse years ago, and might very well be
using it now. If anyone living in Spain can confirm that.


Lionel <[e-mail]>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For quite a long time Citibank in
New York has had a program where you can pay your bills at home
using your computer. I think it must have started at least 10-12
years ago. You can also transfer funds between accounts, etc.   PAT]

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

From: A. Okapuu-von Veh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Belgian Phonebooks Now Online!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 19:09:04 EST


Hello,

FYI, Swiss phone books have been available for quite some time at
telnet etv.switch.ch, login as etv.  You can search on just about
anything, including number -> name and address lookup.


Alex Okapuu-von Veh - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - McGill University
          3480 University St. - Montreal, QC, CANADA - H3A 2A7
                   Ph: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
                      Hydro Quebec: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 19:09:16 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Private Data Network Service From ISPs


[e-mail] wrote:

> Here's a topic for dicussion: Would it be plausible that Internet
> Service Providers may one day be a threat to private data network
> providers? They are building fairly large networks, a few nationwide,
> and are offering sophisticated services like Frame Relay. The ISP
> market is going to get squeezed, as the telcos and others move in.
> Margins are going to drop as access becomes a commodity. So why
> wouldn't it be natural that ISPs get into one of the telcos' businesses
> that they have capacity for: private/corporate data networks?

It's already happening in a way.  The corporate parent of the company I
work for is using Compuserve's network for its worldwide dial-in needs.
This has nothing to do with regular Compuserve or CIS, but uses the same
local phone numbers for SLIP access to the corporate systems.

It's not much of a stretch to imagine a few leased lines coming into
use to connect remote offices.


Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (Axel Schmidt)
Subject: Re: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (was Re: Bell Atlantic)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 03:16:12 GMT
Organization: ZyNet Southwest


> But what happens if you call me from Italy on my Dutch GSM while I
> am in Greece?

I pay Italy --> Netherlands.  You pay your provider's rate for calls
received in other EU countries.

> And if I am in France and use my Dutch GSM to call my French
> neighbour on his French GSM? Nobody knows.

You'd pay the rate for calls within France issued by the network
provider you chose when you switched on your phone.


Regards,

Axel Schmidt

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

From: Philippe MONTUBERT <[e-mail]>
Subject: France Telecom new Web
Date: 15 Nov 1995 16:32:47 GMT
Organization: Oleane - PIPEX Internatinal


France Telecom has a new Web site in USA.

Try a look at : http://www.francetelecom.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #487
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Nov 17 08:59:11 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id IAA01576; Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:59:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:59:11 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #488

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Nov 95 08:59:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 488

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Updated GSM List 11-17-95 (Jurgen Morhofer)
    The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Bill McMullin)
    Keeping an 800 Number (was: Selling an 800 Number) (Paulo Santos)
    Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial) (James E. Bellaire)
    Re: Some Bell South Notes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing? (David H. Close)
    Fiber to the Home (David Harvey)
    Fiber Competitive Access Providers List (Norman Gillaspie)
    Dates of Start of 411 and Directory Assistance vs. Information (Doug Faunt)
    IP Traffic vs Telco Traffic (Kim Scheinberg)
    SxS Switch Can Wanted (Wil Dixon)
    Re: ISDN and SLCs (Al Gonsalves)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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, 17 Nov 1995 01:22:30 +0100
From: Jurgen Morhofer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Updated GSM List 11-17-1995


For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site:
http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by
Jutta Degener.

(Changes in the list marked by "*")

Date 1995-11-17.

Country      Operator name          Network code   Tel to customer service
 ------      -------------          ------------   -----------------------
Andorra      STA-Mobiland           213 03         Int + 376 824 115
Argentina
Australia    Optus                  505 02         Int + 61 2 978 5678
             Telecom/Telstra        505 01         Int + 61 18 01 8287
             Vodafone               505 03         Int + 61 2 415 7236
Austria      PTV Austria            232 01         Int + 43 222 79744
Bahrain      Batelco
Belgium      Belgacom               206 01         Int + 32 2205 4000
Brunei
Cameroon
China      * Guangdong MCC
           * Guangxi PTB
           * Liaoning PPTA
Croatia
Cyprus       CYTA                   280 01         Int + 371 2 567 764
Denmark      Sonofon                238 02         Int + 45 80 20 21 00
             Tele Danmark Mobil     238 01         Int + 45 80 20 20 20
Egypt
Estonia      EMT                    248 01         Int + 372 639 7130
                                                   Int + 372 524 7000
             Radiolinja Eesti       248 02         Int + 372 639 9966
Fiji
Finland      Radiolinja             244 05         Int + 358 800 95050
             Telecom                244 91         Int + 358 800 7000
France       France Telecom         208 01         Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81
             SFR                    208 10         Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16
Germany      D1, DeTeMobil          262 01         Int + 49 511 288 0171
             D2, Mannesmann         262 02         Int + 49 172 1212
Gibraltar    GibTel                 266 01         Int + 350 58 102 000
G Britain    Cellnet                234 10         Int + 44 860 321321
             Vodafone               234 15         Int + 44 836 1100
             Jersey Telecom         234 50         Int + 44 1534 88 28 82
             Guernsey Telecom
             Manx Telecom
Greece       Panafon                202 05         Int + 30 944 00 122
             STET                   202 10         Int + 30 93 333 333
Hong Kong    HK HTCLGSM             454 04
             SmarTone               454 06         Int + 852 2880 2688
             Telecom CSL            454 00         Int + 852 2803 8450
Hungary      Pannon GSM             216 01         Int + 36 1 270 4120
             Westel 900             216 30         Int + 36 30 303 100
Iceland      Post & Simi            274 01         Int + 354 96 330
India        PT SATELINDO
Indonesia    TELKOMSEL              510 10         Int=A0+ 62 778 455 455
             Satelindo              510 01
Iran         T.C.I.
Ireland      Eircell                272 01         Int + 353 42 31999
Israel       Cellcom Israel Ltd                    Int + 972 2 795944
Italy        Omnitel                222 10         Int + 39 2 41431
             Telecom Italia Mobile  222 01         Int + 39 6615 20309
Japan
Kuwait       MTC                    419 02         Int + 965 484 2000
Laos
Latvia       LMT                    247 01         Int + 371 2256 7764
                                                   Int + 371 2256 9183
                                                   Int + 371 2934 0000
Lebanon      Libancell              415 03
Liechtenstein Natel-D               228 01
Lithuania    Comilet
Luxembourg   P&T LUXGSM             270 01         Int + 352 4088 7088
Lybia        Orbit
Macao      * CTM                    455 01         Int + 853 833833
Malaysia     Celcom                 502 19
             Binariang              502 02
Malta        Advanced
Marocco      O.N.P.T.               604 01=20
Monaco       France Telecom         208 01         Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81
             SFR                    208 10         Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16
Namibia      MTC                    649 01         Int + 264 81 121212
Netherlands  PTT Netherlands        204 08         Int + 31 350 688 699
             Libertel               204 04         Int + 31 6 0500
New Zealand  Bell South             530 01         Int + 64 9 357 5100
Nigeria
Norway       NetCom                 242 02         Int + 47 92 00 01 68
             TeleNor Mobil          242 01         Int + 47 22 03 03 01
Oman
Pakistan     Mobile Communications =20
Phillipines  Globe Telecom          515 02
             Islacom                515 01=20
Portugal     Telecel                268 01         Int + 351 931 1212
             TMN                    268 06         Int + 351 1 793 91 78
Qatar        Q-Tel                  427 01         Int + 974 325 333
Rumania
Russia       Mobile Tele... Moscow  250 01         Int + 7 095 915-7734
             United Telecom Moscow  =20
             NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02         Int + 7 812 528 4747
SaudiArabia  Saudi Telecom=20
Singapore    Singapore Telecom      525 01         Int + 65 738 0123
Slovenia
South Africa MTN                    655 10         Int + 27 11 445 6000
             Vodacom                655 01         Int + 27 82 111
Sri Lanka    MTN Networks Pvt Ltd
Spain        Airtel
             Telefonica Spain       214 07         Int + 34 1 336 3300
Sweden       Comviq                 240 07         Int + 46 586 686 10
             Europolitan            240 08         Int + 46 708 22 22 22
             Telia                  240 01         Int + 46 771 91 03 50
Switzerland  PTT Switzerland        228 01         Int + 41 46 05 64 64
Syria        SYR MOBILE SYR         263 09
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand     TH AIS GSM             520 01         Int + 66 2 299 6440
Turkey       Telsim                 286 02         Int + 90 212 288 7850
             Turkcell               286 01         Int + 90 800 211 0211
UAE          UAE ETISALAT-G1        424 01
             UAE ETISALAT-G2        424 02
Uganda
Vietnam    * MTSC
Zimbabwe

Many Thanks to Kimmo Ketolainen and Robert Lindh for their precious help!

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

Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:19:09 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bill McMullin)
Subject: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?


Wouldn't it be great to solve the problems of the digital poor?  I
agree with our Canadian friend who questions the high cost of memory.
How could anything produced in such mass quantity cost so much?  If
they are trying to make use believe it is a commodity subject to
supply and demand, why isn't it traded on the stock market? (Maybe it
is, help me here.)

I would like a critique of this please ...

Everyone on the Net and all those in telecom are very much handicapped by
the high cost of RAM.  We all have a need for memory and most always have a
need for *more*. If we had more at less cost we could likely be more
innovative with the products and services we create and also provide the
less than fortunate with access to computing power.

Why don't we mobilize an effort to create the Community RAM Company.
Collectively, all the people on the Net (or a significant percentage of
them) could do one of two things:

1) lobby the RAM manufacturers for more reasonable pricing (a big
buying group).

2) initiate a business effort to create a company, financed by the Internet
community, and possibly other members, to manufacturer RAM, either by
buying a RAM manufacturer or creating one.

I realize this is pretty off the wall but I think the Net has finally
created a way for a lot of people with little effort to mobilize and
organize themselves.  Additionally, the Internet community collectively
has a lot of money even if only a small amount from each person was
contributed.  Any contributor would become a shareholder of the
Community RAM Company.  Anyone who could not afford to be a
shareholder would receive the benefit of affordable RAM as long as
they could prove their economic position.

I would love to here thoughts from our TELECOM Digest Members.


Bill McMullin

                                  [e-mail]
InterActive Telecom               Ph: 902-832-1611

1550 Bedford Hwy.                 Fx: 902-832-1015

Sun Tower Suite 604
Bedford, Nova Scotia
B4A 1E6


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well what you say certainly has some
merit. But I think the prices will come down, even without a dedicated
effort by net people to make it happen. Personally I think we will
see complete desk top computer systems in the price range of $100-
$200 within a year or two. Remember how the very first small shirt
poccket size calculators cost $500?  Remember the Texas Instruments
programmable calculators that cost a couple hundred dollars when
the other less sophisticated models had been reduced in cost to
'only' $50-75 each?  Remember how Apple ][ computers sold for $1000
in 1979-80?  Watch and see if it does not happen again. Imagine a
486 for a hundred dollars; complete, ready to run. Maybe the cost
won't *quite* get that low, but aren't we seeing alrealy lots of
discount computer places with systems which used to cost well in
excess of two thousand dollars now priced less than one thousand?
I'll bet we go out of this century with the USA almost completely
wired up and connected to the net.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paulo Santos)
Subject: Keeping an 800 Number (was: Selling an 800 Number)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 07:28:12 -0500
Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech


Our Moderator wrote about 800 numbers:

> Technically speaking, your number is not yours to sell. Read the tariff.
> Telco can grab it back at any time they choose to do so in the conduct
> of their business.

Really?  Let's see.  I have an 800 number that is a vanity number (it
spells something).  I paid money to be able to select my own number
way back in the days when prefix determined long distance company.  I
even had to endure for several years a carrier for my 800 number that
was not my first choice just to have that number.

Are you saying that now *telco* (who is telco, anyway?) can just come and
take away my number just because someone else wants it?  I find that hard
to believe, and if it is true, it is extremely unfair.  Also, what tariff are
you referring to?  Since 800 numbers are not owned by any specific telco,
it can't be a telco-specific tariff, can it?

I would agree that the tariffs may say that telco may change my number
if operational demands require so.  For example, if all 800 numbers were
changed from seven to eight digits, I'd have to accept changing my number.
If all 800 numbers moved to 888, I'd have to accept that too.

But can they take away my number just to sell it to the someone else?
Will they do the same for me and get me 800-VID-BARE if I claim that I
need it?


Paulo Santos           Email: [e-mail]
College of Computing
Georgia Tech              Voice: [phone]
Atlanta GA 30332-0280, USA  Fax: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Telco' is just a generic term which
refers to telephone companies and long distance carriers in general.
And no, I don't think they would be brassy or nervy enough to just
take your number and sell it to someone else. You can bet though,
that in any situation where re-numbering is required they'll change
your number in a minute if it suits them. And re-numbering can be
required for a variety of reasons, one being that very very large
accounts of telco (major corporations, etc) need to obtain new
numbers, etc.  I doubt it will be a situation where a large company
says specifically 'we want that particular 800 number' and telco
will pull it from you and give it to them. I rather think it will
be a case where the large corporations prevail on telco to give them
exclusive use of the 800 space making all residence users move to
888.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 03:12:25 -0500
From: James E. Bellaire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial)


In Telecom Digest V15 #485 Pat noted:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was *no* Chicago central office
> fire in 1975. The big fire in Chicago was in May, 1988. Perhaps you
> are thinking of the big central office fire in Manhattan, New York.
> That would have been about 1975 or so. Another telco fire which has
> been largely forgotten was in the early 1960's at Richmond, Indiana
> which was then an all manual exchange. It was a small, privately owned
> independent telco at the time. With nowhere near the money needed to
> rebuild and restore service -- even with their insurance -- the
> fire essentially forced the telco into bankruptcy. I beleive the day
> of the fire itself -- Easter Sunday about 1962 or so -- the owners
> sold out to Indiana Bell.  Anyone remember the details on this?   PAT]

Richmond Indiana is served by GTE North.  It is the main city in what
GTE calls the 'RIchmond LATA" and GTE has all but a handful of the
exchanges in that area.  Ameritech/Indiana Bell has no COs in the
Richmond area.

Other GTE Notes:

GTE is still slowly spreading across Indiana, purchasing COs from smaller
nationals and independents.  They are still changing signs south of
Fort Wayne where they bought out AllTel a couple years ago.  In the far
south of Indiana (just as in Central Illinois) GTE does business as Contel.

GTE Mobilnet Cellular covers most of Indiana, using the Contel Cellular
name (and some bad switches, based on the roamer's access responces) in
Contel telephone areas.

Now if they would only upgrade their switches in the little towns east of
Fort Wayne and around LaPorte.  You can still place a local call within
your CO by dialing the last five digits, forcing out of CO local calls to
use a 44+ or 3+ prefix.

Come on GTE, this is 1995!!


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You make it sound like a disease or a
fungus when you phrase it that way: 'they are spreading slowly
across northern Indiana' ... okay so I was wrong on Indiana Bell
taking over Richmond, but you missed the point. Do you recall the
fire in Richmond and the little independent that had the exchange
there before it burned down? I still am pretty certain however
that emergency restoral was done by Bell; I almost distinctly
recall hearing that Bell sent in crews that Sunday morning from
Indianapolis to set up temporary facilities. More details, any
old-timers? Also James, which telco has Westville, Indiana?   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 23:19:06 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some BellSouth Notes


Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]> wrote about calls from Charlotte, NC to
Fort Mill, SC and vice versa.  Years ago (and it may still be the case),
places in old area 215 just outside the Phila. metro exchanges could get
Philadelphia metro service, but a call TO those places from Philadelphia
(and more distant parts of suburbs) was toll.  For example, West Chester
is outside, but next door to, the Phila. metro exchanges.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Another bit of historical trivia here
regarding the Fort Mill Telephone Company. Does anyone remember the
suit they filed against Bell about fifteen years ago or so regards
their territorial boundaries?  You may recall (heck, how could you
forget!) Jim and Tammy Baakker, the television preachers. Charlotte
and Fort Mill -- or actually sort of in-between the two -- is where
they had their resort. One end of it was in Bell territory near the
Charlotte exchange, but the other end of it (the one big hotel of
theirs) was at the other end, in Fort Mill Telephone Company territory.
Bell tried to serve the entire complex (which is what the Baakker's
wanted as I recall reading), but Fort Mill was not eager to lose
all the business they would get from phone traffic out of that
resort hotel which quite distinctly fell on their side of the
boundary. The Baakkers had a PBX -- a rather massive one -- which
encompassed the entire grounds of their resort including the hotel
which was served with outside lines from Bell. Fort Mill Telephone
Company sued to force them to have Ft. Mill lines terminate on
the PBX where the hotel was concerned. The way it finally wound
up as I recall was the entire resort was served by Bell, however
you could call direct into the switchboard at the hotel *either*
by dialing the main PBX operator and asking for the hotel (switch-
board operator) *or* by dialing a seven digit Ft. Mill number
which were lines that terminated directly on the hotel switchboard
itself. The hotel was the only part of the resort which physically
sat in Fort Mill's territory.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David H. Close)
Subject: Re: Local Dialing and Long-Distance Dialing - Same Thing?
Date: 16 Nov 1995 07:22:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


[e-mail] (Steve) writes:

> My Fax number is (314) 968-xxxx,  which is a local call.
> I was dialing 1 314 968-xxxx, and the call was going through.

Works everywhere in PacBell land. Treated as a local call and handled
by PacBell, not your PIC. Nice.

PacBell also permits you to dial 10xxx1NXXyyyzzzz for local calls.
But in those cases, the call is handled by the selected IXC and billed
as a toll call. Not so nice.


Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA
[e-mail], [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Harvey)
Subject: Fiber to the home
Date: 17 Nov 1995 03:41:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I am researching the feasability ot FTTH (fiber-to-the-home) and not
having a lot of luck finding detailed technical papers or writeups.
Does anyone know a good source (hopefully online) that I can use?

Thanks a lot!

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Gillaspie)
Subject: Fiber Competitive Access Providers List
Date: 17 Nov 1995 12:53:44 GMT
Organization: Pagesat, Inc.


Is there an online list of competitive access providers? In particular
fiber companies that sell access to other carriers?

Is there any fiber between Chicago and Des Moines, IA?


Norman Gillaspie    [e-mail]

For information regarding Pagesat's Satellite delivered usenet news
 mail info request to "[e-mail]" or try our web server at
 http://www.pagesat.net Delivering a near realtime 360+ megabytes
of Netnews, 150,000 messages and 16,000 groups each day via satellite

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Faunt N6TQS [phone])
Subject: Dates of Start of 411 and Directory Assistance vs. Information
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 04:28:43 GMT


When did 411 get to be the standard number for Directory
Assistance/Information?  What was used before that?

When was Information renamed to Directory Assistance?


73, doug

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

From: [e-mail] (Kim Scheinberg)
Subject: IP Traffic vs Telco Traffic
Date: 16 Nov 1995 20:08:02 -0500
Organization: Obiter dictum


I recall the graph recently which mapped growth in web traffic and voice
traffic. At current growth rates, it suggest the former exceeds the
latter by 1998.

This raises a bigger issue, though. How, exactly, is the net cutting into
the core business of the telco's? Is AT&T worried? Should they be?

Has anyone done any sort of study on this?

Surely there's a master's thesis in here somewhere ...


-k.

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

From: [e-mail] (Wil Dixon)
Subject: SxS Switch Can Wanted
Date: 16 Nov 1995 13:00:15 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


I'm looking for a SxS line finder, line switch, etcetera for a static
display.


Wil

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

From: Al Gonsalves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN and SLCs
Date: 17 Nov 1995 12:58:14 GMT
Organization: North Shore Access/Eco Software, Inc; ([e-mail])


[e-mail] (Herman Pickens) wrote:

> The telephone company tells me I can't get ISDN because the SLC that
> serves my area is a Mode 2 and what we need is a Mode 1.  Does this
> denote T1 versus PRI?  We have ISDN where we are now and use it for
> simple testing of ISDN products.  The problem stated above relates to
> where we want to move the business.  Any enlightenment would be welcome.

Mode 2 refers to a configuration of SLC(R) that concentrates the
traffic at a 2:1 ratio. This allows telcos to carry 96 channels of
traffic over 2 T1 lines instead of the four required in Mode 1.  The
primary Mode 2 application is in low traffic residential areas.  Since
the use of Mode 2 is not widespread, these systems were not redesigned
to support ISDN when it became available on local digital switches.
Even if they were upgraded to handle BRITE card technology, your one
ISDN line would tie up 3 channels, making them unavailable to the
other subscribers served by the system. As more ISDN lines are added,
the call blocking probability would begin to reach unacceptable
levels.

Your telco would probably have to upgrade their cable feeder
facilities to accomodate the added bandwidth required for the upgrade
to Mode 1. Unless you have lots of lines, this would not be economical
for them.


Al Gonsalves

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #488
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov 20 02:05:36 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id CAA06754; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 02:05:36 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 02:05:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #489

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 Nov 95 02:05:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 489

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Fires its First Shot (Mark Cuccia)
    Some More Notes on CID (Mark Cuccia)
    Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot? (R IT Brown)
    Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents? (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents? (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming (Sany M. Zakharia)
    Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming (K. M. Peterson)
    Re: Sprint to Ignore *67? (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: Sprint to Ignore *67? (Clifton T. Sharp)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Re: AT&T Fires its First Shot
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 23:07:00 CST


Here in Louisiana, we have had feature group D' inTRA-LATA competition
ever since Fall 1991 when the PSC ordered that Bell (and equal access
capable independents) unblock' 10-XXX+1/0+ inTRA-LATA. The majors
(AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc) *are* cheaper than Bell for these calls. The
non-AT&T IXC's ( other' common carriers have always been available for
fg.A access or fg.B (950-) access calls within the LATA, as well as
some fg-B like access using fg.D codes (cut-thru) dialing (10-XXX+ the
# button), and then touchtoning in the number and authorization code,
as well as having an 800 number access.

Operator take-back' and 00 after) were completed but at Bell's rates,
and the charges showed on the Bell inTRA-LATA pages of the bill. Prior
to Operator take-back, *all* traditional 0+ facilities for Bell were
handled by AT&T's TSPS system. I could do sequence' calling card calls
to *any* point, in *any* order- local, inTRA-LATA toll, inTER-LATA
toll. If the call was a Bell' call, the charges would show up on the
Bell pages- if the charges were inTER-LATA, the charges would show up
on the AT&T part of the bill.  After Operator take-back' (1986 or so
here in Louisiana), 0+ calls would route to Bell's TOPS if the
(NPA)-NXX following were inTRA-LATA, while they would route to AT&T
(or the PIC'd IXC) if the (NPA)-NXX was out of the LATA.  For AT&T, I
*could* continue with inTRA-LATA sequence calls (including local) and
switch back & forth with further inTER-LATA sequence calls.  Again,
the inTRA-LATA calls would show up on Bell's part of the bill. BUT if
the initial 0+(NPA)-NXX was within the LATA, I would route to Bell's
TOPS, and sequence calls would be restricted to inTRA-LATA (NPA)-NXX
points *only*.

Sometime around 1989, AT&T implemented OSPS to serve this area. AT&T
would *not* allow me sequence calls to inTRA-LATA points, and the AT&T
operator would *not* complete calls to points in the LATA unless there
were an emergency'. In Fall 1991, when the PSC ordered 10-XXX+
unblocking for inTRA-LATA calls, I *was* able to place sequence calls'
to InTRA-LATA points via AT&T, as long as the *initial* 0+NPA-NXX-XXXX
call was inTER LATA, or I prefixed the 0+ with 10-288+. However, Bell
has blocked the use of 10-XXX calls for NPA-NXX locations that are
actual local calls. This doesn't preclude the use of fg.A, fg.B (950),
10-XXX+# or 1-800 access numbers to a carrier to place a call to a
local point. *All* IXC's have rates *higher* than Bell for calls to
*local* points. Bell's local card rate is something like 88 cents
FLAT, while all other IXC's charge by the minute with higher
per-minute rates. COCOTS are *known* to dial-out' the call (via 1-800
or 950) to their AOS', even tho' the end-user entered a simple 0- or
0+local withOUT any 10-XXX prefix.

I myself received a flier from AT&T about a week ago explaining that
10-288 could be used for what they call local-area toll calls', yet
I've been able to do this since Fall 1991. The flier *does* mention
that while AT&T's rates are *lower* than Bell for local-area *toll*
calls, their rates *could* be higher than Bell for truely *local*
calls. But why is AT&T just' getting around to sending out fliers when
we've been able to do 10-XXX for inTRA-LATA since 1991?!?

Also, while Bell did prohibit 10-XXX for inTRA-LATA prior to Fall
1991, there was *one* exception. Mercury Long Distance (not associated
with the UK's Mercury) at 10-221 (I think) *could* be used within only
the Lafayette LA LATA for inTRA LATA. Mercury was associated with an
independent local telco in the Lafayette LA LATA. Maybe that
independent had some pull with the PSC to have their access allowed.

And, ever since 1991, Louisiana has had LOS'- Local Option Service.
This is a series of *optional* plans you can pay for which allows you
7-digit access to inTRA-LATA points *outside* of the traditional local
calling area. It does *not* cover an entire LATA, however. There are
rather large discounts when compared to standard' Bell toll rates to
those points. The first (inner) ring around the traditional local
calling area has a maximum cap on the total charges. The outer ring
allows you discounts over traditional toll rates, but there is no
maximum cap. You do pay for call usage, although there is a different
fixed charge than traditional monthly flat rate local service. All
per-minute rates- whether capped or uncapped seem to be noticeably
less than most IXC's, even using an IXC's calling plan (such as AT&T's
True Savings). As an LOS subscriber, I *can* place a 10-XXX call to
these LOS points (even the `capped' inner LOS points) by dialing
10-XXX+seven digits, but it *is* cheaper to call those LOS points as
regular Bell 7-digit dialing if you went out of the way to buy' a Bell
LOS plan.

Here in Louisiana, we don't yet have dialing parity (PIC) for IXC
inTRA-LATA calls. I don't know how this will eventually affect LOS
customers. But, other carriers (MCI in particular) have promoted other
means of access for InTRA-LATA. MCI in *many* parts of the US uses
*its* numbering space in special areacode 700 for inTRA-LATA service
via them. MCI PIC'd customers can replace their Home NPA with 700, by
dialing 1-700+the inTRA-LATA number.  My PIC is AT&T, but I *am* able
to place inTRA-LATA calls via MCI (within NPA 504) as 10-222/101-0222+
1/0+700+. But remember, LATA boundaries and NPA boundaries (and state
borders) do *not* necessarily coincide. There can be all-or-part' of
one-or-more' LATA's within a particular NPA, just like there can be
all-or-part' of one-or-more' NPA's inside of a particular LATA. The
numbering format and LATA boundaries here in Louisiana are *not* all
that complicated. I don't know how larger more populated areas can
properly use MCI's 700 for inTRA-LATA.

The town of Crossroads MS is 601-772, but it is in the New Orleans
LATA.  Also, 772 seems' to be a protected c/o code in 504. Crossroads
MS and Bogalusa LA are local to each other. I think that they still
can 7-digit dial to each other without needing to 1+NPA. Even before
Fall 1991, I could use a 10-XXX code to call Crossroads MS via an IXC.
(10-XXX+1/0+601-772-XXXX). If I did simply 1/0+601-772-XXXX I would
rather go thru Bell. I think that the 10-XXX access via an IXC was
permitted because it was inTER-STATE. I don't know if I were to dial
(via MCI): (10-222/101-0222)+1/0+700-772-XXXX if I could be able to
connect to a Crossroads MS number, however.

BUT I *did* discover that (10-222/101-0222)+1/0+700+ *can* be used for
*any* location in 504. It works on the LOS points (I *do* subscribe to
LOS), as well as *local* (I dialed my own local number this way, and
my cellphone started ringing, since I was off-hook busy' on my local
number, and I have forward on busy/no-answer to my cellphone). I even
tried 10-222+1+700+ a Baton Rouge LATA number (also in 504) and the
call went thru! But *I* find the use of 700 for InTRA-LATA to be a
waste' of an IXC's *own* 700 numbering space.  These calls *could*
also be dialed as 10-XXX+ inTRA-LATA, and the IXC could use the 700
space for other carrier-specific purposes.

*I* only wish that *every* (traditional) LEC had a (preferably
uniform/universal) 10-XXX/101-XXXX code, as well as 950-XXXX and
1-800- number for placing inTRA-LATA calls. I do NOT like it when
COCOTS refuse me access to Bell services on 0+ (or 0- opeartor) when I
*want* to use the LEC for *local* local calls. That way, I wouldn't
have to bother with an AOS wanting to bill me a dollar or two a minute
for *local* card calls!


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: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some More Notes on CID
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 23:07:00 CST


I was unaware that CID-with-Name could transmit both uppercase and
lowercase alpha characters. I haven't yet purchased Bellcore specs on
CID-with-Name; other than some recent specs on ADSI/CID-on-CW, all I
have from Bellcore is some 1987 specs on number-only CID. As for
CID-on-CW, I've had some local Bell service reps tell me that it *is*
available (probably on a test/trial-market basis) in *some* BellSouth
areas, but not yet anywhere in Louisiana. I hope it will come soon,
and I hope that the CID-on-CW/ADSI box I eventually get can support
lowercase alpha characters as well.

As for block-the-blocker' or Anonymous Call Rejection, the *77 (11-77)
turn-on and *87 (11-87) turn-off still don't yet work from my #1AESS
switch, but the BellSouth service rep told me that it will be
available soon, at *no* additional cost. They state that it is to be
an enhancement' to my CID service.

Recently, I had a chance to experiment with a Centrex (city-wide centrex).
Please note- NOT a PBX, but a Centrex. For those who don't know, Centrex is
usually the term for PBX features or line-group features, as well as
`abbreviated internal line number dialing', but all is controlled by telco's
central office rather than a CPE switch. And all lines on a Centrex have
loops to the telco (neighborhood) c/o switch rather than concentration &
trunks. A call from a Centrex line will give dialtone from the telco switch,
and connect right away rather than the PBX having to  dial-out'. And the
number will show up on other CID boxes as the actual directory numbers
rather than a PBX trunk line. Dialing in to a Centrex is just as fast as any
other telco trunks. Calls going into a PBX takes some time, since telco
sends the dialed number TO the PBX and then the PBX connects the call.


I tried to do *67 and the like from the Centrex. When I did *-6 (or
11-6) I was cut off *right-away* to ringing. I don't know if this was
a Centrex internal number/service-code or not -- I hung up before
anything answered (even tho' it might have been an `invalid-code'
recording). When I dialed 9 (for outside calls) plus *67 (11-67) I got
cut off to re-order. The same happened (after dialing 9) with *82
(11-82), *77 (11-77), *70 (11-70), *71 (11-71) {BTW, the centrex lines
did have 3-way on the line already}, *87 (11-87) and probably a few
others. Unassigned (or at least those not planned for use in New
Orleans) *XX (11-XX) codes gave me ringing and a recording, "...cannot
be completed as dialed. Please check your instruction manual or call
the Business Office for assistance" which I would also get on
NON-Centrex lines. Dialing some *-X codes BEFORE the `9' would
sometimes get a recording about calling the *attendant* for
assistance, while `0' without a 9 would get me a recording that office
hours are only on weekdays (this happened to be a Saturday). 9-0 would
give me Bell's operators.

Dialing four digits (NXXX) would get me some other station on the
city-wide centrex system, and there had to be some numbering
constraints for other Central Offices in the city to have a seamless'
city-wide four-digit dialing on this system. I was able to dial regular
switch based ANAC and ringback (for that particular geographic telco
switch) after dialing 9. Many PBX systems, however don't allow access
to telco ANAC or ringback.

But I wonder if 9-*67 will eventually work, as *I* think it would,
even from these Centrex systems. This is *telco* switching from
regular c/o switches, and not a CPE PBX system.

As for CID-on-CW and other ADSI features, these new boxes (box-only)
will have to have two SPECIFIED modular jacks. One is for the line,
and the other can cut-off' what is plugged into it- this second one
for the phone. Actual phones with *built-in* CID-on-CW/ADSI features
have their handset completely muted (or switched out) of the line, so
data going back and forth (1200 Baud FSK from the switch, and DTMF
tones A B C D from the CPE) won't be corrupted by conversation or
background noise, nor annoy' the user. It only takes about a second
for the data to transmit back and forth, so there really isn't a loss
of conversation- only a slight dropout. If phones with the displays
built-in mute/switch-out the handset, then `stand-alone' boxes will
have to have a controlled jack for a `standard' phone.

I hope that Nortel (and other manufacturers) will eventually contain a
little speaker in the CID-on-CW/ADSI boxes. If one has to put the
handset aside' to answer the doorbell, change channels or VCR
settings, turn off the stove, etc. and one has CW, one doesn't know if
a call beeps in, unless one is in a non-digital type of office
(#1AESS, etc.), since the other party will hear that distinct
click-click' if they are still listening on their end. But in a
digital office, there is *no* click-click- just a slight drop out of
conversation if the beeped party is talking at the moment they are
beeped. A little speaker in a CID-on-CW box could also beep when a CW
signal is received! And the person with the handset-put-aside would
know that they have a incomming beeping call, and would also know to
look at their box, rather than be unaware of an incomming call.

There are always new services and features, and I would hope that
Bellcore, Nortel, and the LEC's would work out improved inter-compata-
bility standards when multiple features are ordered for a line.


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] (R IT Brown)
Subject: Re: AT&T Fires Its First Shot?
Date: 17 Nov 1995 15:27:53 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (R IT Brown)


All AT&T is trying to do is grab the long distance traffic within the
LATA boundaries. Today this piece has not been designated as equal
access so that is why you must dial the 10288 first. Soon the switches
will be upgraded to allow for two carriers per subscriber ... one for
intralata and one for interlata. You may wish to consider telling your
mom to use it for long distance calls within the state since she will
likely pay less than using the Bell System.

If you want more info e-mail me at [e-mail].


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Um, am I missing something here?
AT&T *is* the Bell System, or what is left of it anyway.  Or did you
mean to say it another way?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents?
Date: 18 Nov 95 14:18:13 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Brian Elfert) writes:

> A short article on this very subject was in today's
> newspaper.  In 1991, the accident report form that all police
> departments in the state use was amended to include use of
> cellular phone as a contribuating factor in an accident.

> A cellular phone was a contributing factor in only .1% of
> accidents since 1991.

We've just had an investigation looking into these matters here in
Sweden.  Conclusion number one was that people that are using
*hands-free* equipment drive slower and better.  I guess talking to
mum keeps you calm :-).

But, conclusion number two was even more interesting.  Using the car
stereo is far more dangerous than using even hand portable telephones
since dialing a number usually takes less time than finding your
favourite FM-station.


Sam
http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam,  [e-mail],  [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 10:03:28 EST
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellphones Cause Accidents?
Organization: Penn State University


A couple of years ago, I gave new meaning to the word "roaming" when I
roamed my minivan into the fence of my driveway (right turn) while
talking on a cell phone (at night).

Oops.


Pete Weiss

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

From: [e-mail] (Sany M. Zakharia)
Subject: Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 02:53:39 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute


In article <[e-mail]>, Scott Drown
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I asked the Cell-One person why they didn't tell me beforehand that they
> were going to do this.  He assured me that a notice would be in my next
> billing statement, and all I have to do is call and ask for roaming to
> be turned on.

That is odd.  I was informed in my last month's bill that I hadn't
roamed in the past six months and that my roaming privelages had been
suspended.  I would have thought the notice was circulated to all
suscribers.


Sany

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

From: [e-mail] (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming
Date: 19 Nov 1995 17:19:43 GMT
Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated


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

> If you are a Cell-One/Boston customer, and you might want to roam, you
> might want to call and have them turn roaming back on.

I'd received a notice in my invoice about this two months ago ... they
were hapy to turn it on for me again when I travelled.


K. M. Peterson <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Subject: Re: Sprint to Ignore *67?
Date: 19 Nov 1995 17:33:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (S. Bapat) writes:

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

>> I heard that Sprint has filed with the FCC to ignore *67 per call
>> blocking on interstate long distance ... that would appear to be a
>> direct violation of the FCC rules. Anybody know the details?

This is ludicrous. Much more likely Sprint has filed to convert Equal
Access calls to unrestricted CallerID when the Equal Access call does
not provide a restricted or unrestricted CallerID as described below.
Equal Access calls always supply information concerning the ANI,
regardless of whether out-of- band common channel ISUP signaling or
in-band MF Feature Group D signaling is used to deliver the call to
Sprint.

> According to the filing, if the software encounters a blank callerID
> field, it assumes that it must be because the originating LEC is some
> small hick rural telco that cannot supply callerID. So, it grabs the
> ANI, substitutes it for the callerID, and delivers it in-band to the
> called party as regular callerID.

The "blank callerID field" is the Calling Party Number (CPN) in the
ISUP message that Sprint receives. It is possible to suppress the CPN,
in which case a Charging Number (CHN) field (which is the ANI) is
included.  Apparently Sprint converts CHN to unrestricted CPN. When
the ANI and calling number are the same (they aren't the same when a
call is made behind most PBXes) then only the CPN is delivered and the
CHN is blank.

When someone dials *67 the CPN is not blank! The Calling Party Number
is delivered WITH RESTRICTION BITS SET all the way to the final
destination switch. The line on the final destination switch will not
"see" the CallerID because the RESTRICTION BITS ARE SET. Instead, the
line will "see" PRIVATE.  In the case where no CPN is delivered, the
line will "see" OUT OF AREA.

Just in case this isn't clear, when someone dials *67 prefix, their
number is sent by the network from local loop carrier to long distance
carrier back to another local loop carrier (or at least that's what
the FCC has mandated for December 1, 1995). The *67 causes the number
to be restricted so that PRIVATE is displayed and not the caller's
number. Similarly, *82 prefix can be used to make sure that the number
is unrestricted and is able to be displayed.


Jeffrey Rhodes at [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: Sprint to Ignore *67?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 04:20:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S.
Bapat) writes:

> Apparently Sprint has filed with the FCC for an exemption from
> respecting *67. The ostensible reason is the new software Sprint has
> in its switches is smarter than it ought to be.

Doesn't sound like it to me ...

> According to the filing, if the software encounters a blank callerID
> field, it assumes that it must be because the originating LEC is some
> small hick rural telco that cannot supply callerID. So, it grabs the
> ANI, substitutes it for the callerID, and delivers it in-band to the
> called party as regular callerID.

Wait a minute here. Their machines can't tell the difference between a
data stream containing a date+time header with an accompanying flag
indicating 'private', and NO DATA STREAM AT ALL?

And they can't tell customers to dial 10222 *67 xxx-xxx-xxxx?

What am I missing here, and why does it seem like everyone else bought
this?


Cliff Sharp
  WA9PDM
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #489
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov 20 03:53:35 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id DAA10677; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 03:53:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 03:53:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #490

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 Nov 95 03:53:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 490

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service ([e-mail])
    Re: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial) (George Goble)
    Re: Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial) (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial) (James Bellaire)
    Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital? (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal? (Greg Tompkins)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Tim Shoppa)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Jim Borynec)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: RE: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (was Re: Bell Atlantic)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 16:01:28 +900
Organization: SAGASCO Resources Ltd.


In Article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeroen
Doucet) writes:

> But what happens if you call me from Italy on my Dutch GSM while I am in
> Greece?

The CALLER pays for a call Italy -> Holland.  The ANSWERER pays for a
call Holland -> Greece

> And if I am in France and use my Dutch GSM to call my French
> neighbour on his French GSM?

The Caller pays for a local France GSM call, plus a Dutch billing surcharge
of about 30%.

However, if your French neighbour places a call using his French GSM
from France to your Dutch GSM while you are in France, he pays for a
call France -> Holland and you pay for a call Holland -> France.

> Nobody knows.

Now they do -- but it sure is a puzzle ... and there's plenty of room
for carriers to keep their international links unnecessarily busy (and
earning revenue!).  Perhaps the next GSM development will be
intelligent enough to figure out the location of both caller and
called phones and not use, or charge for, international links unless
they are absolutely necessary.  But who's going to pay to have such a
system developed?  Let's see if truly competitive markets really do
work in the long run!

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

From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: European Caller-Pays Cellular Service (was Re: Bell Atlantic)
Date: 19 Nov 95 14:05:11 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Juha Veijalainen
<[e-mail]> writes:

> Jeroen Doucet wrote:

>> [e-mail] (Michael Franz) wrote:

>>> As far as I know, all European GSM networks are caller-pays.

I think I'd stretch that as far as *all* mobile networks in Europe.
Objections anyone?

>> But what happens if you call me from Italy on my Dutch GSM
>> while I am in Greece? And if I am in France and use my
>> Dutch GSM to call my French neighbour on his French GSM?
>> Nobody knows.

> 1. Caller pays international charge from Italy to Holland.
> Dutch GSM owner pays a fixed per minute charge for receiving
> the call in Greece.

> 2. If you use your Dutch GSM in France to call a French GSM
> phone, your Dutch phone will be charged the local GSM tariff
> for that call.

> Also, there is a 5 % surcharge if you make outgoing calls
> when roaming.

> This is how I'm charged, as far as I know (my home network is
> Telecom Finland).  Charges for receiving calls depend on
> where you are roaming. The basic rule is the longer the
> distance from your home country, the more you pay.

There is also the nightmare scenario of:

    Finnish subscriber
    Roaming in France
    Called from France
    Divert calls to voice-mail on no reach.
    Not reachable

The caller pays French international (to Finland) rate.  Callee pays
from Finland to France AND France to voice-mail (in Finland) +
surcharge.  This applies to all call diversions (not answered, busy,
not reachable etc) except unconditional forwarding (*21*).

I have heard that the GSM MoU is working on specs how this is
to be avoided (SS7...).  Status anyone?


Sam
http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam,  [e-mail],  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (George Goble)
Subject: Re: Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial)
Date: 19 Nov 1995 17:36:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


In Telecom Digest V15 #485 Pat noted:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was *no* Chicago central office
> fire in 1975. The big fire in Chicago was in May, 1988. Perhaps you
> are thinking of the big central office fire in Manhattan, New York.
> That would have been about 1975 or so. Another telco fire which has
> been largely forgotten was in the early 1960's at Richmond, Indiana

I grew up near Richmond when this fire happened. It was GTE at that
time. NNX's I remember were 935 957 962 966 973. 962 and 966 were for
downtown, rest were for country and outskirts, etc.  All were in the
same building though.  Fire was on a Sunday morning, and it was not
very big nor did it last long.  However, the burning rubber insulation
smoke ruined all the contacts (all mechanical) of everything it
touched.  I think 935 and part of 957 kept running after the fire, the
rest were down for something like one or two years.  This was about
the time DDD was coming to town.  I was in Greensfork (four digit
numbers), and moved to Centerville about that time, went to seven
digit, 855 NNX, right next to Richmond.

There was a *HUGE* effort of police patrols, to radio in emergencies,
and in two weeks a "plugboard" system started to be setup. The local
paper, the Palladium-Item, published a temp "phonebook" as everybody
had "new" numbers, all five or six digits, and starting with "99-...."
and had lots of leading 9's I remember.  You got a plugboard operator
whom connected your (local) call for almost two years I remember. I
remember pictures of semi truck flatbed trailers delivering the
plugboards (the length of the semi trailer!). Eventually, when the
automatic equipment was replaced, everybody ended up with their old
numbers.

A couple of years later, HALON was invented and was hailed in
preventing this kind of disaster (nothing was known about the ozone
hole then)

Before the fire, a call originated in Centerville or Richmond to the
local area would not terminate until the caller hung up.  One could
take down a radio show talk line, by not hanging up I remember. There
was nothing the called party could do to break the connection, short
of calling the phone company.


ghg


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you *certain* it was GTE at the
time of the fire? My memory is that a larger telco (I originally
said Indiana Bell, but apparently it was GTE) bought it from the
family which owned it *the day of the fire*.  I do remember the
Sunday morning and I am almost certain it was Easter Sunday. I do
know it was an independent company at some point prior to the fire
but the details just are not clear in my mind. I also remember
that Indiana Bell guys came over from Indianapolis to help in the
emergency restoration of service. Maybe I thought it was manual
at the time of the fire because as you point out it *was* manual
afterward during the restoration.

Somewhere around here I have some interesting historical notes
dating back to December, 1941 and the telephone exchange building
at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on the day of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor. A woman who was the chief operator there at the time (it was
all manual, serving Hickam Base and the local civilian community)
made some extensive notes which I printed here at one time. She
said during the three or four hour period the air raid was going on
(again, a Sunday morning) the bombs were falling all around them,
some as close as a hundred yards away, but none fell on the phone
exchange itself. The damage to the outside plant was very severe
however, with about fifty percent of their subscribers knocked
out due to downed wires, fires burning out of control, etc. She
noted, 'the Pearl City Fire Department stayed busy that day and
so did we ...'. Later in the day after the attack was finished,
she noted that 'some men from the phone repair service in Honolulu
came over and spent several hours surveying the damage. They sent
a dozen crews to begin repairs the next morning, but it was
several days before things got back to normal with the phones,
however in actuality, things never did get back to normal, since a
whole new era started that day that FDR said would 'live in
infamy forever'. Word of the attack started spreading all over the
mainland (where it was about 1:00 PM that Sunday afternoon) and
in her notes she mentined that 'within less than an hour after it
started I was putting through a call to the States and when San Fran-
sisco answered me the first thing she said was "what the hell is going
on over there?" Indeed, we were not sure yet either; we were the last
ones they told anything to. Not only did San Fransisco (at the time the
termination point for AT&T's Pacific cable between Hawaii and the
mainland) keep pumping me for details, but the RCA cable kept
chattering at us (the telex to the mainland) with the radio networks
in New York wanting to know the same thing.'  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial)
Date: 20 Nov 1995 04:20:59 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online! [Usenet News Server for hire]


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

> Now if they would only upgrade their switches in the little towns east of
> Fort Wayne and around LaPorte.  You can still place a local call within
> your CO by dialing the last five digits, forcing out of CO local calls to
> use a 44+ or 3+ prefix.

> Come on GTE, this is 1995!!

LaPorte had the world's first dial switch, way back before the turn of the
century -- it would be sacrilege to upgrade that one!  :-)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 01:17:21 -0500
From: James E. Bellaire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Richmond, Indiana Phones (was Re: Los Angeles Dial)


In TD V15 #488 I wrote:

> Other GTE Notes:

> GTE is still slowly spreading across Indiana, purchasing COs from smaller
> nationals and independents.  They are still changing signs south of
> Fort Wayne where they bought out AllTel a couple years ago.  In the far
> south of Indiana (just as in Central Illinois) GTE does business as Contel.

To which Pat replied:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You make it sound like a disease or a
> fungus when you phrase it that way: 'they are spreading slowly
> across northern Indiana' ... okay so I was wrong on Indiana Bell
> taking over Richmond, but you missed the point. Do you recall the
> fire in Richmond and the little independent that had the exchange
> there before it burned down? I still am pretty certain however
> that emergency restoral was done by Bell; I almost distinctly
> recall hearing that Bell sent in crews that Sunday morning from
> Indianapolis to set up temporary facilities. More details, any
> old-timers? Also James, which telco has Westville, Indiana?   PAT]

No viral spread intended, although on my maps of the Indiana LATA's I
have colored in the CO servers and it does look like a liver spots
sometimes. :) I'm afraid my years in Indiana don't go back too far (I
moved here in 1992), so the older-timers will have to help.  Maybe
Bell charged so much that the independent had to sell out to General
Telephone?

In LaPorte County Indiana I have Westville, Hanna, Rolling Prairie,
Union Mills and LaPorte down in my listings as being served by GTE
(with all calls between being local).  Long Distance to the North is
Michigan City served by Ameritech.  Porter County to the West is
almost entirely GTE.  (Based on the LaPorte, Valparaiso, and Michigan
City Phone Books.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Is ISDN Really Always Digital?
Date: 20 Nov 1995 02:33:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, Philip Treuer
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I believe the answer to the question you've posed is "no" (Can a telco
> guarantee whether any particular call on an ISDN line will be digital?)

The IXC can guarantee that an ISDN data call will in fact be digital,
and indeed if it is not the call cannot be completed.  A voice call
might not (and need not) be all digital.

>  In my state, Alaska, the two major interexchange carriers, AT&T Alascom

Before proceeding, let me point out that I am an AT&T Alascom
employee.  I am not paid to speak for the company, and I don't.  It
should also be understood that AT&T purchased Alascom from Pacific
Telecom Inc. only this fall.  The historical faults of Alascom do not
reflect on AT&T, but on Pacific Corp, the owner of PTI.

> and GCI, have indicated that they won't even carry a switched 56 or 64K ISDN
> call unless they can charge extra for the call -- which will require data
> users to dial special access numbers on interexchange calls.  The only
> exception to this so far is that switched 56 calls to the lower 48 from
> Anchorage (the only community so far that has switched 56 service; ISDN is
> not available any where in the state) are transported intact and at no extra
> charge.

AT&T Alascom (and I believe GCI also) has offered ISDN and SW56
service for a number of years to all major locations in the state.  I
know of no requirement for special dialing.  The difficulty is that
neither IXC can offer service to a customer without a leased line
interconnect through a local LEC, which is relatively expensive.  I'm
not sure if ATU in Anchorage is now offering ISDN or SW56, but the
last that I knew not one single LEC in the state offered either, and
such service could only be purchased through the IXC's at the
mentioned rather expensive rates.

The State of Alaska and the federal government (through FTS-2000) both
use SW56 and ISDN to some degree.  I really can't comment in any depth
on how much difficulty GCI might be enountering with ISDN calls
switched through their network.  Compression, for example, might be a
significant problem for them.  I can comment that AT&T Alascom does
not have any such problem ...  ;-)

> Furthermore, these IXCs will only guarantee data transmission over
> their (intrastate) digital networks of 9.6 kbps for modem and fax
> users.  In other words, there's no point getting a modem or fax faster
> than 9.6 kbps in Alaska if you plan to use it primarily for interexchange
> calls. This is because the IXCs compress multiple voice calls onto a
> single channel.  The compression technique doesn't work as well for
> data calls.  Anything faster than 9.6 will bite the dust (and in rural
> areas the problem is even worse).  I've been told that there is
> special detection equipment that could be used to isolate the higher
> speed data traffic of modem and fax users; however GCI has asserted
> that installation of this equipment would increase its capital cost by
> 10%.

The above is true of GCI's infrastructure, but it is not true for AT&T
Alascom.  (However that doesn't mean all is rosey with AT&T Alascom
either...) AT&T Alascom's network will handle high speed modems to
over 90% (I've seen the figure, but can't remember it exactly ... 93%
sounds right.) of the subscribers in Alaska, and of course to
interstate locations too.  I personally have and use a 28.8 modem for
mostly interechange calls ... (and I live in a rural location, too.)

However, since most of my extended family lives in bush areas of the
state, and are amongst the 5% or so who do not have modern digital
service, my sympathies are perhaps weighted toward being annoyed at
the poor service to small bush areas.

> In your example, you speculate about analog switches as the potential
> culprits.  I believe that analog transmission or other non-fiber
> transmission facilities could also be potential drags on through-put,

That is very true.  There are no analog switches of any kind still
operating in Alaska.  But there are some analog transmission
facilities still in use.  In addition to the many analog small earth
stations in bush Alaska, the entire George Parks Highway north of
Talkeetna to Fairbanks is served by an old analog microwave system!

> particularly in rural areas.  In Alaska all local and interexchange switches
> are digital, however significant portions of the interexchange network are
> still analog.  AT&T Alascom, which is the only IXC permitted to operate
> interexchange facilities statewide,

There are, I believe, four IXC's permitted to operate statewide.  GCI
and AT&T Alascom are the only two that currently operate switching
systems, but United Utilities Inc.  operates a significant amount of
the bush transmission infrastructure.

> still uses analog transmission to about 200 of the approximately 250
> locations statewide.  There is plenty of demand for switched 56 and
> ISDN in rural areas, but it makes little sense for LECs to offer these
> services locally if the interexchange network won't support it.

I'm not sure what the precise numbers are, but the above gives a false
impression.  A true impression is _not_ good, just different!  There
are no "major" locations in Alaska served by analog transmission
systems.  That means there are few if any population centers with more
than 800 or so people that are not digital.  In the "rural" (quoted
because that includes what we in Alaska would call bush and what we
would call rural; two distinct entities to us) locations where digital
facilities are available not one LEC offers ISDN.  That would include
such bush locations as Nome, Barrow, Dillingham, Bethel, and Kotzebue.
AT&T Alascom has operating SW56 services to FTS-2000 customers in all
of those locations.

The lack of ISDN service is not primarily the fault of the IXC's, but
lies with the LECs.  My personal complaint is that Alascom under PTI
refused to push the LECs by making neither competative moves to bypass
them, nor any other attempt to force the issue.  That was an explicit
management decision, not an accident.

Also it is worth noting that a plan put forward in about 1990, and
delayed at every step, would have essentially digitalized transmission
facilties to every location within the state by 1995. Many bush
locations, and specifically those with larger populations such as the
list above, and those locations with the oldest analog satellite earth
station equipment have been converted to digital; but for many other
bush customers the complaint about poor data connections is very true.
In particular the difficulties with double satellite hops for calls
between nearby villages is very annoying to school systems!  As bush
teachers read about and attempt to implement technology that will
connect students with the "information highway" they discover that
calls placed over 20 year old analog systems are subject to cutoffs,
dropouts, and low speed at best connections.

> requirements increase.  My previous question that went unanswered sought
> information about whether the major IXCs also use compression on their fiber
> systems.  It may be that they don't.  However, will fiber bandwidth always
> be so inexpensive that the IXCs don't have to consider the efficiency
> associated with compressing voice calls.

The only domestic market with a limited fiber bandwidth is Alaska.
However, under "normal" circumstances AT&T Alascom does not compress
traffic on the North Pacific Fiber cable.  GCI however does, and
because of that Alascom some time back filed a tariff to provide
identical service to GCI, and an identical rate (cheaper than
non-compressed service) in order to compete with GCI's lower priced
offering!  It was a basic response to customer demands.  (That is also
a leased line service, and has no effect on switched message traffic
through AT&T Alascom facilities.)

> I've been told that its possible to transport a voice call with less
> than 10 kbps.  Given that the standard uncompressed digital voice
> circuit is 64 kbps it seems that there's a lot of room for efficiency.
> If and when the IXCs decide to compress 3, 4 and 5 voice calls onto a
> single 64 kbps channel, will they still be willing to carry switched
> 56 and ISDN at no extra charge?  In Alaska the answer has been "no."

As an example of what you are up against, note that the Fairbanks
Municipal Utilities System not only refuses to offer digital services,
they also refuse to connect to the SS7 network and offer no CLASS
services at all!  Imagine where ISDN is on their priority list ...


Floyd    AT&T Alascom Fairbanks Toll Center
Floyd L. Davidson   Salcha, Alaska   [e-mail]

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

From: Greg Tompkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 20:26:41 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access [phone]


Corey Hauer wrote:

> Foreign Exchange service years ago was tariffed, therefore using it
> to avoid toll charges was not illegal.

That is if you do not live in the state of Oregon.  Our telecom laws
are so messed up, it's just rediculous.  I have tried many times to
get a foreign exchange line and they are just not allowed - PERIOD.
My next strategy is to get an ISDN line installed from a foreign
switch and have analog ports to get around long distance charges.
Since my local switch doesn't have the capability they would put me on
an Individual Case Basis - I will have to give up the line whenever my
local Central Office gets ISDN service.  I may just get a 56K line
installed to a friend's house in the area I want to be able to have a
foreign exchange line, put a voice over data multiplexer and be set!
Is this method illegal?  I know several companies, like RAD and
BlackBox advertise products that do just this.


e-mail: [e-mail]
Greg Tompkins    [e-mail]
Dayton, OREGON       [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: 20 Nov 1995 06:17:41 GMT
Organization: Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech


In article <[e-mail]>, Bill McMullin
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be great to solve the problems of the digital poor?  I
> agree with our Canadian friend who questions the high cost of memory.
> How could anything produced in such mass quantity cost so much?

Sorry, I have to disagree here.  Memory is *dirt cheap* these days.
Anyone who says otherwise wasn't buying memory two decades ago; my
first 4kbytes of RAM cost me $200 back then.  $200 will buy you 6
megabytes now, easily.

To get online doesn't require much memory, anyway.  I'm writing this
on a DEC VT100 terminal; it has less than 4 kbytes of RAM in it.
Anyone who wants to get online can buy a cheap terminal (or a used PC
with less than a megabyte and a mono monitor) and a high speed modem
for about $100 these days.  Never has this sort of technology been so
cheap and readily available!

> If they are trying to make use believe it is a commodity subject to
> supply and demand, why isn't it traded on the stock market? (Maybe it
> is, help me here.)

It *is* based on supply and demand.  The demand is just so incredibly
high, and getting higher all the time.

> I would like a critique of this please ...

> Why don't we mobilize an effort to create the Community RAM Company.
> Collectively, all the people on the Net (or a significant percentage of
> them) could do one of two things:

> 1) lobby the RAM manufacturers for more reasonable pricing (a big
> buying group).

What are we going to do, launch a boycott?  If we don't buy the
memory, somebody else will.

> 2) initiate a business effort to create a company, financed by the Internet
> community, and possibly other members, to manufacturer RAM, either by
> buying a RAM manufacturer or creating one.

Got a billion dollars or more?  That's how much some of the new memory
factories cost these days.  Every major manufacturer is building new
plants, as a matter of fact.


Tim  ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Borynec)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1995 15:14:24 GMT
Organization: AGT Ltd.


[e-mail] (Bill McMullin) wrote:

> Why don't we mobilize an effort to create the Community RAM Company.
> Collectively, all the people on the Net (or a significant percentage of
> them) could do one of two things:

> 1) lobby the RAM manufacturers for more reasonable pricing (a big
> buying group).

I suspect that pure lobbying efforts will not come to much.  The large
clone companies don't seem to get much discount.  A more useful
use of the net would be to investigate RAM prices and RAM discounts.
Most "cozy" deals fall apart upon exposure to sunlight.

> 2) initiate a business effort to create a company, financed by the Internet
> community, and possibly other members, to manufacturer RAM, either by
> buying a RAM manufacturer or creating one.

I would be willing to invest in such an effort, if it was headed by
competent individuals.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Personally I think we will
> see complete desk top computer systems in the price range of $100-
> $200 within a year or two.

I disagree.  The normal price of a desktop computer is somewhere
between $1000 and $2000.  If component prices fall, more components
will be added until the price threshold is met.

The reason for this dynamic is the same reason that cheap housing
never seems to be built: There is not enough money in it.


j.b.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #490
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov 21 09:54:04 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id JAA13918; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:54:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:54:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #491

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Nov 95 09:54:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 491

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Canada Agrees to Work With ISPs to Resolve Centrex Dispute (J Nemanic)
    Victory for Canadian ISPs (Chris Gettings)
    3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (R.F. Graveman)
    What is EXCEL,a Real LD Company, or MLM Scam? (Scott D. Green)
    Weird Stuff Using Callback (Eric Friedebach)
    1-800-MY-ANI-IS Now Requires Passcode (Scott Gordon)
    Notice re FCC Toll-Free NPRM Responses (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Question About 12 KHz and 16 KHz Payphone Signals (Masoud Loghmani)
    BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe (Michael Klein)
    Woman in New York Gets $25K Phone Bill From Nynex by Mistake (Robt. Casey)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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 A. Nemanic)
Subject: Bell Canada Agrees to Work With ISPs to Resolve Centrex Dispute
Organization: Internet Direct, Canada
Date: 21 Nov 95 03:01:15 GMT


Monday November 20th/1995 6:11pm

To the Internet Community:

This evening, Bell Canada faxed the following letter to Internet Direct
Canada Inc.:

                         ----------------------
Bell Canada Letterhead

From:

D.H.(Don) Morrison
Group Vice President
Local Marketing and Sales

1995 11 20

Mr. John Epstein
Passport Online

Mr. John A. Nemanic
President
Internet Direct Canada Inc.

Mr. Lorien Gabel
Vice-President
Interlog


Dear John, John and Lorien:

I promised that I would get back to you today. I apologize that it is
late in the day. but nonetheless I want to thank you again for the
meeting on Friday. I want to let you know that we will work with the
CRTC to help them understand that Bell Canada does not consider the
existing Centrex tariff nor the ISAL tariff to apply to the ISP
application. Secondly. that Bell Canada proposes to continue applying
Centrex III rates for new and existing services until a new
alternative is developed.

To that end we would sincerely appreciate your help if you could join us
to work on the development of new alternatives to be filed with the CRTC
by November 30th. We will be in touch to schedule a time convenient for
you. Once again, thank you for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely,

D.H.(Don) Morrison
Group Vice President
Local Marketing and Sales

Bell Canada
Floor 10, South Tower
483 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5C 2E1

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

This letter is the outcome of a meeting held Friday November 17th, 1995
between Bell Canada, with Mr. Morrison in attendance, and representatives
of RISC, Responsible Internet Service Companies, a not-for-profit Internet
Service Provider (ISP) association.

Speaking for myself and not as a director of RISC, I am very pleased
to learn that Bell Canada has responded to our concerns.

In a nutshell, Bell Canada will work with ISPs to approach the CRTC and
help them to understand that the ISAL tariff does not apply to the
Internet Service Provision application. Application of this tariff would
have meant a 300% increase in phone costs for ISPs, with consequent
massive price increases for Internet access to consumers.

For having the flexibility to re-examine their position, and the
courage to do what is right, Mr. McLennan, Mr. Morrison, Mr.
Halverson, Mr. Peck and Ms. Partland of Bell Canada, have earned our
respect.  I pledge my unconditional support to work with Bell Canada
to devise a WIN-WIN-WIN solution for ISPs, Bell Canada and Consumers
alike.

Thank you Bell Canada, for listening to your customers.

Sincerely,

John A. Nemanic MBA, President,
Internet Direct Canada Inc.
Ontario's Leading Internet Service Provider
and Internet Software Development Firm.
Ph. [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Snail: 5415 Dundas St. West, Suite 301
       Etobicoke, Ontario. M9B 1B5

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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 19:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Chris Gettings)
Subject: Victory for Canadian ISPs


As previously posted, some enterprising ISPs mounted a furious battle
opposing the proposed shift in rate plans for internet service providers in
Ontario and Quebec.  They have made some progress.   Don Morrison, Vice
President, Sales & Marketing, Bell Canada wrote to them:

"I want to let you know that we will work with the CRTC to help them
understand that Bell Canada does not consider the existing Centrex
tariff nor the ISAL tariff to apply to the ISP application.  Secondly,
that Bell Canada proposes to continue applying Centrex III rates for
new and existing services until a new alternative is developed."

It appears that the providers, John Epstein-Passport Online, John
Nemanic-Internet Direct and Lorien Gabel-Interlog, convinced Bell that the
negative publicity surrounding the change in rates for the fledgling
industry would far outweigh potential benefit from increased rates.  Rates
will stay the same (Centrex III) for the time being.  The Bell response
does allude to a "new alternative" which will certainly increase the cost
of internet access lines, however the increase is not likely to be as
drastic as would have occured under a switch to ISAL rates.  John Epstein,
is a particularly vocal supporter of the Canadian industry.  You can reach
him at:  [e-mail].  F.Y.I.

Disclaimer:  Passport is one of my internet providers.


Christopher C. Gettings
[e-mail]
www.econnect.net

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

From: rfg@latour..bellcore.com (R.F. Graveman)
Subject: 3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security
Date: 20 Nov 1995 15:19:30 GMT
Organization: Bellcore MRE


3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security
            March 14-16, 1996
        Hyatt Regency, New Delhi, India

This message contains:
    - Technical Program
    - Registration Form
    - Committee information


Technical Program
==================

March 14 (9:00 - 5:00)
----------------------

Innaugral

Practical System Issues, Richard Graveman (Bellcore, USA)
- Unified Login with Pluggable Authentication Modules, Vipin Samar (Sun
  Microsystems, USA)
- Secure External References in Multimedia Email Messages, Burkhard Wiegel
  (German National Research Center for IT, Germany)
- Securing ATM Networks, Shaw-Cheng Chuang (University of Cambridge, UK)

Break

Key Management, Stuart Stubblebine (AT&T Bell Labs, USA)
- Diffie-Hellman Key Distrubution Extended to Group Communication,
  Gene Tsudik (IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Switzerland)
- The Omega Key Management Service, Michael Reiter, Matthew Franklin,
  John Lacy, and Rebecca Wright (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA)

Lunch

Digital Signatures, Tsutomu Matsumoto, (Yokohama Nat. U., Japan)
- Proxy Signatures for Delegating Signing Operation, Masahiro Mambo,
  Keisuke Usuda, and Eiji Okamoto (JAIST, Japan)
- Batch Exponentiation for Fast DLP-Based Signature Generation,
  David M'Raihi and David Naccache (GEMPLUS, France)

Break

Panel on Security in Developing Countries, Ravi Ganesan (Bell Atlantic, USA)
- Authorization Model for HISTO, a Statistical Database System (Invited
  Paper), Aloke K. Kundu (Tata Consultancy Services, Calcutta, India)
  Aditya Bagchi (Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, India)
- The Failure of Anti-Hacking Legislation: a Hong Kong Perspective (Invited
  Paper) Rynson Lau (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) Kwok-Yan Lam
  (National (University of Singapore) and Siu-Leung Chung (OLI, Hong Kong)
- Panel Discusssion

March 15 (9:30 - 5:00)
-----------------------
Authentication and Electronic Commerce, Clifford Neuman (University of
Southern California, USA)
- Human-Computer Cryptography: An Attempt, Tsutomu Matsumoto (Yokohama
  National University, Japan)
- Revokable and Versatile Electronic Money, Markus Jakobsson (University of
  California at San Diego, USA) and Moti Yung (IBM T.J. Watson Research
  Center, USA)
- An Efficient Fair Payment System, Jan Camenisch, Jean-Marc Piveteau, and
  Markus Stadler (ETH Zurich and Union Bank of Switzerland, Switzerland)

Break

Protocol Analysis, Paul Syverson (Naval Research Lab., USA)
- An Authentication Logic Supporting Revocation and Recency, Stuart
  Stubblebine and Rebecca Wright (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA)
- An Approach to the Formal Verification Of Cryptographic Protocols,
  Dominique Bolignano (Bull S.A./OSS, France)

Lunch

Multilevel Systems- Aditya Bagchi (Indian Statistical Institute, India)
- An Advanced Commit Protocol for MLS Distributed Database Systems,
  Indrajit Ray, Elisa Bertino, Sushil Jajodia and Luigi Mancini
  (University of Milan, Italy, and George Mason University, USA)
- Several Secure Store and Forward Devices, David Goldschlag (Naval
  Research Laboratory, USA)

Break

Panel on Smart Cards- Jean-Jacques Quisquater (UCL-MathRiZK, Belgium)


March 16 (9:30 - 12:30)
-----------------------

Cryptanalysis, Bart Preneel, K.U. Leuven, Belgium
- An Experiment on DES Statistical Cryptanalysis, Serge Vaudenay
  (ENS/DMI, France)
- Breaking and Repairing a Convertible Undeniable Signature Scheme,
  Markus Michels (University of Technology Chemnitz-Zwickau, Germany)
- Cryptanalysis of Private-Key Encryption Schemes Based on
  Burst-Error-Correcting Codes, Hung-Min Sun and Shiuh-Pyng Shieh
  (National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan)

Break

Access Control, Moti Yung, IBM
- Access Control and Signatures via Quorum Secret Sharing, Moni Naor and
  Avishai Wool (The Weizmann Institute, Israel)
- A Non-timestamped Authorization Model for Relational Databases, Elisa
  Bertino, Sushil Jajodia, and Pierangela Samarati (University of Milan,
  Italy, and George Mason University, USA)

12:30 Conference Adjourns

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

                        Registration Form

Register before March 1, 1996. On-site registration available only if
space permits. Registration includes Continental Breakfast (March 14,
15, 16) and Lunch (March 14, 15).

Hotel:
Hyatt Regency, New Delhi, India,
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone].

Please mention ACM Security Conference at time of reservation. Limited
number of rooms blocked, so book early. Reservations can be made via any
Hyatt Regency in USA (contact your travel agency).

Name:

Affliation:

Address:


Phone:

Fax:

E-Mail:


Outside India:

Registration Contact:
Ms. Susan Quirk,
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mail or Fax this form to:
ACMCCS 96 Registration,
Mailstop 3G3,
Center for Professional Development
Business Office, George Mason U
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Payment of $150/-- can be made by check, money order, purchase order
(US organization only) or credit card. Make checks or money orders
payable, in US currency to GMU/ACMCCS96.

Credit Card No.:
Cardholder Name:
Visa: ___ Mastercard ___
Expiratation:

Signature:

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

In India:

Registration Contacts
Dr. Y.K. Sharma, National Informatics Centre
Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]
Mr. H.C. Verma, AIMIL Pvt. Ltd.
Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]

Mail this form to:
ACMCCS 96 Registration,
ACM Conference Secratariat,
Training Division, National Informatics Center
A-Block, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003

Payment of Rs. 4,500/-- can be made by draft to Third ACM Conference on
Computer and Communications Security payable at New Delhi.

On site registration (Rs. 4,500/--) is available only if space permits.

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

Sponsored by:     ACM SIGSAC
Hosted by:     Bell Atlantic, National Informatics Centre
        AIMIL Private Limited George Mason University


General Chairs:
Ravi Ganesan, Bell Atlantic
Ravi Sandhu, George Mason University

Program Chairs:
Li Gong, SRI International
Jacques Stern, ENS-DMI

Local Arrangement Chairs:
N. Seshagiri, National Informatics Centre
H.C. Verma, AIMIL Private Limited

Awards Chair:
Raymond Pyle, Bell Atlantic

Publication Chair:
Clifford Neuman, U. of Southern California

Publicity Chair:
Richard Graveman, Bellcore

Program Committee Members:
Aditya Bagchi, Indian Statistical Institute
Elisa Bertino, University of Milan
Matt Blaze, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Claude Crepeau, Universite de Montreal
Matthew Franklin, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Virgil Gligor, University of Maryland
Richard Graveman, Bellcore
Sushil Jajodia, George Mason University
Kwok-Yan Lam, Nat. Univ. of Singapore
E. Stewart Lee, University of Toronto
Arjen K. Lenstra, Bellcore
Kaicheng Lu, Tsinghua University
Shyh-Wei Luan, IBM Almaden Res. Center
Tsutomu Matsumoto, Yokohama National U
Catherine Meadows, Naval Research Labs.
Clifford Neuman, U. of Southern California
Luke O'Connor, DSTC
Bart Preneel, K.U. Leuven
Jean-Jacques Quisquater, UCL-MathRiZK
Lakshmi Raman, Bellcore
Michael Reiter, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Nachum Shacham, SRI International
Y.K. Sharma, National Informatics Center
Shiuh-Pyng Shieh, Chiao-Tung University
Stuart Stubblebine, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Paul Syverson, Naval Research Laboratory
Paul Van Oorschot, Bell-Northern Research
Vijay Varadharajan, U. of Western Sydney
Gio Wiederhold, Stanford University
Michael Wiener, Bell-Northern Research
Rebecca Wright, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Moti Yung, IBM T.J. Watson Research Ctr.

Steering Committee:
Chair: Ravi Sandhu, George Mason U.
Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University
Ravi Ganesan, Bell Atlantic
Raymond Pyle, Bell Atlantic


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


Richard Graveman     | V: [phone] | Bellcore 444 Hoes Lane, Rm. 1K-221
[e-mail] | F: [phone] | Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott D. Green)
Subject: What is EXCEL, a Real LD Company, or a MLM Scam?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:45:40 LOCAL
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I've got a friend who's involved with this company. She admits that it
is most definitely a multi-level networking outfit, that is, one where
the distributor profits somewhat from selling the product, but can
really rake in the big bucks by signing on other distributors below
you, like Amway.

Anyway, among other claims she made about Excel, she believes they are
building their own network -- wires, switches, and all.  I suggested to
her that it sounds like they are just a bulk reseller.  She also, of
course, couldn't quote any rates, only that it's "50% cheaper than
ATT, blah, blah, blah."

So, what's the story with Excel?

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:53:35 -0800
Subject: Weird Stuff With Automatic Callback


Gee, where do I start?

For the record:

I work out of my home. I have had two phone lines terminate here from
Bell Atlantic since 1989. I had Bell Atlantic add a third line for my
fax/computer in September. Bell Atlantic sends me three separate bills
each month for local service.

Home line long distance provided by LDDS WorldCom;
Business line long distance provided LDDS WorldCom;
800 number that I have had since 1987 terminates on business line;
   Provided by LDDS WorldCom;
Fax/computer line long distance provided by Excel (a friend in the
   MLM business wanted to sign me up.)

An *old* girlfriend called me on my 800 line this evening. I have call
waiting, and was on the *other* line. I told her I would call her back
shortly. Did that and got a busy signal. For the heluvit, I tried *69.
To my surprinse, I got the standard message that my call would be
redialed. I thought this was strange since Suzi lives in Ameritech
(Columbus OH) country.

A bit later I get that distictive *ring* on my business line.
However, another woman answered. I did not recognize the voice and
asked for Suzi. This caused a comedy of errors since it turned out who
I was talking to was the girlfriend of someone in my local calling
area (Sara). I had tried to call them earlier from my home line, but
got a busy signal. Sara does not have call waiting and I did not *69
that particular call.

Was my business line somehow defaulting my *69 request to my home
line? When Bell Atlantic (Bell of PA at the time) installed my second
line in 1989 did they use the two *extra* wires coming into my
apartment for this second line? When Bell Atlantic was here to install
my third line, what did the technician really do; he told me he was
*somehow* able to give me my third line without stringing more wire
from the point of termination in my building. He spent 45 minutes of
my time trying to figure out what his predecessor did to hook up my
second line in '89, while telling me *If you ever want to have another
phone line installed, you might want to move.* All of this, along with
my trouble trying to explain what *star-sixty-nine* was to two
females made for a good post I was writing when:

Suzi calls me back on the 800 line. Hold on I told her, call you
right back.

Here's were this story gets better: *All circuits are busy, please try
again later*. Just great. I try both lines several times; same.  I
call LDDS WorldCom's 800 customer service number; same. I try my LDDS
WorldCom calling card access number; same.

What's going on? I call my own 800 number from the home line; rings
through OK. It's getting late, and Suzi is probably wondering why I
have yet to call her back; lets try the fax line since the long
distance carrier is Excel. I pick up the handset on my fax machine to
hear the screech of my modem since I was in the process of sending a
post to TELECOM Digest. Duh.

After I shut down my modem, the call goes through, and Suzi asks me
to call her back at a decent hour tomorrow.

I have never had trouble such as this before, and would guess that
my two problems are not related. But ...

Any comments?


Eric Friedebach    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 1-800-MY-ANI-IS Now Requires Passcode
Date: 21 Nov 1995 05:30:38 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


Has anyone tried this lately?  It seems to require an access code now.


Scott Gordon - SBBS Communications - [phone]
$0.179 Calling Cards For FREE - Pagers - Cellular Phones - Dial 1+ LD
HTTP://CLEVER.NET/QMS/SBBS.HTM - [e-mail] For Automated Responses


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's right. Too many abusers were on
that line all the time. MCI got some incredible phone bills on that
and after a brief hiatus where no calls were accepted at all, now it
can be used only with permission.  Give it up, find something else.  PAT]

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:22:51 -0500
Subject: Notice re FCC Toll-Free NPRM Responses


The deadline for responses to the FCC TOLL-FREE NPRM (CC Docket No. 95-155)
was November 15th.

It has come to our attention that responses delivered on the 15th via
Federal Express are still at the Fed X office in D.C., as no one was at the
FCC to accept them.

Interested parties should follow up to ensure that their responses reach
the FCC, when the agency opens up again.


Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand.
A leading source of information and support on 800 and related issues.
[e-mail].  1 800 The Expert.  1 212 684-2714 (fax).
http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com/~producer/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The latest word is that everyone is
back to work now, so persons who wrote at the deadline last week may
wish to follow up now with a cover note saying that attempts were made
to respond in a timely manner and that your follow up is being made
only to insure that in the crunch of backlogged mail the FCC must
be experiencing the original correspondence did not get lost.   PAT]

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

From: Masoud Loghmani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About 12 KHz and 16 KHz Payphone Signals
Date: 20 Nov 1995 22:27:14 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA


Does anyone know of any international standard that defines the 12Khz
and 16Khz charging signals for pay-phones? I specifically need
information like duration, amplitude, and phase shifts (if any).

I appreciate your help. Please reply to [e-mail].


Masoud Loghmani
http://www.access.digex.net/~dti

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 15:21:00 EST


To answer those BellSouth customers who have questioned the various
aspects of Caller ID Deluxe:

1. The city/state names are starting to show up on inter-LATA calls as
a result of the various long distance carriers implementing the FCC
requirement to supply the originating number along with the call.  This
is supposed to be in place by December 1, 1995, but some carriers have
already implemented the necessary changes.

2. The lower case city/state names, and the mis-punctuated "city
,state" that have shown up were due to a programming bug that has been
corrected.  All display names and city/states are now upper case.

3. The not-very-readable "NWYRCYZN01, NY" and "NASSAUZN04, NY" (and
others) are being reviewed, and will probably be corrected in the near
future.  There are over 19000 different place names to be reviewed, so
it may take some time.

4. A customer can always call BellSouth customer service with any
questions about the service.  Unusual, unreadable, or incorrect names
and/or city/state designations that customers discover and report
usually receive prompt attention and correction.

I would be happy to answer any questions (or find out the answers)
about the BellSouth Caller ID Deluxe service.


Michael Klein, BellSouth Telecommunications, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Woman in New York Gets $25K Phone Bill From Nynex by Mistake
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 06:32:05 GMT


Saw on the TV channel 7 (WABC-TV New York) local newscast a blurb
about a woman in Queens (or Brooklyn, forgot which) who got a BIG
suprise when she opened up the mail, a $25,000 phone bill.  Many many
pages of called numbers, lots international.  It appears that some
business "xxxx Cosmetics" (where xxxx is the same name as the woman's
last name) should have received this bill, and the news reporters
tracked down an address for the company at some office building.
Nobody at that building had heard of that company.

Maybe whoever skipped town, and gave the phone company a change-of-address
to someone who happened to have xxxx for a name.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #491
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Nov 22 15:47:44 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id PAA10308; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:47:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:47:44 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #492

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 Nov 95 15:46:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 492

Inside This Issue:  <Happy Thanksgiving!>    Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? ([e-mail])
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Ross Oliver)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Rupert Baines)
    Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View? (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: A Unique Pan-European Country Code? (Alex Hardisty)
    Re: Some More Notes on CID (Wil Dixon)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service (aa2@vax2)
    Re: The Killer Application Myth (Chris Gray)
    Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming (Oliver Jones)
    1 800 GOBBLE GOBBLE (Judith 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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Organization: AT&T-NS-NL,  Huizen - The Netherlands
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:29:48 GMT


I remember the posting to one of the News groups earlier this year ...
(if I'm right, it was about the 1st of April). This promises to be
the solution for all your memory hungry net users ;-)

Ton.
                               ----------------

Subject: New for Linux! Memory sharing over the Internet!
Date: 1 Apr 1995 00:34:51 +0200
Subject: Linus reveals: Linux creates memory!

Newsflash!

Linux Torvalds and Richard M. Stallman present revolutionary memory
managment scheme:

SMMP: Simple Memory Managment Protocol allows distribution of expansion RAM
over Internet connections.

Richard M. Stallman, genial author of the popular C-Compiler and the
Emacs editor, founder of the GNU project, just released his RFC of the
Internet SMM protocol. SMMP, the simple memory managment protocol,
allows the distribution of local RAM to remote hosts via the popular
Internet protocol suite. Just as other Internet protocols allow the
distribution of local files, printers, mail or graphics with other
hosts on the net, SMMP allows the sharing of RAM.

"This is just the final step on the long road towards the
virtualization of system ressources", Stallman says. "With standard
Internet protocols users are already able to construct machines with
virtual disk drives, virtual displays and virtual printers. For
example, if you need additional disk space just to finish an important
task, you just mount it over from another machine somewhere on the
net. Your final files go again over the net towards some remote
printer and with X you can even send your application windows over the
network. But the final step was always missing."

Stallman just finished the work on his Simple Memory Managment
Protocol RFC.  RFCs are the standardization documents of the Internet,
specifying protocols and other technical details and procedures. "With
any SMMP conformant implementation, operating systems can mount RAM
from other machines just as disk space. They are able to share memory
over the network just like they can share printers". With Stallmans
protocol the road for implementations is open. Stallman emphasizes,
that SMMP is completely independent of the underlying operating system
technology. "With SMMP, a UNIX server could easily export its memory
to VMS or MS-Windows clients, even to Apple machines. Best of all,
SMMP is not even hindered by MS-DOS infamous 640 KB barrier. So SMMP
is probably the best way to expand a DOS machines memory.", Stallman
points out.

Finnish computer geek Linus Torvalds, author of the freely available
Linux operating system, got his hands on a prerelease of Stallmans
specs. "I was completely stunned. Richards idea is completely obvious
once you understand its basic principle of operation.", Torvalds told
us. "I was able to implement basic SMMP support for Linux in just
about a weekends work. SMMP integrates smoothly with the
internetworking and the memory manager of Linux. I only had to make
some minor modifications to the page fault handler, the rest was
straightforward implementation of Richards SMMP primitives." This is
because of Linux highly sophisticated memory managment system dealing
easily with different types of RAM. "Older 16 bit based operating
systems such as DOS will probably require much more work. They are
best used as SMMP clients, though.", Linus notes.

Linus has already integrated basic SMMP support into the coming 1.3.1
release of his Linux operating system, although there will be only
SMMP client support in the first releases with an SMMP server being
"in the works". Public Linux versions with complete SMMP support are
exspected to arrive within this month as Torvalds announced. Some
major UNIX vendors already reacted to Stallmans announcement.

Digital Equipment Corporation donated a whole 50 Gigs of memory at
it's decwrl network center for public use with SMMP. DEC CEO Bob
Palmer announced Digitals move: "DEC always had a strong commitment to
the Internet community and decwrl as one of the networks largest news
hubs is perfectly located for such a service. DECs memory, driven by
our newest line of 275 MHz Alpha processors, will also be one of the
fastest in the world." By donating memory to the public, DEC hopes to
push its line of Alpha processors and its OSF/1 operating system,
which are the fastest currently available in the world but a complete
marketing failure, too. Other majors vendors such as HP, IBM and SUN
also announced public free memory pools, with IBMs journaled memory, a
derivation of their journaled file system, being even crash resistent.
SUNs CEO Bill Joy announced the SUN Online Memory Suite allowing for
graphical administration of system memory, RAID-style mirroring of
memory over the network and a technique called "memory striping and
spanning".

But the most interesting announcement came from virtual reality
specialist Silicon Graphics, who gave some megabytes of Z-buffer
memory to the network.  SGIs memory will enable even slow PCs with
common VGA cards to render photorealistic pictures and animations
without hardware modifications. SMMP also greatly simplifies updates
of networked hardware. Telebit and Cisco, manufacturers of Internet
routing equipment, both plan to export the boot ROM code for their
hardware read-only to the network. This scheme makes their hardware
completely unhackable, but allows for easy, automated software updates
without manual interception.

First pre-alpha patches for the Linux memory handler are available
from the usual FTP archives, that is from

ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/incoming/linux/smmp-patch-01.tar.gz
ftp://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/incoming/smmp-patch01.tar.gz

and all their mirrors. The current SMMP announcements can be obtained from
vendor web servers such as

http://www.dec.com
http://www.sun.com
http://www.ibm.com
http://www.hp.com

Microsoft plans to implement a different protocol of similar functionalitiy
with Windows 95, to be released 2Q96. A description of Microsofts Memory
Protocol, MMP, available over Microsoft Network (MSN) can be obtained
at

http://www.microsoft.com

RFCs 1870/71 describe SMMP with RFC 1870 discussing SMMP itself and
RFC 1871 covering the security aspects of a memory sharing protocol.
See

http://www.toppoint.de/~kris/smmp.html


for complete coverage of all SMMP related topics.

Kristian Koehntopp, 24114 Kiel
e-Mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Organization: The Air Affair: http://www.airaffair.com/
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 21:06:17 GMT


Bill McMullin ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Why don't we mobilize an effort to create the Community RAM Company.
> Collectively, all the people on the Net (or a significant percentage of
> them) could do one of two things:
> 1) lobby the RAM manufacturers for more reasonable pricing (a big
> buying group).
> 2) initiate a business effort to create a company, financed by the Internet
> community, and possibly other members, to manufacturer RAM, either by
> buying a RAM manufacturer or creating one.

Both 1) and 2) are based on the invalid assumptions that current RAM prices
include large markups, and that volume purchases or self-manufacture could
significantly reduce the price.  In reality, commodity semiconductors,
including RAM, is a highly-competitive (some might say cutthroat) industry,
with razor-thin margins.  The price you pay is *very* close to the actual
cost.

So why do these tiny slivers of silcon cost so much to make?  A large portion
of the cost is the manufacturer's investment in R&D and manufacturing
equipment.  Because of the rapidly advancing technology, semiconductor
factories become obsolete very quickly, and must be in essence, thrown away
and completely replaced every two to three years.  Needless to say, this
is very costly, and is reflected in the price of the product.

> I realize this is pretty off the wall but I think the Net has finally
> created a way for a lot of people with little effort to mobilize and
> organize themselves.  Additionally, the Internet community collectively
> has a lot of money even if only a small amount from each person was
> contributed.  Any contributor would become a shareholder of the
> Community RAM Company.  Anyone who could not afford to be a
> shareholder would receive the benefit of affordable RAM as long as
> they could prove their economic position.

Socialist Semiconductors, Inc.  Despite computer manufacturers' claims
to the contrary, RAM is not a necessity of life like food, clothing,
and shelter.  It is a tool, just like a power drill or a cellular
phone.  You use it either for pleasure, or for economic benefit (i.e.
to make money).  If the intended use is pleasure, there is no valid
justification for subsidizing the cost.  If profit is the motive, then
the gain will exceed the cost, otherwise you should find a cheaper
tool.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well what you say certainly has some
> merit. But I think the prices will come down, even without a dedicated
> effort by net people to make it happen. Personally I think we will
> see complete desk top computer systems in the price range of $100-
> $200 within a year or two.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Moderator, but there will not be a
$200 desktop PC in the near future.  The economics of the sales
channels do not make it profitable.  PCs have had a price floor of
about $1,000 for quite a few years.  They do not get any cheaper, only
more powerful.  Part of what holds up the floor is the cost of certain
components.  Disk drives and monitors have reached a floor of about
$200 each.  If and when someone figures out how to make (and
profitably sell) a 1.2 gig mass storage device or a 15-inch color
display for $49.95, then we might see the floor of PC prices drop some
more.

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

From: Rupert Baines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: 21 Nov 1995 03:39:05 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, Bill McMullin
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Wouldn't it be great to solve the problems of the digital poor?  I
>> agree with our Canadian friend who questions the high cost of memory.

> Sorry, I have to disagree here.  Memory is *dirt cheap* these days.

I entirely agree with Tim.  Stop being so greedy - memory is CHEAP,
and "unnecessary".  Sure, you need it for VRML and the like, but the
net manages very well on very little memory Text only is possible -
email and Usenet - even LYNX for the web.  Or there are some very
frugal shareware browsers that will run on a minimal machine.  Just
because you want the latest, greatest, all-singin' all dancin' Pentium
is hardly a conspiracy - any more than the price of Ferraris is.

>> How could anything produced in such mass quantity cost so much?

Huh ???  Like cars you mean?  Found a new car that costs less than a
new PC ?  "costs so much" ?  If you buy a used car, why not a used PC?

>> If they are trying to make use believe it is a commodity subject to
>> supply and demand, why isn't it traded on the stock market? (Maybe it
>> is, help me here.)

Ummmm..... Do you know what on earth you are talking about ?
(Clue - the answer is "NO" <G> )

a) It *IS* subject to supply and demand. Very much so. Supply is finite
(all fabs are at capacity). Demand is huge and growing.

b) Stockmarket is by definition for COMPANIES.  If you buy stock in
Samsung or Micron or whoever, you are in effect buying shares in a memory
business :)

c) Perhaps you mean futures or options exchanges, as used in other THINGS
(grain, oil etc)>  There was an attempt to launch DRAM futures a few
years ago. It failed, primarily because the market was too 'lumpy' and
illiquid - only a  few people made 'em, only a very few bought 'em, and
the exchange was of little added value in marketmaking.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: The "Information Appliance" -- A Telecom Point of View?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 03:25:03 PST


Giles Heron said:

> IMHO the only reason to have a disk on a networked PC is lack of
> communications bandwidth or server capacity.  This is where the

I completely disagree.  Disks are proably the BEST primary storage
medium on a network.  Compare disk speeds to a network connection:

Suppose you a have standard ethernet conenction between your machine
and the server with no other traffic. (I know faster nets exist, but
the lack of other traffic will make up for the increased performance of
another network architecture.)

Ethernet (IEE 802.3) 10 BASE 5: 10 Mbps = 1.25 MBps SCSI Disk = 8-10
MBps;

Clearly the disk is much faster, even under optimal net conditions.

In reality, the efficency of 802.3 is 1/(1+3a), where a = (Prop.
delay)/(Packet Transmission time).  On a heavily loaded network,
efficency is about 53%.  Also note that only 61% of the packet frame
are user bits.

So, typical Ethernet = 1.25 MBps * 0.53 * 0.61 = 0.38 MBps.

I am not advocating removing networks, nor am I implying that the
technology is unimportant -- clearly it is, or this forum would not
exist.  My point is that some computer hardware componets are rapidly
evolving (processors are getting faster, disks are getting denser),
and others aren't (core memory and networks).

Compare memory speeds to processor speeds: common processors these
days are around 80-120 MHz.  Most memory sold is rated at 50-60 ns,
which will support, at the maximum, a 20 MHz processor.  How can these
fast new processors function with such slow memory? By using a CACHE!

Think of a local hard disk as a cache to the network.  Do you REALLY
want to have to do a net read every time you read a piece of a file?

Disks are definitely an important part of any networked device, and if
anyone tells you differently, they're lying :-)


Steve   [e-mail]

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

From: Alex Hardisty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Unique Pan-European Country Code?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:30:36 GMT
Organization: PQM Consultants, Chepstow
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> Europe is to request that the ITU make Country Code 388 available for
> Pan-European services. Should this not occurr, then the European
> telephone standards organizations are considering a national numbering
> approach for Pan-European services, using the unused 00 capacity
> behind existing County Codes. ...

If only life were so simple!

The issue of European numbering is the responsibility of ETO, the European
Telecommunications Office, under guidance from the European Commission and
the European Numbering Forum (ENF).

According to my information, it is extremely unlikely that ITU-T will
allocate a country code to Europe in the near future.


Alex Hardisty    PQM Consultants

tel: [phone] fax: [phone] Email:
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wil Dixon)
Subject: Re: Some More Notes on CID
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:39:07 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I tried to do *67 and the like from the Centrex. When I did *-6 (or
> 11-6) I was cut off *right-away* to ringing. I don't know if this was
> a Centrex internal number/service-code or not -- I hung up before
> anything answered (even tho' it might have been an `invalid-code'
> recording). When I dialed 9 (for outside calls) plus *67 (11-67) I got
> cut off to re-order. The same happened (after dialing 9) with *82
> (11-82), *77 (11-77), *70 (11-70), *71 (11-71) {BTW, the centrex lines
> did have 3-way on the line already}, *87 (11-87) and probably a few
> others. Unassigned (or at least those not planned for use in New
> Orleans) *XX (11-XX) codes gave me ringing and a recording, "...cannot
> be completed as dialed. Please check your instruction manual or call
> the Business Office for assistance" which I would also get on
> NON-Centrex lines. Dialing some *-X codes BEFORE the `9' would
> sometimes get a recording about calling the *attendant* for
> assistance, while `0' without a 9 would get me a recording that office
> hours are only on weekdays (this happened to be a Saturday). 9-0 would
> give me Bell's operators.

The code is *97, instead of *67, to block caller-id from a Centrex
(TM), or equivalent, line.  In some Centexs 1197 WILL NOT work, you
must use *97!

> As for CID-on-CW and other ADSI features, these new boxes (box-only)
> will have to have two SPECIFIED modular jacks. One is for the line,
> and the other can cut-off' what is plugged into it- this second one
> for the phone.

Where did you get thin information?  My understanding is that the
CPE equipment MUST mute the handset.

BTW the jack you are describing is an RJ31X.

> Actual phones with *built-in* CID-on-CW/ADSI features
> have their handset completely muted (or switched out) of the line, so
> data going back and forth (1200 Baud FSK from the switch, and DTMF
> tones A B C D from the CPE) won't be corrupted by conversation or
> background noise, nor annoy' the user. It only takes about a second
> for the data to transmit back and forth, so there really isn't a loss
> of conversation- only a slight dropout. If phones with the displays
> built-in mute/switch-out the handset, then `stand-alone' boxes will
> have to have a controlled jack for a `standard' phone.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Announces Caller-Pays Cellular Service
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 19:07:53 +900
Organization: SAGASCO Resources Ltd.


[e-mail] (David E A Wilson) writes:

> Here in Australia we have always (as far as I know) had caller pays

In the early days, called-party-pays was introduced by the Telstra monopoly.
This was for the low monthly rate plan AMPS connections ($10/month and
$20/month).  When competition arrived (Optus) the same monthly rates were
offered with no called party payment.  Result: Telstra dropped its called
party payment requirement.

> The calls are charged at the 2nd highest STD rate for calls up to 745km and
> the same as landline calls over this distance.

This was the case about four years ago but fixed line call costs have
fallen substantially since then.  As a generality, per minute mobile
call rates have not changed despite the arrival of competition.
Telstra and Optus in particular have not altered their published
rates, although Vodaphone and some resellers now offer some
interesting alternatives such as Voda's one-rate national plan -
expensive if you usually call locally but cheap if most of your calls
are long distance.

In general, fixed line call costs are well below mobile costs, except for
some very short duration calls and Vodaphone's national plan (which comes with
relatively high monthly fee).

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Gray)
Subject: Re: The Killer Application Myth
Date: 20 Nov 1995 15:18:45 GMT
Organization: Never was my forte
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> Interestingly enough, in France there are smartcard readers in many
> phone booths now, since most of them can be used with prepaid calling
> smartcards, charge cards, or regular calling smartcards with the added
> functionality of being able to be "refilled" with money for phone
> calls. This is the electronic purse.

Actually it seems to be hard to find any other kind of phone booth in
France these days: tough if all you have is cash or outmoded mag-stripe
credit cards.  This summer I was in a place called Le Rosier (population
27.3 and falling), and could not find a single phone booth which would
accept anything less than a smart card.  These had to be purchased from
the post office or tabac at such times as the proprietor was neither
sleeping nor eating (viz: 10-12 am, 3-5 pm).


 Chris Gray        [e-mail]          Compuserve: 100065,2102
                http://plato.digiweb.com/kiffer/
      Opinions expressed are purely personal unless otherwise stated.

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

From: [e-mail] (Oliver Jones)
Subject: Re: Cell-One Boston - Disabled Roaming
Organization: Vivo Software, Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 03:33:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Scott Drown
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> ...  It seems that Cell-One/Boston has summarily DISABLED ROAMING on
> ALL phones that have not roamed in the past XXX days.  The helpful
> service person did not know how long XXX was.  He did inform me that
> this move was to combat massive fraud in roaming.

Funny thing about that.  I was a Cell-One/Boston customer until last
July.  My July bill arrived in a big fat parcel (I thought they were
sending me a phone book or something until I opened it).

It contained about $3000.00 worth of calls made from New Haven to all
over New England and New York City, about one minute apart, 24 hours a
day, starting at a particular time and continuing unabated until about
a week before the bill date.  It also contained calls from Bronx, but
not quite as many.  Some of these calls occured at precisely the same
time as the New Haven calls.  A few numbers showed up on the bill
over and over.

It was pretty obvious that some sort of organized operation was
using my number.

I called Cell One and told them what was up.  They told me they would
check it out. A couple of days later they called back and told me my
phone had been used for fraud, and their remedy was to permanently
disable roaming on that phone.  "Wait a minute," I said, "I mostly use
the phone when travelling."  OK, they would change my phone number,
and talk me through reprogramming the phone on the wireline phone they
called me on.

I ended up cancelling the service instead; I figured it was costing me
a lot anyway and I didn't need the fear and loathing of being hacked. So
now I have a nice Moto flip phone in a cardboard box and more money
in my bank account.

So, Cell One/Boston definitely has fraud problems.  I guess theft-of-
services isn't a very serious crime, otherwise the information on my
bill could almost certainly have led to some arrests.  It sure was a
nuisance, though.


Oliver Jones

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 23:08:45 -0500
Subject: 1 800 GOBBLE GOBBLE


Wishing all a warm and serene Thanksgiving.


Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand.
A leading source of information and support on 800 and related issues.
[e-mail].  1 800 The Expert.  1 212 684-2714 (fax).
http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com/~producer/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith's note was typical of the many
received in the past couple days regards the holiday we observe at
this time. I for one have a lot to be thankful for this year, and I
know you do also.  For me, its been the marvelous support received
 from Microsoft -- renewed, I might add for 1996, as was confirmed for
me a couple days ago, thank you Charles and thank you Toby -- and the
ongoing support the Digest has received from the International
Telecommunication Union for about two years now. Without them, and
especially Microsoft, I would have been out of here last summer, at
what was probably the height of -- or perhaps depth of -- financial
despair over the 'way things were going'.  For many years also, I
received a great deal of assistance from Northwestern University in
the form of totally free, unlimited access Internet service; this
alone was well beyond my limited budget. For just as many years,
MIT has provided housing for the Telecom Archives, and now they are
providing me with network connectivity as well.  Yes, there is much
for me to be grateful for; not the least of which are the many of
you readers who have also voluntarily supported the Digest with a
suggested annual donation of twenty dollars per reader/year. Do
have a safe and happy holiday, and remember WHY we call it what we
do. Take a moment to offer your own thanks, in your own way.   PAT]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #492
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Nov 24 09:58:20 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id JAA29161; Fri, 24 Nov 1995 09:58:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 09:58:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #493

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Nov 95 09:58:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 493

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CRTC Public Hearing on Affordable Local Telephone Service (Nigel Allen)
    National Area Code Day (Mark Cuccia)
    Book Review: "IPng: Internet Protocol Next Generation" (Rob Slade)
    25 Day Link Needed in Edinburgh ([e-mail])
    Pronto - Using Casual Calling Access For Long Distance (Dave Leibold)
    French Unique Agreement to Use Netscape Navigator (JeanBernard Condat)
    Conference: Call Centers on the Internet (Ian Angus)
    New Telco With Internet Dialout to BBS's Needs Beta Testers (M. Spencer)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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, 22 Nov 1995 15:44:56 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: CRTC Public Hearing on Affordable Local Telephone Service
Organization: Internex Online, Toronto


The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
has announced plans to hold a public hearing on affordable local
telephone service options.  More information can be found on the
CRTC's web site at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/whatsnew.htm

By way of background, local telephone service is becoming increasingly
unaffordable for low-income consumers in Canada as a result of
increases in monthly rates and installation charges and because of
significant reductions in welfare payments in Ontario and possible
future reductions in the federal government's unemployment insurance
program. Provincial and federal government restraint programs are
expected to result in a lot of people losing their jobs, and new
entrants to the labor force having more difficulty finding work. In
short, it's not a good time to be poor in Canada.

In the past, the CRTC has refused to adopt a "lifeline" program which
would provide low-cost telephone service to specified groups of
low-income people. Instead, it has required telephone companies to
offer two-party, black dial phone service at a somewhat lower rate
than regular service, available to anyone who wants the lower-cost
service, regardless of income level.  I don't think this has ever been
very satisfactory to the customers or to the telephone companies.

(Usual disclaimer: I do not work for the CRTC or for a
telecommunications carrier.)

Here is the CRTC's news release:

November 22, 1995

CRTC TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON AFFORDABLE LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE OPTIONS

   OTTAWA-HULL - The CRTC today announced it will hold a public hearing
   to consider mechanisms to ensure that local telephone services remain
   affordable for low-income consumers. The public hearing will begin on
   April 15, 1996 in Hull, Quebec (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-49).

   To make the process more accessible to the general public, there will
   also be a series of regional consultations held in major centres
   across the country. The dates and locations of these consultations
   will be announced in a future notice.

   "A few weeks ago, the Commission set out a regulatory framework aimed
   at establishing a stable competitive environment for telephone
   companies," CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer said. "It is also important,
   however, that local telephone service continue to be affordable to
   low-income consumers. This broadly-based, open process will provide an
   opportunity to hear everybody's views."

   The public hearing will look into a number of issues related to local
   service pricing options, including the range within which rates for
   local service would continue to be affordable, the scope of the
   services to be provided, the impact of pricing options on the
   competitiveness of the long distance and local markets, and concerns
   regarding other costs of local services such as security deposits,
   installation fees and service charges.

   Anyone wishing to participate in the Hull public hearing must notify
   the Commission in writing by December 19, 1995. The
   federally-regulated Stentor member telephone companies, Ed Tel and
   other parties must file submissions by January 19, 1996, reply
   submissions by February 19, 1996 and file arguments by the conclusion
   of the public hearing.

   Anyone may submit comments on the issues raised in this proceeding as
   long as they are sent in writing to the Commission before the
   beginning of the public hearing. Brief oral presentations can also be
   made at the regional consultations.

   - 30 -

   Contact: CRTC Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2
   Tel: [phone], TDD: [phone], Fax: [phone]

   Copies of today's public notice are available through our Internet
   home page (http://www.crtc.gc.ca) or by contacting the public
   examination room of any CRTC office:

City               Telephone             TDD                Fax
Halifax         [phone]     [phone]     [phone]
Montreal        [phone]     [phone]     [phone]
Ottawa-Hull     [phone]     [phone]     [phone]
Winnipeg        [phone]     [phone]     [phone]
Vancouver       [phone]     [phone]     [phone]

forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[e-mail]      http://www.io.org/~ndallen
resume available on request

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Area Code Day
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 13:28:00 CST


Did you know that North America celebrated National Area Code Day on
November 1 (three weeks ago)? <g>

I was websurfing and tried again at Bellcore's pages to see if the
North American Numbering Plan Administration or the Traffic Routing
Administration (TRA) had anything yet on Bellcore's webpages.

Doing a search on Bellcore's search pages for NANP and North American
Numbering, I came across pages beginning:
http://www.bellcore.com/demotoo/NANP

It seems that the FCC declared Wed. 1 Nov. 1995 as "National Area Code
Day".  (But I don't seem to remember any special parties, celebrations,
reductions- even one day eliminations in toll charges, paid holidays
off from work, etc.  on that day <grin>)

If we were supposed to be imitating the UK's phONEday which occurred
this past April, we sure declared a date several months *after* our
new `NNX' forms cut into service. And also, the UK's phONEday was
really the first day after permissive dialling had *ended*, when the
UK (+44) changed virtually *every* internal Areacode (STD code) by
adding a leading `1' to most of the POTS/geographic codes while
changing a few others, and the handful of non-POTS/non-geographic
codes (for the most part) contiued to be left alone.

Here in North America, only those areas where new areacodes of
*either* the old or new format were directly affected. Of course, PBX
and other CPE systems *everywhere* are affected since they have to be
reprogrammed.  Switched based services are modified by telco
themselves, except for possibly some customer modifications to such
things as switch-based `dialing lists' (Custom Calling & CLASS) even
if that customer didn't have a new areacode in their own local dialing
territory. And all we did here in North America is to *expand* the
range of numbers that a 3-digit areacode could be a part of, from N0X
& N1X to *all* possible NXX's by including the NNX format.

What I *do* find amusing is all of these PBX system administrators
wringing their hands about not knowing about the new NPA formats, or
customers located in a new-form NPA lamenting that they can't receive
calls. *I've* read articles as far back as the 1950's, in AT&T (*THE*
Bell System) journals about future new numbering formats. The Winter
1959/60 issue of Bell Telephone Magazine has such an article which
describes going to ANC- All Number Calling (i.e. changing the display
of LEtters in EXchange names to all numerical digits), possible future
use of N0X & N1X Central Office codes in the largest of metro areas by
the early to mid 1970's (which did occurr in that timeframe), and
possible future use of NNX form Areacodes sometime by the mid 1990's
or the year 2000. This would allow the US & Canada to continue with a
ten-digit national numbering format for many more decades into the
21st Century.

And only *now* are the PBX/CPE users crying?!?!?

But I *am* glad to see that Bellcore has *finally* put up some
webpages with NANP and TRA info. And the Bellcore pages on the NANP
new areacodes includes a list of 23 new geographic NPA's and the new
`888' tollfree code. Each code can be 'clicked' on to get a more
detailed text description, which includes the `test-number' (if
available).

However, the following upcomming code changes have NO mention in these
webpages:
312/773    Chicago (city)
818/626    northern Los Angeles area
619/760    San Diego & southeastern CA area
216/???    another northeastern/Cleveland OH split
301/??? and 410/???
           MD splits?/overlays?
817/???    Fort Worth area overlay
nor any other additional code splits in 809-Caribbean nor anywhere else in
the NANP.


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: I intend to begin announcing my phone
as area code 847 beginning early in January; to heck with anyone who
cannot reach me after that time! Let them argue about it with their
PBX administrator, local telco, etc. And if you can't get through on
my 847 number, then perhaps you can use my 500 number as an alternate.
<grin> ... You don't really feel too sorry for any of those people
do you?  I remember an instance years ago when in this area we first
started having phone numbers with 0/1 as the second digit of the number.
A company I was involved with had a Rolm PBX which was not programmed
to accept that combination. I sent two or three memos to the PBX admin
telling him he needed to make that change. Everything I wrote was
ignored. Ignored, that is, until the day I got a new voicemail number
which started out that way. I changed my phone number in the company
records to that number, and sat back to watch the fireworks. Sure
enough, a few days later they wanted to call me about something, and
their call would not go through. After a couple hours of deciding
what to do, someone finally got the bright idea to go to the payphone
in the employee's lunch room and call from there.

It is time to start rubbing noses in messes, people. Any of you with
one of the 'new' area codes, start giving it out exclusively. Fill out
forms with your new area code; change your phone number with existing
contacts to the new area code; flatly deny any connection with the
old area code at all, even if there is a grace period of several
months before it is gone. Companies which want to talk to you for some
reason can't reach you? That's tough. This should be an excellent
technique to use with bill collectors, etc. They'll go crazy trying to
reach people.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 16:04:12 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "IPng: Internet Protocol Next Generation"


BKIPNG.RVW   951027

"IPng: Internet Protocol Next Generation", Bradner/Mankin, 1996, 0-201-63395-7,
U$33.95
%A   Scott O. Bradner, ed.
%A   Allison Mankin, ed.
%C   1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA   01867-9984
%D   1996
%G   0-201-63395-7
%I   Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O   U$33.95 416-447-5101 fax: [phone] [e-mail] 800-822-6339
%O   617-944-3700 Fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   336
%T   "IPng: Internet Protocol Next Generation"

The Internet is huge, useful and efficient.  And, as with any such
entity, it turns out not to be huge, useful and efficient enough.  The
Internet will allow more addresses than there are computers on the
planet: therefore there is a desire to have enough addresses so that
each individual on the planet can have a few dozen.  The Internet can
accommodate any type of data application: therefore there is a desire
to run real time applications such as voice and video.  The Internet
makes the most effective use of multiple data channels between any two
points: therefore there is a desire for effective use of all channels
and points simultaneously.

Internet applications rely on services provided by the current (IPv4)
foundational Internet protocols.  Future developments will require a
new generation of basic amenities.  This work includes papers by over
forty authors describing the problems, concerns and proposed solutions
involved in the task of specifying the IPng.  The standards process;
business, industry and government concerns; new technologies; new
features; migration considerations; and proposed candidates are all
examined.

Few may be interested in this field.  Great care, though, has been
taken to ensure that all the material in this book is accessible not
only to the technical audience, but also to those managers and
executives who, while they may not build the next generation of
networks, must choose, buy and support them.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKIPNG.RVW   951027. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


[e-mail]      [e-mail]      [e-mail]
The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it - J. Gilmore
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 25 Day Link Needed in Edinburgh
Date: 23 Nov 1995 15:25:19 GMT
Organization: Cambridge University


I'm currently trying to find a practical way to connect the three
largest venues in the Edinburgh Festival Fringe so our computerized
Box Offices can sell each other's tickets.  The trouble is we only
want the link for approx 25 days (Aug-Sept) which means most solutions
are out of the question (too pricey) unless someone is willing to help
us out. Massive press coverage etc. is offered in return.  Any
ideas/offers of help gratefully received.


Charlie Hartill    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 23:08:36 -0500
Subject: Pronto - Using Casual Calling Access For Long Distance


Casual calling, or the means to select a particular long distance
carrier during dialing, is commonplace in the U.S. what with customers
being able to choose a carrier other than their default with those
10xxx codes (10288 for AT&T, 10222 MCI, 10333 Sprint, etc).

Now in Canada, various ads from a service called Pronto is touting a
casual calling access to an alternate long distance service. The idea
is to dial the call as 10215 then 1+area+number for Canada/U.S./Caribbean
calls, and 10215+011+ for other international calls.

Pronto had their 215 CIC code (for the 10215 access) listed in the
CIC lists of over a year ago. Only now do they appear to have
widespread advertising for their service.

The costs (according to Pronto) for calls from 416/905 to other parts
of Canada are 34c/min peak (weekdays), 23c/min 5-11pm weekdays,
16c/min weekends and weekday overnights (11pm-8am). Within 416/905,
the rate Pronto gave me was a straight 13c/min at all times.

Unitel apparently also allowed casual calling with its 10869+ code,
though they haven't advertised this. Bell Canada (and perhaps the other
Stentor telcos in Canada) should be accessible as 10323+.


Fidonet:  Dave Leibold 1:259/730
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (JeanBernard Condat)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: French Unique Agreement to Use Netscape Navigator
Date: 22 Nov 1995 09:36:42 GMT
Organization: FranceNet


Bonjour,

All over the French newgroups, you can read the incredible news this
morning: the secret SCSSI (Service Central de la Securite des Systemes
d'Information) from the Premier Ministre' desk in Paris have given their
complete agreement to use Netscape Navigator. The document says:

   Titre: "Autorisation de fourniture et d'utilisation generale de moyens
     de cryptologie No. 2500"
   Signe: 7 Novembre 1995
   Par: Jacques VINCENT-CARREFOUR pour la DISSI
   Reference: 509/DISSI dossier numero 950038

   L'autorisation est fournie aux seuls produits Netscape Navigator suivants:

    N. DOS WINDOWS CD ROM
    N. DOS WINDOWS KX 23
    N. MACINTOSH CD ROM
    N. MACINTOSH RX23
    N. NT/INTEL CD ROM
    N. NT/INTEL RX23
    N. NT/ALPHA
    N. X-WINDOWS
    N. WIN/95 16 BIT CD ROM
    N. WIN/95 16 BIT RX 23
    N. WIN/95 32 BIT CD ROM
    N. WIN/95 32 BIT RX 23

   Elle est egalement fournie aux distributeurs de la liste suivante et a
eux seuls:

    Sun Microsystems Computers
    Digital Equipment
    Silicon Graphics
    Novell
    Siemens Nixdorf
    Olivetti
    Bull
    Zenith Data Systems
    Apple Computers
    Hewlett Packard
    Compaq
    Azlan
    Softway
    France Telecom
    Grolier Interactive Europe
    General Games

Some remarks: it's no "s" to X-Window in the list of authorized
products. This agreement "is good until 1st October 1997 for selling
and use in France only." This authorization will be late to be given
because of some discussions with other huge software publishers that
don't have receive the same paper.

It's the first time in France that an US specific software will be
accepted in the cryptographic field by our Government. Bravo -:>]


Jean-bernard Condat
Computer Security Expert (Paris, France)

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

From: Ian Angus <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:47:26 -0400
Subject: Conference: Call Centers on the Internet


Editorial Contacts:

Gordon Mac Pherson
Incoming Calls Management Institute
410-267-0835
e-mail [e-mail]

Ian Angus
Angus Telemanagement Group
905-686-5050
e-mail [e-mail]


Angus Telemanagement Group and Incoming Calls Management Institute
Announce CALL CENTERS ON THE INTERNET Conference

Toronto, Ontario, November 21, 1995 -- Angus Telemanagement Group of
Ajax, Ontario and Incoming Calls Management Institute of Annapolis,
Maryland today announced a new conference: CALL CENTERS ON THE
INTERNET. The conference, to be held at the Phoenix Hilton in Phoenix,
Arizona on August 27, 1996, will be the first to focus exclusively on
making corporate and government users of 1-800 service knowledgeable
about how and why to provide customer service, technical support,
orders and reservations on the InternetÆs World Wide Web. Special
attention will be given to how the Internet is changing the mission
and management of incoming call centers.

Companies with call centers that already have sites on the World Wide
Web include Federal Express, First Union Bank, United Parcel Service,
Outrigger Hawaiian Hotels, Bank of America, L.L. Bean, Holiday Inns,
Southwest Airlines and many others.

Call Centers On The Internet will attract support from leading edge
vendors who want to gain access to the most qualified audience in the
world of call center services and equipment buyers.

The conference will be co-located with and immediately preceding the
world's most successful event for call center managers, the World
Conference on Incoming Call Center Management (ICCM), now in its
eighth year. The synergy, convenience and savings for attendees of
coupling the two conferences together is expected to make coming to
Call Centers On The Internet and ICCM even more appealing for vendors
and attendees.

ICCM's Call Center Resource Showcase -- the world's largest exhibit of
Call Center products and services -- will feature a special Internet
Pavillion, displaying Internet applications for call centers. Aspect
Telecommunications, AT&T, IBM, and Rockwell International have already
confirmed that they will participate in the Pavillion, and others are
expected to join them soon.

Gordon Mac Pherson, President of Incoming Calls Management Institute
will serve as conference chairman for 1996. Mac Pherson says, "We
think this is an area that smart call center managers will get on top
of right away. There is no doubt that call centers will dramatically
change once the Internet gains critical mass - and we're getting
close. When companies like AT&T say they intend to 'lead their 1-800
users onto the Internet' and make it as easy to use as the telephone,
you know something big is happening."

Ian Angus, president of Angus Telemanagement Group, adds, "The goal,
the test of our success, will be to attract a new audience component
for Call Centers On The Internet while offering more to our existing
audience for the World Conference On Incoming Call Center Management."

####

Incoming Calls Management Institute is the leading thinktank and
provider of educational events for incoming call center managers
worldwide. ICMI and its associates now present regularly scheduled or
private courses throughout the United States and in Canada, the United
Kingdom, Germany, Scandinavia and Australia. In addition, ICMI is a
principal organizer of the World Conference On Incoming Call Center
Management, the United Kingdom Conference On Incoming Call Centre
Management, and the Telecommute series of conferences. ICMI has been
completely dedicated since 1985 to the proposition that incoming call
center management is a growing profession with its own unique training
and education needs.

Angus Telemanagement Group is a research and consulting firm,
specializing in strategic business applications of telecommunications.
Angus publishes Canada's leading telecommunications journal,
TELEMANAGEMENT, as well as books on topics ranging from ISDN to toll
fraud, and presents seminars and conferences on a wide range of
topics. Our sister company, Angus Dortmans Associates, provides
management advisory services to Canadian organizations that rely
heavily on telecommunications to advance their business goals. Our
mission is to assist clients to make better telecom decisions, by
providing top-quality insight, counsel and direction.

###

IAN ANGUS                       Tel: [phone] ext 222
Angus TeleManagement Group      Fax: [phone]
8 Old Kingston Road             e-mail: [e-mail]
Ajax Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7     http://www.angustel.ca

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

From: Martin Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NEW Telco With Internet Dialout to BBS's Needs Beta Testers
Date: 21 Nov 1995 20:17:57 GMT
Organization: Cosmos International, Inc.


We are beta testing a new Internet service which allows individuals
and/or companies to "dial out" to modems (BBS's, etc.) from the Internet.
For example, someone on the net in Australia or South Africa can
telnet to our system and our system will allow access to the 100+
BBS's in Dallas, Texas. Just telnet to bbs.thecosmos.com (206.13.82.2)
to log on to COSMOS.

There is NO charge to the 500 beta testers we need. Those signing up
within the next three days will get a minimum of 60 hours FREE. Later,
when we complete beta testing and begin charging, beta testers will
get a special, discounted rate from us. Our home page is at:
www.thecosmos.com

Thanks for taking the time to try out our new service. You may email
us on our system. Have fun surfing in a new BBS domain!


David, Kelly, & Martin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #493
******************************



From [e-mail]  Mon Nov 27 10:27:09 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id KAA02360; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:27:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:27:09 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #494

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Nov 95 10:27:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 494

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Stalking Cellular Bandits (San Jose Mercury via Tad Cook)
    Sprint Spectrum PCS System (Greg Monti)
    Book Review: "LAN Times Guide to Telephony by Bezar" (Rob Slade)
    Hotel Long Distance Charges (Rob M. Saiter)
    Bell South Trim Line Phone (Thomas Neudecker)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Tad Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stalking Cellular Bandits
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:39:53 PST


Forwarded to the Digest FYI, from the {San Jose Mercury News} where
it appeared over the weekend.

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

Once-top-secret spy technology used in battle to foil cellular bandits

                    FROM COLD WAR TO CELL WARS

By Lee Gomes
Mercury News Staff Writer

THE COLD WAR is over, but there's no rest for the weary. Now, some of
the same people who helped defeat the "Evil Empire" are hard at work
against a new enemy. And what a wild crew is this latest batch of bad
guys: Dr. Who, ColdFire, OleBuzzard, Cool8.

In one of Silicon Valley's most remarkable defense conversion stories,
a group of engineers from ESL Inc., the ultra top-secret but somewhat
stodgy Pentagon sub-contractor in Sunnyvale, has become the nucleus of
a hot high-tech start-up in one of the nation's most sizzling markets:
cellular telephones.

Using sophisticated technology originally developed to keep tabs on
the communications from Soviet submarines and ships, Corsair
Communications Inc. is doing battle with a new and altogether domestic
opponent: cellular phone pirates.

In just six months of operation, Corsair's "RF fingerprinting" system
has become the bane of cell phone thieves in much of Los Angeles, its
first major test. It's done so well, in fact, that telecommunications
experts say the system could represent a major new defensive
capability in the war against "cloned phones," a multi-billion dollar
annual scam as well as the biggest growth industry in the underground
economy.

That would come not a moment too soon for Barbara Grossman, an Apple
Computer sales representative who, like untold thousands of other
cellular phone users, has been ripped off by cellular bandits. In
fact, Grossman has had it happen twice just in the last 18 months.
Once, she got a bill for $600 in calls she didn't make; the other
time, it was for a whopping $11,000.

While Grossman said her carrier promptly and without any questions
reversed the charges, she had to deal with all the logistics of a new
telephone number, like informing friends and family.

"It was a real annoyance," she said.

Corsair's "PhonePrint" is aimed at ending that annoyance by taking
advantage of a simple technical insight. In the same way that
individual people will have slightly different handwriting or
fingerprints, any two radio transmitters will send out a radio
frequency, or RF, signal in slightly different ways.

If you can learn the "fingerprints" of all the different transmitters
used by your opponent, something both Americans and Soviets tried as
part of their Cold War espionage arsenal, you'll know a lot, such as
whether a given transmission is from the massive aircraft carrier
Admiral Kuznetsov or the lowly supply ship Ivan Kucherenko.

Decades of research

ESL, which was bought by TRW Inc. in the late 1970s, worked on RF
fingerprinting at the Pentagon's behest for decades. And the same
techniques that were applied against the Soviet Navy can now be used
against big-city cell-phone fraud because cellular phones are radio
transmitters, too.

In fact, two cell phones that roll off the same high-tech assembly
line one after another will have enough subtle differences -- such as
in the tolerances of their various resistors and capacitors -- that
the signals they emit will be completely distinguishable from each
other, as long as you know what to look for. And that's become the
chink in the armor of phone cloning, currently the state of the art in
cell phone fraud.

In normal cellular operations, a phone trying to call someone first
sends two numbers to the receiver at the nearest cell site: its own
telephone number, and a special electronic serial number that's
hard-wired into it.

But because the current cellular system was designed years ago without
any apparent regard for either privacy or security matters, those
numbers are transmitted unencrypted over open airwaves. Thus, it's a
simple matter to grab them out of the air and to then reprogram them
into a second phone. The equipment to do both, though illegal in
California, is sold in a booming gray market.

The second phone can then be used freely and for free -- at least
until the rightful owner of the pair of numbers gets a monthly
statement and notices all the calls that he or she never made. At that
point, the cell carrier cuts off service, forcing the owner to get a
new phone number.

TRW, realizing the commercial potential of the technology for the cell
phone business, created a new business unit called TRW Wireless
Communications in 1993 to try to sell it.

Clash of cultures

At first, the business went nowhere. But rather than giving up, TRW
shopped the idea around to the local venture capital community, and
found believers at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers.

Kevin Compton, the Kleiner Perkins partner who is chairman of the
Corsair board, said the earlier incarnation of the company didn't work
because of a "mismatch of cultures. A group with a traditional
military bent who was moving at government rates of speed was trying
to enter a very rapidly moving business."

That changed when the unit was spun off last year into a separate
company, and when new managers were brought directly in from the
cellular industry, including Mary Ann Byrnes, a Cellular One veteran,
as president.

(At the Compton household, Corsair is something of a family affair;
wife Gayla thought up the name, a reference both to a famous pirate
ship and a W.W. II fighter plane.)

After two rounds of investments, the second of which, worth $8.8
million, was just concluded, venture capitalists and private investors
own 60 percent of the firm; the other 40 percent is split between TRW
and Corsair's employees.

Corsair's system puts the equivalent of a 486 computer with 20
megabytes of RAM and a 540 megabyte hard drive into each cell site.
(While usually hidden from users, these sites are the backbone of a
cellular system, containing both transmitters and receivers as well as
a triangular antenna. There are about 500 cell sites in the Bay Area,
divided between two cellular providers, and roughly twice as many in
Los Angeles.)

The system builds a data base of the fingerprints for each phone,
through normal usage. Then, when it notices a mismatch between an RF
fingerprint and pair of numbers, it assumes the pair of numbers have
been illegally entered into a second phone. The call is simply not put
through.

How effective is Corsair's technology? The system has been fully
operational since summer in more than 100 of the Los Angeles cell
sites with the highest fraud rate, and Melissa May, a spokeswoman for
cell carrier Airtouch, said the company is "impressed with the
results. We think both the company and our customers have benefited."

Corsair's computers prepare daily reports about its effectiveness, and
while the company doesn't want the exact numbers publicized, they show
it blocking tens of thousands of clone calls a day -- on a daily
caller volume of well over 500,000.

A full-scale deployment of Corsair in a market the size of Los Angeles
would cost, the company says, several million dollars -- though Corsair
says carriers will quickly recoup their losses because of the sheer
scope of the problem.  Phillip Redman, who covers telecommunications
for the Yankee Group in Boston, said cell phone fraud can cost U.S.
carriers as much as $2 billion a year.

Easy pickin's

So, exactly how hard is it to get a cloned phone?

Not very, according to a 21-year-old Los Angeles resident who goes by
the name of "Motorola," and who is not, it scarcely needs saying,
affiliated with the cellular phone manufacturer of the same name.

"In fact, I'm talking to you on one right now," he said in a recent
interview.

As "Motorola" described it -- his views were echoed by people inside the
industry -- big cities abound in cloned phones and in the pairs of numbers
needed to activate them.

The trash containers outside the offices of cellular providers are a
frequent target: Paper records have been known to contain pairs.
Employees inside the industry are bribed to turn over the numbers. And
most commonly, cell pirates just drive around mining numbers out of
the air -- sometimes collecting hundreds or thousands in a single
cross-country jaunt.

And where to buy a cloned phone? That too, said "Motorola," is not
hard; a good place to start is in small electronics or hot rod shops.

"Usually, the guys there are up to their eyeballs in something," he
said.  "Just start chit-chatting. Ask about `chipped' phones. They say
`chipped' phones, even though that's not the correct terminology. They
should be called `clones.' People haven't been putting chips in phones
in years."

Complex criminal web

Law enforcement officials and others say the sociology of cell fraud
is rather complex, involving different social circles with very little
contact with each other. "Motorola" and his friends, the hackers with
colorful "handles," are this world's brain trust.

One of their favorite methods of transmitting information is -- surprise,
surprise -- the Internet. Many, like "Motorola," even have their own World
Wide Web home pages.

Most hackers aren't in it for the money, but instead for the kick
involved in doing something both technical and verboten. They also
delight in tormenting carriers.

Far more venal, though, are the clone phone entrepreneurs who build
thriving businesses with the hacker's discoveries. Cell fraud has
become so lucrative that some drug dealers have switched careers,
attracted by the absence of stiff prison penalties associated with the
drug trade. The San Jose man who cloned Grossman's phone, and who is
now behind bars, was said by prosecutors to have taken in nearly $2
million.

Until now, cell-phone fraud has been most commonly associated with
large inner-city immigrant communities, where people often want to
call a far-away home. So advanced are some of these businesses that
for a set fee, say $75, cloners will guarantee cellular service -- to
the point of sending out a runner with a new pair of numbers whenever
the phone is shut off.

But the view at Corsair is that cell phone fraud is very rapidly
moving into the middle class. "We're starting to see all kinds of
people use it, from college students to real estate agents," said Bill
Taliaferro, the firm's director of communications.

Airtouch says it is committed to eventually using RF fingerprinting in
more markets besides L.A., though the company said it does not yet
know which company it will buy the added units from. RF fingerprinting
is so hot that Corsair already has two competitors, though analysts
say Corsair is benefiting from its head start during the Cold War.

Head start

"From a technical perspective, Corsair is way ahead," said John Lo, a
telecommunications specialist at Pittiglio, Rabin, Todd & McGrath, a
consulting firm.

Mike McKinley, an ESL veteran in Corsair's R&D department, said some
of the elements in RF technology are so difficult to master that "you
wouldn't get it right the first 10 times you try it."

(The mere fact that McKinley was being interviewed was another sign of
the changes for the former ESL workers, some of whom previously
couldn't talk about their work even with their families.)

Corsair technicians like Bob Stoddard, who know all about the world of
counter-counter intelligence, spend much of their time looking for
holes in their system. To change a fingerprint, they've tried putting
phones in freezers or using them with drained batteries or dropping
them on the floor, but none of them beat it.

Evolution of fraud

But cell pirates turned to cloning phones in the first place only
after other fraud methods were shut off to them. With so much money at
stake, a similar evolution is expected again. Corsair, in fact, knows
what it will be -- a technique known as "roaming," but one which
actually works to the company's advantage.

If all cell sites in Los Angeles have RF fingerprinting (Airtouch's
competitor, L.A. Cellular, is testing the system as well) then it will
be impossible to gets pairs of numbers from L.A. That will force
pirates to do their shopping elsewhere; getting serial numbers from
low-crime areas where carriers haven't installed RF fingerprinting,
and then selling them back in areas where people are clamoring for
them, like Los Angeles.

Ultimately, then, to be effective, the technology will need to be
deployed on a nationwide basis, with all 600 of the companies staying
in touch.

Analysts like International Data Corp.'s Iain Gillott expect that to
happen eventually, and for carriers to continue using some of their
existing anti-fraud system, such as "profiling" software that spots
unusual usage in the same way the computers at credit card companies
do. With full deployment, he said, high-tech fraud like cloning may
well abate.

But not all fraud. There will be "subscription fraud," in which cell
thieves impersonate legitimate customers. And there will always be
old-fashioned bribery of inside employees.

"If the CIA has problems with this, so will cellular companies,"
Gillott said.

But even if it's not a complete solution, Corsair's technology seems
to be enough to impress current cellular users, who are tired of
bracing for a surprise every time they open their monthly phone bill.

"It's seamless to the user and it blocks out the bad guys," said
Grossman, the pirate's victim, when Corsair was described to her. "I
like that very much."


Published 11/26/95 in the {San Jose Mercury News.}

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

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 10:42:17 PST
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Spectrum PCS System


Pat, please excuse the long list of selling points below.  I don't work
for Sprint Spectrum but wanted to give a summary of what's in their
literature for interested TELECOM Digest readers.

The long-auctioned and long-publicized wireless Personal
Communications Service (PCS) is now up and running commercially in the
Washington-Baltimore area.  The service is branded Sprint Spectrum and
is owned by American Personal Communications, "A Sprint Telecommunications

Venture Affiliate, Bethesda, MD."  APC is one of the "pioneer preference"
PCS licensees that did early research and test-marketing work for the
FCC and has (so far) avoided having to pay for its radio spectrum
through an auction.  It is partially owned by the Washington Post
Company.  Phone [phone].

Sprint Spectrum has taken pains to differentiate itself from cellular, with
which it sees itself as a low-cost competitor with more and cheaper
features.  The cheapest package costs $15 per month and includes 15 minutes
of airtime, which may be any combination of peak and off-peak minutes.  Peak
minutes occur between 7 AM and 9 PM weekdays, same as for the two cellular
carriers in the market.  Additional minutes beyond the 15 included ones are
31 cents each, whether peak or off-peak.

The most expensive package is $150 per month, which includes 600 peak
minutes and 600 off-peak minutes.  Additional minutes under this plan are 25
cents peak, 10 cents off-peak.

There are four additional levels of service between those two extremes,
ranging in price from $25 to $90 per month.

All levels of service include "answering machine," numeric paging and caller
ID.  Call Waiting is optional ($2 per month) on the three cheapest plans and
is included in the three more expensive plans.  A "Handset Replacement
Program" (insurance) is included in the four more expensive plans but costs
$4 per month under the two less expensive ones.  There's a listing of
"voicemail" at $2 per month under optional services on their rate card, but
it doesn't say how that's different from "answering machine."

Directory Assistance is 50 cents per call and includes call completion.
On-demand audio information services are 50 cents per minute by dialing
*INFO.  Outgoing completed local landline calls are 10 cents per call.

There are also "daily handset-delivered services" (sports, weather,
horoscope, lottery), which I assume are text delivered to the handset
display, for $6 per month.  "Twice daily handset delivered services"
(traffic, news, financial) are $12 a month.  Financial Portfolio Custom
Stock Tracking Delivered Services are $25 per month.

Call Forwarding is $2 per month.  "Call Barring" is $5 per month.  I think
that allows you to restrict incoming and outgoing calls to or from certain
countries, area codes, prefixes or individual numbers to control costs.

A text messaging feature is $10 per month and allows senders to send up to
100 text messages per month to your handset from their own personal computer
or from another handset (I wonder how you type them in from the handset).
Additional messages are 10 cents each if user-typed, 50 cents each if
operator-typed.

There is no minimum contract.  The first minute of each incoming call is
free so you can hang up on junk callers without paying for it.  Users can
choose the last four digits of their handset phone number subject to
availability.  Users can select their billing date.

Sprint long distance is available for either 22 cents per minute peak and
10 cents per minute off-peak -or- 15 cents per minute flat rate.

I did a price comparison of Sprint Spectrum with Bell Atlantic Virginia
landline phone service for a "light user" profile who makes only 15 local
calls of 5 minutes each per month.

Bell Atlantic Virginia landline service (assumes no extended area calls):
Economy Message Rate base service         $5.00
Federal Subscriber Line Charge            $3.50
Virginia Relay Center surcharge           $0.10
voice mail                                $5.00
call waiting                              $3.50
caller ID                                 $6.50
15 untimed local calls @9.6 cents each    $1.44
                                         -------
                                         $25.04 plus tax

Sprint Spectrum wireless service (assumes no incoming calls):
cheapest monthly plan                       $15.00
call waiting                                $ 2.00
minutes beyond free 15, 60 @ 31 cents       $18.60
completed local call charges 15 @ 10 cents  $ 1.50
                                           --------
                                            $37.10 plus tax

Both services include free touch-tone.  I'm sure I've left something out of
this analysis but it appears tolerable for a light user to cancel his or her
landline phone service and have a portable phone for an extra $12 a month.

The coverage map they hand out is divided into three areas:  "high quality
coverage available now," "variable coverage available now" and "additional
coverage available during 1996."

The "high quality" area covers almost the entirety of Washington and
Baltimore Cities, about an 8-mile-wide swath between cities (which contains
the four main highways and two commuter rail lines between them) and swaths
of decreasing width extending out each of:

- Intersate 270 to the northwest of Washington,
- Routes 7 and 66 to the west of Washington (beyond Dulles Airport),
- Intersate 95 south of Washington,
- Interstate 83 north of Baltimore,
- Interstate 95 northeast of Baltimore,
- Interstate 97 south of Baltimore, and
- US Route 50 from Washington eastward beyond Annapolis.

The "additional 1996" coverage includes mainly:

- Interstate 70 west from the Baltimore Beltway to beyond Frederick,
- Prince William County, Virginia between Interstates 66 and 95,
- US Route 301 from US 50 south to Waldorf, Maryland,
- Maryland Route 140 northwest from Baltimore, and
- further coverage extensions on Interstates 95 and 83.

The text accompanying the map notes that service may be impaired in wooded
and hilly areas, inside buildings and on trains.

Sprint Spectrum sells service in shrink-wrapped boxes containing
phones and accessories.  All phones sold are handsets, none are
intended for hard-mounting in vehicles, although I'm sure that's
available.  Phones are widely sold in appliance and electronics chain
stores, but the company has a retail store devoted only to their
products in downtown Washington on 18th Street NW between M and N.
This store may be more for public relations purposes as it is within a
convenient three or four block walk of the Federal Communications Comm-
ission, most K Street communications law firms and lobbyists and at
least two TV network news bureaus (ABC and CBS).

I have no relationship with Sprint Spectrum other than as a curious consumer
and Telecom Digester.


Greg Monti     Arlington, Virginia, USA     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 03:02:05 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "LAN Times Guide to Telephony" by Bezar


BKLTG2TL.RVW   951027

"LAN Times Guide to Telephony", David D. Bezar, 1995, 0-07-882126-6, U$34.95
%A   David D. Bezar [e-mail]
%C   2600 Tenth St., Berkeley, CA   94710
%D   1995
%G   0-07-882126-6
%I   McGraw-Hill/Ryerson/Osborne
%O   U$34.95 905-430-5000 fax: [phone]-0900
%P   450
%T   "LAN Times Guide to Telephony"

While reading through this book, I had a number of reactions that
didn't stand up to later scrutiny.

For data communications professionals, telephony is the mysterious
stuff that goes on "inside the wall", and that the telephone company
won't tell you about.  The book contains little technical material on
the technical side of telephony, and it does touch on many areas which
would be seen as part of telecommunications.  However, for the average
manager, or the computer professional who is not heavily involved with
communications, this is likely a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, this is not a technical book in terms of detail.  The most
sophisticated technology described inside is the installation of a
telephone.  (Readers: do not try this at home!  :-)

A very broad range of concepts are discussed briefly.  Ultimately, the
book resembles nothing so much as a topically organized and tutorial
glossary.  This makes for a very readable, but not heavy, introduction
to telecommunications for the manager, non-communications professional,
or interested computer user.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKLTG2TL.RVW   951027. 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

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

From: rob.m.saiter <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Nov 95 14:15:11
Subject: Hotel Long Distance Charges


While staying in a hotel in Chapel Hill, NC last week, I was charged a
_long distance surcharge_ to call a number in near by Research
Triangle Park, NC.  The hotel's number is 919-909-xxxx while the
number I called is 919-558-xxxx.  According to the front desk manager,
the hotel has no choice but to impose this outrageous fee since the
local phone company considers calls within the 919 area code but
between different counties to be long distance.  I was finally able to
have the charge removed from my bill by arguing that because I was
only required to dial 9, 558-xxxx without using the area code, I was
not aware that the call was long distance.

Anyone from this area (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) of NC that can
substantiate either side of this argument, please e-mail me at
[e-mail] or reply back to TELECOM Digest.

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

From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell South Trim Line Phone
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 01:19:09 -0500
Organization: Sponsored account, Drama, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I just received a Bell South Trim Line telephone. It appears to have ten
numbers programable for speed dial and three E-Dial numbers. Other
services such as redial and memo are avaible. But Bell South doesn't
support the hardware.  Anybody have some programming tips?

Tom Neudecker
TEN+
Technology for Education & Non-Profits
[e-mail]
Voice: 502 683-8267 or 683-2577
URL=  http://www.occ.uky.edu/~tndecker

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #494
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Nov 27 13:37:31 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id NAA16103; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 13:37:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 13:37:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #495

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Nov 95 13:36:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 495

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Enhanced 911 Blues (Stephen J. Mahler)
    Faculty Opening at Ohio State (Jane Fraser)
    Telecommunications History in Old Phone Books (Nigel Allen)
    411 v. 113 ; Directory v. Information (Mark Cuccia)
    Connecting Residential Lines to KSU (Doug Lawlor)
    Serial Port Options (Steve Winter)
    Pacific Bell Billing Incompetence (Jack Hamilton)
    SAC 888 Acknowledged in Recorded Announcement (David A. Cantor)
    Engineers For DPNSS Project for AT&T Network Systems (Anne Baillie)
    First Call For Papers - ISLIP'96 (Dr. Edward Ashcroft)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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] (Stephen J. Mahler)
Subject: Enhanced 911 Blues
Date: 26 Nov 1995 23:11:54 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana


Folks:

  I have been working this problem for what seems like a year, with no
real results.  I am interested in any information or pointers that
lead to completion of this effort.

Goal:  Interconnect G3R switch via Bell South to Local Government PSAP for
delivery of calling party number to be used in Enhanced 911 operations.

Situation:

1) G3R has 8 ISDN-PRIs connecting the switch to the LEC (Bell South).

2) G3R can transmit Calling Party Number (CPN) per call on PRI D channel.

3) Bell South termination of PRIs is a DMS-100.

4) Bell South DMS can read the CPN, and delivers it to a plain jane BRI
station on the same switch.

5) Bell South claims only CAMA trunks may be used to signal to 911.  CAMA is a
trunk that is routed to 911 when seized, orginator sends ANI as MF signals,
Bell South converts MF to DTMF and delivers to PSAP.

6) AT&T says the G3R does not generate MF for the US (but does a European
MF, sigh), and there is no interface card to a CAMA trunk.

7) AT&T says -- no problem -- buy a $50,000 third party switch to hang on the
side of the G3.  Includes points of failure, separate programming, maintenance
costs, etc.  (I say nuts!)

8) The University wants to be a good citizen and participate in the E911
system.

x) The larger problem that the E911 databases do not take into account
extensions that are not DID numbered.

Any and all help appreciated!  Especially looking for PSAPs getting numbers
directly from PRI CPNs.


Thanks,

Steve Mahler, Director
Information Networks
Univ of Southwestern Louisiana
318-482-6418 (v)  318-482-2489 (f)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:29:41 EST
Subject: Faculty Opening at Ohio State


People who apply operations research to telecommunications problems
are encouraged to apply for the following faculty positions. If you
have questions, email me (Jane Fraser) at [e-mail]. Here is
the official job announcement:

The Department of Industrial, Welding and Systems Engineering at The
Ohio State University invites applications and nominations for
tenure-track faculty positions at the Assistant Professor level.
Higher ranks may be considered for exceptionally qualified
individuals. Candidates for all positions must hold a Ph.D. degree in
industrial engineering or a related engineering discipline. Successful
candidates will demonstrate high potential for excellence in teaching,
research, and service, and a strong commitment to undergraduate
education.

One opening is in the area of statistical applications in
manufacturing engineering. Experience in the design and planning of
engineering experiments, engineering data analysis, statistical
process control, process capability analysis, and the general
application of statistical methods to engineering problems are
necessary. The candidate will be expected to develop innovative
approaches to teaching design of experiments and statistical analysis
to students in undergraduate engineering laboratory courses.

Additional openings exist in the traditional areas of industrial and
systems engineering including manufacturing systems, production, and
applied operations research.

The Department and the College of Engineering at OSU have numerous
on-going programs and activities in manufacturing engineering,
including a Practice-Oriented Manufacturing Engineering Program, the
National Excellence in Materials Joining Education and Training
Program, the Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing,
world-class facilities in several manufacturing processes, and
numerous centers. There are considerable opportunities for
participation in research activities and for interaction with
professionals from manufacturing and service industries.

Department faculty are also involved in research activities on campus
through the Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory, the Center for
Advanced Study in Telecommunications, the Biomedical Engineering
Center, the ElectroScience Laboratory, and the NCR Biodynamics
Laboratory.  The department maintains strong working relationships
with departments in the College of Engineering and with other key
departments at the University.

Candidates for all positions will be expected to participate in
teaching at both undergraduate and graduate levels, and to develop an
active program of research with funding from government and industry.
The department is searching particularly for individuals with
interests in collaborative research and teaching activities and
commitment to expanding the diversity of the profession. Industrial
experience is desirable.

Screening of applications will begin not later than March 1, 1996, and
will continue until suitable candidates have been identified. It is
expected that successful candidates will start in September 1996.
Applicants must send a letter of interest, a vita (with citizenship
and visa status) that includes a list of publications, a one-page
statement of current and planned research activities, and the names of
three references (with addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses)
to:

Search Committee Chair
Department of Industrial, Welding and Systems Engineering
The Ohio State University
1971 Neil Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1271
Voice: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: in care of [e-mail]

The Ohio State University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
employer. Qualified women, minorities, Vietnam-era veterans, disabled
veterans, and individuals with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:06:34 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications History in Old Phone Books


A telephone book from the 1950's or earlier can give you some insights
into telecommunications and society in general. And your local public
library may have a good collection of old telephone books, either the
books themselves or on microfilm or microfiche.

Look at the introductory calling section. You'll see unfamiliar codes
for reaching directory assistance and the long distance operator. You
may see a list of neighborhood telephone company business offices and
payment agencies that have long since disappeared. Places that you now
think of an an integral part of your city will be shown as being a
long-distance call from downtown, and when you look at the directory
listings for those places, you'll see listings for the business
serving a rural community, not today's suburban sprawl.

A lot has changed since then, but some listings have stayed unchanged,
except for a new prefix added when communities moved to seven-digit
phone numbers. The number shown for Canadian National's Toronto
telegraph office, EM8-6041, in a late 1950's Toronto telephone
directory, is still in use by Unitel today. Apart from call centers,
the most likely places to have the same phone number today as forty
years ago are businesses that have been in operation in the same
location and that haven't grown much. I found that Parkdale Fur
Company in Toronto's economically stagnant Parkdale area was one such
company.


Nigel Allen     [e-mail]     http://www.io.org/~ndallen
resume available on request


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are a lot of instances in the
Chicago area of businesses having the same phone number for much
longer that forty years. Chicago Transit Authority has had the number
312-MOHawk-7200 since it was founded in 1947, having inherited it
at that point from its predecessor Chicago Rapid Transit Company which
had it since whenever earlier than that. The Chicago Hilton has had
WABash-4400 since the days when it was the Conrad Hilton Hotel and
even prior to that as the Stevens Hotel. The earliest references I
recall seeing for the number were in the 1920's -- seventy years ago --
when it was the Stevens. I'd estimate there are a couple dozen
instances in Chicago of the same telephone number working at the same
business place for seventy years or longer. Regarding residences, you
will see the same thing now and then. I knew a family in Chicago a
few years ago who lived in the same house their parents and grand-
parents had lived in. The phone number had never been changed since
the grandparents built the house sometime in the late 1920's. It was
like a sub-division and all the houses had been built by the same
developer some seventy or so years before. They all looked the same,
but most had changed owners/residents many times over the years. In
their case, the grandparents had raised the parents there; when they
died they left the property to the parents (of the man I know) who
raised their family there. His brother and sister moved elsewhere but
he stayed there, got married and was living there with his wife and
two children. I guess it never occurred to anyone to change the phone
number. Out of curiosity one day at the library I looked at the
microfilms of old phone books; I selected 1929-30 and looked up the
family name. There it was at the same address and same phone number
as it was in 1993; same last four digits as always with the only
change being that MIDway had evolved over the years to MIdway-3 then
to MI-3 and for thirty years or so, 643.    PAT]

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: 411 v. 113 ; Directory v. Information
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 23:08:00 CST


In TD 15:488, Doug Faunt ([e-mail]) asks about the above subject
line.

I don't know the *exact* date that Information became known as
Directory Assistance, but I think that many BOC's and LEC's began
changing the name sometime in the early to mid 1970's. I remember when
local Information, in-state 555-1212, interstate/Canada and 809
555-1212, as well as (AT&T or Bell System) operator connected
information in a foreign (non-NANP) country was ALL FREE!! And many of
us *still* call it Information rather than Directory Assistance, or at
least use the terms interchangeably.

As for when 411 began to be used or what was used before then --

`N11' codes have been around since the early 1920's for special telco
services.

 - 211 Long Distance Operator (now obsolete, but 'somewhat' replaced by
`00')

 - 411 Directory/Information

 - 611 Repair

 - 811 Business Office

 - 911 Emergencies (reserved/implemented beginning in the mid 1960's)

Other N11 codes have been used in some places, and not all codes have
ever been 100% standardized or uniform. Some N11 codes were used for
ANAC, Ring Back, Test Board, etc.

The N11 codes were `primarily' used in areas where most local switches were
Common Control (such as Panel, #1 Crossbar, #5 Crossbar, ESS, Digital),
although Step offices have used them as well.

In locations where Step by Step was the dominant type of local switching,
`11X' service codes were used prior to the early 1960's, although Panel and
Crossbar offices `could' use them as well.

 - 11-1 just got absorbed and did 'nothing' (11-11111....)

 - 112+ for DDD Access

 - 113 Information (Directory)

 - 114 Repair

 - 115 special 'leave-word' operators (for conference, mobile, marine, air,
etc)

 - 116 'toll-station' operators for nearby rural points

 - 117 Test Board

 - 118+ for 4 & 8 party ringback

 - 119-1 for 2-party ringback

 - 110 Long Distance Operator.

Again, not all 11X codes used were 100% standardized or uniformly
allocated.  Some places even had 11X codes for Time-of-Day, Weather,
Business Office, etc. When DDD began to move forward, particularly
from Step offices, and a 1+ was decided to be a common toll
access/identification prefix (although even 1+ has never been
uniformly standardized or defined), many step areas reconfigured their
hardwired routing/switching plans to use N11 codes. This began in the
early 1960's, but didn't happen overnight. Many step areas
(particularly non-Bell independent areas) had continued to use 11X
codes, some as late as the 1980's (or early 90's), even after
converting from Step to ESS/Digital.

Today (and since probably the late-1960's), the NANP `ideal' standard
for `11' is a pulse/rotary option for `*' for most Custom Calling and
CLASS features (although some telcos still are using NX-# for
activation/deactivation, in addition to N-#/NX-# Speed Dialing `Use').
Codes such as *67 can be pulse/rotary (AND even touchtone) dialed as
11-67. I don't think that there are any areas in the US or Canada
using 'old-fashioned' 11X codes anymore, but there might still be a
few in the Caribbean. I don't know how this will conflict with the *
or 11- for CLASS/Custom-Calling Vertical Features.


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: We never did have 811 for the business
office here. The business office was always <something>-9411. In
manual offices it was always just ask the operator for 'business office'
or ask for 9411, your choice. IBT headqarters downtown was OFFicial-9411.
9411 was pretty much the standard for the telcos around this area. Then
when telco opened several new business offices back in the 1950's they
proceeded to number them all <something>-9100, but the main office
downtown stayed 9411 for the corporate offices and OFficial-3-9100 for
the public office on the first floor.

We did have 811, but it was not widely known. It started in 1942 as
the military version of 211. From manual offices, to make a long
distance call you asked your operator for 'long distance' and were
connected to another operator who then proceeded to place the call.
In a dial office, you dialed 211. When the Second World War started,
AT&T was very short on circuits, and the long distance lines were
constantly jammed. Sometimes you had to 'book' your call and wait a
couple hours until a line was available (that was always the case on
international calls, where the delay was anywhere from several hours
to as much as two days) and a delay like this was intolerable to the
military and the War Effort as you might imagine. Thus, Illinois Bell
had 811 for 'priority long distance' and this was used primarily by
military personnel who had the authority to instruct the operator to
make a long distance circuit available to them immediatly. During
WW-2, the Hilton Hotel (then known as the Stevens Hotel) was seized
by the government and turned over to the military for their exclusive
use in housing troops being moved in and out of the USA, etc.) They
made all their long distance calls via the operator on the other end
of 811.

It was not at all uncommon to be on a long distance call and have
the operator cut in on the line and say "sorry, line is needed for
the War Effort, please finish your call now." You had exactly fifteen
seconds to say goodbye and hang up, otherwise the line was disconnected
and taken from you anyway. That meant that General So-and-So was
trying to make a call to Washington for example.

In 1946 they no longer needed Priority Long Distance, so 811 was put
into other use, for 'Hotel Time and Charges Long Distance'. Hotel
switchboards needed a way to get time and charges on calls back on
a prompt basis in order to bill guest calls since the guest might be
checking out shortly thereafter. Larger hotels and transient institu-
tions (for example hospital switchboards, university switchboards,
etc) always did have 'tie-lines' direct to long distance. That is, the
PBX operator could plug into a certain jack on the board which
by-passed the local operator and went direct to the long distance
operator. She did not have to give her phone number, since LD knew
the call was coming (for example) from the Stevens Hotel or the
University of Chicago. All the PBX operator had to do was pass the
extension number being used. But smaller places without those direct
lines to long distance had to dial 211 like everone else and say to
operator as the first thing, 'hotel time and charges', their phone
number *and* the extension number being used. If they forgot to say
that, they did not get the charges quoted at the end of the call and
the PBX had no way to reconcile its phone bill at the end of the
month with a guest who had long since checked out leaving an uncoll-
ectible phone bill.

So IBT had all those hotel, hospital and similar PBX arrangements
start using 811. They got the same long distance operators as everyone
else, but it was understood that calls via 811 were commissionable to
the PBX and had to have time and charges quoted immediatly when the
call was finished. The larger institutions usually had a telex
machine direct to long distance and a clerk at telco would send the
'T&C' back to the PBX operators (or clerks) via the telex as they
occurred. Some institutions did not have a telex to the LD operators
and they relied on getting their T&C called back to them usually
every fifteen or twenty minutes for calls which had been completed
in the interim. The telco clerk would call back to the PBX clerk
and rattle off charges as fast as she could. They did not like to
repeat themselves so you listened up and took notes fast. A typical
call back with T&C would have five or six completed calls to report
and went like this:

"This is Kenwood (central office name) with T&C on six calls. Tell
me when you are ready."

"Ok go."

"Extension 1234 up at 10:04 AM for 9 minutes to New York City at
Murray Hill 9-3671 station call charges three dollars eighty cents
and I am 72534 (LD ticket serial number), you are?"

"I am U of C number 2307 (University of Chicago PBX ticket serial
number kept by PBX operator for accounting purposes)."

Next, extension 4507 up at 10:06 AM for 2 minutes to Los Angeles,
California at HOllywood-4-1600 person call Doctor Smith charges
two dollars sixty cents. I am (LD ticket serial number), you are?"

"I am U of C number (PBX ticket serial number)".

"Next, extension 5678 up at 10:07 AM,  zero minutes to Boston, I
don't have the number, operator did not write it down, this was
DA (did not answer), no charge. I am (serial number), you are?"

"I am U of C number (serial number) I am showing that as DA, the
number could not be provided is that correct?"

And on it would go, a slow call back might only have two or three
T&C's to be quoted to the PBX; a busy session might have a dozen.
If it was constantly busy with LD traffic all the time, as a large
hotel would be, then telco send all the quotes back on telex
instead.

The rule was the PBX generally got a 10-15 percent commission from
telco for handling the call, but had to guarentee payment to telco
for all of the transient user's charges. The PBX would claim you
did not give us T&C in a timely manner, the guest checked out before
we could get T&C and apply the charges to the guest ledger at the
front desk. Telco's proof that they provided T&C (and they did
screw it up sometimes and not give it) was they would then quote the
PBX ticket serial number which applied. "How could we have gotten
your ticket serial number had we not quoted charges to your PBX
operator". Telco also would write off any charges made by a guest
at the hotel if it could be proven they had not quoted T&C, i.e.
they could not come up with a valid serial number from the PBX.

811 stayed in service until the early 1980's and ESS was installed
everywhere. Once ESS was being used, all the PBX's started using
zero plus, and the display the operator got on her console told
her it was a hotel/hospital/university/etc. When the call was
finished, the computer automatically kicks it back to some avail-
able operator for the purpose of quoting T&C.

Last item in today's history lesson: a phone book from 1944, with a
page devoted to the War Effort. A cartoon shows a family of mother
and father, a couple of kids, and grandmother gathered around the
telephone. One is holding the receiver and listening, the others are
anxious to have their turn to speak. A caption says sternly, "Loose
lips sink ships. We at AT&T are so pleased when we can connect you
with your loved one in the military at a far away port. Please do not
compromise our nation's security by asking him to tell you things
he is not permitted to say. As much as he wants to let you know he is
safe, there are some secrets he is forbidden to talk about. Please
do not ask him to compromise the safety of his fellow soldiers and
his nation's security by telling you secrets entrusted to him. And
likewise, there are times our operators have been entrusted with
military secrets in the process of helping the young men telephone
their families. Our enemies might overhear your phone call, so please
don't ask our operators to violate the trust placed in them when
handling the call from that special soldier or sailor.

     Remember! Loose Lips Sink Ships. (The AT&T Logo).    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Lawlor)
Subject: Connecting Residential Lines to KSU
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 09:44:15 GMT
Organization: Specialty Access Consulting


The following article was posted by me in 'comp.home.automation'.  I
thought someone in this newsgroup would be able to shed some light on
my question.

Thanks in advance,

Doug

 FROM: [e-mail] (Doug Lawlor)
 SUBJECT: Connecting Residential lines to KSU
 DATE: Fri, 24 Nov 95 22:30:21 GMT
 ORGANIZATION: Specialty Access Consulting

    Hello everyone, Is it true that you are not allowed to
connect, what are termed residential telephone lines, to a KSU?  I was
told last year by a KSU/PBX installer that the telephone company will
not connect residential telephone lines to a KSU.  If this is true
what is the reasoning behind this? Why can't I get two residential
lines or what ever the limit is nowdays and connect them to a call
distribution system such as a KSU instead of having seprate lines with
plane old telephones connected?

Comments anyone?

Doug

Specialty Access Consulting     Voice: [phone]
Suite 215 38 Pearson St.        Fax: [phone]
St. John's Nf. A1A 3R1          Internet: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quick summary. I do not know the rules
in Canada; here in the USA the installer would be dead wrong. You
can get whatever residential lines you want and connect them to
whatever type of phone instruments you want.    PAT]

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

From: Steve Winter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Serial Port Options
Date: 27 Nov 1995 03:33:50 GMT
Organization: compuserve.com


Press Release:

 The STB 4COM card is now available with alternate addressing that
allows up to 4 of the cards (16 serial ports) in one machine using Ray
Gwinn's famous SIO drivers under OS/2.  It also works quite well with
Linux and other Unix based platforms.

You can share one IRQ per card under OS/2 with Ray Gwinn's SIO drivers!

4 port, 16bit, High Speed serial I/O card, that provides 4 high
performance RS-232 Asynchronous Serial Communications ports, each on
one separate IRQ, or allows sharing one or more IRQs.  Each port
INDEPENDENTLY configurable by jumpers for addresses:

      h3E8, h2E8, h1E8, h1A8, h3F8, h2F8, h1F8, h2A8
          and for IRQs 15, 12, 11 10, 5, 4, 3, 2
 * With address option You CAN use 4 4COM Cards in one machine *
Address option gives h100, h108, h110, h118, h120, h128, h130, h138
There is no additional charge for alternate addressing, just ask for it.

  LIFETIME manufacturer's warranty and free tech support from STB.
   Works fine with DOS, DESQview, DV/X, Windows, and OS/2 3.+

These products are available from the following vendor:

For Orders *ONLY* 1-800-SELLCOM(735-5266)  Ext 9 (VISA/MASTERCARD)
For Technical Questions, leasing, or outside USA call 919-286-1502
                   or 24 hour FAX at 919-286-4617
             As seen in SysOp News, BBS Callers Digest

The sun never sets on the PRIME network 919-286-2100 300-33600bps

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Pacific Bell Billing Incompetence
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 04:11:30 GMT
Organization: kd6ttl


I receive local telephone service from Pacific Bell, and they've
generally been pretty good -- I've rarely had problems, and they've
been quickly resolved when they did occur.

So, I thought I would be safe signing up for their new automatic
payment plan.  There are two options -- you can have the payment
automatically deducted from your checking account, or you can choose
to manually activate electronic payment each month.  I chose the
first, completely automatic option.

I sent in the form and received a letter back saying that payments
would start being made automatically (this was in October).  A few
days later, I received a regular bill, with no sign that they knew
about the auto-payment option.

I called the business office, and was told "oh, we don't have any kind
of records for that.  You'll have to talk to the electronic payment
office."  That office said everything looked OK, so I decided not to
worry about it for the time being.

I just received my November bill.

An aside here.  PacBell has recently switched to duplex printing for bills.

They announce this on every page with "Two-sided form saves paper!" printed
at the top.

The first physical page has "Page 1" printed at the top.  In the
middle, it says "Total Due To be automatically paid from your bank
account on Nov 30, 1995 139.54".

"DO NOT MAIL YOUR PAYMENT, IT WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY PAID." is printed
at the bottom.  They have also printed (with the printer, not as part
of the preprinted form) little boxes for me to fill in the amount I'm
paying, along with their address printed so it will show in the return
window envelope they also thoughtfully provided -- for my collection, I
suppose, since they don't want me to send them anything.

You might think that the back of this page would be numbered "Page 2".
It's not.  It doesn't have a number at all.

On to the next physical page.  It's numbered "Page 2" at the top.  The
back of this page is labeled "Page 3".  No foolish consistencies here,
either with the first page or with the standard numbering scheme used
in almost every other printed matter I've ever seen.

We go on for a few pages of call detail until we get to page, well, another
unnumbered page.  It's the front of physical page 4, what PacBell would
have called page 6 if they'd put a number on it, and what everyone else
would call page 7.

And it says, near the top "IF YOUR PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED, OR
CHARGES DISPUTED, BY Nov 30, 1995 , YOUR SERVICE WILL BE TEMPORARILY
DISCONNECTED."  That space before the comma was in the original.

And at the bottom there's another set of printed boxes and return
address, with the instruction "PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION
WITH YOUR PAYMENT" (no period at the end of that sentence, even though
there was not one in the equivalent sentence on page 1.)

I wonder, does no one at Pacific Bell do any kind of quality control?
I don't expect them to read every bill individually before it is sent
out, but it's not unreasonable to expect consistency within a single
bill, or standard page numbering, or for the billing office to
coordinate with the automatic payment office.


Jack Hamilton   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would be very reluuctant to let
anyone just automatically dip into my meager funds month after month
just taking whatever they wanted.  I belong to a few of those plans
where charges are debited to my checking account each month, but I
have to specifically call each month and put them through.  PAT]

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

From: David A. Cantor <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:57:16 EST
Subject: SAC 888 Acknowledged in Recorded Announcement


I dialed 800-555-1212 today to get a number.  After the usual
report of the number I requested, there was a message as follows:

    Please note that in 1996 toll free numbers can be either 800
    numbers of 888 numbers.

It's coming.


David A. Cantor            +1 860.444.7268 (444-RANT)
453 Bayonet St., #16       Connecticut has a new area code.
New London, CT  06320

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

From: Anne Baillie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Engineers For DPNSS Project For AT&T Network Systems. Wiltshire
Date: 27 Nov 1995 12:35:35 GMT
Organization: S-Com CSE


Engineers for DPNSS project for AT&T Network Systems. Wiltshire

On the Web <http://bigweb.scom.com/scom/advert/95_00251.html>


S-Com are the appointed recruitment advisors to AT&T Network Systems.

Two engineers are currently required.


Location
    Malmesbury, Wiltshire.
Project
    An Intelligent Network project involving ISUP signalling work
    and interfacing to ETSI INAP and DPNSS.
Roles
    1. Telecomms Engineer with DPNSS skills. He/she is needed to
    work on the design phase through to coding.

    2. An engineer with ISUP and DPNSS skills. The work entails
    ISUP signalling and interfacing to ETSI INAP and DPNSS.
Rates
    Good.
Start date
    ASAP.
Contract length
    6 months.
Other lures
    Working in one of the leading forces in telecoms today.
Key skills
    DPNSS
    INAP
    ISUP
Length of experience
    Experienced engineers needed to work in a small team.



Please email your CV to
             Anne Baillie  <mailto:[e-mail]>
             or contact me direct on 01296 311421


S-Com CSE, Buckingham House, Buckingham Street
Aylesbury, HP20 2LA
Phone [phone]       Fax [phone]
General enquiries / CVs  <mailto:[e-mail]>
     Visit our Web site  <http://www.scom.com>

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

From: Dr. Edward Ashcroft <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Call For Papers ISLIP96
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:00:00 GMT


                      Preliminary Call for Papers

                              ISLIP'96
  The Ninth International Symposium on Languages for Intensional
Programming

     May 13-15, 1996 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Objectives
__________

There is a growing interest in computational models and/or programming
languages and systems based on intensional logics such as temporal
logic, interval logic, modal and intuitionistic logics. In fact, a
whole new programming model called intensional programming has been
created with applications in a wide range of areas including parallel
programming, dataflow computation, temporal reasoning, scientific
computation, real-time programming, temporal databases, spreadsheets,
attribute grammars, and hardware synthesis.

This symposium aims at bringing together researchers working in all
aspects of this area, and to promote intensive discussions and foster
collaboration among researchers.  We encourage papers dealing with the
theoretical foundations, design, implementation and prototype
development issues, comparative studies, and applications, as well as
those describing new challenges arising out of applications.

The symposium will include, but will not be limited to, the following
topics of interest (as they relate to intensional programming):

   Programming paradigms                Semantics

   * dataflow computation               * non-determinism
   * connectionist models               * extended Kahn principle
   * logic programming                  * intensional concepts
   * real-time programming              * termination issues
   * languages such as Lucid and GLU


   Software Engineering                 Applications

   * version control                    * signal processing
   * visual user interfaces             * image processing
   * parallel programming               * hardware synthesis
   * fault-tolerant systems             * graphics
   * program verification               * data models
   * the intensionality of WWW

Submissions
___________

You are invited to submit either a full paper or an extended abstract
of approximately 5000 words (10-15 double spaced pages).  The cover page
should include the name, phone/fax numbers and e-mail address of the
contact
author(s), a short abstract, topic(s) and a list of keywords.
Papers will be reviewed by the program committee for their originality,
correctness, significance, and relevance to the symposium.

We prefer PostScript or self-contained  LaTeX submissions via electronic
mail to the e-mail address below.  You can also send 3 hardcopies of
your submission to the following address.  Submissions should
arrive no later than February 15, 1996.

  Edward A. Ashcroft / ISLIP'96         E-mail: [e-mail]
  Department of Computer Science & Eng  Phone : [phone]
  Arizona State University              Fax   : [phone]
  Tempe, Arizona 85283, U.S.A.

Authors will receive notification of acceptance by March 20, 1996.  The
papers to appear in the pre-proceedings that will be distributed at the
Symposium are due on April 12, 1996  (preferably in PostScript or LaTeX
form, sent by email).  The symposium will be held on May 13-15, 1996 at
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.

At the Symposium, the research will be presented and also citiqued, and
the resulting modified, final papers will appear in a book entitled
Intensional Programming II, published by World Scientific Press.
(ISLIP 95 resulted in the book Intensional Programming I.)

The details about registration and accommodation will be provided later.


Symposium Chair
_______________

  Edward A. Ashcroft    Arizona State University

Local Arrangements
___________________

  Tony Faustini         Arizona State University

Important Dates
_______________

 Submission Deadline:   February 15, 1996
 Notification:          March 20, 1996
 Revised Versions due:  April 12, 1996
 Symposium:             May 13-15, 1996

Further Information
___________________

Contact:
     [e-mail]
     [e-mail] (for local arrangements)


Latest information about the Symposium will be made available via the
WWW page: http://lu.eas.asu.edu/islip96.html

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #495
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Nov 28 10:23:32 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id KAA28780; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 10:23:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 10:23:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #496

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Nov 95 10:23:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 496

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Connecting Residential Lines to KSU (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Connecting Residential Lines to KSU (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
    Re: Connecting Residential Lines to KSU (Mike Curtis)
    Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal? (Mike Morris)
    Re: Dates of Start of 411 and Directory Assistance vs. Info (A. Schoolsky)
    Re: Dates of Start of 411 and Directory Assistance vs. Info (Eyre-Eagles)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (George Gilder)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Sany M. Zakharia)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Tom Watson)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Brian Brown)
    Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe (Ronell Elkayam)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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, 27 Nov 95 18:38:41 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connecting Residential Lines to KSU


[e-mail] (Doug Lawlor) wrote:

> Hello everyone, Is it true that you are not allowed to
> connect, what are termed residential telephone lines, to a KSU?  I was
> told last year by a KSU/PBX installer that the telephone company will
> not connect residential telephone lines to a KSU.  If this is true
> what is the reasoning behind this? Why can't I get two residential
> lines or what ever the limit is nowdays and connect them to a call
> distribution system such as a KSU instead of having seprate lines with
> plane old telephones connected?

Not quite.  The restriction is that you may not connect POTS lines to
any device that automatically selects an outgoing line for you, such
as a PBX.  There is no residential/business split here, except that
you can't get residential rate PBX trunks.  Any kind of line may be
connected to a key system, as long as the caller manually selects the
outgoing line (or the key system picks up, say - line 1 when you lift
the receiver, but is not capable of selecting at random or the least
recently used, or somesuch).

The reason for this situation is that historically PBXs talked to the
CO via trunks, while telephone sets and KSUs used POTS lines.  Typically
PBXs subjected the trunks to much higher call loading than did a single
phone on a POTS line, so the trunks were priced a good deal higher than
POTS.  This situation managed itself for many years, until the technology
changed so that there is no significant technical difference between a
trunk and a line.  (Well, there *are* some meaningful differences, but
there's no reason at all why a PBX can't deal with the CO on POTS lines
for outgoing calls.)  Some businesses started ordering POTS lines (business
rate lines, mind you) instead of trunks, and saved lots of money.  So
the telcos got the CRTC to forbid such connections.  In the case of
a PBX or any device the telco thinks might funnel traffic automatically
from multiple phones to one line, they will demand an affidavit from the
customer and/or PBX supplier to the effect that it is configured so as
to disallow such access.  It's not unusual to see a copy of the affidavit
stuffed in behind a connecting block in the telephone room - presumably
to remind installers thinking of making changes.


Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: Connecting Residential Lines to KSU
Organization: GoodNet
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 02:59:47 GMT


Pacific Bell will connect residence service to a KSU but you have to pay
"complex residence" rates (1FW/1SY).   The monthly rate is the same but
the install is higher (it was 70.75 before IRD, same as business install).

Your best bet is to get the lines connected to a SNI, Entrance Bridge or
some other device to keep telco happy, them makre your own connections.

Pac Bell will connect residence lines to a RJ21X, but they charge extra
for that too.

I have not found anything at US West that addresses terming lines on a
KSU.  I am going to say the same for USW as I would for P*B, term the
lines on a SNI, Protector or Entrance Bridge and run your own IW.


Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU
Tempe, Arizona

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Curtis)
Subject: Re: Connecting Residential Lines to KSU
Date: 27 Nov 1995 23:47:46 -0800
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279,818-756-0180,909-785-9712)


I also don't know about Canadian regs, but in the USA, the telephone
company will not "connect" lines into a KSU (unless they're selling it
to you).  You can do it, or hire someone else to do so.

There are (supposedly, anyway) rules against business and residential
service in the same place, but they've never been enforced (that I'm
aware of, anyway).  And with all the people working at home these
days, that's a pretty dumb rule anyway IMHO.

I have many customers with key systems in their homes.  It really
makes a lot of sense if one can afford it, especially in larger
houses.


Mike Curtis  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding to Avoid Long Distance - Legal?
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 06:05:10 GMT


[e-mail] (Richard Eyre-Eagles) writes:

> Corey Hauer ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> I am providing internet service to several communities in a rural
>> area.  A very-small community serviced by GTE near one of my POPs is a
>> long distance call from me but a local call to another GTE-serviced
>> community that can call me without a long-distance charges.  I want to
>> enable people in the small town to call my service without
>> long-distance charges.

>> Maybe mistakenly, I called GTE and asked them if I could get a line in
>> the community and have it forwarded to my main number.  GTE told me
>> "no way, that would be violating the tariff".

>> I know of many ISPs and BBSs that use call forwarding in the same
>> manner to extend their service area.  Is GTE correct, would I be
>> violating a tariff.

>> What could happen if I had a friend of mine in this town get a line
>> pointing to me?  Or is GTE blowing smoke?

> There is another factor to consider.  Will your telco forward more than
> one call at a time?  In California, GTE there is known to only allow 1
> forwarded call at a time.

> As far as tariff compliance, when I worked as a Service Rep at
> Pac*Bell, I got an executive complaint.  It was a BBS operator
> complaining about an advertisment about another BBS advertising
> forwarding numbers which are residence class of service (which is flat
> rate, business is all measured), and the complaint is "if he can do
> that, why can't I".  It turns out that we had to either disconnect or
> change the forwarding lines to business class of service.
> California's tariffs are still strict about business on residential
> service.

I do the technical work at a small answering service here in the
Pacific Bell area of Los Angeles. This service caters mainly to movie
and TV stunt people - 14 CO lines on 20-button 1A2 phones, believe it or
not.  The proprietor is a former stunt lady who was disabled in a
traffice accident (her last movie was "It's a Mad, Mad World") and has
been in business for over 20 years.  To save her customers money, she
has three foreign exchange numbers that call forward to the first line of
her eight-line hunt group.  Pacific Bell was quite happy to set these up
for her -- there is no physical telephone anywhere, just a number that
magically points somewhere else; for example, a 818-760-xxxx that
points to 818-886-xxxx. She also has a number in the 805 area code and
one in 213 (L.A. County has all or part of 6 area codes in it, soon to
be more).  And these call forwarding numbers can handle as many
simultaneous calls as she has numbers in her 818-886 hunt group -- the
service rep claimed that they are only "busy for a tiny moment, just
as long as it takes for the call to bounce off it and go to its real
destianation".

By the way the service rep called them "stepping stones", and
volunteered the fact that she could have one set up in GTE if it was
required, but "it was more difficult" (the L.A. area is a mix of GTE
and PB).

To change the topic, and since I was asked this a few days ago, it
seems that my friend can not get any more CO lines, as she has maxed
out her facilities (she is running this answering service out of her
garage, as a quite legitimate and legal home business). Can Pacific
Bell force her to pay their expenses to bring in more copper?  What
are her options? A T1 channel bank feeding the 1A2 KSU? Or what?  She
wants to add a 50 number DID later on.

Lastly, is there any kind of a answering service equipment resellers
trade journal -- something like {Telecom Gear}? I know there are
computerized telephone answering consoles, but I do not know who makes
them, or where to locate some (new or used).


Mike Morris   [e-mail]

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

From: Adam Schoolsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dates of Start of 411 and Directory Assistance vs. Information
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:50:02 -0800
Organization: Northwest Antique Technology


Seems to me it was about 1970. I remember, as a kid, using 114 for
Information in the LA area (Pacific Telephone). I think 113 was for
repair service, and 811 was for business office.


Adam  KM4MF
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: Dates of Start of 411 and Directory Assistance vs. Information
Organization: GoodNet
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 01:39:13 GMT


Doug Faunt N6TQS [phone] ([e-mail]) wrote:

> When did 411 get to be the standard number for Directory
> Assistance/Information?  What was used before that?

> When was Information renamed to Directory Assistance?

In GTE areas, the DA code used to by 113.

Back in the 60's, San Diego's emergency number used to be 116. (Which is
interesting since it is 911 upside-down).

To this day, you can dial 118 in Las Vegas and get the time and temp.


Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU   Tempe, Arizona

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

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 15:15:27 -0500
From: [e-mail] (George Gilder)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance


> Does anyone know why memory prices haven't fallen at the same rate
> that CPU prices have fallen?  What's the scoop?  The technology curves
> would see to indicate that memory would get cheaper faster than CPU's
> (after all memory chips are "easier to design".)

DRAM prices plummetted, dropping 50 percent per bit every 18 months
for some twenty years, until the rise of GUIs, Webs, 3D games, color
printers, CDs and other RAM hungry applications quadrupled the use of
RAM per PC between 1993 and 1995 after annual PC sales surged up from
some 25 million to 50 million between 1991 and 1993, when Grove and
Gates had estimated only 35 million units. Whatever you think of
Intel, Grove was willing to lead the market, investing some ten
billion during the early 1990s in new microprocessor fabs while the
Japanese and Korean underestimated DRAM sales. DRAM manufacturers are
now investing like crazy, with some 75 new fabs under construction,
but contrary to the innocent proposals around here that a bunch of
ISPs get together and erect a fab or two, mass DRAM production for
millionths of a cent per bit is still the most exacting manufacturing
challenge in technology.


George Gilder


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just a reminder that several of George
Gilder's published essays have been made available to the Telecom
Archives by Mr. Gilder and are available for your review. You will
find them in a sub-directory in the archives under his name. The
Telecom Archives is accessible using anonymous ftp ftp.lcs.mit.edu   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sany M. Zakharia)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 22:38:51 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ross
Oliver) wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well what you say certainly has some
>> merit. But I think the prices will come down, even without a dedicated
>> effort by net people to make it happen. Personally I think we will
>> see complete desk top computer systems in the price range of $100-
>> $200 within a year or two.

I think this is a tad too optimistic.  You can hope to but a good pocket
computer/scientific calculator for that price.


Sany


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So are you saying merely that my timing
is off (regards when the price will come down) or are you saying it
never will get that low? My first four function calculator back about
1970 or so cost me over four hundred dollars! Today they are in the
eight to ten dollar price range. In 1978 a friend of mine had a Texas
Instruments TI-55 programmable calculator for which he paid about
five hundred dollars. I saw the same thing in Radio Shack the other
day for $39.00. My first computer, an Ohio Scientific C-1-P in 1977
cost me a little under a thousand dollars. It had 4K (yes, 4096) bytes
of memory, some of which was taken up by the BASIC stuff. My first
Apple ][+ computer in 1979-80 cost me over a thousand dollars. It
used its own flavor of Microsoft Basic which it called Applesoft Basic.
It had 48K of memory but could be expanded to 64K with a 'language
card' you installed in slot zero. Does anyone remember the Sinclair
computer which you could purchase in a little box at any discount
store for prices in the $29-49 range, as of about 1985?  All you had
to do was plug it into your television set to get the monitor.

Maybe I am wrong on the schedule. I may be over optimistic, but I
think the prices for very decent computers will drop outrageously
low in the next few years. Of course there are potential problems
for the manufacturers. Remember Commodore and the C-64 among their
other products?  That was a dandy little computer also, but that
company is now out of business, bankrupt.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 02:17:35 -0700
Organization: The 3DO Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Bill McMullin) wrote:

> Wouldn't it be great to solve the problems of the digital poor?  I
> agree with our Canadian friend who questions the high cost of memory.
> How could anything produced in such mass quantity cost so much?  If
> they are trying to make use believe it is a commodity subject to
> supply and demand, why isn't it traded on the stock market? (Maybe it
> is, help me here.)

> I would like a critique of this please ...

> Everyone on the Net and all those in telecom are very much handicapped by
> the high cost of RAM.  We all have a need for memory and most always have a
> need for *more*. If we had more at less cost we could likely be more
> innovative with the products and services we create and also provide the
> less than fortunate with access to computing power.

While I can understand your complaint, but there are costs involved in
producing memory modules.  $40 (US) for a 1Mbyte simm (30 pin) may seem
outlandish for you, but there is quite a lot that goes into one of the
simms.  In particular, there is a yield/testing curve.  Memory is not
produced that works 100% of the time, there are some flaws in the
manufacturing process.  The cost of memory includes the costs of the
"rejects" wherever they come from.  In other businesses parts can be
"re-tooled" to correct defects, but RAM chips must be thrown out.  All of
this costs money.

If you think that memory today is expensive, consider that just a few
years ago, when 16k (16384) bit memories were $12.50 a chip, or $100 for
16k bytes (and at the time, it was considered "cheap", meaning you were
HAPPY to pay the price).  At that price a megabyte of memory would cost
$6400., and you haven't paid for the support circuits.  I for one am very
happy that the prices are where they are now.  Sure I wouldn't mind things
being cheaper, but look at it this way, software is "mass produced" (after
a tooling cost) and still sells for "exorbantant" prices (price a CAD
package).  If your argument holds, then we should get the software for the
costs of the floppies (which are sold at the store for $25/100).

Consider the following:  If programs weren't so bloated, and programmers
actually cared about how much memory things took, the demand wouldn't be
as much (it would be there, I admit).  Maybe we should get better
programmers to write smaller, more compact programs!!


Tom Watson    [e-mail]  (Home: [e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very interesting point. I ran an entire
bookeeping system -- not just one of those balance your checkbook pro-
grams -- on my OSI C-1-P in the old days with 4K ram. I even ran an
(admittedly!) very tiny BBS with it. They used to have me come down to
the Lawson YMCA and give demonstrations with it and BASIC programming
classes for beginniners. I would also take along my Apple ][+ and show
off the art work I had created. These big splashy screen-filling
displays in several colors always impressed them, and they assumed it
took great gobs of memory. Then I would show them the code, which
often as not was merely two, three or four lines long. I wrote this
one little thing I named 'Fantasy on J.S. Bach' which was a cluster of
several small squares which kept bumping into each other and exploding
to make larger squares which would change colors, then gradually
shrink into smaller boxes before repeating the process. POKEing the
memory locations which controlled the speaker (which I had replaced
with a larger amplified speaker) produced a crude rendition of the
Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor.

How did you get all that code in such a tiny amount of space they
would ask. One day I was there when a fellow was also there who had
written a book on 'Basic Programming Style' he was hawking. In a
teasing way I answered that, 'the first thing you do is gather up all
your books on Basic Programming Style and dump them all in the trash
can. No REM statements for me! No indenting of IF/THEN/ELSE loops for
easy readability! No single instruction per line; no siree! You pack
that code in there! Cram as much as you can on one line. Just make
sure you don't block yourself in on a line somewhere with an IF
statement that it won't be able to get by. Cram! Shove! Push! Be
creative with loops. Use only one or two 'union loops' for each time
you need one instead of writing code repetitively. 'Go sub' and use
the same code and loops, etc over and over again when possible.

The man selling his book did not like me very much. But I thought I
knew what I was doing. At least I thought so. Then one night I went
to the weekly organ recital at the Chicago Temple Building downtown,
to hear a performance of 'Pictures at an Exhibition' and the Franck
'Symphony in D Minor' both transcribed for organ. After 'Pictures'
had been performed, they had a special surprise. A fellow brought
a computer out onto the stage, turned it on, started it going, and
walked off the stage. Everyone sat there with their jaw hanging
open as the computer performed 'Pictures' from start to finish.

I went home afterward higher than a kite, and I did not like me
so much any more either. I realized how little I really knew about
what would become so much a part of our lives over the next decade.
What was exciting back then is very dull now. :(      PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Brown)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 07:01:27 GMT
Organization: ConferTech, international


[e-mail] (Tim Shoppa) wrote:

> Sorry, I have to disagree here.  Memory is *dirt cheap* these days.
> Anyone who says otherwise wasn't buying memory two decades ago; my
> first 4kbytes of RAM cost me $200 back then.  $200 will buy you 6
> megabytes now, easily.

For over five years now, memory has stayed within a few percent of the
"40 bucks a meg" rule.  All other components have fallen in price.
For some reason, RAM is holding steadfast against the rising prices
reflected in the commodity PC market.  Just a few years ago, RAM was
40 bucks a meg, and Hard drives were about a buck a meg.  Now, it's
hard to buy a hard drive under 550MB.  It is equally as hard to find a
hard drive selling for over $550.  Motherboards have fallen
drastically, as have most peripherals and cards.

> To get online doesn't require much memory, anyway.  I'm writing this
> on a DEC VT100 terminal; it has less than 4 kbytes of RAM in it.

Good point - you can also drive a Yugo and live in a tent, but most
people wouldn't be happy doing that.  You are very fortunate in that
you are happy with such a cheap system!

--< futile attempt at market analysis deleted ("supply and demand")>--

The fact of the matter is, memory is a total commodity in PCs.  With a
few little-know exceptions, RAM is RAM.  Nothing differentiates one
maker from another.  If you have some OLD memory, it might not work in
your new PC.  But your NEW memory, as long as it fits, will work in
ANY PC.  Memory makers can't distinguish themselves with prettier
interfaces or better performance.  Memory either works or it doesn't.
And in almost every case, it does.

To me, Simms in my computer are like fuses in my car.  Without them,
my car doesn't run right.  I have to make sure I get the kind that
fit, and are large enough for my car's needs.  I don't care who makes
the fuses.  I rarely see them.  I install them, and replace them if
they blow.  I would buy the cheapest fuses, but for the most part they
are all priced the same.

> Got a billion dollars or more?  That's how much some of the new memory
> factories cost these days.  Every major manufacturer is building new
> plants, as a matter of fact.

I agree - building a factory is a silly idea.

What's the answer?  As more (modern) computers are obsoleted and
junked, their memory will be re-used.  I would expect to see a larger
used Simms market open up eventually.  As a rule, if memory doesn't go
bad in the first month, it lasts forever.  I have never had memory
suddenly go bad after working for a long time.  On the contrary, I
would never buy a used hard drive because they have finite lifetimes.
Memory does not.  Maybe finite obsolescence time, but not lifetime.

Plus, from a long term perspective, if memory stays at the same
(~40/meg) rate (which it probably won't), it will eventually be a
bargain.  Sure, my grandfather bought a 6" TV set for $450 in 1948.
But TVs hit the bottom about four years ago and are finally beginning
to follow inflation.  Memory and computer products will do the same.
The steady state for computers isn't here yet, and won't be here for
several more decades.


Brian Brown
ConferTech, International

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

From: [e-mail] (Ronell Elkayam)
Subject: Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe
Date: 28 Nov 1995 01:03:41 GMT
Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468


On Mon, 20 Nov 95 15:21:00 EST, [e-mail]
(email: [e-mail]) posted:

> I would be  happy to answer any  questions (or find out the answers)
> about the BellSouth Caller ID Deluxe service.

Thanx for your willingness to help out!  This will be highly
appreciated!

I've always wondered a few (heh) things about the Caller ID Deluxe
service (in BellSouth) and perhaps now is a good time to ask these
questions...  I have logged over 17,000 Caller ID name&number entries
while running my voice board.  I've probably become the best beta
tester for the slightly buggy service.  I've seen some weird stuff...

1) Why are some entries not padded with spaces to fill the 15
   character name field?  (Most Name-Fields of names shorter than 15
   are padded with spaces, so I assume this is the "normal" state)

   A few logged entries to illustrate this:  ("_" means null)

94.12.16 17:31:46 [phone] ABREU GLADYS___
95.01.20 13:39:38 [phone] ABURTO NIDIA___
95.02.02 12:01:24 [phone] AHRENS NEIL____
94.11.22 14:45:24 [phone] AMOR JOSE______
94.09.07 21:16:40 [phone] ANTHONY R______
94.12.16 20:28:04 [phone] BAEZ MIGUEL____
94.11.24 09:48:23 [phone] BAROC ANA______
94.11.06 14:34:57 [phone] ECKERD DRUGS___
94.11.03 13:51:08 [phone] FRENZI_________
94.11.10 12:30:37 [phone] GIBSON KEN_____
95.01.31 14:56:17 [phone] J P STUDIO_____
94.12.04 18:44:25 [phone] KEENAN SUMIR___
94.05.16 12:47:06 [phone] MIAMI HERALD___
94.11.14 12:39:43 [phone] SANTINI A______
95.02.14 16:27:16 [phone] SIMMS R L______
94.11.06 14:27:09 [phone] STUMPF M & S___
94.11.22 03:24:13 [phone] TAHITI MOTEL___


This even happens when there is an assumed logical continuation to the
shortened name: (Subscriber's name is most likely OVER 15, yet is sent
as smaller than 15 and is not padded with spaces)

94.05.25 09:13:19 [phone] STEEL HECTOR &_
94.05.25 10:09:00 [phone] STEEL HECTOR &_
94.10.12 11:56:09 [phone] STEEL HECTOR &_
95.01.19 13:20:18 [phone] STEEL HECTOR &_
95.01.17 22:10:18 [phone] TORRES MINDY &_

94.12.16 15:03:05 [phone] DADE COUNTY OF_
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   == DADE, COUNTY OF?
94.11.22 10:41:42 [phone] MIAMI CITY OF__
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^    == MIAMI, CITY OF?

To clarify:  I never received the character "_" in the name field.  I
simply received "NAME" instead of "NAME           ", so I logged it
as "NAME___________" to make sure every name field is 15 chars long.


2. How come sometimes Name fields change back and forth between PADDED
   names, and those weird shorter-than-15 names???  (This is REALLY
   STRANGE)

95.01.21 17:24:41 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.21 17:34:05 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.21 17:47:11 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.21 17:56:17 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.21 18:52:05 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.21 19:44:29 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.22 13:40:38 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.22 15:22:08 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.22 20:30:31 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.25 14:03:59 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.28 18:24:57 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.01.28 18:36:39 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.01.28 18:47:21 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.01.29 11:51:12 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.01.29 22:51:05 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.01.30 21:10:56 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.31 09:03:36 [phone] BUTLER R
95.01.31 11:43:30 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.02.01 08:29:39 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.02.01 09:13:45 [phone] BUTLER R_______
95.02.03 23:27:37 [phone] BUTLER R_______


Also, notice this person who has two phone lines at home, yet on one
line the names are padded, on the other -- they're not...:

94.10.14 01:07:16 [phone] LEVY GUY
94.10.14 01:40:04 [phone] LEVY GUY
94.11.22 06:07:13 [phone] LEVY GUY
94.10.14 00:58:22 [phone] LEVY GUY_______
94.11.21 00:42:29 [phone] LEVY GUY_______


3. What does "+" mean in the subscriber's name field?
   I've noticed it on a few entries, yet couldn't even speculate what
   they mean...:

94.09.08 17:50:55 [phone] LOPEZ ALDO+ JR_
94.09.09 15:50:09 [phone] LOPEZ ALDO+ JR_
94.09.10 18:56:31 [phone] LOPEZ ALDO+ JR_
94.10.12 11:06:09 [phone] NEWMAN DAVID E+
94.11.08 14:17:37 [phone] NEWMAN DAVID E+
94.11.21 15:27:21 [phone] SCHONECK BEN K+
94.12.16 17:23:10 [phone] WALTER A P+ JR

4. Last thing...  Out of 17,000 logged entries, one single name had
   the very strange characteristic of beginning with a space.  Same
   number called several times, and all entries started in a space:

94.11.21 17:45:51 [phone]  TINNY J KEVIN


And that's about it regarding my logged entries.

Another Q: I'm talking to X on the phone.  Y calls me.  I hear the
Call Waiting beep.  I tell X, "goodbye" and I hang up.  The phone
immediately rings, and the Caller ID shows Y's phone number, but NEVER
the name.  (A message of "Name Unknown" is sent.  This is sometimes
displayed as "---------------" on the more primitive boxes, e.g. AT&T
Display 85)

Can this bug PLEASE be fixed?  It's annoying as bloody hell. ;)


Also:  Why on earth is there a 15 character limit?  My hardware can
support much larger name fields than that...  Why should I suffer if
some Caller ID Box manufacturers can't figure out how to scroll name
fields larger than their LCD can hold?  (I'm assuming that's the
reason...)   Is this going to change anytime soon?

> Michael Klein, BellSouth Telecommunications, [e-mail]

Thank you again, Michael.


Oh, one last question before I run:  When will Prestige finally work
with Touchstar?  I'd really want to use User Transfer ($3.30 Prestige
service) with Caller ID Deluxe (a touchtone service).  I was told they
cannot work together.

--
W/love,   | Owner & Programmer:  The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468
          | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are
Ron       | allowed.    Under 42 must get parents' permission to call.
Miami, FL | "THIS  IS  WHAT  YOUR  MOTHER  ALWAYS  WARNED  YOU  ABOUT"

    Don't bother to call...  FCC disconnected the line on basis of
    board being "obscene".  New number coming soon!   Tapes avail.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #496
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 30 11:00:30 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id LAA07475; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 11:00:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 11:00:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #497

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Nov 95 11:00:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 497

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    FCC Spectrum Auctions (Winston E. Himsworth)
    Notice About CID Blocking in NYNEX Phone Bills (Garrett A. Wollman)
    Book Review: Growing and Maintaining a Successful BBS (Rob Slade)
    Scott Frye and Internet Fraud (Tad Cook)
    Octothorpe (The Answer) (Ralph Carlsen)
    Recent Bellcore NANPA IL's (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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Winston E. Himsworth <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 06:32:44 -0500
Subject: FCC Spectrum Auctions


I have seen very little newsgroup information on the FCC's auction for
PCS, MDS, and SMR spectrum. Do you know of a special newsgroup for
this, or is there no interest?

In case this group is interested, here are some anomalies we found
 from our experience in the current MDS (wireless cable) auction:

Through three rounds of the FCC s MDS auction, we have been
downloading files for use with our associated off-line bidding tools
software.  The downloads have been made two ways directly from the FCC
s on-line bidding package using the Round Results Viewer and, most
recently, from the auction files posted on the Internet.

Surprisingly, the file information is not consistent.  Somewhat
disconcertingly, the Internet files appear to be correct and/or more
usable. The FCC s Round Results files for which we purchased FCC
software and are paying on-line connect time to view contain
significant errors and/or omissions.

The minimum bid file, as posted on the Internet, contains a record for
each of the 493 BTAs.  The same information, as downloaded from the
FCC software, contains records only for those BTAs on which a new high
bid was made in that round.  Without reference to the historical data,
therefore, the FCC s file would be incomplete if we attempt to use it
to structure bid submissions off-line for the next round.  It should
also be noted that the two minimum bid files are sorted in different
orders the FCC file is provided in numerical order BTA order (albeit
with missing BTAs), whereas the Internet file is sorted by POP-ranked
BTAs within POP-ranked MTAs.

The FCC s withdrawal data is out-of-synch by round number.  The
Internet files show one withdrawal in each of the first three rounds.
The correct withdrawals are shown in the correctly labeled round
files, although the data item showing the round number is wrong for
the second and third round files.  The latter mistake matches the FCC
s files which also show the same three withdrawals and list the first
two as occurring in round one and the third as occurring in round two;
no withdrawal report was available for round three.

We alerted the FCC s technical support team to the minimum bid problem
yesterday and will point out the withdrawal problem today.  Hopefully
these problems can get resolved for later MDS rounds and in time for
the start of the SMR and PCS auctions.  Until then we will use the
Internet downloads to feed our off-line bidding tools.  We plan to run
a test later today to determine what time penalty, if any, we will
incur by waiting for round results to be posted on the Internet rather
than taking them directly from the FCC software.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the more detailed report
on this. We have covered those auctions here in the past, but not in
a great deal of detail. I doubt that many of us have the money needed
to get involved in any serious way. <grin> ... another of our regular
readers posts the auction results from time to time also.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett A. Wollman)
Subject: Notice About CID Blocking in NYNEX Phone Bills
Date: 29 Nov 1995 16:38:19 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


I received the following notice in my phone bill yesterday:

NOTICE FOR CUSTOMERS WITH LINE BLOCKING

New Line Blocking Code, *82, Goes into Effect on December 1, 1995

NYNEX Caller ID Service allows a subscriber to see the telephone
number of an incoming call on a special display device before
answering the call.  Line Blocking automatically prevents the display
of your telephone number on all calls to Caller ID subscribers.

Starting December 1, 1995, Line Blocking can be deactivated on a
call-by-call basis, by pressing *82 (dial 1182 on a rotary or dial
pulse phone) before making a call.  Until December 1, 1995, continue
to use *67 to deactivate Line Blocking on a call-by-call basis (dial
1167 on rotary or dial pulse phones).

[Ordering info deleted.]

To verify that the Line Blocking option has been activated and is
working on your number(s), call the automated Line Blocking test
number.  Customers in the 413 area code should call 1 413 447-8214.
Those customers in the 617/508 area code should call 1 617 380-2018
(both numbers are toll free), 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  This
call must be made from the number you want verified.


Garrett A. Wollman    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 12:38:17 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Growing and Maintaining a Successful BBS" by Bryant


BKGAMASB.RVW   951104

"Growing and Maintaining a Successful BBS", Alan D. Bryant, 1995,
0-201-48380-7, U$39.95/C$55.00
%A   Alan D. Bryant [e-mail]
%C   1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA   01867-9984
%D   1995
%G   0-201-48380-7
%I   Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O   U$39.95/C$55.00 416-447-5101 fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
%O   800-822-6339 617-944-3700 [e-mail] [e-mail]
%P   325
%T   "Growing and Maintaining a Successful BBS"

This volume (following an earlier beginner's guide) is obviously aimed
at sysops who have been operating a board for some time.  Therefore
the material, probably legitimately, assumes a greater level of
technical sophistication, and a desire to move into a commercial, or
at least self-supporting, operation.

The business advice is practical and important.  For small business
operators it is probably unsurprising, covering the value of listening
to your customers, business plans, positioning and marketing.  Three
chapters look at the addition of Internet service on a BBS.

In the technical area, Bryant again provides some very interesting and
potentially useful material.  He may, however, have confused two
possible markets.  For those interested in commercializing systems,
much of the technical side of the book is too esoteric.  The keeners
and hobbyists who want to get into the details of routers and domain
name servers are not likely to be thrilled by the thought of marketing
strategies.  Amateurs who are interested in code tables probably have
them, so I suspect that the real market for the book lies in the
business areas.  The book could, therefore, use more explanation, and
fewer network topology diagrams.

Overall, a useful guide for the experienced sysop seeking new levels of
operation and service.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKGAMASB.RVW   951104. 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]
DECUS Symposium '96, Vancouver, BC, Feb 26-Mar 1, 1996, contact: [e-mail]

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

From: Tad Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scott Frye and Internet Fraud
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 10:31:32 PST


Internet Fraud Hard to Police
By Dan Rutherford, Tulsa World, Okla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

Nov. 28 -- It's been called the information superhighway, but
anonymity, deception and stealth make it sometimes appear to be an
information back alley, rife with rip-off artists.

The perpetrators park for a day or two on Usenet News -- a worldwide
bulletin board shared by more than 15,000 user groups -- or other net
pages offering tips on "hot stocks," financial advice, even pyramid
schemes to millions of Internet users.

And, while gigabytes of messages enter and exit the Internet daily,
only a handful of securities regulators are able to monitor the
traffic on a regular basis.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has taken action on only three
suspected Internet scams.

The latest was taken against a 27-year-old Pennsylvania man promising
risk-free profits and above-average returns on investments in two
Costa Rican enterprises.  U.S. District Court in New York issued a
preliminary injunction Nov. 15 against the solicitor, Scott A. Frye,
after the SEC filed its complaint Oct. 27.

Ellen Hersh, assistant director of the commission's Northeast regional
office, said investigators were alerted to suspected fraud only after
noticing a cease and desist order issued in Kansas, where regulators
noticed Frye's offer after an inquiry from a would-be investor.

Irving Faught, administrator of the Oklahoma Securities Commission, said,

"We are definitely concerned about it. The difficulty with it is not
only the difficulty in policing potential scams ... but that this
information goes out to a lot of people who may not know what they're
doing when it comes to making investments."

Although he wouldn't give specific numbers, Faught said Oklahoma
regulators are seeking action against fewer than five suspects for
unregistered securities sales and solicitation of suspicious
investment advisor services.

Faught said his office, like his Kansas counterparts, cannot afford to
monitor the millions of messages appearing on the Internet daily. He
relies on investors calling his office to check out a too-good-to-be-true
deal.

That's why, he said, investor education is the key to stopping
Internet scams.

Nancy Smith, the SEC's director of investor assistance, agrees.
"People often let their guards down when they see an offer on their
computers," she said.  "They think, 'Well, this wouldn't be
advertising on the Internet if it weren't legitimate."'

But that is not the case. According to Leonard Conn, president of
Internet Oklahoma Services, if a user refuses to comply with the
Internet provider's rules, there is little they can do about it.

"We pretty much take the same position as the telephone company does.
We do not knowingly let people use the system in a criminal manner,
but it's just not feasible for us to monitor every user," he said.

Therefore, said Smith, it's up to the individual. "What people forget
when they're on the Internet is they're dealing with strangers. Would
you give $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 to an absolute stranger? Would you
buy a car over the Internet?"

Just like buying a car, she said, an investment should be checked out
thoroughly and considered carefully.

If a deal sounds too good to be true, she said, it probably is. Don't
let greed override common sense, she added.

If you think an Internet offer is suspicious, contact the Oklahoma
commission or the SEC. They could tell you if it's legitimate. And, if
it's not, they may be able to stop others from being taken advantage
of.

Tom Newkirk, the SEC's enforcement division associate director, would
not say how much time regulators spend monitoring the Internet -- only
that it is being monitored. And, "a bunch" of investigations are in
progress.

Hersh said Internet watching is split with minding other media newspapers,
magazines, radio and television -- for potential securities scams.

"There are a lot of investment boards and news groups out there, he
said. "We look at representative samplings of these things ... and
pursue if it looks worthwhile.

"We believe by prosecuting a few high-profile cases we can send out
the message that we are monitoring the Internet and, if it's out
there, that we stand a good chance of finding it."

For More Information:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has published two Invest Wisely
brochures. The first deals with how to invest in mutual funds, and the
second offers advice for consumers on securities purchases.

To get a copy of the brochures call [phone], leave your name
and address and the free brochures will be mailed to you. Complaints
or Inquiries:

If you would like more information on a potential stock purchase or
would like to report a suspicious securities offering you can contact
the Securities and Exchange Commission at [phone] or (202)
942-7040; or the Oklahoma Department of Securities at [phone].

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph Carlsen)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 16:21:55 -0500
Subject: Octothorpe (The Answer)


Pat,

    The following explains where "octothorpe" really came from.  I
am sending this to you because, as you will see, there are very few
people who could know this story.  The reason I am writing at this
time is because I volunteered for the AT&T Lay Off package after 34
years of service at Bell Labs so I may not be around much longer.
During the past year I have enjoyed reading your news group, and I
have used your archives a couple of times (once to get "octothorpe").
Your comments and notes on the postings suggest you and I would agree
on lots of things related to our telecom industry.


Ralph Carlsen

THE REAL SOURCE OF THE WORD "OCTOTHORPE"

    First, where did the symbols * and # come from?  In about 1961
when DTMF dials were still in development, two Bell Labs guys in data
communications engineering (Link Rice and Jack Soderberg) toured the
USA talking to people who were thinking about telephone access to
computers.  They asked about possible applications, and what symbols
should be used on two keys that would be used exclusively for data
applications.  The primary result was that the symbols should be
something available on all standard typewriter keyboards.  The * and #
were selected as a result of this study, and people did not expect to
use those keys for voice services.  The Bell System in those days did
not look internationally to see if this was a good choice for foreign
countries.

    Then in the early 1960s Bell Labs developed the 101 ESS which
was the first stored program controlled switching system (it was a
PBX).  One of the first installations was at the Mayo Clinic.  This
PBX had lots of modern features (Call Forwarding, Speed Calling,
Directed Call Pickup, etc.), some of which were activated by using the
# sign.  A Bell Labs supervisor DON MACPHERSON went to the Mayo Clinic
just before cut over to train the doctors and staff on how to use the
new features on this state of the art switching system.  During one of
his lectures he felt the need to come up with a word to describe the #
symbol.  Don also liked to add humor to his work.  His thought process
which took place while at the Mayo Clinic doing lectures was as follows:

    - There are eight points on the symbol so "OCTO" should be part
of the name.

    - We need a few more letters or another syllable to make a
noun, so what should that be?  (Don MacPherson at this point in his
life was active in a group that was trying to get JIM THORPE's Olympic
medals returned from Sweden) The phrase THORPE would be unique, and
people would not suspect he was making the word up if he called it an
"OCTOTHORPE".

    So Don Macpherson began using the term Octothorpe to describe
the # symbol in his lectures.  When he returned to Bell Labs in
Holmdel NJ, he told us what he had done, and began using the term
Octothorpe in memos and letters.  The term was picked up by other Bell
Labs people and used mostly for the fun of it.  Some of the documents
which used the term Octothorpe found their way to Bell Operating
Companies and other public places.  Over the years, Don and I have
enjoyed seeing the term Octothorpe appear in documents from many
different sources.

    Don MacPherson retired about eight years ago, and I will be
retiring in about six weeks.


Ralph Carlsen

These are, of course, my remembrances and are not any official statement
of AT&T or the subsequent 3 companies.


[TELECOM Dgiest Editor's note: Thank you very much for sharing. This
is indeed an interesting report. Do you think you could get Don MacPherson
to join us here among the Digest readership?    PAT]

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recent Bellcore NANPA IL's
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 00:21:00 CST


In some recent mail (Mon. 27 Nov. 1995), I received a mailing from
Bellcore's NANPA (North American Numbering Plan Administration) with
*seven* IL's (Information Letters) all dated 17 Nov. 1995.

IL-95/11-003 stated that NYNEX advises NANPA that the 617 NPA (eastern
Massachusetts) is in a `jeopardy' situation, but it didn't give
indication of any date of a new areacode, nor the code, nor indication
of whether there would be a split or an overlay.

IL-95/11-004 gives the test number for the new northwestern South
Carolina areacode 864. The test number is 864-242-0070 and will be
discontinued on 1 June 1996. A map of South Carolina showing the
boundary line between the old 803 NPA and new 864 NPA as well as a
list of current 803-NXX codes which will be transferred to the 864 NPA
is also included.

IL-95/11-005 gives some further info to an earlier IL (95/10-007)
where there were correspondences between Bellcore NANPA & the FCC,
regarding Carrier Codes (10-XXX/101-XXXX). There *is* mention that
Numbering Plan info is now available on Bellcore's webpage
http://www.bellcore.com and then click under `Consulting and
Engineering', but the remainder of the URL to go *directly* to NANPA
(http://www.bellcore.com/NANP) info is not indicated.

IL-95/11-006 mentions the changes in end-of-permissive-dialing
regarding the southeastern Florida split (954 from 305).  End of
Permissive Dialing for:

    Paging providers is moved up from 13 Apr. 1996 to 1 Mar. 1996
    Wireline (POTS) is moved back from 1 June  1996 to 1 Aug. 1996
    Cellular providers remains the same (1 Jan. 1997)

IL-95/11-007 mentions that the INC (Industry Numbering Committee), a
standing committe of the ICCF (Industry Carrier's Compatability
Forum), sponsored by the ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions) has its workshop developing future plans for
expansion to NANP numbers of greater than ten-digits, and that NANPA
and the INC will keep the telecommunications industry well informed of
any plans or changes, so that individual carriers can handle future
network technical planning, etc. The IL does mention that the recent
change to include NNX (interchangeable) format NPA areacodes had been
planned for *over 30 years*!

IL-95/11-008 states that NPA 216 (northeastern Ohio) will split off
into a smaller 216 (greater Cleveland area) and a new NPA 330. The
test number will be 330-783-2330 and start on 6 Jan. 1996. Permissive
dialing will begin on Sat. 9 March 1996 and will end for wireline
customers on Sat 29 June 1996, and end for cellular/wireless customers
on 1 July 1999. A map and a list of switchnames with associated
central office (NXX) codes for both areacodes is enclosed.

AND NOW- the BEST for LAST (IMHO)-
IL-95/11-009-
THE BAHAMAS GETS ITS OWN AREACODE!!!!

Permissive dialing will begin on Tues. 1 Oct. 1996 and will end on
Mon. 31 March 1997. The new areacode will be 242. All Central Office
Codes (NXX's) for the Bahamas presently in 809 will be transferred
intact to 242, and after permissive dialing ends, those codes will
become part of the assignment pool in 809. This is similar to the
Bermuda (441) situation. Test numbers will be 242-352-0000,
242-356-0000, 242-393-0000 and will become operational on 1 July 1996.

Also, the Bahamas will become responsible for assignment of future
central office codes in their own 242 areacode.  Presently, 809
central office code assignments is administered by Bellcore's NANPA. I
think that Bermuda will also be responsible for its own c/o code
assignments in its own 441 areacode. A map of the Bahamas is also
included in this IL, as well as a list of the 3XX central office codes
assigned to the Bahamas which will be moving to NPA 242, along with
the island(s) of the Bahamas the code is assigned to. An interesting
note about the Bahamas -- there is only *one* N0X form code within the
Bahamas, namely 302 for New Providence Island. There are no 3N0 codes
identified on this list as the Bahamas. There are *no* 31X nor 38X
codes for the Bahamas on this list, neither. I also don't think that
the 3XX series in 809 is exclusively for the Bahamas anymore.

And years back, most of automated/dialable Bahamas had *five* digit
local dialing. Back then, there were *no* NN1 codes used, since the
initial `1' was for either toll access or service codes. Presently, I
think they use 91X codes for service codes, but all local numbers are
dialed on a full seven-digit basis, all 'home' NPA toll is dialed
1+809+seven-digits (soon to be 1+242+seven-digits), with all foreign
NPA toll dialed 1+ten-digits. 0+ type calls are also dialed with ten
digits after the 0+ access code.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #497
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 30 16:11:47 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id QAA11345; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 16:11:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 16:11:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #498

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Nov 95 12:48:14 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 498

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "On the Road" by Prochak (Rob Slade)
    Sending Files via FAX (Stephen Primost)
    Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) Plant White Papers Wanted (John Brassil)
    Help Wanted With Panasonic KX-T4300 (Jurgen Morhofer)
    12 and 16 kHz "Billing" Tones in Europe (Dave LeVasseur)
    Nationwide Cellular Plans (Clark R. Wilkins)
    CNID in 314/Call Blocking (Timothy Brown)
    Need Satcomm Help (James E. Diskin)
    Interstate Caller ID -- Almost? (Chris J. Cartwright)
    What PBX Switches Support Data/Voice Separation? (A. Padgett Peterson)
    800 Number Density (Jonathan Edelson)
    Citibank Screen Phone Pilot (Robert D. Morse)
    PCS Service of Sprint (Soonam Kahng)
    Interstate Telecom Owners (Adam S. Wertheimer)
    Research Student Wanted (Alan O'Callaghan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 11:22:56 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "On the Road" by Prochak


BKONROAD.RVW   951106

"On the Road", Michael Prochak, 1995, 0-201-59396-1, U$19.95/C$25.95
%A   Michael Prochak [e-mail] [e-mail]
%C   1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA   01867-9984
%D   1995
%G   0-201-59396-1
%I   Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O   U$19.95/C$25.95 416-447-5101 fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
%O   [e-mail] 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 [e-mail]
%P   272
%T   "On the Road"

About half of the book is a listing and description of the Apple
PowerBook and Newton lines of portable computers, and related
accessories, peripherals and software.  (A chapter lists vendors and
products: it would have been a bit more helpful had contact
information not been limited to telephone numbers.)  The remainder is
mostly segues drawn from the author's (and some others) experiences on
the road, but there are very useful chapters covering maintenance,
repairs, handy tools and the vagaries of hotel telephone jacks.

The material is not technical.  There is also more than a bit of bias.
(Prochak's paean of praise to Newton, which even Apple now admits was
not fully thought out, is ruined by his admission that although he has
one he never uses it.)  And the section on the Internet clearly shows
that while Prochak may be on it, he is definitely not of it.

Still, this book serves very handily as an introduction and buyer's guide to
Apple's portable computing products.  Powerbook users, as well as newcomers,
will likely find worthwhile tips for more effective and trouble-free computing.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKONROAD.RVW   951106. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


[e-mail]        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
             "No passion in the world is equal to the passion to
                   alter someone else's draft" - H. G Wells
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 12:03 EST
From: Stephen Primost <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sending Files via FAX


Has anyone heard of this? What company makes this unit and is it really
worth the price of admission?

The disc fax facility is a very fast means of transmitting the
complete contents of a floppy disc.  The disc is inserted into the
unit, and at the other end is a similar unit -- the data is sent into
a hard disc in this unit and can be transferred via floppy onto PC. We
have some data on the equipment but are trying to establish what other
companies do.

I asked why this was necessary in view of the internet facility to
import files and was advised that it was for speed of data transfer
(eg for many files on a floppy), and greater security.  Having used
Internet I think the speed thing is probably correct but is it worth a
separate capital outlay particularly when you need to rely on other
users having the facility?

If you have any further comments please let me know.

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

From: John Brassil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) Plant White Papers Wanted
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 16:21:54 -0800
Organization: Vanderbilt University


We're looking for relatively bias-free studies/recommendations on what
kind and how many strands of fiber to pull for the enhancements we are
planning for our network here at Vandy.

We're looking at a distributed star of ten "core" buildings tied
together and supporting seven or eight buildings each.  There might be
a ring among the core buildings as well.

We want to be able to support voice, data and video over the same
infrastructure, but we have no real firm idea of what kind of mix to
expect, especially in the out-years.

This will have to last us well into the next century, so we want to be
as robust as possible.

If anyone has any pointers, suggestions, or other comments, please
e-mail them to me and I will summarize and forward them to the groups.


Thanks,

John J. Brassil | [e-mail] | 615.322.2496

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

From: [e-mail] (Jurgen Morhofer)
Subject: Help Wanted With Panasonic KX-T4300
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:48:24 GMT
Organization: GlobalTel
Reply-To: [e-mail]


To all you techies out there, please help!

I live in Italy and would like to get the call-waiting-service to work
with my Panasonic cordless phone. The problem it won't work is that
all Panasonic phones produce a too long interruption for Italian
Telecom requirements, if you press the FLASH key. (They probably want
to sell their own phones! :-)) With a regular phone you can avoid this
by hitting the hookswitch very fast, but a cordless phone does not
have a hookswitch.

I just opened my phone and noticed ten different trimmers in it,
labeled T1 through T11, with T10 missing. I really hope that one of
these trimmers determines the time of interuption by the Flash key,
but I have no idea which one and I don't think it's a good idea to try
them all ...

The exact name of my phone is KX-T4300H written at the base unit and
KX-T4300R  / PQUQ1033ZD-a written on the inside on the PCB of my
handset.

Please reply via e-mail as my providers newsserver works really bad.

Thank you very much,


Jurgen   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:22:55 CST
From: Dave LeVasseur <[e-mail]>
Subject: 12 and 16 kHz "Billing" Tones in Europe


In Telecom Digest issue 491, Masoud Loghmani wrote:

> Does anyone know of any international standard that defines the 12Khz
> and 16Khz charging signals for pay-phones? I specifically need
> information like duration, amplitude, and phase shifts (if any).

The tones to which you refer are used to provide billing information
in real time to subscribers in many countries.  This service never
caught on here in North America, probably since much of our calling is
"local" or non-toll.  The service is not restricted to pay-phones and
is reportedly available, like it or not, on all ALL phone lines in
Germany, sometimes to the dismay of modem users there.  (Special
filters may be required to prevent the tones from interfering with
modem signals.)

Early metering tone detectors used vibrating reeds that resonated at
the appropriate tone frequency.  The reeds would trip an "odometer"
that displayed the cost of the current call.  All-electronic
equivalents are the norm today.

The tones are sent as a function of the rate at which the call is
billed.  More pulses per minute means a more expensive call.  The two
most common tone frequencies are 12 and 16 kHz.  Great Britain uses a
50 Hz common-mode signal, as do a few other countries.  Each country
seems to have its own standard for pulse width, frequency tolerance
and pulse shape, though there are many characteristics in common.

Here is a partial list of countries using 12 kHz tones: Austria,
Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden,
Turkey and Australia.  The 16 kHz tone is used in: Belgium, Germany,
Greece, Israel, Norway, Finland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

You might call Aptek Williams, Deerfield Beach, FL (305.421.8450 or
800-423-8450) regarding your request.  They make a module, part number
AMS 3089, that they state "meets all European standards" for the decoding
of 12 or 16 kHz metering pulses.


Dave LeVasseur                     | Internet: [e-mail]
Advanced Product Development Mgr.  | Telephone: [phone] (direct)
Midcom, Inc.                       | Front Desk:[phone]
121 Airport Drive / P.O. Box 1330  | Toll-free: [phone] US & Canada
Watertown, SD 57201 USA            | Fax: [phone]
Amateur Radio: N0DL                | BBS: [phone]  14.4-8-n-1

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:51:17 CST
From: [e-mail] (Clark R. Wilkins)
Subject: Nationwide Cellular Plans


I am submitting this request on behalf of a friend who is not (and probably
never will be) on the Net:

Said friend is in a service business that requires him to travel
constantly across the continental United States. Since he is
technically a nomad, the "semi" he drives in constitutes his office.
He keeps a business number at his home base in Wyoming and has his
calls forwarded to a U.S. West cellular account using roaming. Since
he is on the road 60-65% of the time, he is concerned with any options
such as roaming or national cellular accounts that will help him
reduce expenses. Any help will be greatly appreciated as this is a
startup business, and expenses are very much an issue.


Clark R. Wilkins <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Timothy Brown)
Subject: CNID in 314/Call Blocking
Date: 30 Nov 1995 03:13:38 GMT
Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations


Quick question.

I have CNID on one of my lines here in 314 (St. Louis, MO, served by
Southwestern Bell).  Recently, I got a "courtesy call" <snicker> and
the number showed up without a hitch.  It was from out of state (916?
917?), but local numbers from not-so-distant locales (suburbs) are
listed as out of area.

Even worse, an SWB Operator I talked to said that, given that I had
the number of the party I wished to block, I couldn't do so, because
"their area doesn't have that service yet."  Asking her why I can't do
it even if I have the service, she didn't have an answer.

Bell's CNID/Blocking service is actually pretty pathetic in this area.
Can anybody offer me some explanations as to why this is so, or even
similar horror (or success, if they exist) stories on this?


Timothy Brown [[e-mail]]
http://walden.mo.net/~tb/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the operator was wrong on this.
If you can see a number on your caller ID display (or the word 'private')
then you can deal with the number like any other. I have experimented
with blocking out numbers from all over the USA. Time and again, if
they were displayed on my Caller-ID box I could do it. In fact, a way
to find out if an area has SS7 is to try and block a number in that
area. Pick an area code and number at random. Use whatever the code is
to screen calls from that number from reaching you. Try it. Note that
sometimes it takes a *long time* -- i.e. twenty seconds to respond back
to you. Your central office has to inquire of the other central office
about this. In some ways it is sort of like sending a 'ping' between
computers. I've tried random blocking of numbers in various parts of
the country. Now and then the respnse comes back that I cannot block
the number. Sometimes the response comes back quickly saying that the
number has been added to my call screening list. A response I find
interesting is one that comes back occassionally saying, "The number
cannot be added *right now* -- try again in a few minutes." I am not
sure, but I think this means your central office tried to get a
response from the other end but timed out waiting for a reply. From
all over the 312/708 area response to a request to screen out a number
is immediate. Either you can, or you cannot, and usually you can. One
peculiar excpetion however is certain numbers in 312-855. I have tried
adding some of those numbers to my call screening list and no matter
when I try or how often, the response is always, 'cannot add right
now, try again in a few minutes'.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (James E. Diskin)
Subject: Need Satcomm Help
Date: 30 Nov 1995 12:48:40 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


Hi folks,

I am a stupid lowly grad student taking a course in Satellite
Communications.  I need to define a commercial application.
I have chosen video-teleconferencing.  I am looking for
people with experience with commercial satellite communications
systems to correspond with.  I have studied a lot, and can
actually ask some halfway intelligent questions.  Are you
familiar with link budgets, EIRPs, PFDs, TASO, the Crane model,
etc?

A couple of specific questions that come to mind at the moment are:

1.  Do you know of a specific comm satellite that would be appropriate
for a videoconferencing link?  What is the longitude of the satellite?
What company operates it?  Do you know who I might contact to get some
specific satellite parameters, such as the number and type of channels
available, EIRP, etc.?

2. Do you know of any good publications that have specific information
about communications satellites, such as their dates of launch, uses,
coverage maps, etc.?

Please email me at [e-mail]

Sincere thanks to anyone who may take the time to respond, and thank
you all for your time.


Jim Diskin

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:00:25 EST
From: Chris J. Cartwright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interstate Caller ID -- Almost?


Just an observation that maybe someone can explain.  I live in MD
301-990 and two of my children live in PA 717-545 with their mother.
For the past two years calls from either of their lines have come
through as OUT-OF-AREA on the CID box.  As of the beginning of
November their mother had the number changed (still 717-545) and
set-up as unlisted.  Now the calls come through as PRIVATE.  Calls
from the other line (unchanged) still come through as OUT-OF-AREA.  As
the only PRIVATE calls I get now are from my kids, or the occasional
Fire/Police/Ambulance benvolent associations, I can be reasonably sure
that the PRIVATE calls are from one of them, or at least from their
house.

Besides the fact that this defeats the intended purpose of hiding the
callers identity, (granted it's a specific example), why can't I get
numbers other than ones in the 202, 301, 410, and 703 areas codes?  I
know that nationwide CID is supposed to be in operation 12/1/95 (with
a little luck) but why would they be able to pass information that the
number is PRIVATE but not the number itself?  Are telco's mandated not
to pass the ID before December 1st or am I just getting odd results
since 301 and 717 are adjoining area codes?


Thanks,

Christopher Cartwright, Tech. Engineer
Mail  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:14:06 EST
From: A. Padgett Peterson <[e-mail]>
Subject: What PBX Switches Support Data/Voice Separation?


It is my understanding that (C)LASS capable switches have the ability
to discriminate between voice and data (modem/FAX) traffic and to allow
voice while blocking data traffic to specific extensions or blocks.

1) What is this capability called? (telco lingo)
2) What switches support this (manufacturer/models - think 5ESS is one)
3) Do I have the terms right? Customer Local Area Switching Services
                              Switching Service Seven (SS7)

If you send to me offline ([e-mail]) I will summarize
for the list.


Warmly,

Padgett

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:21:27 PST
From: Jonathan Edelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Density


I have a question/suggestion about the move to 888 toll free numbers.
I am in a situation where a business 800 number is routed to a home
phone, so that business calls can be answered in the evenings.  A
really annoying problem with the 800 service is _wrong numbers_, far
more frequent wrong numbers than one gets with regular service.

One aspect of this is that the single '800' area code applies to the
entire US, so you end up with many people calling 800 numbers.  A
second problem is that people seem less worried about getting the
number right when they are not paying the bill.  (In our case, there
was a collection agency in the 801 area code that shared the last
seven digits with our 800 number ... arrrrgh.)  The final problem seems
to be the 'density' of the numbers used; miss one digit and you end up
getting someone else.

It would seem that the solution would be to offer 1-888-xxx-xxx-xxxx
numbers, along with a requirement that the number space be kept sparse,
meaning, say, that only one in 100 numbers get used.  This would mean
that mis-dialed numbers would end up getting an error message (usually),
that simply randomly trying numbers would not be productive, and that
there would be no overlap between the 801 area code and the toll free
area code.

If the 888 numbers were offered with features of the numbers themselves
that made them attractive for people, then folk would start switching of
their own accord.  I for one would find a sparse number space attractive,
meaning 888 even if 888 is implemented with conventional numbering
(simply because there would be fewer folk there)

I understand that there are services which put a pass code on one's 800
number, so that you don't get disturbed by wrong numbers.  However the
ones that I have seen seemed a touch expensive.

Anyhow, simply an idea that I thought I would pass along.


Jon

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert D. Morse)
Subject: Citibank Screen Phone Pilot
Date: 30 Nov 1995 13:52:18 GMT
Organization: Quantitative Data Systems, Inc.


Does anyone have any information on Citibank's screen phone banking
application in New York?  I know that they are using the Philips
P100-A screen phone but little else.  I would like to know:

1. How successful the project is;
2. Number of users (I've heard around 6000-8000);
3. Features of the service;
4. How it fares with their PC based service.

Either post or send e-mail to [e-mail]

Thanks!

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

From: [e-mail] (Soonam Kahng)
Subject: PCS Service of Sprint
Date: 30 Nov 1995 11:17:11 GMT
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA


Hello,

Today, I went to a local electronics shop (Best Buy) and saw about
Sprint Spectrum (Personal Communication System) Is this service
what we call PCS? The salesman told me it only covers DC and Baltimore
area. There are two models of phone (from Ericsson CH337 $99 with rebate)
and from NOKIA2190 $199).

The lowest service rate is $15 includes answering machine, Caller ID
and Paging services. It sounds very good to me. But before I start, I
would like to hear from you about the pros and cons of this service.

Are other phone companies offering this service?

In case of Sprint service, the only disadvantage is the service doesn't
cover wide area like nomal cell service. It seems to be no roaming
service. The salesman told me the service is only available DC area
now.

Any information is welcome please.


Thank you.

<Soonam>    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam S. Wertheimer)
Subject: Interstate Telecom Fiber Owners
Date: 30 Nov 1995 00:19:11 -0500
Organization: The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art


I was wondering what companies own fiber or other interstate links.
The big telephone companies come to mind first i.e. ATT, Sprint, and
MCI.  What about MFS communications and Metro Fiber? The telephone
wholesalers make this question so complicated.  I would like to make a
list if the number of companies are as small as I guessed, but I may
be surprised.


Adam Wertheimer

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

From: Alan O'Callaghan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Research Student Wanted
Date: 30 Nov 1995 15:04:06 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)


Object Modelling and Migration

RESEARCH STUDENTSHIP BURSARY (9000 pounds sterling + EC fees)

A bursary is offered for a research student with a First or Upper
Second Class honours degree in a computing subject, who has strong
skills in object-oriented construction and, preferably, some knowledge
of OO analysis and design models and computer networks.  The
successful candidate will work in an exciting new project, funded by
BT, involving collaboration between the University's Object Technology
Group (OTG) and BT laboratories investigating the possible usefulness
of patterns or micro-architectures in existing large-scale systems in
developing pathways for their incremental migration to Object
Technology.

The bursary, initially for one year, is designed to support a
candidate working most of their time in Ipswich in a BT software
development environment, but also partly with the OTG at Leicester.
The successful applicant will be expected to register for a Ph.D.

Applicants should send full CVs to: Professor Derek Teather, Head of
Research Unit, School of Computing Sciences, De Montfort University,
LEICESTER, LE1 9BH, UK by December 15th 1995 at the very latest, with
a view to a start in January 1996. Informal inquiries may be made
either to the Project Manager, Alan O'Callaghan ([phone]
x8503) or to Ray Farmer ([phone]) or by e-mail to any of the
following addresses: [e-mail], [e-mail], or
[e-mail]


A. J. O'Callaghan
Chair, Object Technology Group, DMU.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #498
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 30 19:55:54 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id TAA28755; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 19:55:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 19:55:54 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #499

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Nov 95 19:56:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 499

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Canada Petitions Canadian Government (Terry Flanagan)
    Bell Canada Asks to Overturn CRTC Decision (Nigel Allen)
    Microsoft Network Offers Enhanced World Wide Web Site (Bella Assaria)
    Maximum Throughput Over Phone Line (Rick Whiting)
    Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Keith Jarett)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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: Terry Flanagan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Petitions Canadian Government
Organization: Bell Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:02:31 GMT


In a petition filed November 30, 1995,  with the federal Cabinet, Bell
Canada has requested an overhaul of regulatory rules that are hobbling
the company's ability to compete and providing an unfair advantage to
foreign-backed competitors.

"What is at stake here is a viable, Canadian-based telecommunications
industry that can generate jobs, investment, R&D and economic growth
for Canada," said John McLennan, Bell's President and Chief Executive
Officer.

The Bell petition specifically asks the government to repeal that part
of the recent ruling by the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (Decision 95-21, October 31) requiring
that Bell's long distance rates be reduced to fully offset the revenue
generated by the local rate increases ordered by the CRTC.

"We are making this request because the mandated further reduction of
long distance rates is based on faulty principle, is being inequitably
applied, and is patently unnecessary to bring about lower long distance
rates for our customers," McLennan said.  The CRTC has a duty to allow
just and reasonable rates and that standard has not been respected.

The basic purpose of CRTC Decision 95-21 is to divide the telephone
business into a "competitive" segment -- primarily local service --
where traditional rate of return regulation continues to apply.  But by
mandating specific long distance toll decreases, the CRTC is in fact
not allowing market forces to determine outcomes in the competitive
segment.  This is blatantly inconsistent with its own principle.

"The CRTC is telling us what prices we're allowed to charge in an
intensely competitive business, but has ignored the regulatory standard
of a reasonable rate of return.  We're left with the worst of both
worlds and that's fundamentally unfair," McLennan said.

Moreover, the CRTC's decision is inequitable.  The mandated long
distance price cuts apply to Bell Canada but not to its competitors.
Companies like Sprint and AT&T-backed Unitel, which are affiliated
with US giants, already enjoy a host of regulatory advantages.  Now
they will be allowed to further reduce the contributions they are
required to make in support of low local rates, but without any
requirement to cut their long distance prices.

The long distance price cuts which Bell is being ordered to make are
already taking place.  "Average long distance prices have been cut in
half since 1986.  They are now about equal to US rates, while our local
rates are roughly half those in the United States.  In the last year
alone, Bell's customers -- mostly in the residential and small business
markets -- have benefited from price reductions of $200 million on long
distance," McLennan said.  "Clearly, the competitive marketplace is
working for our customers.

"However, if the government fails to take the steps we are requesting,
it is the customer who will ultimately suffer because Bell Canada will
not be able to make the investments to keep Canadians at the leading
edge of communications technology and services," McLennan said.

"Our company is in the midst of a revolutionary process of
transformation to meet the competition.  We are cutting our costs
dramatically, which will require a painful reduction of 10,000
employees -- 20 percent of our work force.

"But all this will still not be enough to equip Bell to invest in
technology and better service, as we must.  Today, our company is
earning a return of only 6.5 percent, far below what's needed to
attract the capital we require when investors can earn more with no
risk in a government bond," McLennan said.

"What we are asking for today is just a fair chance to compete.
Canada's telecommunications industry has been one of this nation's
greatest success stories and the opportunities ahead are limitless,
provided that industry and government co-operate to do what's needed to
win," McLennan concluded.

The Petition -- What's it All About?

On October 31, 1995, the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) rendered a decision (Telecom CRTC
Decision 95-21) which Bell Canada believes undermines a viable
Canadian industry, puts Canadian jobs in jeopardy, and impedes the
ability of Canadian companies to compete against international giants,
both at home and abroad.

Bell Canada is therefore filing a Petition requesting that the
Governor-in-Council vary CRTC Decision 95-21 and put in place rules
that strengthen, rather than weaken, the ability of Canada's telephone
companies to provide Canadians with the benefits of a strong domestic
telecommunications infrastructure.


Terry Flanagan
Corporate Communications
Bell Canada
[e-mail]

For more information about this and other Bell Canada issues, visit our
web site at:
http://www.bell.ca


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unfortunatly much of the transmission
sent by Mr. Flanagan was garbled, and what appears above is what I
was able to reconstruct. Nigel Allen also reports on this in the next
message in this issue.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:50:05 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Asks to Overturn CRTC Decision
Organization: Internex Online


Here is a press release from Bell Canada.
I found the press release on the Canada Newswire web site
at http://newswire.flexnet.com/

    BELL CANADA CHALLENGES CRTC RULING

            OTTAWA, Nov. 30  - In a petition filed today with the
federal Cabinet, Bell Canada has requested an overhaul of regulatory
rules that are hobbling the company's ability to complete and
providing an unfair advantage to foreign-backed competitors.

            ``What is at stake here is a viable, Canadian-based
telecommunications industry that can generate jobs, investment, R&D
and economic growth for Canada,'' said John McLennan, Bell's
President and chief Executive Officer.

            The Bell petition specifically asks the goverment to
repeal that part of the recent ruling by the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission (Decision 95-21, October 31)
requiring that Bell's long distance rates be reduced to fully offset
the revenue generated by the local rate increases ordered by the CRTC.

            ``We are making this request because the mandated further
reduction of long distance rates is based on faulty principle, is
being inequitably applied, and is patently unnecessary to bring about
lower long distance rates for our customers,'' McLennan said. The CRTC
has a dury to allow just and reasonable rates and that standard has
not been respected.

            The basic purpose of CRTC Decision 95-21 is to divide the
telephone business into a ``competitive'' segment - primarily local
service - where traditional rate of return regulation continues to
apply. But by mandating specific long distance toll decreases, the
CRTC is in fact not allowing market forces to determine outcomes in
the competitive segment. This is blatantly inconsistent with its own
principle.

            ``The CRTC is telling us what prices we're allowed to
charge in an intensely competitive business, but has ignored the
regulatory standard of a reasonable rate of return. We're left with
the worst of both worlds and that's fundamentally unfair,'' McLennan
said.

            Moreover, the CRTC's decision is inequitable. The mandated
long distance price cuts apply to Bell Canada but not to its
competitors.  Companies like Sprint and AT&T-backed Unitel, which are
affiliated with US giants, already enjoy a host of regulatory
advantages. Now they will be allowed to further reduce the
contributions they are required to make in support of low local rates,
but without any requirement to cut their long distance prices.

            The long distance price cuts which Bell is being ordered
to make are already taking place. ``Average long distance prices have
been cut in half since 1986. They are now about equal to US rates,
while our local rates are roughly half those in the United States. In
the last year alone, Bell's customers - mostly in the residential and
small business markets - have benefited from price reductions of $200
million on long distance,'' McLennan said. ``Clearly, the competitive
marketplace is working for our customers.

            ``However, if the government fails to take the steps we
are requesting, it is the customer who will ultimately suffer because
Bell Canada will not be able to make the investments to keep Canadians
at the leading edge of communications technology and services,''
McLennan said.

            ``Our company is in the midst of a revolutionary process
of transformation to meet the competition. We are cutting our costs
dramatically, which will require a painful reduction of 10,000
employees - 20 percent of our work force.

            ``But all this will still not be enough to equip Bell to
invest in technology and better service, as we must. Today, our
company is earning a return of only 6.5 percent, far below what's
needed to attract the capital we require when investors can earn more
with no risk in a government bond,'' McLennan said.

            ``What we are asking for today is just a fair chance to
compete.  Canada's telecommunications industry has been one of this
nation's greatest success stories and the opportunities ahead are
limitless, provided that industry and government co-operate to do
what's needed to win,'' McLennan concluded.


For further information: Marg Eades, Bell CanadaCommunications, (613)
781-2456 (business), [phone] (residence), or Linda Gervais, Bell
Canada Communications,[phone], [phone] (residence)

   14:22 Eastern 30-Nov-1995

  @ CANADA NEWSWIRE @

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Microsoft Network Offers Enhanced World Wide Web Site
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:26:06 -0800

 From:     Pamela Bridgeport (Xenix)
 Sent:     Thursday, November 30, 1995 11:19 AM
 To:     ACG/CSD News Reports; MSN News Reports; MSN Team
 Cc:     MSN Library Research; Pamela Bridgeport (Xenix)
 Subject: MSN, The Microsoft Network, Offers Enhanced World Wide Web Site

MSN, THE MICROSOFT NETWORK OFFERS ENHANCED WORLD WIDE WEB SITE
             New msn.com Site Delivers Unique Features
                 Including Customizable Start Page

  NEW YORK, Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT)
today announced that MSN(TM), The Microsoft Network made available an
enhanced version of its World Wide Web (WWW) site, http://www.msn.com.
This new Web site provides new features and services that allow people
to more easily navigate the Web and create a customizable Web start
page.  The new msn.com site is already one of the most popular
Internet Web sites, with over 1.3 million hits per day after only
three months of service.

  "Our goal is to establish MSN as one of the premier destinations on
the Internet," said Russell Siegelman, vice president of The Microsoft
Network division at Microsoft.  "We're excited to broaden MSN by
making these new services available to anyone on the Internet.  We
believe that people will find msn.com and its customizable start page
to be a valuable part of their everyday Internet experience."

  The msn.com site includes links to the most popular Web sites and
services, powerful searching tools from Yahoo, Lycos and Infoseek,
information on Microsoft(R) products, and a tutorial for first-time
Internet users that provides tips to get the most out of the WWW.  It
also includes highlights and instant shortcuts to the additional
unique multimedia content available to members of MSN.

  A new customized start page feature allows users to add up-to-the-
minute content selected from a list of popular Internet Web sites onto
their versions of the MSN home page.  After a quick and easy process
of selecting desired content, the custom start page is automatically
displayed whenever the user goes to http://www.msn.com.  For example,
customized start pages can include stock quotes from Data Broadcasting
Corp.; news from USA Today and the Excite bulletin from Architext;
sports scores from ESPN's "SportsZone"; computer news from Ziff-Davis;
movie show times, tickets and information from MovieLink; television
listings from TV1; and instant links to comics from United Media.

  "We are thrilled to be working with Microsoft on this new addition
to The Microsoft Network," said Lorraine Cichowski, vice president and
general manager of the USA Today Information Network.  "MSN has been
growing at a very quick rate, and it has been a solid source of
customer traffic for USA Today online."

  The http://www.msn.com site is accessible by all users of the
Internet, at no charge, using any Web browser that supports tables.
In addition, msn.com will give users the ability to view inline video
and hear background music if they are using Microsoft Internet
Explorer 2.0.

  The Microsoft Network is one of the world's leading Internet service
providers, offering integrated Internet access including an e-mail
account, full World Wide Web access (where available) with seamlessly
integrated links to popular Web sites, and thousands of Internet
newsgroups.  MSN also offers hundreds of special-interest bulletin
boards and unique multimedia content such as encyclopedias,
dictionaries, home-repair titles, car-buying guides, and up-to-date
news and information from the service's news package, MSN News.

  MSN has content relationships with numerous companies such as NBC,
Paramount, USA Today, United Airlines, Starwave Corp., Dun and
Bradstreet, and Individual Inc.  The Microsoft Network is available in
50 countries and access software is localized into 26 languages.

  Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq: "MSFT") is the worldwide leader
in software for personal computers.  The company offers a wide range
of products and services for business and personal use, each designed
with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to
take advantage of the full power of personal computing every day.

  Microsoft and MSN are either registered trademarks or trademarks of
Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries.  The
Microsoft Network is operated by Microsoft Corp. on behalf of
Microsoft Network LLC.

If you are interested in viewing additional information on Microsoft
please check out the Microsoft Web page at
http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/pr.htm on Microsoft's corporate
information pages.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Microsoft is one of the sponsors of
this Digest. A grant from Microsoft last summer enabled me to
publish the Digest through the end of this year, and a couple days
ago I was notified that the grant will continue during the year
to come. Readers who wish to extend thanks to Microsoft for this
gift to the Digest should address notes to [e-mail]
with a cc: to [e-mail].  Please do check out their web
page mentioned above when you get a chance. It is very informative
and interesting.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:48:26 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Rick Whiting)
Subject: Maximum Throughput Over Phone Line


This is in answer to the question "is 19.2 Kbps the fastest speed that can
be supported over a dial-up telephone line."

Summary

The theoretical maximum transmission rate on a dial-up phone line is
about 34,000 bits per second.  Relatively common modems conforming to
ITU-T Specification V.34 achieve 28,800 (28.8K) bps on good
connections.  Compression schemes, e.g., ITU-T V.42bis, can increase
the effective throughput, depending on the nature of the information
being sent.

Baud is the signaling rate.  Bps is the throughput in bits per second.
In any system these two rates may, or may not, be the same.  But even
if the rates are the same, they are definitely not the same concepts.
In the modems we use today, the throughput in bps is significantly
higher than the 2,400 baud maximum signaling rate on a typical dial-up
phone line.

Details

The audio frequency carrier wave transmitted by a modem on a phone
line may be uniquely described at any instant by three parameters:
frequency, phase, and amplitude.  Information is conveyed by changing
one or more of these parameters, a process called modulation.  Indeed,
modulation is defined as "varying the frequency, phase, and/or
amplitude of a wave to convey information."

A set of unique states (frequencies, phases, and/or amplitudes) can be
defined as "signals."  The rate of change between states is the
signaling rate measured in signals/second.  The unit of signaling rate
is the baud.  One baud equals one signal per second.

If there are two states in the signaling suite then the signals can
represent only one bit each, i.e., 0 or 1.  In this simple case, the
signaling rate (baud) and bit rate (bps) would be the same.  However,
the signaling suite can include any number of unique signal states.
For example, if there are four possible states for each signal then
each signal can represent two bits, e.g., 00, 01, 10, and 11.  Thus,
the bit rate would be twice the signaling rate, or two bits per baud.
It follows that an eight state signal suite, e.g., four phases and two
amplitudes, yields three bits/baud.

The signaling rate (baud) is directly related to occupied bandwidth.
Dial-up phone lines are limited to about 3,000 Hz bandwidth.  In
practice, this restricts a modem to no more than about 2,400 baud.
The number of bits/baud is limited by signal to noise ratio (S/N).
For example, with phase shift keying (PSK), it requires at least a 3
dB increase in S/N for each doubling of the bit rate per baud.  The
combination of real life bandwidth limitations and S/N ratios
currently limits most modems for dial-up lines to 2,400 baud and 28.8
Kbps (12 bits/baud throughput).  The theoretical bps limit is not much
higher.  Manufacturers are just beginning to introduce modems that
achieve 30K+ bps.  However, it takes a very good dial-up connection to
support these speeds.  Indeed, many people seldom achieve 28.8 Kbps.
The modems determine at the time of connection the highest rate that
the connection can support.

The bottom line is that, in the modems we use today, the throughput in
bps is significantly higher than the 2,400 baud maximum signaling
rate.  Readily available modems in the $200 price range can achieve
28.8 Kbps.  When sending plain text, compression schemes such as
V.42bis may increase the effective throughput by up to four times,
e.g., to 115.2 Kbps.  (The actual compression ratio is highly
dependent on the nature of the data being sent.)  However, unless
you're using a 16550 UART in your serial port you will not be able to
handle this throughput.  Note that compression does not increase the
line rate.  The modem "decompresses" the data received over the phone
line and presents the higher data rate to your PC.

It is not always clear how many bits are being used to represent an
alphanumeric character.  Although ASCII is a 7-bit code, 8-bit bytes
may be used.  Given 8 bits per character, 28.8 Kbps is 3,600
characters per second (CPS).  If a compression ratio of 4:1 is
achieved, the throughput would be 14,400 CPS (again, assuming your
serial port can handle it).  Since there is some overhead in the
transmitted frames, e.g., for error detection and correction, actual
throughput will be slightly less.


Richard A. (Rick) Whiting    Phone:  + 1 612 550 1213
5780 Rosewood Ln. N.         E-mail: [e-mail]
Plymouth, MN 55442-1411      Packet: W0TN @ WB0GDB.MN.USA.NOAM
U.S.A.                       Fax:    Number on request

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

From: Keith Jarett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: 30 Nov 1995 21:42:45 GMT
Organization: TCSI


Yesterday I witnessed a freeway accident in the SF Bay area in which a
motorcyclist did several hundred feet of head-first asphalt skiing.  I
pulled over to a call box to request an ambulance and such, and was
put on hold for ten minutes!  (Actually, it might have been longer, but
I gave up since someone would have called it in on a cellular phone.)
The recording continually stated that operators were busy handling
other "emergency calls".  Not!

Why can't they spend a few seconds with each caller to determine the
seriousness of the call *before* putting you on hold for such a long
time?  When I called the CHP later, they said that you should find a
regular phone and dial 911 in case of a *real* emergency.  Your tax
dollars at work ...


[e-mail]    Keith Jarett

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #499
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 30 22:54:01 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id WAA12593; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 22:54:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 22:54:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #500

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Nov 95 22:54:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 500

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Call For Papers: International Communications Forecasting (K.Bjornstad)
    SMDR Data Available? (Jeff Keller)
    1-800 Number Questions (Robert Wilson)
    407 Split Announced (John Mayson)
    Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning (Jeff Nichols)
    Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Mike Petsalis)
    Telephony Products Engineer Required in Minneapolis, MN (Softrix HRD)
    AT&T CellCard (Jeff Giddings)
    Telephone to Satellite to Telephone Communication (71726.3403@compuserve)
    Re: GSM in America: How Far Along? (Al Varney)
    Looking for Electrical Protection Information (John Carroll)
    What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (David Hall)
    Re-associating a Phone Terminal (Carl Manion)
    Search Equipment Exchange (Joseph Stephens)
    Correction and Apology (Jeff Buckingham)
    Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report (Foster Schucker)

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: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.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, 30 Nov 1995 12:51:18 -0500
Subject: Call For Papers: International Communications Forecasting


I would ask you to consider placing the call for papers announcement
for the 1996 International Communications Forecasting Conference into
your newsletter.  It is provided below.  If you have any questions
regarding the Conference please contact me.


     Kent Bjornstad
     Bell Atlantic
     540 Broad Street
     Room 200H
     Newark, N.J. 07101
     201 649-2605


               1996 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
                  FORECASTING CONFERENCE (ICFC)

                        CALL FOR PAPERS
                        ---------------

                Demand Analysis and Forecasting with
                 Competition in the Information Age

                        Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
                         April 16 - 19, 1996
                     Hosted by GTE, SBC & SPRINT

     The 14th Annual International Communications
     Forecasting Conference is an international professional
     forum for telecommunications forecasters, demand and
     market analysts and planners to present the state of
     art information and analysis.  The annual ICFC provides
     the opportunity for discussion, presentation and review
     of existing and emerging issues as they pertain to
     telecommunications forecasting and planning, demand
     analysis, market research and cost analysis.

     The theme of the 1996 conference is "Demand Analysis
     and Forecasting with Competition in the Information
     Age".  As telecommunications technology advances
     rapidly and competition intensifies, the traditional
     governmental regulations become less meaningful.
     Furthermore, the competition and technology transcend
     national boundaries affording unprecedented
     international competition and cooperation. Both
     wireline and wireless service areas now extend beyond
     familiar regional and national boundaries and most
     large telecommunications companies have become
     multinational.  Nevertheless, business planning and
     forecasting must still be based on knowledge of
     customers, competitors and markets along with sharper
     focus on internal costs and efficiencies.  How can
     customer behavior be understood in an environment of
     reduced regulation, technological advance, increased
     national and international competition and blurring of
     service distinctions?  The 1996 ICFC is the premier
     forum for discussion and debate of the forecasting and
     demand analysis challenges.

     The conference will include plenary sessions,
     concurrent sessions and tutorials.  The conference also
     hosts a Technology Showcase in which vendors of the
     latest forecasting techniques, demand analysis tools
     and information management display their products.

     Professionals and academics with expertise in
     communications demand/market analysis, forecasting,
     industry competition, communications technology and
     related fields are strongly invited to submit papers
     for the concurrent sessions on areas of interest as
     listed below.  Please submit abstracts of 200 words or
     less by mail, fax or e-mail on or before February 15,
     1996 to:

          Peter S. Chung                Tel: [phone]
          Co-Chairperson 1995 ICFC      Fax: [phone]
          GTE Telops, HQE03D37
          600 Hidden Ridge Dr.
          Irving, TX, 75038, USA

          Internet: [e-mail]

     Abstracts will be reviewed by the conference Planning
     Committee and notification of acceptance will be given
     by March 5, 1996.  The presentations generally run
     about 20 minutes in duration, followed by a brief
     discussion.  If more time is required for your proposed
     presentation or you have any special audiovisual
     or computer requirements, please indicate so in your
     abstract.


                  1996 ICFC Call for Papers Topics

     Demand & Market Analysis:
     ------------------------
     Access Demand for Local Services
     Optimal Calling Packages
     LEC Entry into InterLATA Services
     Flat vs. Usage based Local Services
     Own & Cross Price Elasticities
     Firm vs. Market Elasticities
     New Product Introductions
     Local Number Portability
     Other related topics

     Competition:
     ------------
     Impact of Local Loop Competition
     LATA Toll Competition and Market Share
     Competition in the Local Loop: LEC, IXC, CAP, Cellular, ALEC, CATV, PCN
     Loyalty/Retention & Market Share Prediction
     Game Theory & Simulation for Market Shares in the Competitive Environment
     Other related topics

     Information Technologies:
     -------------------------
     Changing Internet Roles
     Coming ISDN Age
     Video on Demand
     SONET, AIN, ATM, FTTC, FTTH
     Rejuvenation of Twisted Pairs
     Broadband Technology
     Network is the Solution
     PCS/Cellular/Wireline Substitution
     Communications & Multimedia
     Satellite Competition & Consortium
     GIS Technology & Competition
     Other related topics

     Forecasting:
     ------------
     New Products/Services Forecasting
     Market Survey & Forecasting
     Market Share Predictions
     Competitive Intelligence into Forecasts
     LATA Toll Forecasting & Competition
     InterLATA Access Demand Forecasts
     International Forecasting
     Unbundling & Local Access Forecast
     Broadband & Bandwidth Forecasting
     Other related topics

     Regulatory & Industry Dynamics:
     -------------------------------
     Price Cap Viability
     Alternative Access Provision
     Resale of Local Services
     One-Stop Shopping for Services
     Bundling Local Services with Vertical & Toll Services
     IXC Entry to Local Services
     International Combinations of Communications Providers
     Combination of LEC, IXC & Wireless
     Other related topics


     If you wish to register for the Conference now, please
     provide the information requested and mail to the address
     below.  The early registration fee is $500.00 in U.S.
     dollars.  After March 25, 1996 the registration fee will
     be $550.00 in U.S. dollars.  Payment may be made by check
     or money order.

               ICFC
               Attn: Don Gorman
               204 Murray School Road
               Pottstown, PA 19465
               Telephone [phone]
               Fax [phone]


     First Name________________Last Name____________________

     Company Name and Title_________________________________

     Street_____________________________City________________

     Prov./State___________________Country__________________

     Postal Code/Zip___________________

     Telephone_______________________Fax____________________

     Internet E-Mail______________________________

     Method of Payment    Check[ ] Money Order[ ]

     Make Checks and Money Orders payable to "ICFC 1996"

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

From: Jeff Keller <[e-mail]>
Subject: SMDR Data Available?
Date: 30 Nov 1995 17:29:10 GMT
Organization: SelectNet


I am interested in collecting information about different KSU/PBX SMDR
outputs for potential product development (i.e. format, field length
etc.)  Aside from contacting every major manufacturer, does anyone
have this information available?

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Wilson)
Subject: 1-800 Number Questions
Date: 30 Nov 1995 22:28:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I want to add an 800 number to my new business.  I am in the BellSouth
region and was told by someone there that all 800 numbers have been
exhausted and they don't know when new ones will be available.

I could tell by her response that this is the canned reply to 800
number inquiries.

I know these numbers are recycled.  Where is the best place to check?
Is it AT&T, MCI, others?

What questions should I ask to get solid answers?

If I had my way, I would like to use a vanity 800 number.  I have
called some of the numbers I would like and on several occasions have
received an "unable to complete your call as dialed" response.  Does
this mean that it is available?

Any help is greatly appreciated.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't bother with any of the major
players mentioned above. So many of those people have been trained
to believe that a customer is an interuption to their work rather
than the *purpose* of it. Try one of the smaller vendors, who for
some reason seem to still have plenty of 800 numbers available and
in stock, although I don't know about the specific number you are
interested in. Since I have promoted them quite a bit in the past month
or so I won't mention any by name, but a couple of 800 vendors are
regular readers here, so I imagine they'll be responding to you in
a short time.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Mayson)
Subject: 407 Split Announced
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 95 16:32:59 EST


I heard on WTKS 104.1 Orlando that 407 will be split.  The new area
code will be 561.  The Palm Beaches and Treasure Coast (Palm Beach,
Martin, St Lucie, and Indian River counties) will get the new area
code while Brevard, Osceola, Orange, and Seminole will remain in 407.

I was hoping those of us in the Orlando/Space Coast area would get an
NNX area code just for the novelty.  ;-) But I must admit this makes
sense.  This part of the state has a lot more industry and would be
less costly to business to change the southern half of 407.  Not much
of anything goes on on the Brevard-Indian River county line (the
dividing line) so the division makes sense.


John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am anxiously awaiting mid-January
when our area code changes to 847 for the same reason. It will be
fun listening to all the people who fill out forms telling me that
I don't know what my correct number is.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Nichols)
Subject: Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning
Date: 30 Nov 1995 15:55:49 GMT
Organization: USMR Telecom


I'm looking for a formula or software tool to calculate the number of
modems and phone lines that should be allocated for peak usage.  The
scenario would be that the users dial in to a modem bank for ten
minutes each, three times a day.  The total number of users is 600. How
many modems/lines should I have so the caller would not get a busy
signal more than one time in five minutes? Which formula or where can I
find a utility to do this calculation.


Thanks,

[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I assume you are unable to specifically
assign them their time periods. For example, User 309, you call in
at 8:10 AM, 2:40 PM and 7:55 PM. Are you going to have to deal with
them calling at their pleasure, as 'things' occur which prompt them
to call?   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:06:51 +0000
From: michael petsalis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon
Organization: Bell-Northern Research


Hello all,

I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the
usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon,
limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since
twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some
device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone
mentioned loading coils).

Is this device on every POTS line? How is it that we can take that
same copper pair and put ISDN on it at 144 Kbits/sec or more? Do these
devices need to be removed? How is it that we can put Mbits/sec over
the same copper pair with ADSL? I'm clearly missing something here ...

Many questions, I know. I would really appreciate if someone could point me
to a reference where I can get the answers to these questions.

This software guy thanks everyone for their help.


MikeP

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

From: [e-mail] (Softrix HRD)
Subject: Telephony Products Engineer required in Minneapolis,MN
Date: 30 Nov 1995 19:21:25 GMT
Organization: Softrix, Inc.


Location:            Minneapolis, MN

Required Skills:     Experience with telephony, public switched
                     telephone network, modems, PBX, telephony
                     protocols, call signaling and routing.
                     Must have knowledge of both analog and
                     digital phone systems. Experience in
                     analog and digital circuit design, and
                     firmware design.

                     BS  required.

Industry Experience: 2+ Years

Salary:              to $50K + Benefits

Please send your resume immediately by e-mail  (preferred) to :

          [e-mail]
          or by Fax  to  : 908-271-9401

          SOFTRIX, Inc.
          1308 Centennial Ave., #194
          Piscataway, NJ 08854

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T CellCard
Date: 30 Nov 1995 23:40:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I have read some information regarding a smartcard that you put into a
AT&T GSM cellular phone and enables you to make and receve calls using
the one phone number all over the world.  In other words, if someone is
trying to reach you, they can call just one number and get in touch
with you regardless if you are in Italy, Thailand, or any country AT&T
has wireless serices.  This card sounds pretty neat, but does anyone
have any details on how the thing works? Any technical info or specs
would be greatly appreciated.


Jeff Giddings

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

From: DTobler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone to Satellite to Telephone Communication
Date: 30 Nov 1995 14:07:42 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)


Looking for a piece of equipment that will monitor several phone lines
and convert the analog signal to a digital signal and pass it on for
Satellite uplink. After info is processed on other end the signal
would then be returned to be converted back to analog and passed on to
the originator. Any and all help in identifing the type of equipment
need would be appreciated.

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: GSM in America: How Far Along?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 21:23:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Phbishop
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Can anyone provide an update on the status of GSM/PCS1900 standardization
> in the U.S.?  I know that ANSI has standardized the 1.9 MHz air interface
> (J.STD-007), but I am not sure about the operational and numbering issues
> such as:

> -Phone numbers: Will the North American Numbering Plan be extended to
> assign an NDC to each network?  If so, have NDCs been assigned?

   [bunch of items deleted]

> I am curious to know which of these have been resolved, and which
> forum has decided or will decide, (Bellcore, ANSI, TIA, CTIA, PCIA
> etc.).  I would like to make contact with anyone who is involved with
> the standardization process.

   The TR46.2 Subcommittee and the "North American PCS1900 Action
Group (NPAG)" are both involved in numbering issues related to
PCS1900.  I'll send you contact telephone numbers.  The assignment of
E.164 telephone numbers to HLRs to support International Roaming
within the USA is under consideration by TR46.2.  NPAG is driving the
more ubiquitous usage of NANP numbers as HLR addresses for inter-MSC
queries.  Both have presented requests for a new SS7 Translation Type
("E.164 Global Titles") to T1S1.

   Given that subscriber numbers may become "portable" in the future,
this may require ten-digit translation of a MIN-to-HLR.


Al Varney

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

From: [e-mail] (John Carroll)
Subject: Looking for Electrical Protection Information
Date: 30 Nov 1995 17:02:44 GMT
Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783)


Can anyone advise where I can find info/discussions re electrical
protection for telecom circuits?  I am looking into IEEE for standards
groups, but am interested in working-level info/comments/problems/dis-
cussions.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Hall )
Subject: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable?
Date: 30 Nov 1995 17:43:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom


In my reading about home ISDN they recommend catagory 3 or greater
unshielded twisted pair. Some warn against shielded cable (even for
POTS wiring). But I've seen no explanation of what's wrong with
shielded cable.

Any informed explanations or pointers to accessable references will be
greatly appreciated. I'm interested both with regard to ISDN and POTS.

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Manion)
Subject: Re-Associating a Phone Terminal
Date: 30 Nov 1995 19:05:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I am trying to re-associate a phone terminal so it will be capable of
receiving two separate phone lines.  I know I could pay the phone
company to do it, but they charge $85.00 and I know its not that
difficult.  Could anyone give me any help?


Carl Manion    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could you be a little more precise
about what you want to do?  Do you have two telephone lines coming
in and you want them to go to one single phone?  Do you need
assistance in finding out which wires do what at the terminal box?
Please explain your circumstances a little better.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph Stephens)
Subject: Search Equipment Exchange
Date: 30 Nov 1995 16:11:10 GMT
Organization: Houston SuperNet (houston.net)


Search Equipment Exchange based in Houston, TX is an infomation
service which lists used and unused Telecommunication Equipment such
as: PBX, phones, cards, complete systems, maintenance materials and
hard to find items.

We will list want to buys from end users and dealers on our system for free.

If you want to list a want to buy call 1-800-252-5969 ext 27 and talk to
Michael Jacobs.

Also we are compiling an interconnect directory.  If you are an
interconect and would like to be listed, please call Michael Jacobs
for an input form.

If you have any questions regarding Search Equipment Exchange, please call
or E-mail [e-mail].

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

Subject: Correction and Apology
From: [e-mail] (BUCKINGHAM, JEFF)
Date: 30 Nov 95 17:18:47 EST


On July 30 and August 4, 1995 I criticized Pacific Bell and one of its
employees, Bob Reward, for a wain-bote script used by Pacific Bell. My
remarks went to far and were not fair either to Pacific Bell or to
Bob.  As a competitor, I may have become upset with some of Pacific
Bell's sales practices, but that does not necessarily make them
anticompetitive or misleading. I regret any harm that my comments may
have caused.


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)

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

From: [e-mail] (Foster Schucker)
Subject: Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report
Date: 30 Nov 1995 22:23:50 GMT
Organization: Voicenet - Internet Access - [phone]


My 14 year old son received mail today announcing that he had won either
a 1995 Automobile valued at $15,000 or a cash award.  All he needs to do
is call 1-900-344-8018.  It does say that the number is available 24hrs/7
days/$3.98 per min/avg call 7 mins/18 years or older.

So we check the Consumer Disclosure.  It appears from the odds sheet
that thye have issued 4,987,654 of these things, and that there are
about 65 total prizes, except for the last one; winning $1 at (1:1)
odds.

Let's see, assuming 700,000 in mailing costs, plus 100,000 in prizes over
$1.  If 20% of the "lucky" people call in at $28 for the call minus cost,
etc. it comes to a cool $750,000 profit for the contest promoter.

We decided not call.

But we are thinking of starting our own contest ;-)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Guffaw: Very clever of them isn't it! You may
recall a month or so ago I printed here a legal notice sent to me
by the Federal Court saying that MCI had agreed to settle with people
who had been taken in by that scam. It seems most people win 'prizes'
which are less than the cost of the phone call to collect them. You
and your son were smart to check out the whole thing first.

Ah, but what people won't think of!  A couple days ago, I was over
at the bus station here in Skokie doing something for my friend Jim,
who has the Greyhound agency in our village. A woman comes bustling in,
rushes right up to the ticket counter and with a panic-stricken look
on her face she declares, 'This is an emergency! I work for the
hospital and they have just called me on their beeper and I must call
in right away! I have no change at all, and every payphone around
here is busy. Will you please make the call for me from your phone
here?

Always eager to be helpful, Jim replies, 'certainly Madam. Tell me
the number to dial' ... and he takes the phone off hook. The woman
holds out her pager and says 'read the number off here'. Fortunatly
Jim read it out loud as he was dialing it ... 'umm, nine seven six,
mumble mumble, is that correct?' And he begins dialing ...

Standing just a couple feet away, I hear that and my eyes get big,
like saucers. Imagine Mister Dithers, Dagwood Bumstead's boss in a
fit of pique, and you will know my reaction. I reached over in a
hurry and punched down on the plunger cutting him off. I told him
wait a minute, that is a call to some premium charge sex line or
similar. It *certainly* is not a number at the hospital.

'Oh, there must be some mistake,' she says. I told her yeah lady, I
bet there is a mistake 'of some sort'. This is not the type of beeper
the switchboard at our local hospital issues to staff, I told her ...
'and before you tell me you work at some other hospital which *does*
use this kind, let me also note that the time stamp on this very
urgent message is from yesterday at ten in the morning. Sort of tardy
about returning our calls are we? Have you been waiting around here
since then waiting for one of our pay phones to be available?'

The lady looks at me with pure hatred in her eyes. 'Well,' she says,
'I guess I will wait until I get home and then call them back and
see what they want ...'. She turns and makes a hasty departure.

Moral of the story: remember folks, just because someone walks up and
tries to hustle you into letting them use your phone to make an
'emergency' call, don't feel you have to unthinkingly hand them the
phone and give them carte blanche. In every case, *you* dial their
'emergency' number for them. You listen, and when there is an answer
then you hand them the receiver. And get across to your employees
the message that we do NOT dial 900/976/540 and/or other odd combin-
ations of numbers just because someone tells us to. Furthermore, the
better the person is dressed and the more they make demands and try
to pressure you, the more likely it is they are a fraud. After all,
no one is going to give any credence to statements from some old bum
who hasn't bathed and has spittle running down his chin (consider
your moderator/editor for example) but would you dare not obey a
nice, well-dressed lady with a beeper in her purse who 'works for
the hospital'?  Have a nice weekend!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #500
******************************