Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1995.volume.15/vol15.iss501-536

Text File | 1995-12-28 | 1MB | 24,846 lines

From [e-mail]  Sat Dec  2 08:53:12 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id IAA05279; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:53:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:53:12 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #501

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Dec 95 08:53:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 501

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Whose Phone was This? (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Sany M. Zakharia)
    Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Dave Hsu)
    Rockwell Entering the BIG LEO Game (Fermin Da Costa Gomez)
    Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe (Al Varney)
    Re: Sending Files via FAX (Ry Jones)
    Re: Sending Files via FAX (Sany M. Zakharia)
    Re: Sending Files via FAX (Steve Cogorno)
    Competitive Telecommunications Assn Responds to Bell Canada (Nigel Allen)
    Old Radio Shack "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter" (Michael Ayotte)
    Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Steve Schear)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon  (Gareth Evans)
    Re: Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report (Jeff Bamford)
    Re: Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) White Papers Wanted (George DeVaux)
    OK, it's December 1st...? ([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 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, 01 Dec 1995 10:56:52 -0600
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whose Phone was This?


I was spending a pleasant Saturday afternoon rummaging through the huge
antique store "mall" (their term for it) at the Volo (IL) Antique Auto
Museum when I came across an old desk telephone for sale. It was a
standard black model, murder-weapon-heavy quality, black metal rotary
dial, round black buttons in the cradle, straight handset cord and
"Western Electric F-1" (I think it was) on the handset. Let's call it
World War II vintage; I'm assume collectors can identify the model
I'm talking about.

Anyway, the interesting part was that in the middle of the dial was
the original, neatly printed (typeset) number: ARmitage 6-2xxx. (I
can email the whole number on request.) Just for yucks, I'd like to
look up the number. I _assume_ that is a Chicago exchange; what I'm
hoping for is that old phone books would be on-line (right :-), but
general pointers would be helpful: Is it a Chicago exchange? Judging
from the model of phone and format of number, what era (e.g. decade)
can I narrow the search down to, or start from? What policy did the
phone company of years past have regarding reusing numbers when
service was cancelled?

Ameritech's namefinder service lists this number now in use at
a billiard hall (!) on West Fullerton Avenue, though the 2xxx
pattern doesn't correspond to the traditional pay phone pattern of
9xxx. I don't want to bother whoever's now at the number unless I
can verify that it's the same person who had it way back when...
at which point perhaps I'll offer to sell them their phone back. ;-)


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]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ARMitage is a Chicago exchange known
now as 312-276. It serves the northwest side of the city. Long
ago when a phone was installed, telco did supply a very nice round
tag for the window in the dial with the phone number typset there
with the complete exchange name, etc. I think the only thing you
could do in trying to trace this back to someone in that era (middle
1940's or earlier perhaps) would be to go to the library and *hope*
that they had criss-cross books around from that long ago. The
library does have the alphabetical phone books on microfilm going
back to 1878-79, and they have actual copies of the Haines Cross
Reference Directory going back a number of years, but I don't know
about that far. Haines started publication sometime in the 1930's
but I don't know if they were in the Chicago area market in those
days. Our local library here in Skokie has actual paper directories
and cross reference books back to 1967; they have no cross reference
books from before that. Chicago is probably about the same. Another
alternative would be to visit the Municipal Reference Library at
Chicago City Hall. They have something called the 'Chicago City
Directory' there. They quit publishing the City Directory in 1921,
and the final edition is still there in book form with issues
prior to 1921 on microfilm. It was organized by section of the city
and you might try scanning through it. Also you could probably ask
Haines (I think they are headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio) if they
have any cross reference books from this area for fifty years ago,
but I doubt that they do.  Good luck!    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sany M. Zakharia)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 00:12:57 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute


In Article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Digest Editor
responded to [e-mail] (Sany M. Zakharia):

> [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?

Prices will surely come crashing down, but I think not as drastically
within the time window you state.  But hey, if you are correct, my
pockets can't complain!

> 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.

I had one of these as well, until I upgraded to the powerful Apple //e
with a whopping 128K of ram, a mouse, duo disk drive, joystick, sound
card, and an Image Writer I printer :) Does anybody remember those
Profile HDs Apple used to market for use with the Apple II series?  I
think I remember them being advertised as "able to hold as much data
as TEN floppies".  Can anyone verify?

> for the manufacturers. Remember Commodore and the C-64 among their
> other products?

Commodore Amiga, a computer that was definetly decades ahead of its time (as
well as the Atari series).


Sany - *sigh* a trip down memory lane.

      Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
                     [e-mail]
                      1 508 831 6784
        P.O. Box 3321, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Hsu)
Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance?
Date: 01 Dec 1995 19:44:30 -0500
Organization: AlterNet -- Falls Church, Virginia, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, Brian Brown
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> [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.

Not true.  Memory had been falling from the $40/MB point (late 1990)
right up until the Sumitomo fire (July 1993) when it was around
$29/MB.  It remained high for nearly two years following, I think due
to a combination of hype, and due to exploding demand as Windows 3.x
proved to be viable, popular, and resource-intensive.  Only in the
past year has it fallen again to around $32/MB today.

Cases, power supplies, and floppy drives had largely bottomed out years
ago.  Monitor prices have also remained high; although you can get
sub-$700 17" units today, this is primarily due to the introduction of
cost-reduced models.  A good 17" unit will still set you back $900+,
which isn't much lower than the $1100+ it would have cost you two years
ago.

PAT's summary of calculator and PC costs is dramatic, but glosses over
the fact that in both examples, the product and its underlying
technology made a transition from a laboratory instrument/curiosity to
a mass-market item.  His $500 calculator didn't sell in the
hundreds-of-thousands-per-year, nor did its manufacturer expect it to.
Only when TI dropped the bottom out of its IC prices in '75 or so
(permitting me to buy my four-function Commodore for less than $50 in
1976) did calculators become as ubiquitous as they are today.  The OSI
Challenger and Apple II+, both dear to my heart, were constructed in
modest quantities out of discrete components.  While I have to
discredit the comparison with the $50 price of the Sinclair ZX-81
(that was the going rate _after_ it had failed), it DID sell new for
around $200, and Sir Clive clearly had mass-marketing on his mind.

It seems to me that the closest recent product curve for an information
appliance to target is the RCA DSS video receiver.  Its launch ran a
bit steeper than the VCR did in 1976, somewhere around 800K-1M units in
the first year, which is in line with other consumer electronics of this
type, notably video game consoles.  While the price will certainly go down,
it won't be the same kind of dramatic fall.


Dave Hsu  <[e-mail]>   Systems Programmer   Std disclaimers apply
Product Development Group / UUNET Technologies    http://www.va.pubnix.com

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

From: [e-mail] (Fermin Da Costa Gomez)
Subject: Rockwell Entering the BIG LEO Game; Competition to Iridium
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 1995 10:34:44 GMT
Organization: Knoware Internet


Could anybody at all verify the following in any way:

Is it correct that a few days ago The Communications Daily (Washington
DC area) ran an article stating that ROCKWELL INDUSTRIES is joining
the BIG LEO game through the funding (or part thereof) of the Ellipso
system of MCHI (Mobile Communications Holding Inc.), which would make
MCHI elligible for a FCC feeder link license.

It sounds quite plausible but it is rather hard to get verification of
this so if anybody out there reading this could verify it, it would
really be appreciated.

Supposedly Westinghouse has been (or still is) involved in this
venture as well but that has also been very hard to verify.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 21:42:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Ronell Elkayam
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

> 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?

   As I understand it, the 15 character limit has several reasons --
the primary one being that the analog FSK signaling period between
ring cycles has very little room left, after sending 10 digit calling
number and a 15 character name.

   The limit wasn't imposed by any box manufacturer.


Al Varney

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

From: [e-mail] (Ry Jones)
Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX
Date: 2 Dec 1995 00:13:32 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services


Stephen Primost ([e-mail]) wrote:

> The disc fax facility is a very fast means of transmitting the
> complete contents of a floppy disc.

> 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?

I can't see how speed can be an issue. If you want dedicated transfer
facilities, use an old 386 with a 28.8 or a matched pair of 33.6
modems and a high density floppy drive of both types. You could write
a batch file to drive (say) DSZ or GSZ or some other protocol to copy
the files over. You could also use PGP to encrypt a zip file of a
disk, transfer it, and do the reverse on the other end. I just can't
see the value here ... fax speed is limited to 14.4.

The unit could be a fax machine with a 28.8 fax/modem that's using a
propreitary trasfer protocol or some such. I still can't see how a fax
could exceed a dedicated trasfer system.


[e-mail]
finger [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sany M. Zakharia)
Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 00:40:22 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute


In article <[e-mail]>, Stephen Primost
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> import files and was advised that it was for speed of data transfer
> (eg for many files on a floppy), and greater security.

I don't see the utility of such a device unless you wish to exchange
data with locations in the world that do not have Internet facilities.
In that case I think the speed will be limited to that of the phone
lines, no?


Sany

         Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
                       [e-mail]
                        1 508 831 6784
           P.O. Box 3321, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 00:29:55 PST


Stephen Primost said:

> Has anyone heard of this? What company makes this unit and is it really
> worth the price of admission?

Maybe I am missing something; why not just use a modem?


Steve  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 01:12:07 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Competitive Telecommunications Association Responds to Bell Canada
Organization: Internex Online


Here is a response by the Competitive Telecommunications Association
to Bell Canada's announcement that it was appealing a CRTC decision
requiring it to reduce its long distance rates further.  I fund this
press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at
http://newswire.flexnet.com

    COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

            TORONTO, Nov. 30 -- The Competitive Telecommunications
Association (CTA) came out squarely opposed to today's appeal of CRTC
Decision 95-21 by the Stentor members. ``There is no public policy or
regulatory merit to the appeal. This is simply telco management's
attempt to grab the local monopoly revenue increase. The effect of the
appeal is to change rate rebalancing to a disguised rate increase,''
claimed Don Braden, Executive Director of CTA.

            ``Consumers and small businesses will be big losers if the
appeal is accepted by Cabinet. These groups will face monopoly rate
increases without any offsetting long distance rate relief,'' stated
Braden.

            ``Decision 95-21 gave the telco's the key items they
argued for, rate rebalancing and a split rate base. Now they don't
like the results because it exposes their strategic conduct in the
competitive markets. To the extent that their company-wide financial
returns are low, it is caused by the mis-management of their
competitive business sector,'' stated Braden.

            ``The Decision certainly did not give new entrants all
they sought, but we consider the Decision to be a good balance of
interests. It also represents a tight intertwining of several
important issues and should not be tinkered with to suit any
particular interest group. The Decision is also a key component in the
transition to a fully competitive telecommunications market,'' said
Braden.

            CTA is a national trade associations representing new
entrants in the interexchange and local access markets.


For further information: Don Braden, Executive Director, (416)
620-5391; For consumer and small business reaction contact: Michael
Janigan - PIAC [phone], Ted Mallet - CFIB(416) 222-8022

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Ayotte)
Subject: Old Radio Shack "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter"
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 23:41:01 -0700
Organization: Ayotte


Radio Shack used to carry an "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter". Basically
it was a small box into which (if I remember correctly) you plugged two
separate phone lines and your answering machine. When one of the lines
would ring, the answering machine would get switched over to that line.
When the other line would ring, it would get switched to that line.
Essentially it was an "auto-switch".

Apparently RadioShack (at least the ones near me) have stopped
carrying this device. Does anyone know where I could get such a device
and how much it would cost? And does anyone know weither it passed CNG
fax tones through the switch or blocked them (I want to hook it to my
Fax modem, which detects the tones, and my answering machine).

Any help would be greatly appriciated. Thanks in advance.


[e-mail] (Michael Ayotte)
http://www.ayotte.com/personal/ayotte/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was a two line auto-switch which
could be used for various things. I used to have one and I used it
for two lines funneling calls into a single phone instrument.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 23:25:48 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Steve Schear)
Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility


On Tue, 14 Nov 95 08:13:00 PST, Robohn Scott <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

One solution is to install a 'private' cellular system in your
building.  Many local carriers offer this option.  This is, however,
not a cheap solution.

Or you might contact Uniden America.  They have a line of 900 MHZ
Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum phones, both consumer and commerical
models which attach to PBX.  A model with roaming capability has been
discussed.  I don't know if they ever manufactured it.

Contact:
        Tony Mirabelli
        VP Marketing
        Uniden America
        4700 Amon Carter Blvd.
        Fort Worth, TX 76155
        817-858-3553

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 00:37:31 PST


Keith Jarett said:

> 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 ...

The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls.  They are
connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the
PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls.  It would have taken the CHP
much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly.  THe
CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit
number, not 911) and relay the info to them.  It's easier to just do it
yourself.


Steve    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something,
but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and
use one of those roadside phones?  What are they for, if not for use
in emergencies?  PAT]

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

From: Gareth Evans <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 10:06:06  GMT


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

> 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).

The bandwidth limitations traditionally came from the subscriber's
relay set in the exchange and were a combination of the shunt
inductance from the relays and the series capacitors used as the
transmission bridge - this I know cannot be the whole story because
the circuit is a high and not a low pass filter in outline.

Loading coils were a feature of the long lines in the States but not,
I understand over here in Brit land.


73 de Gareth G4SDW

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Bamford)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report
Date: 1 Dec 1995 14:11:07 GMT
Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada.


> 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.

    Is 540 really a premium exchange in some areas?  Here it is
just a normal exchange.  In fact the local freenet is on the 905-540
exchange.  Quite a bit different from a 976 number.  I think it's a
cellular exchange in 416.  I wish these things were standardized.


Jeff


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well in New York City, 540 was (is?)
being used for premium charge services.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:13:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (George DeVaux)
Subject: Re: Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) Plant White Papers Wanted


John Brassil <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

You might want to contact Telco Systems [phone] for a copy of
"Asychronous Transfer Mode: Bandwidth for the Future."  The price is
about $10.

I have no connection with Telco Systems.

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

From: [e-mail] (andy)
Subject: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: 1 Dec 1995 10:45:04 GMT
Organization: clark.net


Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes
on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers?  Isn't today the
beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID
data?  Please correct me if I'm wrong ...!


Thanks,

andy


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's
have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences
with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying
with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will
actually be fully functional, eh?   It is about time!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #501
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Dec  4 18:41:00 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id SAA25698; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:41:00 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:41:00 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #502

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:41:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 502

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CDMA/GSM Tech Course Offered Prior to CTIA Wireless '96 (K. Zsigo)
    Book Review: Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users & Futures (Slade)
    List: PictureTel Users (Neale Banks)
    Old Billing Practices (Mike Hyman)
    Internet Reaches Benin ... At Least For A Few Days (Nigel Allen)
    Cable Executive Sues Comcast ([e-mail])
    Sprint PCS ad in USAToday (Mike Miller)

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] (Konstantin Zsigo)
Subject: CDMA/GSM Tech Course Offered Prior to CTIA Wireless '96
Date: 2 Dec 1995 16:09:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Due to high demand, we've decided to repeat our CDMA course one more
time in Dallas, TX, just prior to the CTIA Wireless '96 tradeshow. The
instructor for the program has accepted an offer to help construct the
GSM cellular network in Shanghai, China, so it may be some time before
this course is offered again. Based upon feedback from the first
session, the course outline has been expanded to cover selected topics
on GSM to allow for comparison to CDMA.

CDMA and GSM System Design, Engineering and Implementation Workshop
Wireless Technology Series    March 21-23, 1996    Dallas, Texas

Sponsored by Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants in conjunction with the
Wireless Institute of Technology.

Edward Lu, Instructor

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

Edward Lu is a leading expert on wireless communications systems.
Under Dr. William Lee's guidance, he was previously in charge of
developing and operating AirTouch Communications CDMA Test Bed and
Advanced RF Technology program. Currently the Director of Network
Planning & Engineering for McCaw International and Chief Engineer of
Shanghai McCaw Telecommunications, he is developing the Shanghai GSM
system in an area with very high population density. A frequent
speaker on IEEE and International technical forums, Edward Lu brings
his solid R&D background, CDMA & GSM field operation experience, and
system design experience to this seminar. His previous three-day
wireless communication seminars have trained engineers and managers
from more than fifty-five US and Canadian wireless companies. He has
been involved in PCS business development, CDMA & GSM system and
subscriber unit testing, cellular and PCS system design, wireless data
technology, microcell technology, optical fiber communications, and
electromagnetic wave propagation for more than thirteen years. A
well-respected wireless communication strategist, Edward Lu will also
share his views on smart antennas, different PCS technologies (GSM,
TDMA, CDMA, etc.), high rate CDMA & low rate GSM vocoders, CDMA & GSM
system development directions, PCS system deployment strategies,
microcells, mobile satellite services (Iridium, Globalstar, Odyssey,
etc.), GPS, Phone-Print Anti-Fraud technology, and wireless vehicle
location technologies.

Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants

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

Zsigo Wireless is considered a leader in providing sales training,
technical consulting, and related services to wireless service
providers and manufacturers throughout the United States and Canada.
The company is committed to providing top notch educational seminars
that provide professionals a broad technical understanding of wireless
fundamentals. This education is invaluable to any organization seeking
to capitalize on the wireless opportunity within cellular or PCS.

Who should Attend This Workshop?
                        ---------------------

This three day seminar is designed for network engineers, RF planners,
technicians and others wishing to learn how CDMA works and how best to
implement the technology.  By attending this seminar, you can better
plan your deployment of CDMA systems either in the 850 or 1900MHz
band.  This is the place to get all of your questions answered on the
latest advancements in CDMA so you can shorten your learning curve and
build a better system.  Continuing Education Unit (CEU) certificates
are available upon request.

Seminar Fees

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

The cost of the three day seminar is $1195 for regular registration
(after February 29), or $995 for early registration on or before
February 29, 1996.

Schedule of Topics to be addressed:

GSM
  Error detection & correction coding
  GMSK modulation; Time delay spread
  Adaptive equalization ;SM system design
  GSM coding scheme
  Authentication system and smart card system
  GSM system link budget
  GSM system coverage planning and system design
  Coverage reliability calculation
  GSM system capacity long term planning method
  PCS system design case study
    MTA system design case study
    How to collect demographic data
    Pre-design noise & RF propagation measurements
    In-car, portable & in-building coverage design
    10 year capacity planning and transceiver count
    Cell coverage and system coverage based on reliability
probility
    Capital busget planning based on coverage and
capacity

CDMA

The Principles of Operation
  ShannonÆs Information Theory
  A discussion on cellular system frequency reuse &
capacity issue
    Characteristics of human speech
  PN Codes
    PN code generation; Properties of PN code
    PN code autocorrelation function
  Spread Spectrum System
    Spread spectrum communication system
    Processing gain; Near-far problem for a multiple access
system

IS-95 CDMA System Architecture
  CDMA System Timing & Timing Sources
  CDMA Forward Link Structure
    Pilot Channel; Sync Channel; Paging Channel
    Slot Mode Operation
    Forward Traffic Channel frame structure
    Long Code Mask; Power Control Sub-channel
    Codes Used in CDMA System; CDMA Signaling
  CDMA Reverse Link Structure
    Access Channel; Access Probe
    Reverse Traffic Channel structure
  Orthogonal & Non-orthogonal Coding
    Overview of Two Way Orthogonal CDMA System
  Variable Vocoder
    14.4 kbps vocoder and its impact on capacity and coverage
    Markov call statistics
  Convolutional Coding
    Frame quality indicator
    Coding gain
  Symbol Repetition
  Block Interleaver
    Fast fading duration
    Interleaver performance vs. mobile speed
  Data Scrambling & Randomizer
  QPSK & OQPSK
  RAKE Receiver
     RAKE receiver at base and subscriber receivers
    Multipath fading profile
    Why there is up to 3 cell soft hand-off
    Optimize CDMA performance for in-building and tunnel
system
  CDMA Power Control
    Reverse and forward link power control
    Closed loop, outer loop, and open loop power control
    Power control speed
    Power control and access probe
    Optimize power control parameters
    Power control dynamic range
    Power control rule in soft hand-off region
  CDMA Hand-off Process
    Which channel power strength control CDMA hand-off
process?
    Soft Hand-off; Softer Hand-off; Hard Hand-off
    Soft Hand-off process
    Optimize Soft hand-off parameters: T_ADD, T_DROP,
T_TDROP
    Search window impact on system performance
    Setting and optimizing search window size for CDMA microcell
    Pilot set management; Pilot strength measurements
    Soft Hand-off message and optimization
    CDMA to CDMA or Analog Hard hand-off

CDMA System Engineering
  CDMA Antenna Structure
    Erlang and trunking efficiency
    Multiple sector cell and smart antenna system
    Multiple sector equipment sharing mechanism
    How to optimize CDMA sector cell antenna system
  CDMA Coverage and Capacity Modeling & Calculation
    Pole capacity; CDMA system link budget
    Soft Hand-off coverage gain
    Does soft hand-off reduce capacity?
    Forward link coverage & capacity
    Reverse link coverage & capacity
    Frequency reuse efficiency calculation
    Receiver noise figure and sensitivity
    Loading: the link between capacity and coverage
    Cell breathing and soft capacity
    Noise rise above thermal noise floor
    RF propagation model; Fade margin calculations
    90% or 95% coverage reliability
  Ambient Noise Effect on CDMA Capacity and Coverage
    Based on co-authored paper with Dr. William Lee:
            "Ambient Noise and Its Impact on CDMA Capacity and Coverage."
    Ignition noise & ambient noise measurements
  CDMA System Performance Matrix
    CDMA system performance under different speed,
multipath delay, etc.
  AMPS to CDMA Transition
    System capacity planning issues
    CDMA capacity gain for partial AMPS spectrum
conversion
    CDMA frequency planning and guard band
    AMPS intermodulation components impact on CDMA
system
    Tolerable external interference to CDMA system
    Methods to alleviate the AMPS interference effect
  Deploying Second CDMA carrier
    When 2nd CDMA carrier should be deployed
    Complication and strategy of deploying 2nd CDMA
carrier
    System design with more than one CDMA carriers
  A CDMA Mobile Satellite System: Globalstar
  Apply CDMA to wireless local loop
  Workshop on CDMA Microcell: Problems & Solutions
    CDMA Repeater; Tunnel and In-building CDMA
Microcell
    Imbedded CDMA Microcell for Coverage
    CDMA Microcell with Long Optical Fiber Time Delay
    Coordination of micro & macro CDMA cells
  Workshop on CDMA System Planning
    Ten-year system planning based on population, traffic,
and coverage
    Design system at minimum front-end cost
    Equipment planning
  Workshop on CDMA System Design
    Major differences of  Analog and CDMA system design
    PCS CDMA system design case study


CEU credits will be awarded

Every workshop/training course Zsigo Wireless conducts or organizes
carries CEU credits according the accepted formula of in-class time.
We provide the certificates and keep the information on file! You can
use these credits towards obtaining a masters or other degree by
substituting CEUs for elective college credits within those programs.

Class Schedule for the course

Thursday: 8:30am - 5:00pm,  Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm,
Saturday: 8:30am - 4:00pm

Travel and Hotel Accommodations

The seminar will be held at the Fairmont Hotel located at 1717 N.
Akard, Dallas TX 75201.  Group room rate is $126.  Mention Zsigo
Wireless/WIT to receive this discount.  Phone [phone] or
800-527-4727.  Workshop hours will be 8:30am - 5:00pm on Thursday and
Friday, 8:30am - 4:00pm on Saturday.  Breakfast and lunch will be
provided.  CTIA Wireless 96 begins on Monday, March 25th, and the
Fairmont Hotel is on the shuttle route.

For More Information

Contact Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants at
[e-mail], or call 800-594-5102.
In Canada/outside of US, call 517-337-3995.
Fax number: 517-337-5012.

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

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 01:49:40 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users & Futures


BKISMUAF.RVW   951110

"Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users and Futures", Stephen J. Emmott
ed., 1995, 0-12-238360-5
%A   Stephen J. Emmott, ed. [e-mail]
%C   525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA   92101-4495
%D   1995
%G   0-12-238360-5
%I   Academic Press
%O   619-699-6362 fax: [phone] [e-mail] 800-321-5068
%P   278
%T   "Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users and Futures"

Having read a great number of infommercial supercliche books, I
approached this one with trepidation.  Add in the multimedia buzzword,
and it was almost guaranteed to be a copy of any of the prevailing
crop of blue-sky, ill- informed, and trivial productions attempting to
milk current preoccupations.  Instead, what I found was the most
practical and useful guide to the future communications technologies
I've yet seen.

Part one is an excellent and clear-eyed introduction by Emmott.  Part
two looks at the issues of information and communications in work,
domestic and social life.  The studies in part three concentrate
primarily on the use of video, but in functional work situations.

The fact that this is primarily a collection of academic and research
papers will likely cause some from industry and the general public to
dismiss it out of hand.  This is a pity, since I found more realistic
help and advice in this than in a year's worth of business seminars
and any number of popular works.  (Some of the papers seem to be in
esoteric areas of study, but even they provide valuable suggestions in
areas such as the necessary level of video quality.)

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKISMUAF.RVW   951110. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slades
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/
User                      .fidonet.org
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

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

From: Neale Banks!Communications Engineer <[e-mail]>
Subject: List: PictureTel Users
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:13:06 EDT


Integration Design of Melbourne Australia and Communications III
of Columbus Ohio USA are pleased to launch the

    PictureTel Users' Mailing List

as a forum for discussion of issues related to PictureTel products.

The Charter of the list is appended.  The WWW Home Page is at
http://www.idesign.com.au/vc/ptel-users

 To subscribe to the list, send an email message to
 [e-mail] with the word subscribe in
 the *body* of the message.  Anyone prefering a digest version
 of the list should similarly send an email to
 [e-mail] with the word subscribe
 in the *body* of the message.

 The list discussion address is [e-mail]

 All other requests should go to [e-mail]

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

 The PictureTel Users' Mailing List (ptel-users) exists to:

 *   Provide a discussion forum for:

     *   users of PictureTel systems,
     *   other interested parties.

     to exhange ideas and discuss issues informally.

 *   Provide an archive of postings.

 *   Complement, rather than compete with:

     *   Existing  PictureTel  user  groups
     *   PictureTel and Dealer support arrangements.
     *   Existing Newsgroups and Mailing lists covering videoconferencing
         generally (e.g. comp.dcom.videoconf, [e-mail]).

 Postings should be confined to issues specifically related to PictureTel
 products.  There may be occasions where it is appropriate for a cross-post,
 but followup discussion should be directed to one particular forum.

 It will, at least initially, be an unmoderated mailing list jointly sponsored
 by Integration Design of Melbourne Australia and Communications III of
 Columbus Ohio USA and hosted by Planet Internet.

 Integration Design and Communications III are both PictureTel resellers
 actively involved in sales and support of viideoconferencing systems.  Planet
 Internet is the wholly-owned ISP business of Integration Design.

 Planet Internet will also host a World Wide Web page summarising the list and
 providing forms for (un)subscription.

 A Frequently Asked Questions with Answers (FAQ) document is not initially
 proposed.  This point will be reconsidered as the nature and level of traffic
 becomes apparent.

 There will be no pre-requisite for participation nor any proscriptions on
 participation save that the list manager reserves absolute discretion to
 remove any participants or postings which are considered disruptive or
 otherwise undesirable.

 The list is being established independently of any PictureTel resources or
 support.  However, it is hoped that PictureTel will participate and
 contribute where appropriate.  It is also hoped that PictureTel and the
 existing user groups will promulgate the existence of the list.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Hyman)
Subject: Old Billing Practices
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:56:11 GMT


I have always been curious about what old phone bills looked like
before computers existed. Did they bill just a flat rate for service,
or did they in some way itemize the calls. If so, how did they track
calling and create the bills.

Please help answer this long burning question!!


Thanks,

Michael Hyman                  Quickturn Design Systems
Senior Network Administrator   440 Clyde Ave.
[e-mail]              Mountain View, Ca. 94043
[phone] Voice           [phone] Fax


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like the banks, the credit card
companies, the department stores and other businesses, telco bills
prior to computerization were typed out on typewriters, and prior
to typewriters being commonplace they were written out by hand.
Since it was easier to write things out by hand rather than try to
type columns of numbers and amounts usually letters were typewritten
but accompanying statements of account, etc were handwritten. Single
inovices would usually be typewritten. Around here in my collection
of artifacts somewhere I have a telephone bill issued to my grandparents
around 1930. It is printed on stationary from Illinois Bell Telephone
Company; it is written in very exquisite penmanship (in those days,
the public schools taught children how to properly write and print
letters, etc) and it states that they owed two dollars and something
for the current month's service along with another couple dollars for
long distance and toll calls. They kept track of all the calls then,
just as they do now, but they used legions of bookeepers and ledger
posting clerks, all of whom knew how to add and subtract and do other
common arithmetic processes. There was a lot more flat rate local
calling in those days.

Generally the record keeping procedure was thus: As customers finished their
calls, the operators 'stamped out' the handwritten toll tickets in the
clock which was attached to their switchboard. It was like a little
time clock that would print on the back side of the paper with the operator
number which handled the call and the starting and ending time.  About
every ten or fifteen minutes ledger posting clerks came past with
something like a grocery shopping cart and collected the tickets from
each operator's position. Those with special conditions like needing
time and charges called back were marked as such. The tickets went to
people who calculated the time and charges and sorted them out by
phone number, etc. As this part was finished, other ledger posting
clerks began microfilming the tickets. The microfilm machine added
its own stamped endorsement to the back of the toll ticket saying
what day and what reel of film it could be found on, etc. As the
tickets came out the back side of the microfilm machine they were
collected and carried off to the file room for posting on the
customer file jackets. The file room was a big barn-like place with
row after row after row of filing cabinets. An 'accelerated index'
told where to find each customer's file. For example phone number
1234 would be found in aisle 17, cabinet 34, drawer 3, row 2.

With their work arranged for easy posting and filing, the clerks
with their shopping carts would move up and down the aisles from
one cabinet to the next. On the front of the individual file folder
they would write in the latest charges, reference the position on
the microfilm should the ticket itself get lost or mis-filed, and
drop the ticket in the customer's folder. Then they would move along
to the next one, etc. There were three or four hundred ledger/file
clerks doing the same job repeatedly all day long.

When customers called the business office to discuss their account,
the process was similar. The service rep would say just a minute
while I get your account. She would put the call on hold, unplug her
headset from wherever she was plugged in, walk to the appropriate
area in the files, plug her headset into a jack there, press the
button for the line her call was being held on, and resume the
conversation with the proper folder in hand. They had little lecture
stands where they could put the folder and stand to do writing on
the files, etc. When finished, she put the folder back in the drawer
where it belonged and took her next call, etc. The pecking order was
that ledger posting clerks were considered very important, and
their work took priority over the customer service reps. So if
a service rep was standing at a lectern with a file and a ledger
posting clerk came along at the same time and looked in the drawer
and did not find the file desired, she would look at the lecterns
nearby. If a service rep had the file in question, the posting
clerk would take the file away right in front of her, make the
required notations, insert the new toll ticket, and toss the
file back on the lectern to the service rep who was still talking
to the customer. Not a word would be spoken, since it was under-
stood the posting clerks could have any file they desired at any
time they desired it. The service rep always got the semaphore
wait signal.

On a daily basis, twenty-two times per month, entire aisles of
file cabinets would be emptied out with the contents carried away
in shopping carts; it was said these files were 'in bookeeping'
and they would return to their normal resting place three days
later with a new fresh folder, permanent records back in place
in each jacket, etc. One day 'in bookeeping' was spent tallying
all the bills; a second day in microfilming the bills and moving
the toll tickets into permanent storage at the warehouse, and
a third day in mailing out the newly prepared invoices, preparing
new jackets for the coming month and getting the files back in
place. Most large companies had dozens of bookeepers assigned to
these tasks. The pecking order was the bookeepers took precendence
over the file clerks, the service reps, and even the supervisors
to a large extent. When a file went 'to bookeeping' no amount of
of begging or pleading got it back until they were ready to
send it back. A high-up supervisor could 'borrow' the file from
bookeeping if absolutely needed but had to return it within an hour
or so. As the files passed through bookeeping they stayed in the
same order as they were in the filing cabinets so the file clerks
would have an easy time getting them all put back in place later
on. If a service rep got a call from a customer whose file was 'in
bookeeping' the service rep had to wing it; play it by ear and
engage in a general conversation with the customer and a promise to
call back in a day or so 'once I have checked your file, which is
not available to me right now.' Ledger posting clerks would just
re-cycle the toll tickets they could not post and file until the file
folder got back in the cabinet. If a service rep was at a lectern
speaking with a customer on the phone, file in hand, and the book-
eepers came along with their shopping carts collecting everything
in that aisle, they *could* under the rules just take the file out
of the service rep's hands and walk away with it. Usually they were
nice enough to say 'hurry up I want that,' and collect the rest of
the aisle and then come back for the leftovers a couple minutes
later as the reps finished up last minute hasty notes for themselves
or the files, etc.

Only a few employees were allowed to carry files away from the
filing cabinets more than a few feet. The bookeepers of course could
do so, and the service reps who worked with walk in customers to
the business office could do so, as could various 'assistants to
the chairman', special auditors, supervisory personnel, etc. In
real practice though, files did wind up all over the place, on desks
everywhere. The collectors would have stacks of files on the
customers they were calling to get payment, etc. The bookeepers
and ledger posting clerks could pull files away from the collectors,
but the service reps could not. Now and again a customer would come
into the business office in person and the rep would go to pull the
file and it would not be where it could be found. A customer in the
business office was a valid reason to get a file out of bookeeping
if needed but sometimes it could not be found there either. The
public address system would announce, "Please check your desks for
file XXXXXXXX which is urgently needed by the business office at
this time." Everyone would stop and look through piles of stuff
all over their desks and whoever found it took it to wherever needed.
If no results were forthcoming, the person behind the PA would
repeat the message in a little more irritated tone of voice a
second or third time as needed. Sometimes a 'file searcher' (a
clerk with a sheet of paper called a 'hot list' of misplaced files
which had not been located for a few days) would come around
and start looking at every file on your desk. You did everything
but drop your pants for them. What would have happened typically
was that files got stuck together, or the papers from one tossed
in another jacket by accident. The file searchers were good and very
sharp with their eyes. Of course for a company with over two million
active files at any given time like telco, it was necessary to have
about two thousand employees administering them. Illinois Bell
at one time had over six hundred 'bookeepers' each handling the
monthly billings for a couple hundred accounts daily, day after
day, on a cycle billing basis.

Where 'customer service' in general got a very bad reputation was
in the early to middle 1970's as computers were being phased in.
It had gotten to the point most large companies were absolutely
getting strangled in their paperwork. More and more customers,
more and more daily activity, yet harder and harder to find people
willing to work for very low wages -- even for those days -- who
were smart enough to work accurately and quickly. As Viet Nam
became more of an issue, more and more people began protesting.
They looked at large companies -- often times their own employers --
as evil participants in the society in which we lived, and they
adopted an attitude that the computer was going to put them out
of a job before long anyway, so why care how the job got done.
But, somehow we managed without computers, thousands of clerks
passing millions of pieces of paper back and forth to each other,
and it worked remarkably well.   PAT

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

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:23:24 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet Reaches Benin ... At Least For A Few Days
Organization: Internex Online


Here is a press release from Teleglobe Canada Inc.  I found the press
release on the Canada NewsWire web site at
http://newswire.flexnet.com/


FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT: BENIN ACCESSES INTERNET THANKS TO TELEGLOBE CANADA
INC. AND VIDEOTRON

            MONTREAL, Dec. 2 - ``Today in Benin, we successfully
demonstrated that African countries can access the Internet with
wireless phone technology,'' stated Serge Fortin, Executive
Vice-President, Canadian Market and Network Operations at Teleglobe
Canada Inc. He made the comment in reference to the ongoing
Francophone Summit, whose theme is the information highway. Teleglobe
Canada and Le Groupe Videotron Ltee - PC Services Division worked
together to establish a satellite hookup and a terrestrial fiber-optic
link that enabled Summit participants from Africa's French-speaking
nations to access the Internet.

            Thanks to the 64-kbps link, the Canadian delegation in
Benin was able to have the contents of various training courses
transmitted to the African country via the Internet, which also
supports such applications as universal e-mail, file transfer and
high-resolution image transmission. Carried out under the direction of
Jacques Lyrette, President of Industry Canada's Communications
Research Centre, the demonstration involved the use of Inmarsat
satellites (International Maritime Satellite Organization), an
Inmarsat B terminal, and ISDN technology (Integrated Services Digital
Network).

            The Right Honourable Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of
Canada, was among those in attendance. He emphasized Canada's keen
interest in the development of the information highway and, more
generally, in technology transfers between francophone countries.

            Groupe Videotron is an international telecommunications
company which is active in cable television, telephone services and
interactive multimedia services in Canada, England and the United
States.

            Teleglobe Canada is a recognized world leader in the field
of intercontinental telecommunications. Its satellite and submarine
cable netwok extends to more than 230 countries and territories.


For further information: Maryse Sauve, Teleglobe Canada Inc.,
[phone]

forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada   [e-mail]
http://www.io.org/~ndallen

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

From: [e-mail] (CableNJ)
Subject: Cable Executive Sues Comcast
Date: 4 Dec 1995 01:44:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (CableNJ)


The former Vice President and General Manager of Suburban Cablevision
of New Jersey filed a Federal Employment Discrimination complaint
against Comcast Cable Corporation of Philadelphia alleging age and
disability discrimination.  The charge was filed by Frank DeJoy, 56,
of West Orange, New Jersey, a fourteen year manager of the cable
systems and a member of the Cable Pioneers.  The complaint alleges
that executives of Comcast, including Mike Doyle, Regional Vice
President for New Jersey and Tom Baxter, President of the Comcast
Cable Division, violated the federal age and disability laws by
removing him from his position while he was critically ill and in a
hospital intensive care unit in December of 1994, replacing him with
two younger men.

The complaint alleges that over the months prior to the aquisition of
Maclean Hunter's US operations, DeJoy and all of the Suburban staff
were repeatedly and publicly assured by Doyle that he (DeJoy)would
continue to manage the cable system following the closing of the sale
and would, in fact, be promoted to the position of Area Vice President
with responsibility for all of the northern New Jersey properties.
According to DeJoy, there was no indication whatsoever from anyone at
Comcast that he would be removed from his position until he was
notified by telephone at his home while recovering from his near-fatal
and unexpected medical emergency.  Although he has completely
recovered, DeJoy was not returned to his former position by Comcast
and the appointment of the two younger men with less experience was
not recinded.

DeJoy, a twenty nine year cable veteran was President of the New Jersy
Cable Television Association (1991-1993) and is a member of the
National Cable Pioneers.  He is now employed as an executive with
another cable operator.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint PCS ad in USAToday
Date: 4 Dec 1995 03:01:03 GMT
Organization: DES MOINES INTERNET, DES MOINES, IA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


You might want to check out Sprint's full page advertisement in the
November 30 {USA Today}. Apparently they are formally announcing
availability of the service in Washington, DC, Fairfax Co. Virginia,
and along the I95 corridor to Baltimore. The service operates in the
1900 Mhz band, with phones available from Nokia and Ericsson.


Mike Miller  Des Moines, IA
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #502
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Dec  5 01:07:24 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA24857; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:07:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:07:24 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #503

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Dec 95 01:07:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 503

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Keith Knipschild)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Eric Ewanco)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Louis Judice)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Bill Michaelson)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Mark Musante)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (John C. Fowler)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? ([e-mail])
    Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking (Steve Uhrig)
    Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking (Timothy Brown)
    Caller ID via 1-800-COLLECT! (Ronell Elkayam)
    Nationwide Caller ID Anecdotes (Jim Derdzinski)
    National Caller ID in Puerto Rico (Sherman Hall)
    "Caller ID Day" Undesired Side Effects ([e-mail])
    Roadside Boxes and Caller ID (John M. Sullivan)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Paul S. Sawyer)

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, 4 Dec 1995 21:29:22 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Keith Knipschild - L.I.,NY)
Subject: Re:  OK, it's December 1st ...?


[e-mail] (andy) wrote:

> Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes
> on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers?  Isn't today the
> beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID
> data?  Please correct me if I'm wrong ...!

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's
> have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences
> with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying
> with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will
> actually be fully functional, eh?   It is about time!   PAT]

Well if anyone wants to call me, and let the phone ring 1.5 - 2 times,
I'll post the NPA and NXX of the calls I recieve ... so if you see your
Area Code and exchage posted, please let us know who you are using for
Long Distance.

My number is 1-516-979-5348

Please call between 9am - 11pm ET


Thanks,

Keith

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

From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:49:31 GMT
Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org/ 510-658-6376


I was curious to know how exactly do names appear in CID. Is the name
drawn from the telco's billing records, or from a user-created directory
in the CID box (like similar features in, for instance, the Nokia 2110
cellular phone)?


The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://dxm.org/techonomist/                             [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From telco billing records, such as
they are. We have read some rather funny 'names' here in recent
weeks as this thread has progressed, such as Mr. Pay Phone.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Ewanco)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: 04 Dec 1995 09:42:39 -0500
Organization: Xyplex


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's
> have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences
> with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying
> with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will
> actually be fully functional, eh?   It is about time!   PAT]

I did some testing with a friend.  It works over AT&T between AC 201
(NJ) and AC 508 (MA), but not over LDDS Worldcom (even between the
same two lines).  I'm tempted to call LDDS and ask them why they are
in violation of the law.

I'd be curious to see how WATS lines come across.  I'm looking forward
to being able to determine if a call is likely a telemarketing call
before I pick it up.


Eric Ewanco   [e-mail]
Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.
Littleton, Mass.

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

From: [e-mail] (Louis Judice)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: 4 Dec 1995 16:24:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard


Well, everytime the phone rang this weekend, I jumped over to check the
Caller-ID box (pretty sad isn't it??)... Only a couple of out of state
calls. My brother-in-law's call generated an out-of-area message - he
was calling from the Philadelphia area on Sprint. However, at 5:00pm
Sunday, my mother-in-law called from the Philly area on AT&T, with her
215 number displayed in all it's glory. Actually, we've been receiving
212 calls from NYC on AT&T for a few weeks.

We'll keep watching the box!


Cheers,

Louis J. Judice          | Voice:   908-562-6287
Hewlett-Packard Company  | Fax:     [phone]
20 New England Avenue    |
Piscataway, NJ 08854     | E-Mail:  [e-mail]

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

From: Bill Michaelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: 4 Dec 1995 23:31:59 GMT
Organization: COS, Incorporated


OK ... I'm in central NJ -- Bell Atlantic area.  Doesn't work yet.
Called the telco and asked when it would.  First, of course, I had to
explain to the clueless rep about the Dec 1 deadline.  He dithered and
babbled for awhile, until I convinced him to go ask someone who knew
what was going on.  He did, and came back and told me I was indeed
right -- it is supposed to happen, but he doesn't know when it will.
<sigh>

I'll post when it works.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mad Milesman Musante)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Zippo
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:01:55 GMT


Not quite fully functional.  :-( I'm *still* getting "Out Of Area"
messages from both local and long distance calls.


Mark Musante
[e-mail]
http://world.std.com/~olorin/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are
simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it?  I wonder
if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:26:39 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH


I have had three or four calls on my home CID boxes since December 1
showing "Out of area", with corresponding non-messages on the
answering machines (held on long enough to listen to the message and
beep), so I assumed them to be telemarketing slime.

I will also be glad when these numbers are passed along.


Paul S. Sawyer     [e-mail] UNH
Telecommunications Voice: [phone]  FAX: [phone]
50 College Road    Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523

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

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 19:06 EST
From: John C. Fowler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?


Sure enough, caller ID is travelling interstate, over AT&T at least!
I don't have caller ID myself, but I do call a BBS in Gainesville,
Florida (I'm in St. Louis, Missouri).  My calls to the BBS have
traditionally shown up there as "OUT OF AREA," but when I called on
December 2, the sysop broke in and proudly announced that yes, his
caller ID box was showing my real number!  However, it was not showing
my name, just the city I was calling from.

I'd be interested to know if caller ID is being passed by Sprint.
They were the ones who wanted to put it off a few months longer,
right?

Also, are operator-assisted calls now passing caller ID?  What if I
made my call via 1-800-CALL-ATT and charged it to my calling card?  If
that passes the caller ID, how can they tell if I dialed *67 first?


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer to that very simply is you
cannot dial *67 when calling the operator, or certain other numbers
such as 911. That is, you can dial it, but it is null and void. It
means nothing. Ditto using *67 in front of 800, 900, etc. I don't
know if operator assisted calls are passing the ID or not; it used
to be they did not which always was a bother for the 911 call-takers
when calls would come into them via the operator. But whether or
not your ID is passed on calls through the operator, it has nothing
to do with whether you enter *67 on the front or not.

And by the way, I have seen a couple cases where someone wanted to
both block their ID *and* cancel call waiting on the same call, as
in *67*70-number. That's fine, but make sure the *67 -comes first-
before the *70; two people have reported that *67 won't stick if
it is entered as anything other than the first part of the string.
That may not be the case in all generics; I don't know.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 09:34:55 EST
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?


Just to let you know, I have deluxe caller ID and it still does not
display any numbers or information outside of my local calling area
(770 - 404).

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Uhrig)
Subject: Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 23:39:59 GMT
Organization: BrightNet


[e-mail] (Timothy Brown) wrote:

> 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.

If the call came from a mechanical switch in your area it would show
out of area because these switches are not capable of sending the CNID
information to your switch. This would be true even if the other
switch was in the same room with the digital switch that serves you.

> 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.

Once again you can't block the call because your serving switch has no
way to tell what number the call came from. If it doesn't know the
calling number it can't block it.


Steve Uhrig    [e-mail]   Chillicothe, Ohio  USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Timothy Brown)
Subject: Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking
Date: 4 Dec 1995 15:00:21 GMT
Organization: MVP-Net, Inc. [St. Louis Area]


> 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
[snip]
> now, try again in a few minutes'.   PAT]

But the number didn't show up on my CNID; that's my point.  Why can't
the phone company block numbers that _DON'T_ show up on CNID?  If you
know the calling party's number, then what's the problem?  It wasn't
private -- although that shouldn't matter either; it was out of area.


Timothy Brown <[e-mail]>                      netSolutions, L.L.C.
PGP Key Available; Encrypted Email Preferred           2733 McClay Valley Blvd
UNIX, MS-DOS, Windows 95, Win3.1              St. Peters, MO 63376
Internet Connectivity Consultant             Office: [[phone]]
HTML Design and Web Publishing                BBS: [[phone]]
http://walden.mo.net/~tb/                  Pager: [[phone]]
                                 http://www.netsolutions.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Out of area' is telco's way of saying
they do not know what number is calling you. You may know, but they
do not know, therefore they cannot block what they do not know about.
If they give it to you, they obviously know about it and can block it.
If your box says 'private', telco still knows about it and can block
it. 'Out of area' is not a geographical place. As Mr. Uhrig points
out in the message before this one, on older phone switches the number
simply is not known without a lot of hassle, i.e. tracing it, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ronell Elkayam)
Subject: Caller ID via 1-800-COLLECT!!!
Date: 4 Dec 1995 23:55:50 GMT
Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468


Do you have friends (or family) that use pay-phones to call you on a
regular basis?  Try telling them to call you 1-800-COLLECT from now
on.  Your phone will ring, and LOW AND BEHOLD -- their number will
show up on your Caller ID!  If it's a pay-phone, you'll see "PAY
PHONE".  If they called from a COCOT, it will sometimes show the name
of the place, such as "HOME DEPOT".

Just refuse the call and dial back the person directly instead.  Save
them a quarter, and in case the caller really did intend a collect
call, save yourself the outrageous charges of collect calls.

BTW, it even works for *69 ... if you're being called 1-800-COLLECT by
someone and you have *69,  you can connect  back to them that way (and
if you have the announcing *69, you'll hear the number that just tried
to call you collect).

If you want to call me via 1-800-COLLECT, or you want me to call you
via 1-800-COLLECT to see how well it works with TRUE long distance calls,
drop me email.  If I call you, you'll see my last name and a
305-6XX-XXXX number so you'd know it's me calling.  Just refuse the
charges (naturally).

If enough people respond, I'll post the interesting findings.

Oh, BTW, *67 has no effect when dialing 1-800-COLLECT.  I thought it
would at least protect the name of the person calling -- but no, it
shows name and number, just like when dialing w/o *67.

Take care.


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"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I see your point. Defraud 1-800-COLLECT
by getting them to deliver half the message for free, then you call
back via some other network you like better. Sorry, I do not support
toll fraud in this Digest, and any scheme which allows for the deliv-
ery of a message using coded words or phrases, or a pretirmined
ringing cadence ('let it ring once and hang up') or now in the latest
twist, delivery of the calling number for callback purposes is just
fraud. And people wonder why the surcharge for operator handling of
calls, person to person calls, and collect/bill third number calls
is so expensive. I suspect all the chislers out there has a lot to
do with it.   PAT]

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

Date: 04 Dec 95 21:07:16 EST
From: Jim Derdzinski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nationwide Caller ID Anecdotes


I live in California, so I can't get Caller ID (at least not for
another six months -- no thanks to "CPUKE").  However, many of the
CLASS-related custom calling features are available here.  I subscribe
to Call Return (*69), Repeat Dialing (*66), and Priority Ringing (*61)
from Pacific Bell here in San Francisco.

I make and get long distance calls regularly to and from friends in
Chicago.  I still show up on their Caller ID boxes as "OUT-OF-AREA".

Regarding my custom calling features: I noticed that Call Return and
Repeat Dialing do not work on these calls (nothing new here).
However, I can now add long distance numbers to my Priority Ringing
list.  But I have to do it in a backwards way.  I can't just add the
numbers directly (*61 then #area code and number#).  I have to wait
for them to call me and then immediately after we hang up, add the
number via the "last call received" method (*61 and then #01#).  The
funny thing is, if I go to add the number directly, after using the
above method, the system will announce the number and advise that it
is already on my list.

The Priority Ringing will work with these numbers just as it does with
local ones.

So, apparently calls placed to me in California via Ameritech and AT&T
are sending the number to me to kind of make use of.  I have not tried
this with other friends who use other carriers yet.  Calls I make to
Chicago via Pacific Bell and AT&T are apparently not sending the
number.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you say this, because I have
gotten calls from 415 where the area and number was shown, and some
where it was 'private'. Maybe some carriers are free-lancing out there
and doing things the way they want.      PAT]

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

From: Sherman Hall <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Caller ID in Puerto Rico
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 09:46:13 -0800
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


I received several "Out Of Area" calls this weekend from parties in
the USA.  The CID information is not being passed to (or, is being
blocked by) the Puerto Rico Telephone Company.  I have seen nothing in
the local newspapers regarding CID going national here.  Seems that
they should, since the PRTC is accountable to the FCC ...

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Caller ID Day" Undesired Side Effects
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:52:30 GMT


It may have been "Caller ID day" over the weekend, but our inbound 800
calls which terminate on a POTS line with Caller-ID have the wrong
idea!

Until today, we were passed caller-ID data on most of our inbound 800
calls (Wiltel) -- usually name plus number, sometimes just number (if
they have the call blocked, I suppose. We still get ANI if nothing
else), and sometimes "unavailable" (probably areas not yet caller-id'd).

Today, calls we get from clients who, in the past, had their calls
show their name and number, now show "unavailable."  In fact ALL our
inbound 800 calls are passing "unavailable" on caller-ID!

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

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 15:32:49 -0500
From: [e-mail] (John M. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID


[e-mail] (Steve Cogorno) wrote:

> Keith Jarett said:

>> 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 ...

> The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls.  They are
> connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the
> PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls.  It would have taken the CHP
> much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly.  THe
> CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit
> number, not 911) and relay the info to them.  It's easier to just do it
> yourself.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something,
> but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and
> use one of those roadside phones?  What are they for, if not for use
> in emergencies?  PAT]

Steve appears to be saying that they are intended for people driving
along the highway who are just sort of moved by the spirit to chat
with someone at the CHP dispatching center in Sacramento.  I wouldn't
have thought there would be enough demand for this to justify the
infrastructure cost, but this IS California and we are talking about
public funds, so who knows?

Maybe it's a phenomenon engendered by CHiPs, that horrid old cop show
with Erik Estrada.  I understand its fondly remembered in some
circles. I've also heard that people used to think there really was a
branch of the Hawaiian police called Five-O, and that even years after
the show went off the air tourists would show up at the station
wanting to talk to Steve McGarrett and were really disappointed when
they learned that McGarrett was a fictional character and there was no
Five-O.  Maybe the roadside boxes connect to an operator who explains
to hundreds of motorists a day that Ponch and Jon were just make
believe.  I prefer to think however that, like the current occupant of
221-B Baker St. in London who answers mail to Sherlock Holmes in the
guise of his personal secretary, the operators instead say that Ponch
and Jon can't be reached at the moment because they're out on the road
rounding up bad guys and chasing fluffy haired disco babes while they
listen to Fleetwood Mac in a sweet, sunny late 1970s that never ends.

Sorry, I'm bored at the moment and I get really whimsical when bored.  Let
me try to make up for it with something more serious.

[e-mail] (andy) wrote:

> Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes
> on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers?  Isn't today the
> beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID
> data?  Please correct me if I'm wrong ...!

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's
> have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences
> with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying
> with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will
> actually be fully functional, eh?   It is about time!   PAT]

I haven't been able to get confirmation on anything since my
publication deadline was just BEFORE Dec. 1 and I've been out of the
office since then, but the odds weren't looking too good as of Nov 29.
The California lawsuit had been in the hands of the panel of judges
since Nov. 16 and they hadn't ruled.  California had asked for an
emergency stay from the court pending their decision, but that hadn't
been acted on yet either.  California carriers had also asked FCC for
a temporary waiver since California hadn't approved anybody's consumer
education plans and so they were not allowed to pass CPN under CA law.
Unless somebody did something the carriers were between a rock and a
hard place as of Dec. 1.  Either they didn't pass CPN and were in
violation of the FCC order or they did and were in violation of state
law.

I can't imagine them letting this happen, although I certainly can
imagine FCC waiting until the last instant in hopes that the court
would rule before Dec. 1 in their favor.  There were also about 20 to
30 other petitions before FCC, according to Kathy Levitz, who is
Deputy Bureau Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, many of which had
been submitted in the last week.  The long distance carriers basically
tried to swamp FCC with waiver requests based on technical problems
which I think have already been discussed in the digest.  They all
basically claimed the Sprint problem regarding sending ANI when they
didn't get CPN from the LEC.

Given the mess things were in then, I can't imagine what FCC could
have done by the deadline short of staying the whole mess temporarily
- probably until the court rules on their preemption.  Assuming it
rules in their favor, I'm guessing they will say very impolite things
to the IXCs while rejecting their petitions, and we can finally get
down to business.  (total speculation there, of course)

As of Thursday, somebody else in my office had talked to Levitz and
gotten something like "if we release anything it will probably be
around 5:30 today," but I don't know if they finally did.  I did get a
call today that showed up as out of area on my display though, for
what that's worth.


John Sullivan

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:16:01 PST


Earlier I said:

> The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls.  They are
> connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the
> PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls.  It would have taken the CHP
[deleted]

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something,
> but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and
> use one of those roadside phones?  What are they for, if not for use
> in emergencies?  PAT]

Perhaps I should clairify what I meant by emergency.  The boxes are in
fact intended for emergency use, but not LIFE-THREATENING emergencies.
The call boxes are intended to be used by stranded motorists to call
for a tow or other assistance.


Steve    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of
gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the
other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a
couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am
not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple
miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:18:50 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something,
> but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and
> use one of those roadside phones?  What are they for, if not for use
> in emergencies?  PAT]

They are for various contractors and state agencies to get Federal money
for installing them.  Some states even maintain them afterwards.    :-)


Paul S. Sawyer                        [e-mail]
UNH Telecommunications             Voice: [phone]
50 College Road                      FAX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There you go ... probably the most
honest answer on the subject yet. I am reminded of how the Chicago
Transit Authority had subway and elevated train cars equipped as
'handicapped accessible' (meaning special sideways seats near the
front of the car and a place with no seat at all where a wheel
chair could sit) for *years* before they had any handicapped
accessible stations (meaning stations equipped with escalators
and/or elevators to convey the handicapped people to track level).
For years the handicapped accessible cars did only one thing: they
caused a few more riders to have to stand up for lack of seats
where they had been removed to provide for wheel chair riders who
did not exist. The CTA (locally we call it the Transit Atrocity)
blamed it on the federal government's demands; everyone else
blamed it on the stupidity of the politicians here who run the
busses and trains.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #503
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Dec  6 15:11:07 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id PAA06844; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:11:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:11:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #504

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Dec 95 15:11:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 504

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "How Local Area Networks Work" by Kosiur/Angel (Rob Slade)
    Microsoft Announces Unimodem/V Driver for Voice Modems (Toby Nixon)
    Downloadable GLU (R. Jagannathan)
    WWW: Doing Business as a Telco in Washington State (Glenn Blackmon)
    Frontier Offering Cellular Service (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Bob Izenberg)
    Is SoftRAM95 a Scam? (Tad Cook)

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: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 22:40:18 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "How Local Area Networks Work" by Kosiur/Angel


BKHLANWK.RVW   951114

"How Local Area Networks Work", Kosiur/Angel, 1995, 0-13-185489-5,
U$26.95/C$36.95
%A   David R. Kosiur
%A   Jonathan Angel
%C   One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ   07458
%D   1995
%G   0-13-185489-5
%I   Prentice Hall
%O   U$26.95/C$36.95 201-236-7139 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   282
%T   "How Local Area Networks Work"

This is, quite simply, an excellent guide to LANs for the
non-technical manager, or for the technical professional with no
networking background.  It introduces the concepts, components and
more sophisticated aspects of LANs without either drifting into
impenetrable technicalities or getting cute.  Chapter ten, a contact
listing of network product vendors, is worth the price of the book
alone.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKHLANWK.RVW   951114. 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: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Microsoft Announces Unimodem/V Driver for Voice Modems
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 16:12:01 -0800


Microsoft announces the availability of "Unimodem V". Unimodem V is
Microsoft's newest release of Unimodem, the Windows universal modem
driver/telephony service provider for data/fax modems. Unimodem V
provides the driver support that sits between telephony applications
and voice modems and allows them to work together. This driver adds
the most-requested features to support data/fax/voice modems,
including wave playback and record to/from the phone line, wave
playback and record to/from the handset, and support for speakerphone,
Caller ID, distinctive ringing, and call forwarding.

IHVs and OEMs can include Unimodem V with voice modem hardware so that
telephony applications can run on their hardware. ISVs may want to
ship it with telephony applications so that their applications can run
on voice modems that may not already include Unimodem V. End Users can
use Unimodem V with telephony applications or a voice modem if neither
includes Unimodem V.

The driver is distributed as a self-extracting ZIP archive file
("UNIMODV.EXE") that is approximately 468K bytes in size. It is available
for download from the following online sources:

   Internet:   ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/UNIMODV.EXE
         http://www.microsoft.com/windows/software/drivers/unimodem.htm

   CompuServe: GO WINNEWS, library 4
               GO WINEXT, library 3
               GO MSL

   Microsoft Download Service: [phone]

Here is an extract of key information from the README file included with the
Unimodem V software:


UNIMODEM V FUNCTIONALITY
========================

This release provides .inf files for some specific modems; however,
Unimodem V provides base support, with the addition of an .inf file,
for any voice modem based on one of the specific supported chipsets
(Rockwell, Cirrus, AT&T) or any other AT+V/AT#V standard modem.
Support for Sierra chipsets is in progress and will be available soon.
Information on the process for creating .inf files can be found on
ftp.microsoft.com in the developr\drg\modem directory.

The Unimodem V specification, which describes new features and what
you need to know about wave drivers, is located on CompuServe? on the
WINEXT forum, Library Section 3 (TAPI SDK), and on the Microsoft ftp
site (ftp.microsoft.com or 198.105.232.1) in the \Developer\Tapi
directory.

The Unimodem V software consists of the following parts:

1. The Unimodem V Telephony Service Provider (TSP) and VxD. The TSP
handles program requests, such as dialing and answering, which are
passed down from TAPI. The TSP hides modem-specific details of how
telephony operations, such as dialing, are handled. The VxD is called
by the TSP to send command strings to the modem. It is called by the
VCOMM VxD to change modem settings and send/receive data to/from the
modem.

2. Operator Agent, a program that identifies whether an incoming call
is from a person, a fax machine, or a data modem. It then forwards the
call to the appropriate program, such as the answering machine or fax
program. If Operator Agent can't automatically determine the type of
call, it asks the caller to identify it. If the caller cannot identify
it, Operator Agent forwards the call to a program specified by the
user.

3. A wave driver for serial port modems that supports the following
formats: IMA ADPCM at 4800 kHz, 7200 kHz, or 8000 kHz; and Rockwell
ADPCM.

4. A wave wrapper for use with modems with a separate audio hardware
interface, where synchronization is needed between the modem and audio
via AT commands. The wave wrapper is called by MMSystem, and it calls
Unimodem V to send any needed AT commands to the modem. After the AT
commands are complete, the wave wrapper calls back into MMSystem, and
MMSystem then calls the modem wave device. The modem wave device
interfaces only with the audio hardware interface.

5. A wave driver for the Compaq Presario, which uses the wave wrapper.

6. The following .inf files for modems currently supported by Unimodem V:

   mdmcpq.inf        Compaq Presario models 520, 720, 820, and 920
   tamwrap.inf       Presario wave driver and wrapper
   mdmdsi.inf        Creative Labs Phone Blaster
   mdmrock.inf       Logicode 14.4 data/fax/voice PCMCIA
   mdmrock2.inf      Diamond Multimedia TeleCommander 2500
   mdmrock2.inf      Cirrus Logic
   mdmrock3.inf      Aztech Systems
   mdmrock4.inf      Rockwell PCMCIA reference design

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 14:15:45 PST
From: R. Jagannathan <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Downloadable GLU


The latest release (version 951201) of GLU (Granular Lucid) is now
available over the Web under:

http://www.csl.sri.com/GLU.html

Several Unix systems are supported including SunOS4, SunOS5, IRIX5,
AIX, and FreeBSD.  The executables generated by GLU can either run in
the single-generator/multiple-workers mode or the
multiple-generator/worker mode.  Process interaction can be configured
at runtime to be based on TCP/IP or PVM (relatively untested).

We encourage you to download and use the GLU system and provide us
([e-mail]) with feedback.  Thanks!


Regards,

R. Jagannathan                phone: [phone]
SRI International            fax:   [phone]
Computer Science Laboratory        email: [e-mail]
333 Ravenswood Avenue            www: http://www.csl.sri.com/~jagan
Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A

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

From: Glenn Blackmon <[e-mail]>
Subject: WWW: Doing Business as a Telco in Washington State
Date: 6 Dec 1995 01:15:39 GMT
Organization: Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission


http://www.washington.edu/wutc

and the site includes information on how to register as a
telecommunications company in Washington State.  A company can also
apply for competitive classification, which relieves it of many of the
usual regulatory requirements, and the web site tells how that works
as well.


Glenn Blackmon - [e-mail]
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
http://www.washington.edu/wutc

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:29:27 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: Frontier Offering Cellular Service


Frontier Communications is now offering cellular service around the USA
in an interesting arrangement or service package.

You buy the phone at full price, wherever you want to get one. They
of course have some for sale if you like. There is no free phone
subsidized by the service under their plan. Get whatever phone you
like and report it to them. If you already have one, use it instead.

They assign you a cellular number. Program the phone yourself or they
have techs on contract who will come out and do it for you for free.

No long term contracts of any sort. Call waiting, three-way calling,
call forwarding, forwarding on busy/no answer, and roaming are free
of charge (except you pay tolls when roaming, based on your home site).

They charge a ten dollar per month service fee, and rates of 35 cents
per minute during peak times and 18 cents per minute off-peak/weekends.
They bill you on your existing account with them each month and
offer discounts of four to ten percent monthly based on volume of
usage. For example, from $50 to $125 per month in usage gets a four
percent discount. $125 to $250 per month gets a six percent discount.

The service is month by month; charges are placed on your credit card
each month a couple weeks after the bill has been sent to you. No
credit check, no formalities. Quit whenever you want by telling them
to turn it off.

If you buy one of their phones, the prices seem about average, and
you get the usual warranties, etc.

The 35/18 pricing is not the best, and for the ten dollars per month
service charge I am sure they can afford to give you 'features' for
free. I am told however they charge 'double air' when using the
three-way/call waiting features, and that they charge airtime on
call forwarding even when the switch forwards the call to a landline
number without even hitting the air.

Still it might be a good deal for a very limited user or someone
who wants absolutely no service contracts. It is national in scope;
you can sign up from anywhere in the USA, but you need to otherwise
have at least some account with Frontier. It can be one or more
lines defaulted to Allnet long distance; it can be an 800 number from
their subsidiary Call Home America.

The exact name of the service is Frontier Mobile Line; you can reach
them at 800-594-5900. In turn they will refer you to a couple of
places: 1-800-TALK-NOW (825-5669) if you want to buy a phone from
them via Cellular World, and 1-800-783-2020 to get a cellular number
assigned. You then either report the number assigned back to the
Cellular World people who program the phone and send it out overnight
Federal Express, or you program it yourself into your own phone.
They won't give you a cellular number however unless you already
have an account with Frontier, as noted above.

Their literature encourages you to drop your existing cellular service
if you can do so without penalty and sign up with them instead. If a
'significant' penalty would be incurred, they suggest you wait until
the contract is about to expire and then call them.

As always, anyone who tries it out is welcome to report their
experiences here.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers?
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 13:50:07 CST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


    I was asked an infamous Kid's Question the other day, and as I
don't know the answer I'm putting it out to the Digest readership.  If
you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers,
do you still pay for the calls?

    In pondering this procedural matter, I wondered how prevalent
this sort of thing might be.  We have every other sort of
irresponsible, money-driven behavior these days.  Surely this is a
natural for the true Creatures of (Darkness in) the Nineties among
us...  :-(


Bob    [e-mail]         home: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All an 800 number is, quite simply, is
your authorization to telco to automatically hand you collect calls
without requiring you to verbally authorize each one. You are saying
to telco, 'anyone who wants to call me is free to do so, you need not
ask my approval to bill me for the call.' That is it: automatic
reverse charge calling. Just as you agree to pay for calls from people
who wish to call you and whatever foolishness they wish to talk about,
you agree to pay for their errors in dialing just as they would pay
for their errors in dialing if they were calling 'sent paid'. Just as
they can go to the business office and plead their case and get out
of paying for wrong numbers in some reasonable amount, you likewise
can plead your case and get a few things here and there removed. This
depends on how liberal is the attitude of your carrier. In the olden
days, AT&T -- when they they were the only one -- used to be quite
liberal about removing charges due to customer dialing errors. They
were not interested in helping you with customers who in fact did dial
your number correctly even though you were not interested in talking
to them. That, they said, was your problem getting rid of callers.
Dialing errors was another matter, and those they credited 'within
reason'.

One of the most infamous cases of 800 number abuse and Creatures of
Darkness happened about ten years ago, and the perpetrator was
severely punished afterward. The victim in that case was Jerry
Falwell's organization in Lynchburg, Virginia. The four parts of
his organization were 'Moral Majority', 'The Old Time Gospel Hour',
Thomas Road Baptist Church, and Liberty University. They all share a
common phone room, and quite a few telecom functions such as outgoing
WATS lines, etc. A staff of several dozen people staff the phone
room around the clock, seven days per week. Incoming calls came in
on various lines, separated by what the caller was trying to reach
along with quite a few 800 lines. In other words, callers to the
University might dial xxx-1000; callers to OTGH might dial xxx-2000;
persons watching his television show who wished counseling or other
services might dial in on 800-xxx-xxxx, etc. All incoming calls were
piped through an Automatic Call Distributor and out to the floor for
handling, transfer to a counselor, an extension or whatever. They
were logging about 8000-10,000 calls per day through the ACD. Operators
answered the call and got rid of it. Either they outdialed to an
an extension; passed it to a counselor, an administrative office,
etc.

A fellow in Georgia got very annoyed with Dr. Falwell and his percieved
attacks on the gay community. So this fellow set up his computer and
modem so it would dial Falwell's 800 number over and over, repeatedly
once a minute. The ACD would hand the call to an operator who responded
to dead silence. Once a minute, around the clock. This went on for
*several weeks* before it was noticed. Then two things happened at
about the same time. The operators began reporting to their supervisor
about an unusually high number of 'hangup' calls. They were quite
accustomed to, and trained for handling obscene calls which arrived
in droves some days along with the wrong number callers who would
just hang up without speaking, etc. But after a few weeks of getting
this fellow's calls with such regularity, even an overloaded phone
room with an automatic call distributor which rocked around the clock
could detect some kind of pattern.

They first thought it was problems with the ACD; either that it was
getting calls but losing them in the process of passing them out to
the operators, or perhaps that there was no call at all but something
made the ACD think there was and causing it to hand null traffic --
traffic which did not exist -- out to the operators. Repair guys from
Southern Bell spent three days there looking at it and getting
nowhere.  The trouble with trying to repair any large ACD is that you
can't get a line idle long enough to test it. The repair guy would
stand there waiting for a trunk to come down; it would and then there
was another seizure instantly. They finally were able to show
conclusively however that the ACD was indeed getting those calls; it
was not 'falsing', it was not making anything up. The incoming calls
were all traced to a certain group of lines used for 800 calls into
the center. I think he had fifteen or twenty lines in a hunt group
on which calls to the 800 numbers were sent. Those lines were always
the ones with the bogus calls.

The other thing that happened about that time was the phone bill
came for the 800 lines. Normally fifty to sixty thousand dollars per
month, this time the bill was much, much higher. They were not
previously bothering to analyze it as well as they should, but this
time they decided to. Bingo ... *lots* of one minute calls, 1440
of them per day in fact, or about 44,640 of them in the prior
month. All from one number in Georgia ... gee. And it was not just
the disgruntled fellow in Georgia; there were others doing the
same thing, but none with quite the vigor of the Georgia guy. Now
it was time to get AT&T involved since they carried the 800 traffic.

AT&T and Southern Bell put equipment on the line to specifically
record the activity and they let the guy have his fun for a couple
more days while they collected all the evidence they knew they would
need. Then they got a federal grand jury to issue an indictment and
with the same in hand went out and whacked the guy hard in an old-
fashioned raid, i.e. seizure of all computer equipment, modems,
phones, disk drives, you name it. You know the routine. The charges
against him dealt with the use of interstate phone lines to harass
someone.

He was found guilty in federal court, and then AT&T turned around
and sued him civilly for the cost of the calls. AT&T and Southern
Bell had jointly shared a goodwill write off to Falwell, so he was
out nothing except the time of the operators and people on his
staff who worked on identifying the problem. His is an excellent
account where telco is concerned, and naturally they wanted to
appease him. It went on though for about two months before finally
being stopped, to the tune of about fifty thousand dollars in
harassing 800 calls. It only went that far because of the size
of Falwell's phone room; those calls literally got ignored in
the process of handling thousands of otherwise legitimate calls.

Because the {Advocate}, a newspaper in the gay community had covered
the affair rather extensively, Falwell changed his 800 number in
the hopes a lot of the harassing and obscene calls his operators were
otherwise getting would go away. And the volume of those calls did
subside quite a bit for a month or so, until the {Advocate} printed
his new 800 number and encouraged their readers to once again call
up and place bogus orders for literature, Bibles, and similar.
When that happened, Falwell took them to task one day on his tele-
vision program and asked rhetorically, 'would you like it if all
the Christian people started calling and polluting *your* 800
number the way you did ours? The trouble is, I don't know any
Christian people who would be interested in pornographic magazines,
inflatable male mannequins, battery operated devices alleged to be
used for massage, metal rings for attachment to bodily appendages
other than fingers, or subscriptions to your newspaper. Nor would
they be interested in poppers or potions and pills alleged to
improve their sex life and ability to lure others into sex.'

The {Advocate} apparently gave that favorable consideration and
responded editorially that 'he does have a good point there.' They
discretely hid their own 800 number for a few weeks until the
stink had gone away and retaliation was unlikely. For several
months afterward a group calling itself the 'Oral Majority' kept
urging phone harassment via Falwell's 800 number, but the campaign
finally died out.

Short form answer to your question: yes and no. The circumstances
and context are all-important. Technically telco owes you nothing
except, I suppose, the peaceful and unhindered use of your phone
line. In practice, they will help you out sometimes.   PAT]

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

From: Tad Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is SoftRAM95 a Scam?
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:13:25 PST


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:

Lab Tests Find SoftRAM95 Software Useless for Windows Users
By Dwight Silverman, Houston Chronicle Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

Dec. 5--Growing evidence suggests the best-selling software program
SoftRAM95, which claims to double the memory on a personal computer,
does not do what it purports to do.

Syncronys Softcorp, which makes the program, already has said it has
no benefits for users of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 95 operating
system. But several software testing labs also have found SoftRAM95
does not do anything for users of Windows 3.1, despite Syncronys
officials' insistence to the contrary.

And Microsoft has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Syncronys,
saying the company illegally placed the "Designed for Windows 95" logo
on SoftRAM boxes.  SoftRAM also includes Microsoft code that was used
without the software giant's permission, a Microsoft spokesman said.

Rainer Poertner, Syncronys' chief executive, on Monday defended his
company against the growing barrage of criticism, saying SoftRAM95
does what it promises for users of Windows 3.1. Poertner characterized
the lack of benefits for Windows 95 users as a bug.

A "software patch" intended to fix the Windows 95 problems goes into
the testing phase this week and will be released before Christmas,
Poertner said.  The patch also will provide improvements for Windows
3.1 users, he said.

SoftRAM95 was the second-best-selling Windows program in the country
during October, with the Windows 95 Upgrade being No. 1, said Ann
Stephens of PC Data, which tracks software sales. Other sales indexes,
such as a list from wholesale distributor Ingram Micro, have put
SoftRAM95 at No. 1.

Industry observers say the program is popular because it promises to
do for a few dollars what would normally take hundreds of dollars in
hardware: effectively double the random access memory of a personal
computer, allowing the computer to run faster and open more programs.

This memory, or RAM, typically costs about $50 per megabyte, while
SoftRAM95 sells for about $30.

The {Houston Chronicle} first reported in a Sept. 24 product review
that SoftRAM95 appeared to have no effect on the performance of
IBM-compatible personal computers running either Windows 95 or Windows
3.1. Since then, there's been mounting evidence:

The National Software Testing Laboratory, a division of McGraw-Hill,
conducted a study of SoftRAM95 and determined it did nothing for
either Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 systems. The study was commissioned
by Connectix, a Syncronys competitor. The NSTL is considered one of
the most reputable of the independent software evaluation facilities
Syncronys responded that the testing conditions were flawed.

Microsoft, in a document posted on the Internet's World Wide Web, said
that Syncronys used the "Designed for Windows 95" logo without
permission and that some of SoftRAM95 contains early, test versions of
Windows 95 code distributed to developers and also used without
permission. Microsoft issued a cease-and-desist letter on those
points, a spokesman said Monday, adding Syncronys had indicated it
will comply. Poertner dismissed the logo issue on Monday as a
"bureaucratic snafu" and said the code it used was freely available
for use by developers.

PC magazine's software laboratories conducted two separate tests and
found SoftRAM95 did nothing for Windows users.

A respected German computer publication, Magazine fur computer
technik, took the SoftRAM95 code apart and determined the program did
nothing. The German distributor of SoftRAM95 sued the magazine, trying
to prevent its editors from using words "Placebo Software." Poertner
said the magazine has a "vendetta" against the German distributor and
wrote the articles as a result.

Mark Russinovich, a professor of computer science at the University of
Oregon, conducted a series of tests on SoftRAM95 after installing it
on his computer and noticing no benefits. He determined the Windows 95
version indeed did nothing.

Russinovich later retracted his statements after learning Syncronys
had already conceded that point -- and after Poertner threatened
Russinovich with a lawsuit.  But Russinovich a few days later
retracted the retraction -- he'd taken apart the Windows 3.1 version
and determined it, too, did nothing.

"The thing is a fraud," he told {Time Magazine} in a Nov. 27 article. He
confirmed that statement on Monday.

"I find it totally impossible to believe that they would be shipping
software that didn't do anything and that no one in Syncronys'
engineering department -- or higher up -- knew about it," Russinovich
said.

Russinovich also said he found a small part of the code "that looks
like it might do compression," but that part of the program is never
activated.

Poertner said Russinovich's story "changes here from day to day."
"First he said it does no compression, now he said he's found some,"
Poertner said.

He said Russinovich was unable to find the trigger for the code
because "we hide it so well."

In response to the negative studies, Syncronys commissioned its own
study by XXCal, a Los Angeles-based software testing lab. It found
that SoftRAM95 provides benefits for Windows 3.1 users.

But in a clarification issued Nov. 29, XXCal also said its tests were
conducted using strict parameters set by Syncronys -- settings which
some critics have said are unrealistic.

"We believe this is the average configuration for most of the users out
there," Poertner said.

Some critics of the program have gone so far as to use the word "scam" to
describe SoftRAM95.

Bill Machrone, vice president for technology at computer magazine
giant Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., wrote in a column published Monday in
{PC Week} that a part of SoftRAM95's code "bears a striking resemblance
to a popular, copyrighted {PC Magazine} utility ..."

"Is 'scam' too strong a word?" Machrone wrote. Poertner said he had
not yet seen Machrone's column. As a result of the controversy,
Washington-based Egghead Software, which operates two stores in
Houston, has pulled the program from its stores' shelves.

But other major computer retailers, such as the Tandy Corp.-owned
Computer City, continue to sell SoftRAM.

Computer City President Alan Bush said he had not heard of the
controversy surrounding SoftRAM95 when initially contacted by the
Chronicle. But Bush later called back to say he had spoken with a
computer City buyer who was knowledgeable about the issue. Bush said
the buyer told him Syncronys "denies all of it."

Bush said SoftRAM95 will continue to be sold in his stores. "We have no reason
to do anything otherwise," he said.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #504
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Dec  6 20:06:12 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id UAA02321; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:06:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:06:12 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #505

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Dec 95 20:06:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 505

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Accessing The Internet By E-Mail (Kelly Breit)
    Long Distance CID (John Mayson)
    Book Review: "Digital Cash" by Wayner (Rob Slade)
    Details of Split: New NPA 330 From 216 (Stan Brown)
    Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services (Lynne Gregg)
    MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (D. Burstein)
    New Telecom Information Web Site (Peter Polishuk)
    Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Michael Franz)
    Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. (Jon Noring)
    10.9 Cent/Min StarQuest/IntelliCommunications? (Mike Wengler)
    Australia's Largest On-Line Computer Shop ([e-mail])
    What is Ameritech Selling? (Tom Allebrandi)
    Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (Toyo Kondo)
    Announcement: Marcwell MobyMail(TM) (Marcwell)
    TNPP CAP Page Function Code (Morris Wong)

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, 06 Dec 1995 13:02:09 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Kelly Breit)
Subject: FYI> Accessing The Internet By E-Mail


Accessing The Internet By E-Mail
Doctor Bob's Guide to Offline Internet Access
3rd Edition - December 1994

             Copyright (c) 1994, "Doctor Bob" Rankin

All rights reserved. Permission is granted to make and distribute
verbatim copies of this document provided the copyright notice and
this permission notice are preserved on all copies.  Feel free to
upload to your favorite BBS or Internet server!

            How to Access Internet Services by E-mail

If your only access to the Internet is via e-mail, you don't have to
miss out on all the fun! Maybe you've heard of FTP, Gopher, Archie,
Veronica, Finger, Whois, WAIS, World-Wide Web, and Usenet but thought
they were out of your reach because your online service does not
provide those tools. Not so! And even if you do have full Internet
access, using e-mail servers can save you time and money.

This special report will show you how to retrieve files from FTP
sites, explore the Internet via Gopher, search for information with
Archie, Veronica, or WAIS, tap into the World-Wide Web, and even
access Usenet newsgroups using E-MAIL AS YOUR ONLY TOOL.

If you can send a note to an Internet address, you're in the game!
This is great news for users of online services where there is partial
or no direct Internet access. As of late 1994, there were 150
countries with only e-mail connections to the Internet. This is double
the number of countries with direct (IP) connections.

I encourage you to read this entire document first and then go back
and try out the techniques that are covered. This way, you will gain a
broader perspective of the information resources that are available,
an introduction to the tools you can work with, and the best methods
for finding the information you want.

                      Finding the Latest Version

This document is now available from several automated mail servers. To
get the latest edition, send e-mail to one of the addresses below.

To: [e-mail] (for US/Canada/etc.)
Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note:
GET INTERNET BY-EMAIL NETTRAIN F=MAIL

To: [e-mail] (for Eastern US)
Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note:
send usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email

To: [e-mail] (for UK/Europe/etc.)
Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note:
send lis-iis e-access-inet.txt

You can also get the file by anonymous FTP at one of these sites:

Site: ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
get NETTRAIN/INTERNET.BY-EMAIL
Site: rtfm.mit.edu
get pub/usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email
Site: mailbase.ac.uk
get pub/lists/lis-iis/files/e-access-inet.txt

                        Acknowledgements

This document is continually expanding and improving as a result of
the daily flood of comments and questions received by the author. The
following individuals are hereby recognized for their contributions.
(If I forgot anyone, let me know and I'll gladly add you to the list.)

Miles Baska
Sylvain Chamberland
Roddy MacLeod - Engineering Faculty Librarian, Heriot Watt University
George McMurdo - Queen Margaret College
Jim Milles - NETTRAIN Moderator, Saint Louis University
Glee Willis - Engineering Librarian, University of Nevada
Herman VanUy

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

From: [e-mail] (John Mayson)
Subject: Long Distance CID
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 14:07:32 EST


I called BellSouth about my Caller ID Deluxe.  NONE, that is ZERO, of
the long distance calls I've received since Dec 1 have shown up on my
caller ID box with the name and number of the caller.  All I get is
"OUT-OF-AREA".  BellSouth said it should work and repair is checking
my line.  I know there's nothing wrong with my line.  I don't have my
hopes up about getting long distance caller ID any time soon.  :-(


John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 20:00:41 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Digital Cash" by Wayner


BKDGTCSH.RVW   951112

"Digital Cash: Commerce on the Net", Peter Wayner, 1996, 0-12-738763-3
%A   Peter Wayner [e-mail]
%C   1300 Boylston Street, Chestnut Hill, MA   02167
%D   1996
%G   0-12-738763-3
%I   Academic Press Professional
%O   619-699-6735 fax: [phone] [e-mail] 619-231-0926 800-321-5068
%P   271
%T   "Digital Cash: Commerce on the Net"

Wayner's book actually covers much more territory than simply commerce
on the current Internet.  There is an overview of current and
developing implementations and technologies.  More than that, however,
the author provides a very thought provoking look at what cash is: the
aspects of confidence (trust), confidentiality (privacy), commitment
(non-repudiation), divisibility and so forth that are part of any
non-barter system of commerce.

The review concentrates on existing technologies and gives a realistic
appraisal of the strengths, weaknesses and uses of each.  Closing
chapters provide an interesting look at money past, and possibly
future.

The foundational chapters, although they exist, are the weak point of
the book.  It isn't quite accurate to say that they are non-technical.
It is likely that they are *too* technical.  DES, RSA and other forms
of encryption are described with pages of mathematics.  What is
missing, though, is any assessment of the reliability or strength of
encryption systems for those who don't live and breathe number theory.
The lack of straightforward discussion of the United States government
policy on encryption is also a weakness.  Combined, this allows
misleading statements such as the one that "full 768 bit RSA as well
as DES encryption ... can't be used to keep secrets."

For those who are planning to think about online commerce, this
provides considerable food for thought.  For those planning to work
with online commerce, additional background is needed.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKDGTCSH.RVW   951112  Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153/
User               .z1.fidonet.org
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

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

Subject: Details of Split: New NPA 330 From 216
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:35:09 EST
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In the mail yesterday (Wednesday, 29 November) I received the
long-awaited information on the split of new NPA 330 from 216, which
presently covers northeast Ohio.  (Ohio's other NPAs are 419 in NW
including Toledo, 513 in SW including Cincinnati, and 614 in SE and
central Ohio including Columbus.)  Anything quoted below is taken
verbatim from Ameritech's mailing.

Ameritech's information package is called "get to know 330" (lower
case in original).  It was addressed to my small-business phone
number; nothing at all has yet come to my residence.

Ameritech's package was actually rather informative: there's a good
map, a complete exchange list, a list of Ameritech phone directories
and their new area codes, the usual checklists of things to do, sample
letters to customers and press releases for businesses to announce
their new area codes, and an offer of a thousand free "Our area code
will change to 330 on March 9, 1996."  stickers.

The brochure calls this the "first new Area Code in Ohio since Area
Codes began in 1947."  The letter gives the usual reason for the
split: "An unprecedented demand for new telephone numbers -- for
pagers, cellular phones, fax machines, computer modems, and additional
phone lines -- has depleted the supply of available numbers in the
current 216 area code, requiring the introduction of a new area code."

My comment: Nowhere is there mention of considering any plan other
than a split, such as an overlay.  We're going to end up dialing
1+NPA+7D for most calls eventually anyway; why not do it now and avoid
changing any existing phones' NPA?  (end comment)

Here's a summary of the change:

The southern chunk of NPA 216 (details below) will be assigned to NPA
330 on 9 March 1996, the new NPA becoming mandatory on 29 June 1996.
There will be no change in what telephones can be reached as a local
call or in the cost of toll calls.  All toll calls (including those
within the same area code) will be dialed 1+NPA+7D.

Later, there will be a second split of the remaining NPA 216: "The
second phase is scheduled to take place in 1997-1998 where [sic] the
remaining 216 area code will be subdivided.  The area code number,
exact date and geographic boundaries have not yet been determined."
The letter claims that the two-phase "plan ensures that Northeast Ohio
won't run out of phone numbers for at least 10 years, and each of your
existing numbers will only experience one area code change."

"For general information about the area code change or to verify codes
based on the first three digits of a phone number, call 1-800-330-Info
(1-800-330-4636)."  I dialed that number and got "Thanks for calling
Ameritech.  The next available representative will be with you
shortly."  I didn't hang on. <grin>

The lists of prefixes staying in 216 and moving to 330 are given, but
there are too many for my fingers to type.  I'll be happy to mail the
brochure to anyone who has a scanner and wants to scan them in for
Digest subscribers.

Details by Ameritech directory region
=====================================

216: Cleveland; the following directories for Cleveland suburbs or
groups of suburbs: Brecksville (S), Chargin (SE), Euclid (NE),
Fairview (W), Heights Area (E), Lake County (far NE), Lyndhurst (E),
South Suburban, Southeast Area, Southwest Area, West Shore.  Lorain is
not listed, which leads me to believe it's not in Ameritech-land.

330: Akron, Alliance, Barberton, Canton, Cuyahoga Falls, East Liverpool,
Kent, Massillon, Niles, Salem, Youngstown.

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

From: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 13:49:00 PST


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are
> simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it?  I wonder
> if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance?  PAT]

To clarify the FCC Order: telcos who are EQUIPPED to transport Calling
Party Number MUST DO SO.  They also, at minimum, must support *67 and
*82 as standard per call options (blocking, unblocking).  In states
where Per Line Blocking is permitted, telcos may continue to offer
that service.

Unfortunately today, there are plenty of telcos out there who are NOT
equipped with SS7/ISUP or switch software needed to deal with
transport of Calling Party Number.

The FCC Order won't result in immediate gratification here, but will
result in significant improvements in Caller ID service going forward.


Regards,

Lynne

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

From: danny burstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:12:37 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


The following text appeared in a legal advert ("tombstone") in the {NY
Post} a couple of days ago.  A friend of mine was kind enough to type
it in as a favor for my faxing it to him ...


Here it is.

Notice to All AT&T Long Distance Customers

On November 29, 1995, AT&T filed with the Federal Communications
Commission to:

1) increase interstate sent-paid coin service charge and transport rates
with an overall increase of 9.7%.

2) increase selected interstate charges for AT&T reach out america plans,
AT&T anyhour saver plans, and AT&T selectsaver plans, with increases ranging
from 2-6% per plan.

3)  Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic
Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines
which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not
presubscribed to any interexchange carrier.  This charge is in addition to
the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland
and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.  These charges are effective on December 1, 1995.

Also on November 30, 1995, AT&T filed to modify the rate schedules for
cellular and PCS-originated, interstate long distance calls.  Such calls
will have two rate periods, peak (8:00 AM to but not including 11:00 PM,
Monday through Friday) and off-peak (all other times).  This change is
effective on December 1, 1995.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:53:25 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Telecom Information Web Site
Organization: Nortel (Northern Telecom)


New info site:

Information Gatekeepers Group

Publishers and consultants in Fiber Optics, ISDN, ATM, Wireless.
Tons of newsletters, market reports, etc.

http://www.igigroup.com/


Peter Polishuk
Nortel Marketing Communications
Switching Networks
ESN 255-4295 or [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Franz)
Subject: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 15:18:24 +0200
Organization: Institut fⁿr Computersysteme, ETH Zⁿrich


I travel a lot and can get to my email from many places in the world
via the internet, for a relatively low local access charge. However,
when I want to check my answering machine at home, I need to make an
expensive long distance call.

Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software
packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice
messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? This
would probably even be practical for every-day life, as I could get
the messages from my home phone at work over email, instead of having
to call home and check.

Any phone software developers listening?


Michael Franz, Computersysteme ETH, Zurich, Switzerland

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Noring)
Subject: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc.
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:45:02 GMT


(Note that followup discussion has been set to rec.video.cable-tv and
sci.electronics.misc)

Hello,

We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is
finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to
many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the
basement line).  The coax lines of course will be used for television,
maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line.  For TV/FM, the
source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right
now we're using an attic antenna).

Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to
how to wire it properly.  What type/size of coax to use, fittings,
etc., as well as the layout of the wiring.  My engineering sense tells
me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely
affected throughout the whole house.  Or am I being overly-cautious
here?

Any advice would be most appreciated, and do post to the followup-to
newsgroups as I think others contemplating doing something similar may
be interested in your words of wisdom.


Thanks,

Jon Noring

OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL:  http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St.      | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095     | ftp.awa.com  /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037               | E-mail:  [e-mail]

  OmniMedia Electronic Books -- http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia/

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 10:32:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Wengler)
Subject: 10.9 Cent/Min StarQuest/IntelliCommunications?


I'm wondering if anyone out there has any information on the following
entities or calling plan.  I have signed up as a rep for this plan, and
want to know what I might be getting into.

StarQuest Corporation (of Oregon?) sells the plan. IntelliCommunications
(of Nevada?), a reseller of MCI, does the billing.  MCI is the underlying
network.

The rates are spectacular!  10.9 cent/min flat rate interstate,
six-second billing.  Really good intrastate rates, also flat,
six-second.  There will be a $1/month fee if ordered after 1/1/96, but
this is trivial to even a $20/month customer.  StarQuest will pay to
switch customer in, and pay to switch them back within 90 days if they
don't like it.

Marketing is MLM, I think, which is to say I can sign up reps who have
the same deal I do, but I get money based on how much business they
sign.  However, it seems much more oriented to signing up straight
customers than other MLM's I've read about on the net.  There is a
half-page form asking minimal info to sign up someone as a pure
customer, with no reference to the MLM part built in.

This doesn't strike me as too good to be true, but it certainly is the
best I've seen.  Its good enough that as soon as I get the sign-up
forms, mom, my fiancee, and my sister are on the plan, whether they
like it or not!  Don't worry FCC, I won't slam them, I'll MAKE them
sign the forms first.

Anyway, if anyone knows what I should be warned about here, I'd like
to know.


Thanks,

Mike Wengler
http://www.he.net/~wengler/StarQuest


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As soon as you get the complete package --
the Full Disclosure you might say -- you perhaps will kindly share
more details on this with us.  PATTTT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Personal Comuter Supplies Pty Ltd)
Subject: Australia's Largest On-Line Computer Shop
Date: 6 Dec 1995 03:06:54 GMT
Organization: Power Up
Reply-To: [e-mail]


                Personal Computer Supplies Pty Ltd

a Brisbane-based discount supplier, announces the launch of Australia's
largest on-line retail ordering service. Located on the Internet and with
over 2000 products available for purchase, the PCS Web site has something
for everyone: from floppy disks to notebooks, over 500 printer
consumables and software from many leading vendors.

                http://www.odyssey.com.au/wtc/pcs

You can also download dozends of net shareware, games & demos software
and can listen to James Brown and find the cockroach on one for our pages
(listen to the sound file).


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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Allebrandi)
Subject: What is Ameritech Selling?
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 05:16:23 GMT
Organization: TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment


Hi!

When in Indianapolis over the Thanksgiving holdiay, both my father and
my wife's brother in-law were talking about the big push that
Ameritech Cellular is making in the Indianapolis market. Apparently,
they are offering really good deals on airtime and service packages.
And, they are advertising like crazy.

But, what are they selling? Cellular One is the A side carrier in Indy
and GTE Mobilenet has the B side. Does Indy now have a C side cellular
carrier?  Or, is Ameritech simply reselling one of the other two in a
competitive manner?

Just curious,


Tom Allebrandi                               |  [e-mail]
TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment |  [e-mail]
Valparaiso, IN USA                           |  [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In an issue of the Digest earlier today
I mentioned that another company starting to make a big push for
cellular customers on a national basis. Frontier Mobile Line, run
by the folks at Allnet is trying to cut into the territory of the
big established carriers in various city markets.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (TKondo2937)
Subject: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air
Date: 6 Dec 1995 02:45:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (TKondo2937)


Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video
signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible
in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic.

Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already
underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as
an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of
telephone network?


Thank you in advance,

Toyo

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

From: Marcwell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Announcement: Marcwell MobyMail(TM)
Date: 6 Dec 1995 10:04:54 GMT
Organization: Uniplus Internet Access


STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Dec. 4, 1995 - Marcwell today announced the
Marcwell MobyMail(TM) mobile message transport provider for the
Windows 95 and Windows NT operating systems.  GSM cellular phones and
pagers has become very popular today.  The cellular phones transfers
data/fax reliable and can send and retrieve short messages (SMS) and
with a pager you can be reached without being disturbed.

Marcwell MobyMail lets you send and retrieve short messages to
cellular phones and pagers.  It is even possible to send messages from
a cellular phone to a recipient within a local area network via the
MobyMail workgroup server. Only the imagination limits the
possibilities, except for sending an e-mail to the cellular
phone/pager you can communicate with text commands or text data
between applications or between an application and a person
(transparent messages is a fortcoming feature). For example could the
communication between an application and a person be used for a
delivery firm, the driver receives the collect address and when he has
delivered the parcel he sends an acknowledge back into the
network/application. Another example would be to use it together with
an application to send alarm messages or to send news updates,
stock-exchange quotations etc.

Marcwell MobyMail makes it easy to communicate to mobile units and is
based upon a messaging standard - MAPI. Instead of having to use a
separate program MobyMail integrates into the operating system as an
extension and can be used from many types of applications, including
old DOS-applications using a file interface.  Currently supported SMS
providers are; Cellnet, Comviq, DeTeMobil, Europolitan, Mannesmann
Mobilfunk, NetCom, PC-Card (direct phone connection), Radiolinja,
Sonofon, Tele Danmark Mobil, Telecom Finland, Telia Mobitel, Telenor
Mobil, Vodafone and supported paging providers are; Telia Mobitel,
Telenor Mobil.

MobyMail Key Features

* 32-bit:
  Implemented as a true Win32 MAPI transport provider with
  multithreading for performance and stability.

* Many service providers:
  Many of the today available European message service providers are
  supported.

* Workgroup server:
  Send and retrieve messages from within a local area network through
  the Marcwell MobyMail workgroup server.

* Third-party interface:
  Either use OLE Messaging or the file interface for DOS- and non-OLE
  applications.

* Upgradeable:
  Easily upgraded from a single user version to a workgroup server
  with a new license key.

Pricing and Availability
------------------------

Marcwell MobyMail for Windows 95 is available now and the Windows NT
(Intel) version will be available as soon as MAPI is released for
Windows NT. Download MobyMail for a 30-day evaluation and trial period
or a technical whitepaper from either CompuServe (go MSWIN95, library
"Mobile/PCMCIA") or via Internet from our web with address
http://www.marcwell.se. Our e-mail address is [e-mail].

MobyMail is available in a single user version for 595 SEK and a 50
user workgroup server version for 4.995 SEK. For the server a special
LAN client is available for 195 SEK each. The LAN client can only
operate via the server, the single version that can operate both
stand-alone and as a LAN client. All prices are excluding VAT.

                               #########

Marcwell, MobyMail are either registered trademarks or trademarks of
Marcwell.  Microsoft, Windows, Windows NT are either registered
trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.  Intel is a
registered trademark of Intel Corporation.  CompuServe is a registered
trademark of CompuServe Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Applied Computing 91)
Subject: [Qn] TNPP CAP page function code
Date: 6 Dec 1995 11:46:54 GMT
Organization: Hong Kong Baptist University


Hello netters,

Here's a question about TNPP CAP page function code field.

If a pager has four tones from A to D, how can it map to the CAP page
function code field. The format of function code is 01P0ABCD where
ABCD has the following meaning.

        0000 - default pager address/function
        0001 - address/function 1
        0010 - address/function 2
        0011 - address/function 3
        0100 - address/function 4

Here's two mapping.

        mapping 1        mapping 2
        0000    Tone A            ----
        0001    Tone B            Tone A
        0010    Tone C            Tone B
        0011    Tone D            Tone C
        0100    ----            Tone D

Could someone tell me which is correct?


Thank you in advance.

Morris Wong    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #505
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec  7 08:21:32 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id IAA06888; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #506

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Dec 95 08:21:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 506

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    What Will Technological Future be Like? (LA Times via John Nestoriak)
    Call Me Cards (Tony Harminc)
    Want to Buy Predictive Dialers ([e-mail])
    Re: PCS Service of Sprint ([e-mail])
    Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (John R. Grout)
    Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Hovig Heghinian)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (William Kucharski)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Jim Hebbeln)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Keith Knipschild)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Kevin Paul Herbert)

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 Nestoriak)
Subject: What Will Technological Future be Like?
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:01:22 -0500 (EST)


The following is copyright {The Los Angeles Times} and forwarded to the
TELECOM Digest with the permission of the author.

A very interesting take on telecomm competition and the building of the
NII.

 Date: 01 Dec 1995 06:32:51
 From: [e-mail]
 Subject: L.A. Times column, 11/30/95

The following is my column that appearned in {The Los Angeles Times}
today, November 30, 1995. It will appear in other newspapers in the
next week, including {The San Jose Mercury News} and {The Boston
Globe}.


Gary Chapman,  Coordinator
The 21st Century Project
LBJ School of Public Affairs
Drawer Y, University Station
University of Texas
Austin, TX  78713
[phone]   [phone] (fax)
Electronic mail: [e-mail]

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

It is largely taken for granted today that "market forces" will determine
our technological future. But what the market is likely to deliver in
telecommunications may not be what we need, nor what we could have.

Assumptions about the benefits of a specific kind of competition lie at the
heart of the mammoth telecommunications deregulation bill now being
considered by Congress. That bill, if passed, will largely determine the
architecture of the fabled information superhighway. But it's based on the
notion that the public good will be served by competition in wires, while
we should really be trying to foster competition in services.

The large telecom companies have billions of dollars invested in their
wires and switches -- either in copper wire and fiber, for the telephone
companies, or coaxial cable and fiber for the cable companies, with both
sectors using satellites. Deregulation of these industries means that each
will be able to use their wires and switches to encroach on the other's
business -- telephone companies will start to offer video services, like
movies on demand, while cable companies are gearing up to offer telephone
service.

Consumers, according to the theory, will get better and cheaper service
with these industries competing against each other.

But how many consumers will be able to make a reasonable choice between
cable or telephone companies, when both will start offering similar
services and for roughly comparable prices? Most people are already baffled
trying to sort out the claims of long-distance providers like AT&T, Sprint,
and MCI. And a lot of people are angry about the constant harangues of
these companies, especially their dinner-time telemarketing calls. Try
multiplying those by ten.

A completely different arrangement is possible. If people were given access
to a universal, public network, especially one based on fiber optic cables
with virtually limitless carrying capacity, we'd see an explosion of
entrepreneurial energy instead of more marketing appeals. We'd build an
entirely new economic sector instead of divvying up the current telecom
business differently.

The city of Austin, Texas, where I live, is pursuing an innovative and
controversial plan that many communities around the nation are watching
with intense interest.

Austin reportedly has the highest Internet usage, per capita, of any major
metropolitan area in the U.S. The city is home to a booming home-grown
multi-media industry, largely made up of small, start-up firms, some of
them run on kitchen tables. It's also a growing world center of
semiconductor manufacturing.

To serve this population, city officials have proposed an unusual
public-private partnership to wire all Austin homes and businesses with
high-speed fiber connections within two years. The private partner gets to
manage the network and collect leasing fees in exchange for its investment
in the hardware. The City offers its rights-of-way, permission to tear up
the streets, and an exclusive arrangement with the contractor, in exchange
for some important public interest principles.

These include universal service, interoperability of components, and open
systems, which all add up to a public network infrastructure open to all
users with maximum available bandwidth available to everyone.

What the city officials hope will result from this kind of arrangement is
an Internet-like network model, but with bandwidth that can carry video,
data, voice, and sound all at once. With new technologies appearing that
make the World-Wide Web more and more capable of exploiting this capacity,
entrepreneurs could blossom all over town. And the network could carry
conventional cable TV, telephone, and online services as well, producing
true competition between large companies instead of a zero-sum scramble for
market share.

This plan is especially important for low-income neighborhoods, because
what typically obstructs economic development in those communities is the
reluctance of people with money to shop or do business in poor areas. A
network presence would remove that barrier -- geography would no longer
matter.

Southwestern Bell and Austin Cablevision, a subsidiary of Time Warner,
oppose the City of Austin's plan. They envision a model in which they own
the wires and lease their bandwidth to content providers that they select
and then market to consumers in "bundles," the way cable TV, America
Online, Prodigy, or CompuServe work now. Their networks would not be open,
and it's likely that their interactivity would be highly constrained --
enough for users to send e-mail and a credit card number, but not enough to
have a full-blown, interactive video presence on the network that could
rival their own offerings.

This is a battle that will be waged all over the country -- it is already
apparent in the telecommunications reform bill passed by both houses of
Congress, which reinforces the model preferred by large corporations.
Unfortunately, most citizens don't understand the first thing about this
debate, either what's at stake or what alternatives are feasible. This is
true even in Austin.

Television commercials from the large telecom companies are now filled with
encomiums to the "information superhighway." But our concrete highways are
a genuine public resource, and, at the same time, the arteries of our
economy. They carry all vehicles, old and new, commercial and private,
sleek and homely. Is it too late to start thinking about the "information
superhighway" in the same way?

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

Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 19:36:20 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Me Cards


I got two similar items in yesterday's mail: four calling bird... ah,
cards from Bell Canada, and an application form for one from BT in the
UK.

The four Bell ones are Call Me cards, consisting of my phone number
and a four digit PIN (the same on all four cards).  These were
accompanied by a letter suggesting that I give these out to my friends
and relatives so they can call me *for exactly what it would cost me
to call them*.  The implication is that there is no transaction
charge, i.e. if I use my regular PIN to call home there will be a $.75
or whatever charge, but if I use the Call Me PIN there won't be.
Strange, if true.  The fine print says that this identical charging
does not apply to calls originated outside the country, though it
doesn't say what the charge will be.

The obvious question that comes to mind is what happens if someone
tries to use this card to call other than my number?  Clearly Bell's
own database will reject such attempts, but what about the various
lesser foreign telcos (Integratel?) who accept the card? If I posted
the PIN publicly, would I be liable for charges made to other than my
number?

The BT application invites me to apply for one of their calling cards.
They say nothing whatever about rates -- they're trying to sell the
card based on the convenience of dealing with BT operators when
calling from a foreign country.  Based on my experiences with surly BT
operators in the past, I'd say this is not the wisest sales pitch!
They want me to give them a credit card number to bill to, and they
will send an itemized statement each month.  No charge for the card,
no minimum billing.

I can't tell what mailing list BT got my name from, but the
application form comes with a postpaid envelope supposedly good for
the USA, Australia, and South Africa - "other countries please apply
proper postage"!  Can anyone think of a good reason for having one of
these cards?


Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (PhoneRoom)
Subject: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers
Date: 7 Dec 1995 01:57:17 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (PhoneRoom)


Does anyone know of a used predictive dial system that is available
for sale? I am most interested in a Melita Phoneframe but would
consider others. Any info would be appreciated.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: These devices are an extreme nuisance
for the people being called. Anyone who has one of these devices be
forwarned that when one of them calls me, if you are not on the line
*immediatly* and ready to talk when I pick up the phone, I hang up
without waiting for you. I do not know how many times I have answered
the phone only to be told, "We have an important message for you,
please hold the line until an agent becomes available." It seems to
me to be very arrogant to call someone and then expect them to hold
on until you find time to talk to them. It is not like I called you,
after all.   PAT]

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

From: Hassan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 00:13:16 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA


All that a PCS service will or can provide, cellular service providers
can provide too.  Short messaging service will soon be available to
the Cellular customers.  GSM has a flaw and it's priority calls would
not be handend off to other sites, which is the case for cellular at
present time.  So what else is better in PCS which is not available in
cellular.  Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery
charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or
better in cellular.


Hasan

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Grout)
Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air
Date: 07 Dec 1995 03:19:45 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TKondo2937) writes:

> Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video
> signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible
> in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic.

No.

> Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already
> underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as
> an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of
> telephone network?

No, they use moderately sophisticated techniques for encoding digital
signals directly.  By comparison, the new USA HDTV standard, just
certified by the FCC for terrestrial digital TV broadcasting, uses
extremely sophisticated techniques.

The major problems with direct digital encoding of any signal sent
through the air are multi-path distortion (e.g., reflections off
buildings, trees, airplanes, etc.), rejection of signals on adjacent
frequencies, and rejection of distant signals on the same frequency...
because, without sophisticated technology, these problems cause total
decoding failure instead of gradual signal degredation... the
"ghosting" encountered in terrestrial analog TV reception is the most
familiar example of such degradation.

As far as I understand the situation, at the frequencies used by DBS
services, multi-path distortion and signal rejection aren't much of a
problem for _satellite_ broadcasting ... and the band used for DBS is
large enough to allow use of only moderately sophisticated video
compression techniques (I think they're just getting into newer ones
which will allow footballs flying through the air to not leave
"digital artifacts" behind on the screen).

However, multi-path distortion for _terrestrial_ digital broadcasting
is a far more serious problem ... so much so that all fully-implemented
terrestrial high-definition TV (HDTV) standards (e.g., the Japanese
standard) use analog encoding.  However, an unexpected breakthrough in
research several years ago in the USA led to techniques which can
overcome this problem.  These new techniques, along with significant
(if less serendipitous) new techniques for video compression, are the
cornerstones of the new USA HDTV standard, which packages HDTV signals
into narrow-enough channels to meet the original political objective
for HDTV... to allow each existing TV broadcaster an equivalent HDTV
broadcast license (at a different, higher frequency) to serve the same
broadcast area.

As I understand it, such an HDTV transmitter foils multi-path
distortion by sending out extra analog data in a special pattern as
part of a digital signal ... this allows a matching HDTV receiver to
figure out (from time and frequency shifts, etc., when analyzing the
telemetry) what the analog errors are in the signal it is receiving,
and, within realistic conditions (i.e., the user has an antenna which
allows one version of a signal to be received stronger than a
reflected version of that signal arriving at a slightly different
time, transmitters on adjacent frequencies aren't nearby, transmitters
on the same frequency are far away), the receiver can reconstruct the
original digital signal with no degredation whatsoever.

How all the components of the new HDTV standard will be _used_ is
anyone's guess.  If affordable flat-screen technology finally takes
off (and there's been lots of progress in the last two years or so ...
from digital micromirrors to arrays of microscopic picture tubes),
HDTV as it was originally envisioned ... terrestrial broadcast
transmission to receivers with large screens with a 13 by 9 aspect
ratio ... may still take shape.  However, there are lots of political
details to work out.  For example, most Republicans want to auction
off HDTV licenses to raise money for the U.S. Government, while most
public TV stations want not only to receive a free HDTV license, but
want HDTV receivers to be taxed to pay for public television's HDTV
transmission equipment and converters for poor people with old TV
sets.

If large, relatively inexpensive wide-angle displays aren't available
soon enough, the video parts of HDTV may be used in computer monitors
(there were changes in the standard to handle them a while back), or
with cable, satellite or fiber-optic transmission instead of broadcast
transmission.

There was an issue of the IEEE Spectrum in the last year or two
focusing on digital video.  Several of those articles probably would
be within the reach of c.d.t readers with a general technical
background.


John R. Grout    Center for Supercomputing R & D        [e-mail]
Coordinated Science Laboratory     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

From: [e-mail] (Hovig Heghinian)
Subject: Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers?
Date: 6 Dec 1995 20:37:46 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Bob Izenberg) asked:

> If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers,
> do you still pay for the calls?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All an 800 number is, quite simply, is
> your authorization to telco to automatically hand you collect calls
> without requiring you to verbally authorize each one. ... PAT]

Allow me a follow-up question: Are you, the one with the 1-800 number,
charged at your own carrier's rates, or at the calling party's rates?

I know that you can specify different carriers for different conditions,
such as day of week, time of day and/or call volume, but what about silly
things like calls from PBXs, pay phones and cell phones?

And is this the same as a collect call, then?


Hovig Heghinian <[e-mail]>         |  Open your mind too far,
Department of Computer Science              |  and your brain may fall out.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  |


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your selected carrier is the *only* one
that matters in 800 calls. As soon as someone dials an 800 number, the
telephone company receiving the call for processing hands it to the
carrier *you* have designated. PBX, pay phone, cell phone, no difference.
As soon as the call reaches the phone company central office, it is
handed over to the carrier you have chosen. Therefore you are only
billed at the rate your carrier charges. If someone chooses to call
you 'collect', then the traffic is up for grabs.  The originating
carrier is entitled to (and usually does) handle it all the way to
your end. Not so with 800 numbers, which are still 'collect' strictly
speaking, but rather limited authorization to automatically call you
collect via the carrier you have chosen.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Denver, CO
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 01:49:20 GMT


If your friends are complaining about your calls being received as
"Out of Area" (or if you are receiving such calls yourself), one big
factor may be Sprint.

Specifically, I've confirmed with Sprint (my LD carrier) that the
following extract from FCC Docket #91-281 is the case, and they are
operating under a waiver until March 31, 1996:

  On October 24, 1995, Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) filed a
  petition requesting a waiver of Sections 64.1601(a), 64.1603 and
  64.1604 of the Commission's rules until March 31, 1996.  Sprint
  requests a waiver to defer the CPN requirement until modifications
  in its software delivery of CPN can be corrected.  Sprint indicates
  that during testing of its switch software, it identified certain
  instances in which its switches would pass Automatic Number
  Identification (ANI) (billing number information) when CPN
  information was not available.  Sprint requests a waiver to allow
  time for it to correct this problem.

Personally, my Sprint calls are still showing up on friends' boxes as
"Out of Area"; the same call made using a 10288 prefix (AT&T) shows my
number quite clearly.  Funny how every other IXC can manage to get
their act together, but even given eight months' lead time from the
decision Sprint is still clueless.  I remember when I first subscribed
to them they were the most advanced network ...

On a related subject, has anyone seen any out of state names?  It's my
understanding that this will likely not work for various technical
reasons, and at current only the "number" phase of CID is mandated.
(Name delivery being considered a number-related "additional feature.")

For those of you who may be curious, the two other major waivered
carriers are GTE and Pac*Bell in California:

  On October 13, 1995, GTE Service Corporation (GTE) filed a petition
  for limited waiver or, in the alternative, a limited suspension of
  Section 64.1601(a) of the Commission's rules in the State of
  California until June 3, 1996.  GTE contends that it will not be able
  to meet the December 1, 1995 deadline for passage of CPN because it
  cannot lawfully pass CPN in California as it has been unable to
  obtain approval from the California Public Utilities Commission
  (CPUC) for its customer notification and education plan (CNEP) on
  caller ID services.  GTE states that under California law, all local
  exchange carriers (LECs) must first comply with the CPUC's customer
  education and notification requirements, before they can pass any
  CPN.  GTE asserts that despite its numerous efforts to design a CNEP
  to meet the guidelines of the CPUC,  it has been unsuccessful.

  On October 25, 1995, Pacific Bell (Pacific) filed a petition
  requesting a temporary and limited waiver of Section 64.1601(a) of
  the Commission's rules in the State of California until June 1,
  1996.  Like GTE, Pacific contends that it will not be able to meet
  the December 1, 1995 deadline for passage of CPN because it cannot
  lawfully pass CPN in California as it has been unable to obtain
  approval from the CPUC for its caller ID services.  Pacific asserts
  that despite proposing a CNEP, which it estimates would cost $33
  million, it has been unsuccessful in its attempts to receive CPUC
  approval.


William Kucharski, contractor, AT&T Bell Labs
Work Internet:  [e-mail]
Fun Internet:  [e-mail]  Ham:  N0OKQ
President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 8:23:27 MST
From: Jim Hebbeln <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?


Pat,

Sunday I received three CallerID test calls:

    Calling from:     608-233-xxxx    Madison, WI      DMS-100
    Calling to:    970-224-xxxx    Fort Collins, CO  1AESS (still)

Via:    AT&T     (10288+1+970-224...)    received 10-digit calling number*
    MCI    (10222+1+970-224...)    received 10-digit calling number*
    Sprint    (10333+1+970-224...)    received "OUT OF AREA"
                    (* calling name is not displayed)

Sprint doesn't seem to be passing through the calling number to U S
West.  Both they and MCI use Nortel DMS-250 switches; MCI works,
Sprint doesn't.  Hmmm ...)

I thought I might add "how CallerID works" internally within the
networks, and some history:

The CALLING NUMBER (and the privacy Presentation Indicator bit) is
transported to the terminating central office within the Signalling
System #7 (SS7) Integrated Services Digital Network User Part (ISUP)
Initial Address Message (IAM) sent between switches that initiates
setup of the trunk between them.  (The IAM contains the 24-bit
Originating Point Code and the Destination Point Code of the switches
at each end of the trunk, the trunk circuit number, the calling number
and display Presentation Indicator, the called number, the Bearer
Capability (speech, 56k/64k data), and other miscellaneous info such
as a 64K data call is ISDN end-to-end.)  However, the calling
customer's NAME that appears in the CallerID display is not contained
(now) either in the CO's database, nor, therefore, in the SS7 IAM
message.

The calling party's name, once the IAM's calling number is received in
the called party's CO, is obtained by the terminating CO by using
SS7's Transaction CAPability (TCAP) to query the RBOC's Line
Information DataBase (LIDB), which usually responds back in ~300-500
milliseconds with the 15-character name that is transmitted to the
CallerID unit (if the Presentation Indicator doesn't block it).  The
LIDB is the same database that keeps track of each line's Calling Card
PIN (if any), the line's class (Residence, Business, Coin,...),
Collect and Third Number Billing blocking, and now CallerID name.

Why is the name field fixed at 15 characters?  I don't know for sure,
but perhaps this might be some insight: U S West was probably the
biggest instigator of CallerID with Name.  Using a DMS-100 central
office that served an entire town in the Dakota's (Grand Forks, I
believe) in 1990-91, U S West performed working market trials/studies
that indicated that CallerID would sell twice as well if the caller's
name was included.

The DMS-100 has a **15 character** NAME field that can be associated
with each Directory Number's Attributes (data table DNATTRS) for use
in DMS-100 Centrex applications with Electronic Business Sets with
Display.  I would guess the CallerID display units were, therefore,
designed to accomodate these 15 characters, and the design spec
carried forth ...

Grand Forkers loved CallerID with Name.  Therefore, U S West delayed
their CLASS/CallerID implementation programs for a large portion of a
year, while AT&T/Nortel/Ericcson developed the SS7 TCAP query software
that would obtain the calling name from the LIDB database (memory was
available for 15 characters), instead of keeping the names in each
CO's database.  (RAM and hard disk memory in a CO switch is notoriously
expensive.)

This is not as good a story as "where OCTOTHORPE came from", but I
hope it adds to the discussion and perspective.  (By my choice I don't
work for U S West anymore, but I did translations (data base) work for
SS7 and CLASS implementation in Colorado in 1991-92.  Now, I have "my
own" ISDN switch rather than sharing it and 700 other switches with an
army of technicians.)

Perhaps another time, I'll write on the RBOC/switch vendor technical
trial of "Whose Calling" in 1990 in Fort Collins -- a computer that
announced the caller's name in a synthesized voice (it enunciated
pretty well -- even my name).  When you pressed 1, the caller was
connected.  Else, you hung up and the caller got no answer.  The Whose
Calling user didn't have to buy a CallerID unit, and it worked from
all the DTMF phones on your line.


Jim Hebbeln, Telecommunications Specialist, Nortel SL-100 tech
Telecommunications Department      Voice: 970-491-1014
E-100 Glover Building              Fax:   [phone]
Colorado State University      (NEW AREA CODE 970 ON APRIL 2, 1995)
Fort Collins, CO  80523-2009    Email: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:38:24 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Keith Knipschild - L.I.,NY)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ... ?


[e-mail] (andy) wrote:

> Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's
> have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences
> with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying
> with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will
> actually be fully functional, eh?   It is about time!   PAT]

I responded:

>> Well if anyone wants to call me, and let the phone ring 1.5 - 2 times,
>> I'll post the NPA and NXX of the calls I recieve ... so if you see your
>> Area Code and exchage posted, please let us know who you are using for
>> Long Distance.

Well I got many phone calls today 12/5/1995. There were alot (10+)
of calls that said " OUT OF AREA " Some callers did not allow the
phone to ring 1.5 - 2 times, So there was no CID info avaiable. As for
those who called, here is the list as of 6pm ET - 12/5/95 :

Area Code    NPA      Time
 404         727      9am ET
 206         885     11am ET
 206         328      3pm ET
 403         531     3:30pm ET

And TODAY (December 6,1995), I received the following calls:

 970         493      10am ET
 810         651      11:30am ET
 804         850      6pm ET

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Paul Herbert)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 14:13:04 -0800
Organization: Cisco Systems, Ashland, OR


Here is an interesting way to test for interstate caller ID: call up a
caller ID test number in another LATA and see what happens. I've been
using 413-447-8214; there are plenty of others out there.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #506
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec  7 15:11:18 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id PAA06068; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:11:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:11:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #507

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Dec 95 13:34:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 507

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes (Mark Cuccia)
    South Carolina (864) Test Number Correction (Michael Fumich)
    Re: Old Billing Practices (Andreas Pavlik)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (David Whiteman)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Keith Jarett)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (David Whiteman)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Raymond Hazel)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Edward A. Kleinhample)
    Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID (Carl Moore)
    What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (David McCord)

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: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 10:55:00 CST


In January of this year, 1995, we saw the actual implementation of
`interchangeable' areacodes into the North American Numbering Plan,
more-or-less right on schedule with AT&T's predictions made sometime
in the late 1950's or early 1960's, of when the N0X/N1X areacode
format would exhaust.

We have had several NPA's of the new format take effect this year,
with many more planned for introduction in 1996 and 1997. Just take
into account the number of NPA's which have gone into effect or have
been assigned since 1988-on, and we have already added more NPA's than
the 1948-65 time frame when some 35 NPA's were added to the original
86 assigned codes in 1947.

Excluding any special areacodes for TWX, Mexico, or other special
services (800, 900, etc), there were no new geographic areacodes to
take effect between 1965 and 1982, except when Virginia's single 703
areacode split off 804 in 1973. It wasn't until around 1982/83 when
619 split from 714 (southeastern CA) and 409 split from 713
(southeastern TX). And then again in 1984 when Los Angeles County
(213) split off 818 for the northern part and New York City (212)
split off 718 for Brooklyn/Queens/Staten Island (and now includes the
Bronx since 1992). But since 1988, we have seen at *least* one new
areacode take effect every year -- with no end in sight!

Many states/provinces which had only ONE areacode in 1947 (and back
then, a state/province with a single NPA and the N0X format were
identical) have been split into two since then -- some have been split
even several times! The following list identifies those states/provinces
which *still* have only ONE areacode -- that single code which was
assigned in 1947, and as of yet, there have been no announcements of
any additional *specific* areacodes for that state/province.

207 Maine
603 New Hampshire
802 Vermont
401 Rhode Island
302 Delaware
304 West Virginia
601 Mississippi (*)
501 Arkansas (*)
701 North Dakota
605 South Dakota
406 Montana
307 Wyoming
505 New Mexico
801 Utah (*)
702 Nevada
208 Idaho
204 Manitoba
306 Saskatchewan
403 Alberta (*)

(*) according to the Bellcore IL-95/01-018 (31 Jan. 1995), NANPA's
1995 annual report on NPA's, these are *projected* to exhaust, but
there have been no new codes nor boundaries of any future splits/
overlays yet announced:

501 AR projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 1999
601 MS projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 2004
801 UT projected to exhuast by the 3rd Quarter of 1999
403 AB projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 2005 -- but it *does*
seem that 403 is using up NXX exchange codes rather fast, however, and
could probably need a split earlier. I have a few more notes about 403
further down, since 403 also presently serves YK and the western/southern
NWT.

Nova Scotia (and Prince Edward Island) also still has its single 1947
assigned 902 areacode. Back then, 902 was assigned to the *entire*
Maritime Provinces region (including Newfoundland/Labrador which
didn't become part of the Dominion of Canada until 1948). New
Brunswick split from 902 in 1955, but this province still has its
single areacode 506. Newfoundland/Labrador split from 902 in 1962, and
this province as well still has its single areacode 709.

The District of Columbia (Washington DC) still has only 202, which was
part of the original 86 assigned codes in 1947, and I haven't seen any
projections of a *second* areacode strictly for DC, but prior to 1990,
all central office codes of DC were `protected' in both 703 Virginia
and 301 Maryland. There was full permissive dialing among the three
areacodes when calling to the Washington DC metro area -- which includes
the Northern VA and Southern MD suburbs of DC. If I'm not mistaken,
the southern MD suburbs' 301-NXX codes were *also* `protected' in all
of 703; likewise the northern VA suburbs' 703-NXX codes were
`protected' in all of 301. This was terminated in 1990, and the
boundaries between these three NPA's are now fixed and rigid.

Hawaii and Alaska had areacodes assigned to them in 1957, ten years
after the North American Numbering Plan was introduced. But even those
two states still have the same *single* areacodes (808 and 907
respectively) assigned to them.

The Caribbean Islands (at least most of them) were assigned areacode
809 in 1958. We have seen Bermuda assigned its own NPA 441 this year,
and the Bahamas will have NPA 242 take effect next year. Although
these new NPA's have actually *split* from 809, Bermuda and the
Bahamas will still each have only *one* NPA assigned. And even if
*every* country or island group is assigned its *own & unique* NPA,
they would all *each* still have a *single* areacode (at least for
many years to come).

When 403 eventually *does* split, Yukon and the western/southern NWT
will probably still have a single shared NPA, probably a new one
*just* for them.  Probably the eastern/northern parts of the NWT
(which presently shares 819 with part of Quebec) will `join-in' with
the southern/western parts of the NWT in a *new single* YK/NWT
areacode. The northern part of Alberta could probably be assigned its
own NPA separate from the YK/NWT code -- i.e. 403 might actually be
split into three areacodes -- a smaller 403 (southern Alberta) and two
new codes. BTW, Alberta's 403 was `extended' in 1972 to include CN's
Northwestel operations in Yukon and the southern/western parts of the
NWT; 819 (which covers part of Quebec) was similarly `extended' in
1975 to include Bell Canada's operations in the eastern/northern part
of the NWT.

The holding company BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises) purchased
Northwestel from CN in 1988, and in 1992 the Bell Canada operations in
the NWT were transferred over to BCE's Northwestel which has merged
togather the two operations even though they presently have two
geogrphic areacodes.

Also, the only states with *multiple* areacodes but having the *same*
areacodes as they did in 1947 are:

Kansas (316 & 913)
Iowa (712-515-319)

So far, there haven't been any announcements of additional codes for
these two states, although Bellcore NANPA projects that both of
Kansas' areacodes could need additional areacodes sometime in 2004.

And prior to recent splits or announcements of splits, Ohio and
Pennsylvania had also been the only other multi-NPA states which were
able to get along with just their original areacodes assigned in 1947.
PA had their 215/610 split in 1994; it has been announced that OH will
have their 216/330 split in March 1996 -- and even after that, yet
*another* split of 216 to take place in 1997. Bellcore NANPA also
projects two other Ohio NPA's to need additional areacodes over the
next ten years- 513 by 4Q 2001 and 614 by 1Q 2003.

There are also some other states/provinces which had additional
areacodes assigned in the 1948-65 timeframe -- some are only *now*
getting (or just recently had) more additional areacodes (TN, WA, NC,
MI, MO, MN, ON). Others (such as Nebraska) still haven't had any new
areacode announcements, although Bellcore has projected the following
states/NPA's as needing additional areacodes over the next ten years:

KY's 502 by 3Q 2005
LA's 318 by 3Q 1998
LA's 504 by 1Q 1999
OK's 405 by 4Q 1999
IN's 317 by 3Q 1999
WI's 414 by 2Q 2003

Quebec originally had two areacodes assigned in 1947 -- 418 and 514.
About ten years later, 819 was added (around 1957). 514 (Montreal
area) is not indicated in Bellcore's lists as projected to exhaust,
but since 514 serves a major metro area, it could need another
areacode over the next five years (IMHO).

Finally, the following are states/provinces which had only one NPA
since 1947 but their second areacode has only been added or announced
recently -- AL, AZ, OR, CT, BC, SC. It seems like the mainly rural
states/provinces identified earlier will probably remain with their
single areacode and Iowa will probably continue to be the only
multi-NPA state having just its three original 1947 areacodes for
quite some time.

The North American Numbering Plan has held up quite well for about a
half of a century. `NNX' format interchangeable areacodes just
generalize the NXX format for both areacodes and exchange codes. The
only probelms are with those PBX systems, 'other' common carriers,
private payphones, and other CPE systems which didn't forsee what many
of us already knew was going to occur, and the regulatory agencies and
others which don't see the benefits of overlays and 10-digit local
dialing. We will still be using standard ten-digit continent-wide
telephone numbers for what is projected to be another 50 or so years.
Hopefully, the INC/ICCF and NANPA future plans for longer than 10
digit NANP telephone numbers will be observed and *adhered* to by all
players in the industry. It may be the middle of the 21st Century when
this will happen, but those who forget problems of the past are always
doomed to repeat it!


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: Tue, 5 Dec 95 18:28 EST
From: North Coast Communications <[e-mail]>
Subject: South Carolina (864) Test Number Correction


It has been pointed out to me today (several times!), that the test number
for new South Carolina area code (864) is 864-242-0070.
                                                    ^^
The number that got published in my list was 864-242-0040 , a rollover
number at a business in SC.                            ^^

My apologies to those affected. Again, the proper test number for the new
South Carolina area code is:

               -------> 864-242-0070 <-------
                                  ^^

Michael L. Fumich  / E-Mail: <[e-mail]> / V-Mail: 708-461-5770

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Old Billing Practices
Date: 7 Dec 95 10:38:06 GMT
Organization: Vienna University Computer Center


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

> I have always been curious about what old phone bills looked like
> before computers existed. Did they bill just a flat rate for service,
> or did they in some way itemize the calls. If so, how did they track
> calling and create the bills.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like the banks, the credit card
> companies, the department stores and other businesses, telco bills
> prior to computerization were typed out on typewriters, ...

In Austria long distance calls were billed of course in the same (or a
very similar way) as Pat had described. But also locals calls were
billed and this was done by metering the time one used the phone. We
had a wall-mounted phone with a built-in scaler which metered the time
when the phone was off-hook. I think desk-top phones had the meter in
a small wall-mounted box. And in addition to the man from the utility
company every two months sombody from the Postal and Telegraph
Authority showed up to read the meter. That meant that also incoming
calls were metered, which sometimes made my mother upset when her eight
years old son got long phone calls from his friends. For long-distance
calls of course you had to pay the charge for phone usage plus the
charge on the (itemized) phone bill.

Around 1966 we got what was called an "active" phone. Now long-distance
calls to the most parts of Austria (and a little time later also to
Western Germany and Switzerland) could be dialled directly and were
billed by the pulse method. The rate for outgoing local calls was
twice the previous rate for phone usage (and my mother was only upset
when I called my friends). As the metering pulses were simply added up
in a scaler in the CO this meant also the end of intemized phone
bills. I think it was about the same time when the PT started to print
the bills on standard punched cards. The left side of the card showed
the bill, which had three items (basic charges, metered charges and
other charges). The "other charges" were operator assisted calls,
telegram fees etc., which were itemized on a separate sheet. The right
side of the bill showed some punches. The bill had to be paid at the
post office, the left side was stamped and signed by the clerk and
returned to the customer and the right side was teared off and finally
read into a computer (or at least some kind of bookkeeping machine).


Andreas Pavlik    University of Vienna
Vienna, Austria   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Whiteman)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 03:23:18 -0700
Organization: ViaNet Communications


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something,
> but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and
> use one of those roadside phones?  What are they for, if not for use
> in emergencies?  PAT]

The roadside phones can also be used for requesting assistance for a
disabled vehicle, such as an overheated radiator, or a flat tire etc.
That is why roadside phone calls are not treated with as high as
priority as a 911 call.

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

From: Keith Jarett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: 6 Dec 1995 23:58:44 GMT
Organization: TCSI


As the originator of this thread, I'll contribute what I have learned
from a dispatcher who replied rather irately to my post in ca.driving:

First of all, had this been a deserted road in the middle of the
night, I probably would have gotten right through.  Given that it was
not, and given that cellular calls have priority, many of them got
through ahead of me with information on this accident.  It is not
unusual for the dispatchers to receive dozens of calls on an accident,
each caller thinking he is the first one to call in.

I suggested that the phone system be upgraded to allow dispatchers to
record a brief announcement to the effect that "the following incidents
have been reported and help dispatched: location1, time1, location2,
time2, etc."  The idea is that redundant callers then drop off, freeing
the dispatchers to handle new nonredundant reports.

This proposal is under consideration, and may have been so even before I
suggested it.  The particular dispatcher I talked to says that he tries
to qualify each new call before putting it on hold, but that is obviously
not a universal practice. The automatic priority to cell calls over
roadside box calls may make it impossible to do currently.


[e-mail]    Keith Jarett

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

From: [e-mail] (David Whiteman)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 08:14:41 -0800
Organization: ViaNet Communications


  From a pamphlet printed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) 818 West Seventh Street Ste 100, Los
Angeles, CA 90017:

Car failure is always a hassle.  If that, or any other emergency does
occur, motorists can find comfort in the knowledge tthat help is right
at the other end of a cellular phone located inside a Los Angeles
County Metro Call Box.

 ...

Call boxes were first installed in Los Angeles County in 1962 as a
roadside emergency system to report flat tires, road hazards, mechanical
breakdowns, or other emergencies.

 ...

Using the Metro Call box ... Personal calls cannot be made from the Metro
Call Box; it can only be used to call the CHP when you have car trouble,
or to report an accident or hazard.

Another posting on this thread implied that the call boxes were a Federal
requirement and subsidy.  Another pamphlet that I received with my car
registration invoice stated that the Metro call boxes are funded entirely
by a $7/year surcharge to my registration fee.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This would seem to imply that *any emer-
gency* is eligible to use the call boxes wouldn't it?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 03:42:03 PST


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to my posting:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of
> gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the
> other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a
> couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am
> not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple
> miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot.  PAT]

Well what would the alternative be?

If the call boxes were routed to the local 911, the PSAPs would be
flooded with motorist wanting to contact a garage. Obviously that would
be a bad situation, because life threatening 911 calls are getting
pushed by the wayside.

Perhaps the CHP center should have an option saying "If this is a
life-threatening emergenty press 1 now." Oh that won't work; the call
boxes don't have dials (rather a TouchTone pad).

CHP could hire more operators to answer the calls, but with all of the
budget problems going on, I doubt that it's a priority.

In all honesty, what did people do before the call boxes were
installed? (They're only three or so years old.)

I live in Santa Cruz, and pretty much the only way to get anywhere is
via Hwy 17, through the Santa Cruz Mountains.  There are parts of this
road that are quite dangerous. In fact, there are more than 400
accidents a year in a signle 12 mile stretch of the road. If there is
an accident, I'll guarantee you that the CHP is on the scene very
quickly; the roads back up immediately, and someone invariably calls
on a car phone or from one of the pay phones at the turn-outs.


Steve   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Raymond Hazel)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 08:34:20 -0800
Organization: N.E.T.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Steve Cogorno) wrote:

> Keith Jarett said:

>> 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 ...

> The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls.  They are
> connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the
> PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls.  It would have taken the CHP
> much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly.  THe
> CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit
> number, not 911) and relay the info to them.  It's easier to just do it
> yourself.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something,
> but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and
> use one of those roadside phones?  What are they for, if not for use
> in emergencies?  PAT]

The signs say "Call Box", have an id number for location, and are blue
in color.  The original reason was to counter "rubber-neckers" going
by a disabled, slowing traffic down while waiting for assistance.  And
usually, the first one to come by was the Highway Patrol.  If the
callboxes were used to summon vehicle help, the CHP could then drive
on by, persuing more pressing needs.  I don't recall the boxes
promoted as "for emergencies"; I don't think they've been promoted at
all.  Just the fact that they're there is information enough.
However, after hearing about the current process for handling calls,
I'm glad I bought my cell phone.


Ray Hazel


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, note the quotes from the
pamphlet written by the MTA quoted earlier in this issue and its
use several times of the phrase 'any emergency'. This reminds me of
the bozos in charge of police communications here in the Chicago
area: Call 911 for emergencies only! say the posters and the
press releases from the police, etc. So some of us take that to
heart and try to be helpful by staying OFF 911 lines for anything
but dire emergencies, that is, a situation where immediate inter-
vention is required by police or fire personnel.  But when we
call the district police station to discuss a NON-emergency what
are we told?  Hang up and call 911 if you want a policeman to
stop by your house to see you. A total contradiction. I wonder
if anyone at CHP has considered the possibility of having the
call boxes answered immediatly with the statement, "Is this an
emergency which requires immediate police assistance?" If the
caller says yes, the dispatcher would tape a couple of keys on
the console which would bring the appropriate emergency response
agency on line. This would function much the same way as 911 does
now. If you call 911 to report a fire, as soon as the dispatcher
hears 'fire' s/he immediatly cuts the call over to the Fire
Department, usually staying on line at least long enough to
find out if Fire will need police assistance on location. Why
couldn't CHP do the same thing?   PAT]

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

Date: 07 Dec 95 11:54:17 EST
From: Edward A. Kleinhample <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of
> gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the
> other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a
> couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am
> not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple
> miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot.  PAT]

Assuming of course that the 7/Eleven that you find does indeed have
pay-phones, that the phones will allow outgoing calls (there are pay
phones in Tampa, FL that won't -- to prevent drug trafficing), that
they do not block calls to 911, that the phones still have cords and
receivers (many in Tampa don't).

I witnessed a traffic accident while driving through northern Tampa
the other night. Being a good citizen, I pulled into a convenience
store to call the police on a pay-phone (not a GTE phone), picked up
the receiver and started dialing 9-1-... Before I could push the 1
key, a recorded voice stated that "outgoing calls are not permitted
from this phone". I then preceeded to dial the operator, to which I
received an automated recording instructing me how to dial various
calls from this phone, or "hold for an operator..."

About this time, a Tampa Police officer appeared on the scene and
began sorting out what had happened. After about 30 minutes when
things where about wrapped up, I spoke to the police officer and told
her about the incoming-only payphone.  He stated that this had been
done to curb drug trafficing in the area.

Please explain to me the logic in a pay-phone that allows INCOMING
calls only! I don't imagine that the operator of the phone is seeing
much revenue from this phone.

It's a strange world that we live in!


Ed Kleinhample     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Ed, as I was reading your message
and editing it for publication, I thought to myself surely that must
be a typographical error; he must mean no INCOMING calls allowed. I
was all set to write an Editor's Note asking you to sort this all out
for me, and then I finished reading your message: you beat me to the
punch. What kind of payphone does not allow OUTGOING calls?  Perhaps
they meant no outgoing COIN calls. That makes 'sense' in a
non-sensical sort of way as part of the War on Drugs. There are lots
of payphones in Chicago which are restricted to 'no coins after dark'.

At the 7/Eleven here in Skokie the payphones outside all work normally
at any hour of the day or night, but then this is sort of an
upper-crust village. Everyone around here either buys their drugs from
a fellow trader at the Commodities Exchange or the Board of Trade in
downtown Chicago, or else they get them from a co-worker at the
Federal Building there. Folks around here don't have to stand in the
cold at an outside payphone waiting for a callback and some teenage
guy to show up a few minutes later with their purchase.  The other
major outlet for drug selling and buying here is the Cook County
Criminal Courts Building, where the sellers hawk their wares in the
hallway right outside of 'Drug Court' and in the nearby men's room. On
the 'Wanted by the Police' bulletin board in the lobby there, someone
defaced the board by *gluing* on a picture of Al Capone with a caption
reading, "The War on Drugs is the best thing to happen in America
since Prohibition. I supported Prohibition and I support the War on
Drugs. You should also!"

But back to your payphone scenario: Some of those COCOT operators
really don't have a clue do they ... first off, I don't think under
the law any phone is supposed to be blocked from 911, and second,
it does not require coins anyway.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 08:43:46 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID


Pardon me for sending non-telecom material (although I will mention
telephones later in this paragraph, but I did see you mention Hawaii
Five-O.  In a similar vein, I have heard (courtesy of the Nickelodeon
cable channel) that the Dragnet series which originally aired 1967-70
was so realistic (*EVEN DOWN TO THE TELEPHONES ON THE DESKS*) that
people would stop in at the real-life Los Angeles police department
and ask to see Sgt. Friday!  (According to Nickelodeon, the standard
reply was "sorry, it's his day off".)  (The main characters on Dragnet
were Sgt. Joe Friday, played by Jack Webb; and Officer Bill Gannon,
played by Harry Morgan, whom I remember from the earlier Pete and Gladys
series.)

Anyway, most (or all?) of these TV shows have the notice that the
persons and events depicted in them are fictitious, and that any
resemblance to actual ones is coincidental.  However, I don't see this
notice on the shows carrying the Desilu name, which was set up by
Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz when they were still married to each
other. It's a long story to explain that I Love Lucy took some things
(not all) right out of real life.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, you have your dates wrong on
Dragnet. It was on the radio originally, and I remember it on television
in the early to middle 1950's. It was still Sgt. Friday of course, of
the LAPD, and it was based entirely on true cases from police files.
At the end of each program, after the bad guy had been put away, a
gong would sound, and a solemn voice would tell us that "<criminal name>
was found guilty on <date> of <crime> by <court> and sentenced to
85 years in prison (or something equally outrageous) in San Quentin,
California. Then the gong would sound once or twice more. Now and
then the solemn voice would tell us instead that the criminal had been
sentenced to death and that on <date> his punishment had been carried
out in the gas chamber at San Quentin.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:41:50 -0800
From: [e-mail] (David McCord)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable?


In Telecom Digest #500 [e-mail] (David Hall ) writes:

> 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.

I suspect you're puzzled why unshielded cable is recommended over
shielded, even though unshielded is demonstrably inferior in several
electrical test categories.

This is generally because the marketplace contains much more unshielded
than shielded.  More products and services have been developed which use
it.  Also, if it is installed properly unshielded does have acceptable
noise immunity.

In the marketplace real-world large-scale structured cabling systems either
a) include both types, or b) contain unshielded only.  There are few (if
any) systems that are unshielded only.

Also, ISDN was engineered to work with POTS wiring.


[e-mail]  |        This        |International Network Services
+ 1 510 831 4743 voice|      space for     |    San Ramon, California, USA
+ 1 510 743 3777 fax  |        rent        |    Network Systems Consultant

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #507
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec  7 17:49:59 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id RAA20500; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:49:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:49:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #508

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Dec 95 17:50:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 508

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Law Enforcement Taking a Byte Out of Crime (Knight-Ridder via Tad Cook)
    AT&T vs. BellSouth InTRA-Lata Rates (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Garrett A. Wollman)
    PacBell and Ascend Present ISDN Seminar, Jan 17, SF (Cherie Shore)
    Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home For TV, etc. (Al Mc Lennan)
    Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Myron Jackson)
    Computer Network Survey (Linda Hergenhahn)
    Book Review: "Internet File Formats" by Kientzle (Rob Slade)
    Siemens S3COM Users Wanted! (Alex van Es)
    "Quick Quote": The National ISDN Availability/Pricing Database (E Seyfried)

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: Law Enforcement Taking a Byte out of Crime
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:39:56 PST


Law enforcement taking a byte out of crime
BY JULIO OJEDA-ZAPATA

Knight-Ridder Newspapers

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- When Detective Chuck Esposito switched on his home
computer and logged on to America Online last summer, he wasn't
looking to catch any cyber-criminals.

Like hundreds of other law enforcement officers around the country, he
merely wanted to learn about the on-line universe and the range of
illegal activities that are occurring with growing frequency there.

Esposito -- who investigates crimes against children in Clearwater,
Fla. -- had heard stories about pedophiles who enter electronic "chat
rooms" to entice minors into sex. He planned a leisurely exploration
of those live-conversation areas in the guise of 14-year-old "Karen."

But within a week, the detective was thrust into a major on-line
investigation involving federal and Minnesota authorities. The case
culminated Nov. 16 with the arrest in Clearwater of 47-year-old Steven
Stanley of Coon Rapids, Minn., who had allegedly traveled to Florida
to have sex with "Karen."

Esposito says he was shocked at how quickly events unfolded.

"On the first day, (the suspect) asked me if I liked to `talk dirty'
and described in graphic detail the sex acts he wanted to do with me,"
he says.  "About a week later, he started sending me pictures of young
children engaged in sex.

"When he sent me child porn, he crossed the line."

Esposito and his counterparts in other agencies also have crossed a
threshold in the past year -- shedding their reluctance to adopt
high-tech investigation methods and plunging into the rapidly evolving
field of computerized law enforcement.

 From police departments and state attorney general office to the FBI
and Federal Trade Commission, dozens of organizations are playing
catch-up with criminals who have used computers and online-access
methods for years.

Computer-related crimes range from on-line pedophilia and electronic
child-porn peddling to Internet scams, hacking attempts, industrial
espionage and other forms of white-collar crime. All of these
activities have been on the rise, says Scott Charney, head of the U.S.
Justice Department's computer crime unit.

"When you think about the rapid growth of the Internet, you have to
expect a similar increase in the number of people who are abusing the
Net," Charney says. "Historically, criminals have flocked to new
technologies. That's what has happened here."

Just as computers have expanded in the workplace, for instance, so has
computer crime. A recent Michigan State University survey found that
98.5 percent of companies that responded had been the victims of a
computer-related crime.

"This is happening because of the phenomenal growth in computer
networking and the (resulting) availability of information," says
study co-author David Carter of the university's school of criminal
justice. "Right now these incidents are happening more from within
than without ... but I expect more hacking and `cracking' in the next
couple of years."

Minnesota -- partly by accident, partly by design -- has been heavily
involved in efforts to combat computer crime. In the past month alone:

Twin Cities authorities have helped investigate two unrelated cases
involving on-line pedophilia.

In addition to the Steven Stanley case, Kevin Mahoney, a St. Paul Cos.
investment manager, allegedly tried to solicit sex from a minor --
this time, an actual teen-ager in Davenport, Iowa. Mahoney was
arrested near his Burnsville home Nov. 6 after he made two trips to
Iowa, allegedly to meet the girl. Iowa authorities are now seeking to
extradite him.

An Apple Valley teen-ager went on trial last week on charges that he
used a computer to "hack" and damage the systems of the Greater
Detroit Free-Net, a Michigan community on-line access provider.

The youth -- who allegedly penetrated the Detroit system and others in
Minnesota and around the world via an unauthorized University of
Minnesota Internet account -- was charged with two felony counts of
computer damage in April.

Court proceedings in the case wrapped up Thursday. A judge's verdict
is expected sometime this month.

The Minnesota attorney general's office has continued its high-profile
pursuit of on-line con artists.

In July, Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III filed suit against
six individuals and companies he claimed were operating scams on
commercial on-line services and the Internet. Four of the suits have
been settled.

Another suit -- involving a Las Vegas businessman who had announced
plans to operate an electronic sports bookmaking service, WagerNet, on
the Caribbean island of Belize in an alleged attempt to circumvent
U.S. laws -- is now winding through the Ramsey County civil court
system. In an opening salvo on Thursday, Minnesota lawyers argued that
they are entitled to records and other evidence from Kerry Roger's Las
Vegas company, Granite Gate Resorts. The attorney general's office has
called WagerNet "an illegal bookie operation."

The lawsuit is apparently the first involving authorities in one state
who claim they can sue a company in another state because of its
electronic services, which can be accessed by computer users anywhere.
According to WagerNet's Web page, customers in Minnesota or elsewhere
will pay a fee for special hardware and software that will link their
PCs to the service.

"What constitutes `in Minnesota' is the key issue to be decided here,"
says Deputy Attorney General Tom Pursell.

The pursuit of alleged on-line con artists has taxed the resources and
ingenuity of state and federal investigators. The WagerNet case points
to a troubling development: Because the Internet extends around the
country and the world, Minnesotans are vulnerable to hundreds of
inexpensively concocted scams perpetrated from faraway bases, often
with impunity.

"Because there's so much activity on the Internet, the attorney
general's office has to set priorities," Pursell says. "We won't be
able to investigate every fraud and right every wrong."

The attorney general's office has another problem: It can't resolve
its sixth and final cyberspace lawsuit because it can't find the
plaintiff, who allegedly operated an illegal "credit repair" company
via the America Online commercial network.

Customers had requested the company's bogus credit repair kit by
sending money to a private post office box, "which is the only way we
even found out the guy was in Georgia," Humphrey says. "A suspicious
clerk at the mail drop got a look at his license plates, but the
plates didn't match the car -- they had been stolen or switched from
another car."

On-line anonymity will be one of the greatest hurdles for enforcement
agencies that attempt to investigate cyberspace crime in coming years,
Pursell says.  "Many (criminals) can still be found because they
publish a toll-free number or an address," he says. "But that will
soon change. Transactions will occur entirely over the Internet, and
it will become much harder to locate people who don't want to be
located."

For that reason, state and federal agencies are learning to share
information about such cases.

The Minnesota attorney general, for instance, has formed a national
task force of attorney general offices that is studying computer crime
and its ramifications. Meanwhile, Pursell and his colleagues have
cultivated contacts at federal agencies such as the Federal Trade
Commission, a civil agency that looks into fraudulent commercial
practices.

The commission is relatively new to on-line enforcement: It announced
its first case, an investigation of another credit repair company, in
September 1994.

"That was a test case for us," says Lucy Harris, an assistant director
for credit practices. "There's a learning curve when doing this kind
of work. But the funny thing is, the scams don't change."

Other agencies have been scrambling to keep up with computer-savvy
criminals.  Both the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI set up
computer crime units in the early 1990s, for instance. The units
initially focused on business-related crimes involving corporate
computer networks, says Charney of the Justice Department. But in
recent months, they have broadened their scope to include electronic
crimes involving the Internet and commercial on-line services.

In September, the FBI searched 120 homes and made several arrests as
part of a two-year child porn and pedophilia investigation of America
Online users. The raids marked the first time federal agents
investigated the exchange of illegal materials on such networks.

The FBI's computer crime squad even has its own page on the Net's
popular World Wide Web (http://www.fbi.gov/compcrim.htm).

"Kids coming out of school have an amazing degree of computer
literacy, while many of our older agents are new to this area,"
Charney admits. "That's why we are recruiting graduates with computer
science and telecommunication backgrounds."

State agencies such as the Florida Department of Law Enforcement --
the equivalent of Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension -- have
been pioneers in computer-assisted law enforcement. The FDLE was the
first in the country to establish a computer "forensics" department,
which extracts data from confiscated computers, according to Merle
Manze, an FDLE special agent based in Tallahassee.

The agency also has set up regional task forces to nab computer
criminals, including would-be pedophiles who use the pretext of a
Florida vacation to seek out minors they have "met" online, according
to Al Danna, a crimes-against-children investigator in Tampa and vice
president of the Florida Association of Computer Crime Investigators.

Danna, who has worked in law enforcement for 15 years, remembers a
1982 seminar in which an FBI agent "was telling us that pedophiles
would soon be using computer record keeping and getting on computer
bulletin board services. I remember thinking, `Yeah, right."'

But a short time later, Danna was part of a Baltimore law enforcement
team that apprehended an Air Force sergeant who had been luring
teen-age boys into sexual encounters and keeping elaborate records on
a computer. Because of their ignorance about electronic record
keeping, the investigators needed the help of an Air Force technician
to extract data from the sergeant's equipment, Danna recalls.

A mastery of electronic skills is particularly vital when
investigating pedophilia and child pornography cases because most now
involve computers or on-line services in some fashion, says Donald
Huycke Jr., head of the U.S.  Custom Service's child pornography unit.

"Pedophiles feel safer online because it's harder for law enforcement
to track them down," says Huycke, who has seen an alarming increase in
the frequency of such cases. "These guys spend big money on equipment
and use all the latest methods, such as encryption and anonymous
`re-mailer' services" to mask their identities.

As a result, "law enforcement agencies are constantly playing
catch-up," Huycke says. He laments the fact that child pornography
investigations are considered "collateral" duties at the custom
service's 150 offices around the country.

Some agencies have been cutting back on such investigations. Frank
Clark, an investigator at the Fresno, Calif., police department and a
nationally known expert on computerized crimes against children,
expressed dismay last month when his employer instructed him to focus
primarily on white collar crime.

"It's really sad because ... the number of (on-line pedophile) cases
is increasing astronomically," he says.

Minnesota's largest law enforcement agencies have yet to make computer
crime a priority.

The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has investigated reports of
on-line child porn peddling "on a situational basis" but does not
systematically pursue computer criminals, says Michael Campion, the
agency's director of investigations.

"We're too short-handed with homicides and sexual assaults to monitor that kind
 of activity," Campion says. "It's very labor-intensive, and we simply
don't have enough people."

The Minneapolis police department, which has seen a record number of
homicides this year, also steers clear of high-tech criminal
investigations, according to spokeswoman Penny Parrish.

"We get reports of computer-involved porn cases ... but we don't have
any computers hooked up online," Parrish says. "We're too busy working
immediate cases. We don't have the luxury of logging on and playing
that game for weeks and months."

But agencies such as the Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments
are anything but technological backwaters. In the next two years,
several Twin Cities enforcement agencies will make striking
improvements to their electronic record keeping systems that will help
them put more criminals behind bars.

The St. Paul police department, for instance, is working with Hennepin
County to create a metrowide "master name" database of information
about criminal suspects, victims and witnesses. When the system
becomes operational in 1996, it will help solve criminal cases more
quickly because St. Paul investigators will have acce ss to
information from several other departments, says Lt. Joe Polski, head
of the department's records division.

"In the past, we had to call each agency on the phone and ask them to
look up the information," Polski says. "Now that the number of (law
enforcement agencies) in the Twin Cities is well into the double
digits, that just isn't practical."

The St. Paul police department also is planning to equip squads with
portable computers. Street officers would tap out their reports,
"dock" their laptops at their neighborhood offices and upload the
information to the department's network, Polski says.

"But we have to make sure the laptops will hold up in our harsh
climate," he adds. "It makes no sense to buy a bunch of stuff that
won't work because of Minnesota winters."

In Minneapolis, police are assembling an "automated pawn system"
database that would collect information from city pawn shops, which
would be required to submit data via modems on items they purchase.

If approved, the system would "dramatically improve our ability to
investigate property crimes and identify stolen items that move
through pawn shops and second-hand dealers," says Lt. Phil
Hafvenstein, commander of the department's license inspection unit.

Other departments would be invited to subscribe to the service, he
says.  Minneapolis police would collect the information from pawn
shops in participating jurisdictions and forward it to the appropriate
enforcement agencies. Hafvenstein sees a day when the system goes
metrowide and even statewide.

Such cooperation among law enforcement agencies will be crucial in
coming years as criminals become increasingly sophisticated, and as
computers and on-line accounts become as common as televisions and
cable television subscriptions, experts believe.

Huycke of the U.S. Customs Service predicts that even mid-sized
agencies such as the Minneapolis police department will eventually
devote resources to computer-related crimes and forensics, and will
collaborate with neighboring departments and federal agencies on
on-line investigations.

"Change is coming and we have to be prepared for it," Humphrey says.
"State and federal law enforcers have to work with private consumer
agencies and industry groups (to establish) safe, reliable and honest
computer networks. If ever an issue calls for putting our collective
heads and resources together, this is it."

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:52:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T vs. BellSouth InTRA-Lata rates


Recently, AT&T (and other IXC's) has been on a marketing campaign
stating that you can *save* over the local telco for inTRA-lata calls
by using their 10-XXX/101-XXXX fg.D codes. (10-288/101-0288+ is
AT&T's).

The 504 areacode is composed mainly of two LATA's: New Orleans and
Baton Rouge. The town/ratecenter of Pearlington LA (504-531, I think)
is part of the Gulfport MS LATA, and the town/ratecenter of `South
Osyka LA' (also in 504) is in the Jackson MS LATA. The New Orleans
LATA also contains Crossroads MS (601-772). If I dial 1/0+601-772-XXXX,
my call routes over BellSouth, since I didn't prefix it with a
10-XXX/101-XXXX code, even tho' it is out-of-state, and AT&T is my
chosen carrier. We don't (yet) have a choice for primary carrier for
inTRA-LATA calls here in Louisiana.

Prior to 1991, we couldn't use 10-XXX fg.D codes for inTRA-LATA
points.  South Central Bell would block the call with "it is not
necessary to dial a long-distance company access code when calling
this number ...", but this only applied to fg.D forms of access. 1-800-
and 950- forms of access via non-AT&T carriers would go thru that
carrier at their rates okay; when AT&T established 800 access,
sometimes they allowed inTRA-LATA calls but at Bell's rates, and the
charges showed up on the Bell page- so I assume Bell would get the
revenue, but sometimes AT&T refused to handle the call. In 1991 when
the La.PSC permitted inTRA-LATA competition and ordered Bell to
unblock 10-XXX+inTRA-lata toll, AT&T also completed the calls at
AT&T's rates & revenue.

Initially, I could dial 10-XXX+local seven digits. That only lasted
for a few months in late 1991. I can *not* dial that combination now.
I do subscribe to Bell's LOS (Local Option Service), a form of
Extended Area Service. The first band outside of the *traditional*
local calling area is `capped'- almost like monthly flat rate, while
the outer band has large per-minute/mile discounts, but is *not*
capped. LOS points are (presently) dialed as seven-digits without a 1+
nor with the 504 areacode, but *only* if you *choose* to subscribe to
LOS. I am *not* permitted to dial LOS points as 1-504-NNX-XXXX (altho'
I can dial them 0-504...). I am also not allowed to dial them
10-XXX/101-XXXX+1-504...), but I *can* dial them 10-XXX/101-XXXX+
seven digits! Of course, I will be paying an IXC rate.

There are points in my LATA which still *are* toll. While LOS is
available throughout the state, each coverage area is *not* LATA-wide.
LOS bands also do *not* cross LATA-lines. A call from New Orleans to
Morgan City is in the LATA, but is outside of *my* LOS coverage. I
choose to dial Morgan City from home as 10-288+1-504... via AT&T. The
rates are cheaper, and I also subscribe to AT&T's True Savings plan. I
wouldn't place calls to LOS capped or uncapped points via 10-288+
(seven-digits), since while I do subscribe to AT&T's True Savings, the
Bell LOS package is even cheaper. Local calls will always be dialed by
me via Bell, since I don't pay per-minute charges. I only wish that I
could access Bell with an 800 number for use at COCOT payphones where
the COCOT dials out to *their* AOSlime carriers even if I entered
0+504+seven-digits local. In Louisiana, Bell's calling card rates for
traditional local area calls are 88 cents FLAT. AT&T (and the other
IXC's charge _by_the_minute_ for card, opr.assisted, and if Bell
continued to allow it- 10-XXX-1+ access).

So, while it does appear that AT&T (and other IXC's) *are* indeed less
than Bell for inTRA-LATA toll- and Bell is better for local, and LOS
if you subscribe to it, you would think that AT&T would be cheaper
than Bell for a call to Crossroads MS from New Orleans LA. Not so -- I
called a Bell operator (single 0-) last night and inquired to the rate
(all three time-periods) for a 1+ call from 504-241 to 601-772. At
first, I was told that this was a call handled by a long-distance
company. I told the Bell operator that Crossroads MS *is* in my LATA,
and it is identified as such in the front of the phone book. When she
still didn't even *try* to look up the rate or see if it was in the
LATA, I asked for a supervisor. The supervisor did eventually try to
get the rate -- and Bell's rate is approx. 19 cents/minute for day. When
I asked an AT&T operator (10-288)-00, I found out AT&T's 1+ day rate
is 26 cents/minute! AT&T's evening/holiday and night/weekend rates are
also about 7 cents more than Bell's are!

Incidently, prior to the PSC order in 1991 to unblock 10-XXX intraLATA
toll, I was always able to dial 10-XXX+1/0+601-772-XXXX for Crossroads
MS, ever since we had equal access dialing (1984/85 timeframe). The
call always did route and bill over the dialed 10-XXX carrier, with
them getting the revenue!

This is an inTER-State but inTRA-LATA situation. It also happens to be
a different NPA. It is the only one with respect to my home exchange.
There are many other situations like this all over -- BTW, Bogalusa LA
(NPA=504, in the New Orleans LATA, but toll to me -- not even in my LOS)
is Bell *local* with respect to Crossroads MS.

Lata lines, state lines, NPA boundaries, and local calling boundaries
do not necessarily fit into neat patterns. There is all kinds of
overlap.  Switch/wirecenter boundaries and their assoicated NPA-NXX
codes and local calling areas, and state/political boundaries didn't
always fit neatly prior to the breakup of `The Bell System'. It seems
like it will get even more confusing with local competition, as well
as with continual splitting of areacodes.

These days, it might be necessary to call various LEC and IXC
operators or customer service centers to determine the cheapest rates --
prior to dialing -- and Bell can *even* be cheaper than AT&T for actual
toll (non-local) calls!  and then know the right access codes/prefixes
to dial!


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] (Garrett A. Wollman)
Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint
Date: 7 Dec 1995 12:53:59 -0500
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


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

> So what else is better in PCS which is not available in
> cellular.  Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery
> charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or
> better in cellular.

Umm, you forgot about the most obvious and important one: privacy and
security.


Garrett A. Wollman   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Cherie Shore)
Subject: PacBell and Ascend Present ISDN Seminar, Jan 17, SF
Date: 7 Dec 1995 18:13:21 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell


Pacific Bell and Ascend Communications will jointly present an ISDN
seminar, on the evening of January 17, from 6:30-9pm.  The seminar
will take place at the Pacific Bell facility at 370 3rd St, San
Francisco, and will include an overview of ISDN services and
applications, a review of Ascend's ISDN products, and a demonstration
of Internet access using the Ascend Pipeline 25 at 128kbps.  To
reserve seats, call Linda at 408-493-7732.


Cherie Shore     [e-mail]
ISDN Technology Manager, PacBell

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc.
Date: 7 Dec 1995 13:22:24 -0500


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jon Noring) writes:

> (Note that followup discussion has been set to rec.video.cable-tv and
> sci.electronics.misc)

> We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is
> finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to
> many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the
> basement line).  The coax lines of course will be used for television,
> maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line.  For TV/FM, the
> source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right
> now we're using an attic antenna).

> Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to
> how to wire it properly.  What type/size of coax to use, fittings,
> etc., as well as the layout of the wiring.  My engineering sense tells
> me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely
> affected throughout the whole house.  Or am I being overly-cautious
> here?

Don't put splitters behind walls, i.e., run uninterrupted cable from
each outlet to a central accessible place where you can connect
amplifiers or splitters at leisure. Go to Radio Shack, where they will
sell you what you need and tell you how to do it.


Al McLennan

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

From: [e-mail] (Myron Jackson)
Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility
Organization: Motorola Derivative Technologies Division
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 18:26:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Robohn Scott
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

Check out or Site Call solution on Motorola Derivative Technologies
Division at:

http://www.mot.com/MIMS/PPG/org/dtd/index.html

Click Products and Services/SiteCall.

This software product was developed specifically for the roaming
on-site employee.


Myron Jackson   Motorola Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Linda Hergenhahn)
Subject: Computer Network Survey
Date: 7 Dec 1995 18:47:29 GMT
Organization: NASA - KSC


I have been asked to create a survey to send to all network users in
the organization I work for.  The survey is supposed to elicit
information about how network users feel about the network, what needs
they have, what problems they have, etc.

Unfortunately, I know very little about networks.  Can any of you
computer/network literate readers suggest good questions to ask and/or
topics to address?

Any help would be sincerely appreciated!

E-mail to:

[e-mail]


Thank you!

Linda

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

Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 11:51:51 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Internet File Formats" by Kientzle


BKINTFLF.RVW   951128

"Internet File Formats", Tim Kientzle, 1995, 1-883577-56-X, U$39.99/C$54.99
%A   Tim Kientzle [e-mail]
%C   7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ  85260
%D   1995
%G   1-883577-56-X
%I   Coriolis
%O   U$39.99/C$54.99 800-410-0192 602-483-0192 fax [phone] [e-mail]
%P   397
%T   "Internet File Formats"

Most Internet guides give a passing reference to archive file types
with which the author may be familiar.  And most (70%, if the studies
can be believed) Internet users stick to plain, readable text.  But
MIME and XXencode happeneth to all accounts, and the variety of
different types of files can be bewildering, even to seasoned
Internauts.

Kientzle has arranged this work into sections dealing with text and
documents, graphics, compression and archiving, encoding (binary to
printable), audio, and video.  While not exhausting all possibilities,
he covers the most widely used formats, and everything that all but
the most specialized user is ever likely to see.

Each chapter, usually covering a single format, gives some background;
advice on when to use (or not to use) the format, and how; some
details on the algorithms and/or data structure.  Where the format is
not universal, pointers are generally given for programs on alternate
platforms, although the directions in these cases could be more
specific.

For the average Internet user, this book may be bigger, and more
technical, than desired.  Advanced Internauts will likely find it both
interesting and handy.  For the Internet trainer or support person, it
is "must have" information.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKINTFLF.RVW   951128.  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
[e-mail]    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:31:12 GMT
From: Alex van Es <[e-mail]>
Subject: Siemens S3COM Users Wanted!


Hi all,

I am looking for people that are currently using the Siemens S3-COM
phone for the GSM network. When I plug the phone into the charges, the
display starts flashing when the phone is online, is this normal? The
salesguy told me so when I called him.. but a guy at Siemens wasn't so
sure of it (but couldn't give a sure answer) ... so ... anyone outthere?


Alex

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

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

From: Eric Seyfried <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Quick Quote": The National ISDN Availability/Pricing Database
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 13:47:01 -0800
Organization: INfax Services, Ltd.


"Quick Quote" is a National ISDN and Switched 56Kbps availability and
pricing database available from Network Implementation Services Corp.
If you're interested in finding out whether or not ISDN is available
to your office or residence NIS's "Quick Quote" can tell you.  Check
out the NIS Web Site at http//www.insgroup.com/nis/qwikquot.htm.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #508
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec  8 08:15:01 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id IAA04978; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:15:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:15:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #509

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Dec 95 08:15:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 509

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    When the LD Network Went Down (Lawrence M. Casse)
    BellSouth and the Local Competition Follies (Tom Horsley)
    Stock Market in Computer Parts (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Paul Judge)
    Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Shane M. Potter)
    Re: PCS Service of Sprint ([e-mail])
    Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Brian Brown)
    Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (Brian Brown)
    Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Nicholas Spill)
    Re: Call Me Cards (Steve Forrette)
    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (E. Ewanco)
    Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (Bud Couch)

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] (Lawrence M. Casse)
Subject: When the LD Network Went Down
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 19:35:58 GMT
Organization: TerraPort Online Inc. [phone]


It was in January 1990 that the AT&T network went down for several
hours in the afternoon.  I believe there was also a second incident in
1991 when part of the east coast went down.

The first incident was blamed on bugs in switching software from DSC
Communications, I believe.  I have heard several conflicting versions
of the story, one of which was that a colon was missing in somes lines
of software, another that a Capital A had been substituted for a
lower-case a in some lines of code-a common problem in Unix.  It seems
that the incident has achieved the status of an "urban legend" with
conflicting versions of the story.

My questions are:

What were the real causes of the incidents?

What in the opinion of experts is the likelihood of this happening
again, if not to AT&T, then to another LD carrier?

I understand that the FCC keeps records of carrier's "downtimes":
where can I obtain this info?


Lawrence Casse
Resonance Capital Corporation
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Horsley)
Subject: BellSouth and the Local Competition Follies
Date: 05 Dec 1995 13:12:24 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The Headline: AT&T and MCI have just sued BellSouth because BellSouth
has decided to give Floridians a good deal.

The background: With local competition just around the corner in South
Florida, BellSouth recently got approval (with massive public support,
I might add) for a new rate structure. Instead of charging outrageous
prices billed per minute (as they have done for years with short haul
long distance charges), they will now charge a flat 25 cents per call
for long distance calls within the South Florida area (regardless of
the time the calls take).

Without question, they did this because they knew Floridians have felt
ripped off for years (its hard not to feel ripped off when it is
cheaper to call New York than West Palm Beach :-) and were anxiously
awaiting the opportunity for local competition so they could dump
BellSouth em-masse.  (The state of Florida has passed its own telcom
deregulation bill which implements local competition -- the state got
tired of waiting for the feds to get their act together :-).

With this new plan, people still resent the past, but an awful lot of
them (me included) are willing to forgive and forget because it is
such a good deal.

The lawsuit: Today, the Palm Beach Post reports that AT&T and MCI have
just filed suit against BellSouth trying to block implementation of
the new plan.  They claim that the prices BellSouth charges them for
access to the local lines would make it impossible for them to
compete. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true (although I note
that Sprint hasn't joined the suit), but consumers (like me) want to
know why they are suing to block our good deal instead of suing to
make BellSouth give them a better deal on local access?  Could it be
that they only want to compete if that means they can split outrageous
profits and they aren't interested in competition that means giving
consumers a good deal?

Anyway, all the local activists who fought so long in favor of the 25
cent plan are really annoyed at AT&T and MCI. It wouldn't surprise me
to find large numbers of Floridians switching from AT&T or MCI to
Sprint or some other carrier that isn't involved in the lawsuit (in
fact, the other carriers might want to get some ads on the air quick
promising not to sue :-).


[e-mail]
Home: 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach FL  33444
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL  33309

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

From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Subject: Stock Market in Computer Parts
Date: 3 Dec 1995 19:14:55 GMT
Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org/ 510-658-6376


> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Bill McMullin) wrote:

[angst elided]

>> 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.)

Why aren't computer parts traded as on the stock market? Well ...
there's one place I know they are. In India, a "grey market" in
smuggled computer parts accounts for over a third of total hardware
sales. The parts are bought from factories in Taiwan, Singapore or
Malaysia, and smuggled into the country to avoid very high import
duties. As the smugglers have an advanced form of just-in-time
delivery, demand and supply rule the prices.

Last week, I traded in my two drives -- 440 and 540Mb, about six
months old -- for a brand new gigabyte drive, and MADE $100 in the
process. How? Well, 1Gb drive prices have crashed over the past
several months, leading grey market operaters to stock up on them.
However, the buyers don't know this yet, and are perhaps intimidated
by the large storage capacity, and still want 540Mb drives. The price
of these drives had also fallen, but now there aren't any of them on
the market, so the price has shot up. The result is that the
difference between 1Gb and 540 is only $80 -- for a few weeks. I timed
my purchase well, so I made money! Incidentally, 1Gbs go for a little
above $300 here.

See http://dxm.org/techonomist/palegrey.html for an analysis of India's
grey market in computer hardware.


The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://dxm.org/techonomist/                             [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:14:21 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Paul Judge )
Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint


In the article submitted yesterday (Re: PCS Service of Sprint), Hassan
incorrectly stated that 'Quality of service, size and weight of phones,
battery charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either
same or better in cellular.'  Though I recognize that PCS can be viewed
as simply up-banded cellular, there are a few important distinctions
which need to be pointed out.

Lets look at the issues Hassan raised:

Quality of Service - Everybody has their own definition of quality of
service.  The mobile phone salesman is going to try to convince you to
buy a digital handset because DIGITAL is 'better quality.' The heavy
user of cellular service who tried DIGITAL will tell you that much of
the tone (some people call it voice recognition) of a conversation is
lost.  They are both right.  A properly configured digital system
should provide a cleaner stream of voice information, but some of the
tone is lost due to the voice sampling rate of digital.  Though some
may prefer the subtleties of voice over analog cellular, many will
appreciate the added capacity of digital PCS at those peak busy hours
in those most congested spots.  If you try to compare digital cellular
to PCS, you will also find that the higher frequency range of PCS
affords marginally better quality of service while both suffer from a
similar voice sampling degradation.

Size and weight of phones -- I have been told that the higher
frequency range of PCS allows for smaller circuitry, but if the PCS
phone is a dual mode with cellular, the difference may be nil.
However PCS phones should be able to have a smaller battery for the
same talk time.

Battery charge hold time -- Because of the air interface techniques
used in digital cellular/PCS, battery life is significantly extended
for both standby and talk time.  There are differences between
technologies (CDMA, TDMA, GSM/DCS1900) and due to the tendency to have
more cells in a PCS network, a PCS phone should have longer a longer
life then both its analog and digital cellular cousins.

Any other that you can thing of -- Cellular is hindered by their
legacy network, systems, and customer equipment.  PCS gets a fresh
start with all the new technologies and does not have to be concerned
with backwards compatibility.  It is kind of like Windows and
Macintosh.

Also, a small note to add regarding the reference to GSM and Sprint.
Sprints overall plan is reported to be the deployment of a CDMA
technology standard, and the use of a GSM standard in the Washington DC
 -- Baltimore region is due solely to the acquisition of American
Personal Communications (APC) from {The Washington Post.}


Paul F. Judge
The Walter Group, Inc.
140 Lakeside Ave., Suite 100
Seattle, WA  98122
[phone]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:52:51 +0000
From: shane potter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.


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

> GSM has a flaw and it's priority calls would not be handend off to
> other sites, which is the case for cellular at present time.

> Hasan

Can you explain what you mean by this sentence?  Not only do I not
understand the basic premise of what you're trying to say (GSM not
handing over priority calls correctly?), but the construction of your
sentence implies that current cellular service suffers from the same
flaw (which I'm certain is not what you were trying to say).


Thanks,

Spotter    Shane M. Potter
[e-mail]  GSM Field Support

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

From: [e-mail] (Sir Topham Hatt)
Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint
Date: 7 Dec 1995 16:01:43 GMT
Organization: Intentionally Left Blank


Speaking of PCS ...

Has anybody heard news of an attempt by the PCS industry to get
federal pre-emeption of state and local zoning/planning review on
siting of towers?  Originally, PCS was sold with the idea of lots of
relatively low towers, even more so than existing cellular.  I've been
watching a lot of the 456 reviews (a process labeled after the section
of the state code that deals with the siting of utilities and other
"public" here that one of the PCS providers has been submitting and it
would seem that they are engineering the system pretty damn similarly
to existing cellular strategies.

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Brown)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 16:16:07 GMT
Organization: ConferTech, international


[e-mail] (Michael Franz) wrote:

> Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software
> packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice
> messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email?

 ------stuff deleted ---------------

> Any phone software developers listening?

Yes.  I see a problem:

Typical (large) email message: 4Kb.
    download time for 4K on 14.4 modem: 5 seconds

Typical (small) phone message: 30 seconds.
    6KHz 8bit ADPCM compression (pretty tight, poor quality): 100K.
    download time for 100K on 14.4 modem: 80 seconds.
Note:  It takes longer to download the files than to listen to them!

I have some questions:

A) Your PC must stay on and must either be always connected to the
internet (expensive!) or have a way of dynamically connecting when it
has messages to send (e.g. UUCP)  Does it delete the messages
after it sends them to the internet?  If so, then you run the risk of
being forced to rely on the internet to get your messages, even if
you're standing next to your PC.

B) Do any providers in your area already offer voicemail-email
transmission?  Just wondering.

Finally, a suggestion: In the states several telcos offer voice
messaging, which is basically voicemail for your home phone.  If you
are indeed travelling this often, you may want to investigate options
like this.  Even if the local PTT doesn't offer it, busy and na
forwarding to a voicemail box is a great way to handle it. Then you
can get your "voice mail" (really home messages)  via a (potentially)
cheaper call.


Just my thoughts,

Brian Brown    ConferTech, International

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Brown)
Subject: Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 16:29:13 GMT
Organization: ConferTech, international


[e-mail] (PhoneRoom) wrote:

> Does anyone know of a used predictive dial system that is available
> for sale? I am most interested in a Melita Phoneframe but would
> consider others. Any info would be appreciated.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: These devices are an extreme nuisance
> for the people being called.

 ---- stuff deleted ------

I would refer both of you to the article on page 48 of {Computer
Telephony} magazine, Volume 3, Issue 11 (November 1995)
entitled "Predictive Dialers (Not Just Collections Anymore)".

It is an interesting article describing the true goal of predictive
dialing.  If you are willing to pay the big bucks and staff
accordingly, the dialer puts the call through _as soon as it hears
"hello"_ so you can't tell.  If you've gotten telephone solicitations
that sounded like the person called you from large companies recently,
there's a good chance that was the case.

There are other uses besides the annoying "cold calling" telesales
agenda:  credit card companies may use it to call lists of folks who
haven't paid their bills; sales followup ("how do you like our product
so far") calls can be done this way as well.  Admittedly, however, the
vast majority of uses of these dialers are used for nuisance calls.


Brian Brown
ConferTech, International

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:28:04 -0500
Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse


Your recent article by Bob ([e-mail]) prompts me to
report my latest solution to multiple repeat callers who are abusing
or harassing inbound telemarketing staff.

I have coordinated the telethon COMIC RELIEF for the last nine years;
all seven of them and this year was the first time we have OCDD/RT. I
have gone away to AT&T for training on this service when it foirst
came out and have used it for almost two years on other clients to
great effect.

This time for COMIC RELIEF VII (it airs again this month on HBO one
and and as repeats) we had OCDD/RT set up with all RNs loaded. (I used
call allocation RCS2 and other features with multiple call centers -
all of which worked superbly).  Every 1/2 hour I would pull a report
on 'prank calls/multiple callers' and give the phone numbers to a
specially trained staff (thankfully we only needed one person this
time) who would then call each number and in a very calm tactful
manner identify herself as calling from COMIC RELIEF and ask if the
caller had a problem gaining access to an operator to make a donation.
(Because HBO subsidizes the live show -- all monies raised, 100% --
 from the live show goes to Health care for the Homeless.)

This 'soft' approach worked wonders and I will expand it for future
telethons I organize. The 'culprits' all apologized for the multiple
attempts but complained about the content of the show -- yes the show
had some raunchy aspects but the idea is to keep the phone lines open
for bona fide donors -- if you want to complain about bad language --
write a letter to HBO. Or if you don't like a particular performer for
whatever reason change the channel!  One young lad was discovered by
his mother making repeat prank calls to COMIC RELIEF when she swore he
was tucked up in bed. (She checked and found out he wasn't!)

Use of ANI for call backs to question callers why they are calling so
many times is to some people controversial (and I am sensitive to
these issues) but if these multiple callers are using up valuable
resources (in effect stealing dollars from the homeless) -- then such
efforts to stop them are justified. If this approach, level headed,
non threatening and very controlled, is spread, then we should see a
reduction of such prank callers.

However bear in mind I grew up reading Orwell's 1984 and Kakfa -- so I
am paranoid about goverment and 'big brother' interfering in what I do
in the pricvacy of my own home -- hence I hit these callers with a
velvet glove -- it worked -- using infomration from OCDD/RT for a
positive change in behaviour from such callers. The other advantage
to this approach is that we got these callers to express why they were
doing this behaviour and this had the efect of stopping such dialing.


Thanks,

Nicholas Spill Telemarketing consultant
Email address: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your report. We have long
known that when callers/users know that *we know* who they are, the
amount of trouble caused is virtually zero. Someone I know who runs a
BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users.
When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users
(after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit
phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people
already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not.
He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the
same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different
than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly,
'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to
place this call.' If they still lie a second time then he responds,
'sorry, I don't have resources to take you on as a new user at this
time. Try one of several other popular BBS lines in the area.' He
then disconnects them. If they call in as 'private' and their name
is not otherwise recognized as an established user, he gives them the
same response. In the event the call shows up as 'out of area', he
asks them for their phone number, and compares it against a list
of what phone numbers should and should not 'look like', i.e. 123-4567
is not a valid number, nor are all zeros, etc. He does accept these
'out of area' new users provided they pass the phone number 'litmus
test' in those instances.

He says it is fun to be there when a new caller tries to gain ad-
mission and watch how they lie. Once a new member is accepted on his
BBS he gives them a short text file which says essentially that he
allows complete freedom of speech, etc. He said that once new callers
become aware that he has Caller-ID, they behave themselves marvelously.
And that is all he really wants; not to censor them.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Forrette, Steve)
Subject: Re: Call Me Cards
Date: 7 Dec 1995 20:15:16 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
EDU says:

> I got two similar items in yesterday's mail: four calling bird... ah,
> cards from Bell Canada, and an application form for one from BT in the
> UK.

> The four Bell ones are Call Me cards, consisting of my phone number
> and a four digit PIN (the same on all four cards).

> The obvious question that comes to mind is what happens if someone
> tries to use this card to call other than my number?  Clearly Bell's
> own database will reject such attempts, but what about the various
> lesser foreign telcos (Integratel?) who accept the card? If I posted
> the PIN publicly, would I be liable for charges made to other than my
> number?

There are indeed security holes with the "Call Me" cards (at least
there have been in the past).  In particular, ComSystems (10555 in the
US I believe) did not honor the restricted nature of the Call Me
cards.  So, anyone who got a hold of your PIN could call anywhere they
wanted to on ComSystems, and the charge would appear on your bill.

I went around and around on this issue a few years ago with Pacific
Bell.  Although technically I suppose you're not responsible for
unauthorized charges on your bill, the problem was that Pacific Bell
had no way of knowing which PIN was used to place a particular calling
card call.  So, since I had both a Call Me and a regular (unrestricted)
PIN on the same line, the billing department said "Well, you must have
used the unrestricted one to place these calls, since the Call Me one
wouldn't have worked!"

Just to see what would happen, I ordered a Call Me card only on one of
my data lines, then placed a test call via ComSystems.  When the bill
came, I disputed it.  This time, customer service could see that there
was no unrestricted card on the line, and looked into it further.

The issue got escalated, and I ended up talking with some person in
"carrier relations" at Pacific Bell that handled issues with the
independent carriers that sign up with Pacific Bell to bill charges on
the customer's Pacific Bell bill, and also subscribe to the shared
calling card database.  She said that the contractual requirement is
that any carrier that they bill calling card calls for must validate
the PIN against the database at the time the call is placed.
(earlier, they had problems with some carriers not subscribing to the
calling card database, and letting calls go through with *any* four-
digit PIN -- they put a stop to this).

This particular issue of validating the PIN (which they were doing,
because any PIN other than the unrestricted one or the Call Me one
didn't work), but not honoring the "Call Me" restriction, was a grey
area.  The conclusion we came to was that they were supposed to honor
it, and they were violating their contracts by not doing it, but in
reality, nobody was policing it and nothing was likely to get done
about it unless it became a large problem.

Also, you should be aware that with a Call Me card, it can be very
expensive to receive calls.  Consider that a Call Me card in the
shared LEC database (which Bell Canada participates in) can be used to
call the restricted number from, among other places, the in-flight
telephones on commerical airlines, at $2.50 per call and $2.50 per
minute.  Also, it may be possible to use it with the Bell Canada's
equivalent of CallUSA(tm) from any number of foreign countries.

If you really want to be able to control your costs and minimize the
fraud potential, 800 service is the best option, IMHO.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Ewanco)
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: 07 Dec 1995 15:45:37 -0500
Organization: Xyplex


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

> 3)  Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic
> Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines
> which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not
> presubscribed to any interexchange carrier.  This charge is in addition to
> the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland
> and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
> Virgin Islands.  These charges are effective on December 1, 1995.

This is so bogus!  It really angers me how they are trying to evade
the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary
restrictions on those who do not presubscribe.  I really don't
understand why they want to do it, because it brings them more
business.  It is like they are attempting to discourage people from
choosing AT&T freely.  And why does it only apply to residential
lines, not business lines?  (Incidentally -- what is a "message"?  A
minute?

Is there any information on filing objections with the FCC or other
authorities over these changes?  Are these approved, or still under
consideration?

Can anyone point me to something on the FCC web site
(http://www.fcc.gov) that might have this notice and information on
what we can do about it?


Eric Ewanco     [e-mail]
Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.
Littleton, Mass.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable?
Organization: ADC Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 20:59:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David McCord) writes:

> In Telecom Digest #500 [e-mail] (David Hall ) writes:

>> 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.

> I suspect you're puzzled why unshielded cable is recommended over
> shielded, even though unshielded is demonstrably inferior in several
> electrical test categories.

Actually, except for the test categories of "emi radiation/susceptablity"
and "crosstalk", unshielded cable is superior.

> This is generally because the marketplace contains much more unshielded
> than shielded.  More products and services have been developed which use
> it.  Also, if it is installed properly unshielded does have acceptable
> noise immunity.

Shielded cable has a big problem for high-speed data transmission: the
capacitance loading per foot is *lots* higher. At T1 rates, for instance,
acceptable line lengths are more than an order of magnitude *lower* for
shielded cable, which is why it is used only for short runs within
buildings. Because of this factor, ISDN data equipment has been designed
(translation: the manufacturers have busted their pick) to work acceptably
with unshielded wires.

> In the marketplace real-world large-scale structured cabling systems either
> a) include both types, or b) contain unshielded only.  There are few (if
> any) systems that are unshielded only.

That's funny, I could have sworn that the entire telephone network running
T1 used unshielded cables. May not be what you were thinking of, but it
certainly qualifies as a "real-world large-scale structured cabling system".

> Also, ISDN was engineered to work with POTS wiring.

*Both* types; basic and primary.;-).


Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox
[e-mail] (192.228.59.2)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #509
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec  8 08:58:06 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id IAA07464; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:58:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:58:06 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #510

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Dec 95 08:58:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 510

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning (Robert Wolf)
    Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Rupert Baines)
    Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Mark McAllister)
    Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges (Stephen Tell)
    Re: Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was: Re: Limits to Redialing?) (Al Varney)
    Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System ([e-mail])
    Re: PCS Service of Sprint (David Boettger)
    IVTTA Workshop - Call For Papers (Murray F. Spiegel)

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: Robert Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning
Date: 7 Dec 1995 22:14:53 GMT
Organization: Millennium Telecom


[e-mail] (Jeff Nichols) wrote:

> 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.

> [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]

The scenario you described sounds like the traditional telephone
facility requirement scenario.  If you assume a call holding time of
10 minutes (as specified), you have 18,000 call minutes per day.  You
did not specify how long the day is.  The longer the day, the fewer
facilities you need.

Several tables have been developed to determine these facility
requirements, based on what happens to blocked calls (calls that
receive busy signals).  Erlang B tables assume that blocked calls go
away, Poisson tables assume that blocked calls wait for a while, then
go away, Retrial tables assume that some percentage (usually 70%) of
blocked calls retry, with the remainder going away.  Your scenario
sounds like Retrial tables would be most appropriate.

Blocking in these tables is usually specified as a percentage of all
calls.  For example, assuming an eight-hour day a Retrial table specifies
that you need:

for 1% blocking     66 lines
for 2% blocking        63 lines
for 5% blocking        60 lines

The number of lines is not linear.  Assuming a 16-hour day:

for 1% blocking        49 lines
for 2% blocking        47 lines
for 5% blocking        44 lines

All tables assume a random distribution of call arrivals.


Robert Wolf
Millennium Telecom                     http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium
818-790-7339;   Fax [phone]       ![e-mail]
Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications

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

From: Rupert Baines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon
Date: 8 Dec 1995 01:06:21 GMT


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

> 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 ...

You are on the right lines, but there's one extra piece of information
you'd overlooked. There is a big difference between the circuit created
by the network and the *physical* bandwidth of the wires.

The network hierarchy builds on a 4kHz bandwidth (ish); a dial up modem
that fits into that space is limitted to about 30Kbps (depending on
conditions etc) but then it can travel across the world "transparently"
as the system treats it just as if it were a voice call in the same BW
(Oversimplifying a bit, but roughly true).

On the other hand the *physical* BW of the copper pair connection between
you and the network -- whether you define that as the exchange (Central
Office) or kerbside unit is very much bigger -- Megahertz.

Depending on how far you go (attenuation is severe as you go up, RFI
is a problem), if the network knows about it (so it can select
switching with right capacity)then you can use that bigger BW to carry
more data.

ISDN is 80KHz, HDSL uses much more, ADSL uses 1.1MHz to get 6Mbps a few
miles, and VDSL ("ADSL on steroids") will use several MHz to get up to
51Mbps a few hundred yards.

So it isn't so much a "device" as the "system" that sets your 4kHz. And
that can, and will, change.

But Shannon still applies of course :)

Incidentally, one of the neast things of ADSL is that it deliberately
avoids the POTS bandwidth, so your existing phone and fax co-exist
smoothly with the higher rate.


Rupert Baines
ADSL Product Marketing
Analog Devices

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon
Date: 8 Dec 1995 05:37:41 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...

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

>> 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).

The copper wire isn't the limiting factor.  It's a *network design* issue.
The telephone network is designed for voice, which requires up to 3.4 kHz
or so to be intelligible.  Everything else falls out of that.

So on the old analog (FDM) multiplexors used on microwave, coax and even
some twisted pair, channels were 4 kHz apart, using single sideband
transmission.  On modern digital systems, voice is sampled at 8 kHz, which
per the Nyquist limit guarantees that nothing above 4 kHz will go through.
Given the need for actual filters to prevent 4 kHz and above from going
into the coders, the bandwidth slopes down pretty steeply beginning
around 3.4 kHz, though some newer filters go closer to 3.7 kHz.

> Loading coils were a feature of the long lines in the States but not,
> I understand over here in Brit land.

Loading coils also set a limit, of course.  They essentially turn the
line into a low-pass filter tuned to 4 kHz.  This dramatically
improves performance in the 2-4 kHz range and of course wipes out
everything much above 4 kHz.  That's a design feature, not a bug.
Loaded wires are used for pairs beyond around 18000 feet, which is why
ISDN was designed for that distance (it works on most old unloaded
pairs).


Fred R. Goldstein   k1io   [e-mail]   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (mark mcallister)
Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon
Date: 7 Dec 1995 23:06:51 GMT
Organization: sbc tech. resources


In article <[e-mail]>, michael petsalis
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 ...

Good question - I was confused myself on this for a while.

At COs, POTS lines are treated as voice lines.  The signals are digitized
in channel banks at 8 kHz sampling rate, based on Nyquist and a presumed 4
kHz maximum frequency.  To avoid aliasing the lines must be low-pass
filtered.  This is where the bandwidth limitation occurs; loading coils are
not that commmon.


Mark McAllister
Southwestern Bell Technology Resources

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges
Date: 7 Dec 1995 13:56:45 -0500
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]>, rob.m.saiter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

In short, I think the hotel manager was feeding you a line and trying
to make a buck.  If the hotel wanted, they could just charge the
measured rate listed below.

919-909 is not listed at all in my 1994-95 Chapel Hill phone book (the
1995-96 one just came out, and mine isn't handy). The 1995-96 university
phone book lists 919-909 as "Raleigh".  But whatever, for the past few
years there has been a "Triangle Regional Calling Plan," with six bands
based on distance.  Originating from Chapel Hill, these bands with the
measured rate are:

band    distance    1st minute/each additional daytime rate.
home exchange        $.03/$.02 *
band 1    0-10 miles (no cities in this band)
band 2    11-16        $.10/$.07
band 3    17-22        $.12/$.08
band 4    23-30        $.14/$.09
band 5    31-40        $.19/$.12
band 6    41-55        $.23/$.14

The prefixes for each band are listed in the front of the phone book;
919-558 in RTP is band 2 from Chapel Hill.

* "home exchange" is all of the Chapel Hill prefixes, and is measured
at $.03/.02 with the "thrifty caller" plan, which is $5.50 per month
residential, $14.80 business non-key, $15.35 for key system, $26.35
PBX, and $13.45 ESSX.

Home exchange is flat rate with the "community caller" plan.  Per
month: $10.83 residential, $29.10, $29.65, $51.89, and $26.69
business, respectively.  Also, the Durham 408 prefix and RDU airport
840 prefixes are unlimited flat rate with this plan.

As for dialing plan, all of these "band calls" are dialed with seven
digits, at least from a residential line.  Here at work, on a PBX
behind a university Centrex line, all but the "home exchange" prefixes
have to be dialied 1+10 digits, (or with a calling card for personal
calls).  I'm not sure if this dialing plan difference is a function of
the phone company or of our PBX.


Steve Tell       [e-mail]    W: [phone]
Research Associate, Computer Science Department, UNC@Chapel Hill.
Who needs 3-D television when you've got live theatre? -me

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was: Re: Limits to Redialing?)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 00:07:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Les Reeves
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.)

Two points:

1) There are no TELCo-operated No. 1 ESS switches left in service anywhere.
   Frontier (nee Rochester Tel) turned off the last one last year.
   Or was it early January of this year?  I know it was a few months
   before May, 1995, because that would have made the 1 ESS lifetime
   an even 30 years (Succasunna cut over in May, 1965).  The 1A ESS
   will be lucky to make 25 years (2001).

2) Succasunna went to 1A ESS several years ago, prior to replacement
   by a 5ESS switch.  Maybe 1983??

   Both No. 1 and 1A ESS switches were designed with forty-year service
lives.  It's likely even the 1A ESS (and the remaining 2B ESS
switches) will be gone in ten years, but that's not due to any fault of
the switches.  (Maybe I'm just another in a long line of folks
predicting the "end of the 1A ESS is near".)  The economics of
switching have changed, and that drives system life more than anything
else.

   If I recall correctly, one of the hardest forty-year objectives was
in assuring that contact resistance would remain low, and contact
force stable, for several hundred circuit pack insertions over time.
This had to address the relaxation characteristics of the string
contacts on the circuit boards and the creep in plastic housings.

   These are not zero-force insertion MIL-spec connections -- hence
the need for 24K gold plating on the contacts.  And it forced the
circuit board to have the spring connector, not the backplane.
(Circuit boards don't have to last 40 years -- the backplane connector
is much harder to change, and so must last longer.)  The 1 ESS switch
could use the older mechanism of putting the springs in the connector
because of much wider contacts and contact spacing requirements.

>> [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]

   Chicago-Franklin was the first 1A ESS switch in service (Oct. 15,
1976).  And it's also been replaced (subsumed into an existing 5ESS
switch, if I remember correctly).  As have most of the first 12 1A ESS
switches I helped install (actually, I was mostly doing on-site
training of the installers).

> 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.

   Was this a new 5ESS switch, or did you just add the 1A customers to
an existing switch?  My understanding was that some of the Courtland
St.  5ESS switches are huge, replacing two or three other switches in the
building.

> This was the first #1ESS installed in Atlanta.  I believe it holds
> the record for longest continuous operation of a #1ESS in the US.

   That's only about ten years (1969-1978).  Succasunna cut over on
May 30, 1965, and couldn't have converted to 1A ESS until 1978 (cause
that's when we retrofitted the first 1A processor at Folsum Street in
San Francisco).  So Succasunna was a 1ESS for at least 12.5 years --
more likely 18 years or so.


Al Varney - just my opinion


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mentioned the conversions in downtown
Chicago in the middle 1970's. Were you around this area then doing some
of the work? Wasn't Chicago-Superior cut over before anything downtown?
Maybe my memory is failing me after twenty years. I do know it was
wonderful the day my phone (312-939 in the Wabash office) went ESS.
The old panel system or whatever it was absolutely was awful near the
end of its life. Rumors were that knowing it was on the way out, they
did absolutelty no routine maintainence on it for the last several
months it was in service.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 02:32:26 GMT
Organization: Nut Screws and Bolts - Film at 11
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has taken on an interesting negativity
campaign against the new Sprint Spectrum digital cellular service.

The advertisements mock the Sprint digital service primarily because
you can't use it outside of the greater Washington/Baltimore area.

They don't mention the unique features of Sprint Spectrum, such as
text messaging, two-way paging and others mentioned in the previous
post, plus the competive rates.

They do have a point, but they don't try to address the other
differences between the service.  I guess the campaign was either a
rush job or perhaps they could only find one problem with the new
Sprint service?

One new service that Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile just implemented was
service in the subway (the Metro, as we call it), though it's not
clear if the service is in the stations or in the tunnels themselves.

Quotes from the ads:

"[When roaming] you may as well be talking into a banana."
"Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has a very open system..."  Open system?
I guess they must be talking about cloners and scanning eavesdroppers.

Through all this, I'm waiting for radio stations in the tunnels,
myself.


Kriston     [e-mail]
Washington, DC  http://152.163.199.22/kjrehberg

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 06:27:00 -0600
From: david boettger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.


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

> 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

[...]

> 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 normal cell service. It seems to be no roaming
> service. The salesman told me the service is only available DC area
> now.

The service you describe is offered by APC - "American Personal
Communications", which is partially owned by Sprint, and marketed under
the Sprint name. APC was the first "PCS" operator to go live in the US
(last month). The technology is upbanded GSM/PCS1900.

Currently, you won't be able to use the phone anywhere but in the
Baltimore/DC area, but as more GSM-based 1900 MHz systems go live, you'll
be able to roam farther.

Something to consider is that GSM will not be the dominant standard at
1900 MHz. CDMA and IS-136 (DAMPS with digital control channel) will
cover more of the US than GSM (including Baltimore/DC), so if roaming
is of prime concern, GSM might not be the best choice.

If you're not going to roam much, the features are better than AMPS, and
the cost is the same as or lower than AMPS, go for it.


David Boettger
Richardson, TX
[e-mail]
BNR
214.684.1750

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

From: [e-mail] (Murray F Spiegel)
Subject: IVTTA Workshop - Call For Papers
Date: 8 Dec 1995 10:52:11 GMT
Organization: Speech Technology Research Group (Bellcore)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


                           CALL FOR PAPERS

                        THIRD IEEE WORKSHOP ON
                     INTERACTIVE VOICE TECHNOLOGY
                  FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS

                           =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                   September 30 - October 1, 1996
                      The AT&T Learning Center
                           300 N Maple Ave
                    Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 USA
             Sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society

The third of a series of IEEE workshops on Interactive Voice
Technology for Telecommunications Applications will be held at the
AT&T Learning Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, from September 30 -
October 1, 1996.  The conference venue is on 35 semi-rural acres and
is close enough (one hour) for side trips to New York City. Our workshop
will be held immediately before ICSLP '96 in Philadelphia, PA,
approximately 80 miles from our location.

The IVTTA workshop brings together application researchers planning to
conduct or who have recently conducted field trials of new
applications of speech recognition, speaker indentity verification,
text-to-speech synthesis over the telephone network.  The workshop
will explore promising opportunities for applications and attempt to
identify areas where further research is needed.


Topic areas of interest:

- ASR/verification systems for the cellular environment
- User interface / human factors of applying speech to telecommunications tasks
- Language modeling and dialog design for "audio-only" communication
- Experimental interactive systems for telecommunication applications
- Experience in deployment & assessment of deployed ASR/verification systems
- Text-to-speech applications in the network
- Speech enhancement for telecommunications applications
- Telephone services for the disabled
- Architectures for speech-based services

Prospective authors should submit one-page abstracts of no more than
400 words for review.  Submissions should include a title, authors'
names, affiliations, address, telephone and fax numbers and email
address if any.  Please indicate the topic area of interest closest to
your submission.  Camera-ready full papers (maximum of 6 pages) will
be published in the proceedings distributed at the workshop.  Due to
workshop facility constraints, attendance will be limited with
priority given to authors with accepted contributions.

For further information about the workshop, please contact:

Dr. Murray Spiegel, Bellcore, 445 South Street, Morristown, NJ 07960 USA
Phone: [phone];  Fax: [phone];  E-mail: [e-mail]

          For full information, visit our web page:
http://superbook.bellcore.com/IVTTA.html

          Send abstracts (fax or email preferred) to:

Dr. David Roe
IEEE IVTTA '96
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA
Phone: [phone];  Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

                            SCHEDULE

Abstracts due (400 words, maximum 1 page):          Mar 15, 1996
Notification of acceptance:                         May 1,  1996
Submission of photo-ready paper (maximum 6 pages):  Jun 15, 1996
Advance registration to be received before:         Jun 15, 1996
Late registration cut-off:                          Aug 30, 1996
IVTTA '96 Evening welcoming reception:              Sep 29, 1996
IVTTA '96 Conference:                          Sep 30 & Oct 1, 1996

                           WEB PAGE
Check our web page for late breaking news and developments:
         http://superbook.bellcore.com/IVTTA.html

                      REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Early registration (prior to June 15, 1996):
Day-only: $390
Full:  $650

Late registration (Jun 15 -  Aug 30, 1996):
Day-only:  $465
Full:  $725
IEEE members: charges are $25 less
Additional proceedings:  $25

Day-only registration includes all technical sessions, welcoming
reception, lunches, snacks, banquet, and a copy of the proceedings.
Full registration includes all of the above plus: dinner on evening of
arrival, breakfast both days, two nights lodging at the conference
center, and use of the center facilities (jogging track, exercise
center, pool, etc).

                        WORKSHOP COMMITTEE

GENERAL CHAIR                         REGISTRATION & FINANCE
Candace Kamm                          Dick Rosinski
AT&T Bell Laboratories                AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]                  [e-mail]

PROGRAM CHAIRS                        PUBLICITY
David Roe                             Murray Spiegel
AT&T Bell Laboratories                Bellcore
[e-mail]                     [e-mail]

George Vysotsky                       LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS
NYNEX Science & Technology            David Pepper
[e-mail]                    Bellcore
                                      [e-mail]
INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE
Sadaoki Furui, NTT                    PROCEEDINGS
Matthew Lennig, BNR                   Jay Naik
David Roe, AT&T Bell Laboratories     NYNEX Science & Technology
Christel Sorin, CNET                  [e-mail]
George Vysotsky, NYNEX

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #510
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec  8 09:52:02 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id JAA10883; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:52:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:52:02 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #511

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:52:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 511

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! (Mike P. Storke)
    Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Hendrik Rood)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Mark J Cuccia)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Tony Harminc)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Scott Plichta)
    Re: Ok, it's December 1st ...? (John Sullivan)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Jack Adams)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Ron Schnell)
    Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Forrette)
    Area Code 904/352 Split ([e-mail])
    Re: Citibank Screen Phone Pilot (Christoph F. Strnadl)

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] (Mike P. Storke)
Subject: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates!
Date: 8 Dec 1995 07:53:41 GMT
Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV


(Little brother to Pacific Bell, and still under the umbrella of Pac
Telesis) can't be the only intra-lata telco to be thinking about this.
Have fun with the hysteria and paranoia!

  I heard from a reliable source at Nevada Bell today (I'm not gonna
say who because I have the feeling this likely shouldn't have leaked
out, though it's importance to all dial-up data users is too much to
keep quiet about) that over the next couple of years, they will be
eliminating flat rate access.  The reason given is that data users
tend to tie up the switches too much.

  Normal design on a switch traditionally has been a four to one
ratio.  That is, a maximum of 25% of the lines coming into an office
can be switched before busy-out occurs.  However, lately, a three to
one ratio (i.e., 33%) has been being used, according to my source,
mainly because of switch load by dial-up data users.  This is logical:
not only do true dial-up users spend at least, typically, an hour
MINIMUM on line, but there are many circuits used like leased lines,
and thus are on ALL the time -- thus eliminating a switch that could be
used for other, voice traffic.

  My understanding is that business (of course) flat rate billing will
be phased out in a year to a year and a half, with residental
following some time later.  While this may seem a long way away for
you, in reality, it's probably much closer than you think.  As soon as
businesses (all internet providers, and most bbs's fall under this
classification on their phone lines) have to pay by the minute, guess
what -- SO WILL YOU!!  Furthermore, think how outrageously high your
phone bill will get.  BBS'S AND DIAL-UP INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL BE
ELIMINATED (or seriously cut back) BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T BE WILLING TO
PAY THE HIGH RATES!!

  Now I've been thinking about this for a while today.  My source has
the suggestion that tariffs for leased lines be reduced (he pointed
out the price of a T-1 is cheaper than a 56K line right now!) to
eliminate people using switched lines in a dedicated mode, and I
agree.  However, I'd go a little further by doing the following:

1. 2 wire full-duplex leased lines.  Most all modems are designed for
this, and ISDN is, too.  My knowledge of ISDN protocols is limited,
but I'd say that if the ability for 2 NT-1's to talk directly exists,
tie them together with "dark copper" (i.e, nothing but battery on the
line).  Same for modems.  If the loops are on different central
offices (CO's), do the necessary trunk terminations.  If a bank of
these devices (I'll call them "battery" and "trunk terminators",
respectively) can be installed, it's basically a "set and forget"
setup, and is certainly cheaper than installing new switches.

2. Raise flat rate tariffs.  I know no one likes this idea, but
dial-up will always be around, and metering data communications will
kill the industry for all but business customers (and even they will
be seriously affected, especially internet providers).  This flat-rate
line can be renamed a "modem line" or something, and, in bad areas,
can be conditioned.  Since most internet providers are probably using
Centrex, maybe making it some sort of "Classic Centrex" offering (the
same way ISDN is done now) would be the way to go -- a small,
dedicated switch for data and any other essentially non-switched,
high-use traffic.

The bottom line here is something that no telco anywhere in the world
can ignore: Using dial-up for data will not go away -- in fact, it
will only get worse.  Trying to make it go away by eliminating
flat-rate tariffing will only hurt or even shut down industries that
revolve around it, not to mention creating one of the biggest public
relations scandals since Intel's Pentium FPU bug.  It must be worked
around and dealt with.


*Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 * *Inet:
[e-mail] Reno, NV 89512-2712 *

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

From: [e-mail] (Hendrik Rood)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 21:15:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael Franz) wrote:

> I travel a lot and can get to my email from many places in the world
> via the internet, for a relatively low local access charge. However,
> when I want to check my answering machine at home, I need to make an
> expensive long distance call.

> Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software
> packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice
> messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? This
> would probably even be practical for every-day life, as I could get
> the messages from my home phone at work over email, instead of having
> to call home and check.

This looks as a good idea but just remind the costs. Sending out a one
Mbyte file over the international part of the Internet costs around $1
here via various IP-providers (we do have competition in that area!).

A phone converation of one minute on a voice mail system results in a
compressed file of 60 seconds * 8 kbit/s = 60 kByte. This means it is
indeed cheaper than calling international over continents (USA is around
$1 pro minute via call-back resellers). But just look at your connect
times (local calls are metered). And you see it is not so much cheaper
than voice.

> Any phone software developers listening?

I have heared rumours in the market about voice mail systems that can
do this type of messaging and distribution lists too. I think there is
not so much difference in costs between an Internet-solution and a
voice-mail system solution.

I just do not see voice-mail providers yet doing the store and
forwarding of voice mail on a nation-wide basis, but that might come
faster to the market than a lot of people think now.  Because this is
a really useful feature for the travelers market.


ir. Hendrik Rood
Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:41:23 CST
From: Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?


Over the weekend (Fri.Dec 1st thru Sun.Dec 3rd), I had several people
out-of-LATA/state (and even within the LATA but toll) try to call me
via AT&T, MCI, etc. For the most part, I got `out-of-area' on my ID
Box.

When I tried to call others via AT&T, MCI, etc. I was also coming up
as `out-of-area'. If I used *67 (11-67) to make my number `private', I
would still ring a line even if they had Anonymous Call Rejection, aka
`Block the Blocker' as well as come up `out-of-area'.

In early November, I had someone call me from Minneapolis via AT&T,
MCI, etc. MCI *was* delivering the number, and something like
MNNSTPMNZN1, MN for the name part of the ID box. AT&T just had
out-of-area.

Sunday afternoon, I called AT&T's repair dept (800-222-3000), and was
told that it was not them, but it was BellSouth that was not
delivering CID info to or from AT&T's switches. The repair rep. said
that she was getting complaints all weekend from people all over the
country but it was only for calls originating and/or terminating in a
BellSouth area.

Last night, I *did* receive the number, and the ratecenter (city) for
the name on the Minneapolis call, via AT&T & MCI. WilTel (or whatever
reseller is associated with WilTel, 10-555), Allnet, Sprint, and
others just came in as out-of-area.

There was a report on the local newsblock on WTIX Radio Monday morning
about inter-LATA/state Caller-ID. A BellSouth spokesman stated that if
the call *both* originated *and* terminated in BellSouth territory (where
CID is available on both switches), the *name* of the caller would be
displayed, but if both ends of the call weren't in BellSouth, only the
number would show (with the city/state displayed in place of the name).
It seems that a BellSouth database *is* checked for name if inter-LATA
but only if both ends of the call is BellSouth. I would hope that all
RBOC/LEC's would *eventually* allow each other to access each other's LIDB
databases for CID name, regardless of the IXC or LEC's involved in the call.

BTW, while BellSouth told me that `Block-the-Blocker' should
eventually be available to me at *no* additional charge, I am still
getting a `reorder' tone when I try to activate it with *77 (11-77),
or enter the deactivate code *87 (11-87). Usually, if a Custom-Calling
/CLASS/Vertical *XX code is not available in my switch (altho' the
code may have a `standard' Bellcore assignment), my #1AESS switch
gives me a recording "call cannot be completed as dialed -- please check
your _instruction_manual_ or call the _business_office_ for assistance"
and not a reorder.


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, 07 Dec 95 13:53:47 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?


Jim Hebbeln <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The calling party's name, once the IAM's calling number is received in
> the called party's CO, is obtained by the terminating CO by using
> SS7's Transaction CAPability (TCAP) to query the RBOC's Line
> Information DataBase (LIDB), which usually responds back in ~300-500
> milliseconds with the 15-character name that is transmitted to the
> CallerID unit (if the Presentation Indicator doesn't block it).  The
> LIDB is the same database that keeps track of each line's Calling Card
> PIN (if any), the line's class (Residence, Business, Coin,...),
> Collect and Third Number Billing blocking, and now CallerID name.

How many LIDBs are there?  I've been getting calling numbers on many
calls from the US for over a year, but never a name.  But I routinely
get names and numbers on calls from other telcos in Canada, e.g. on
calls from Vancouver and Calgary to my home in Toronto.  So is there
one US LIDB and one Canadian?  Is there no facility for a terminating
CO in one country to talk to the LIDB in the other?  If the same LIDB
holds calling card PINs, then it would seem doable, since international
calling card use generally works fine.

Are there separate Presentation Indicators for number and name?  Bell
Canada's tariff has the option of displaying PRIVATE NAME while still
transmitting the calling number.  Are they simply setting the name in
the LIDB to "PRIVATE NAME", or is there actually a presentation indicator
that would in theory allow the name through while blocking the number?

On the timing, does the terminating CO overlap the LIDB lookup with
starting the first ring ?  If it doesn't, then presumably calling name
delivery effectively adds 300-500 ms to call setup time.


Tony Harminc

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:03:31 EST
From: [e-mail] (Scott Plichta)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?


I live outside of Philadelphia (Bell Atlantic). I still get local
caller-ID, they didn't break anything.  When I call from work and
force the call using 10ATT, the caller ID shows up.  Calls from
Maryland (301)371-xxxx over AT&T, get the dreaded "NO CID NMBR", as
well as calls from Salt Lake City over MCI.  I know both switches are
SS7.

OK, so when is the next date that we can try this and watch it fail???
(and these guys want to deliver me 500 channels and pay-per-view ....
no thanks.)


Scott Plichta
Western Interactive Media
Wayne, PA 19087


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone wrote me and said the date for
full compliance had now been set forward to next June!   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:22:44 GMT
From: John Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ok, it's December 1  ..?


Well, once again I showed myself to be a lousy prophet. FCC apparently
did exactly what I didn't think they'd do.  Instead of issuing a
blanket stay, they issued a series of narrow waivers.  (I have to stop
doing this sort of thing in public before my subscribers realize I
don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and I'm out of a job).

This is from the 12/1 edition of my "sister publication" {Communications
Today} since, as I previously noted, I took 12/1 off. (To celebrate
Nationwide Caller ID Day, of course!)

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

NOT ALL CUSTOMERS WILL SEE INTERSTATE CALLER ID PASS-THROUGH

    At 5:30 p.m. yesterday (11/30), the FCC announced several
limited stays of its CC Docket No. 91-281 rules requiring the pass
through of Caller ID information between carriers beginning today
(12/1).  Customers will have to check with their local exchange and
long-distance carriers to see if interstate calling-party numbers
(CPNs) can be received at their Caller ID display units.

Availability may have been affected by one of the following stays:

  (1) Interexchange carriers with certain DSC Communications Corp.
[DIGI] and Northern Telecom [NT] switches have until March 31, 1996,
to comply;

  (2) California local exchange carriers (LECs), still embroiled in
state regulatory negotiations regarding effective consumer education
programs on Caller ID privacy options, have until June 1, 1996, to
comply; and

  (3) Telcos with switches lacking "custom local area signaling
service" capabilities have Jan. 1, 1997, to upgrade those switches to
recognize CPN blocking and unblocking requests.  In the meantime,
these telcos must suppress CPN transport to interconnecting carriers
from these switches.

Other limited stays, including one delaying the effectiveness of the
rule requiring the recognition of the *82 unblocking code for carriers
with Siemens Stromberg Carlson DCO switches, also were granted.

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

So basically, interstate Caller ID is now in place, but with so many
loopholes that it may be hard to tell for a while.

I haven't yet dug into this with anyone from FCC yet, but part 1
interests me.  I'm not sure if this means they can just skip the whole
thing, or if they're supposed to pass it where they can but are off
the hook for a given call if that call happens to pass through one of
these switches.  I would think that all the major IXCs could point to
an example of just about any switch you care to name _somewhere_ in
the network.

BTW, our esteemed editor said, regarding getting numbers on calls from
California:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you say this, because I have
> gotten calls from 415 where the area and number was shown, and some
> where it was 'private'. Maybe some carriers are free-lancing out there
> and doing things the way they want.      PAT]

CPUC is in fact currently investigating one of the smaller IXCs (I
_think_ it's Wiltel, but I may be misremembering) for passing the
numbers of customers in the state.  This apparently was taking place
well before 12/1.


John Sullivan

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Adams)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:20:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was curious to know how exactly do names appear in CID. Is the name
> drawn from the telco's billing records, or from a user-created directory
> in the CID box (like similar features in, for instance, the Nokia 2110
> cellular phone)?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From telco billing records, such as
> they are. We have read some rather funny 'names' here in recent
> weeks as this thread has progressed, such as Mr. Pay Phone.   PAT]

Rishab, Pat, and others,

The name actually comes from each originating LEC's Line Information
DataBase (LIDB for you acronym fans).

Jack Adams
AT&T Bell Labs:Rm 3E-137:185 Monmouth Parkway
W. Long Branch, NJ 07764-1994:[e-mail]
908.870.7051 908.870.7286 [FAX]
AN EXPERT:  Anyone >50 miles from home...Alan Ableson

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 08:52:09 EST
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?


Well, here in BellSouth land (Miami, FL) I have been receiving
out-of-state CID properly from all of the majors except Sprint.  I've
had people call from several different states, through several
different carriers, and Sprint definitely isn't working.


Ron

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

From: [e-mail] (Forrette, Steve)
Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement
Date: 7 Dec 1995 20:24:42 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn


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

[ original message about incoming-only payphone deleted ]

> Perhaps they meant no outgoing COIN calls. That makes 'sense' in a
> non-sensical sort of way as part of the War on Drugs. There are lots
> of payphones in Chicago which are restricted to 'no coins after dark'.

There was a pair of payphones (genuine US West no lesS) at a local gas
station here in Seattle that were disabled after dark for a period of
time.  And I mean completely disabled.  There was even a sign posted
above the phones in the booth that said "These phones disabled after
10pm.  If you have an emergency and need to call 911, please see the
gas station attendant inside."  I couldn't believe it!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am going to take a wild guess and
suggest US West had nothing to do with that at all ... that the
phones were being killed by the proprietor of the gas station for
whatever reason. I doubt that US West has any tariff on file at
all which calls for that situation and a sign hanging over the
phone telling people that 'if you need to call 911, see the
attendant inside.' It sounds like some monkey-business with the
phones by the people who run the station.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 01:12:17 -0500
Subject: Area Code 904/352 Split


A Bellsouth ad on 12-3-95 in the Tampa paper announces that the split
of 904 into 904 and 352 is effective that date (12-3-95) with the
transition period extending thru 5-20-96.  Test calls can be made to
[phone] toll free.  Pretty standard ad except that in the list
of 904 NXX's changing to 352 they show an NXX of 065.  My attempts to
call (352) 065-xxxx from (813) 689 result in the recording: We're
sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ...

Any idea what 065 is or is this a goof from Bellsouth Public Affairs?


Dick   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Christoph F. Strnadl)
Subject: Re: Citibank Screen Phone Pilot
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 95 11:12:29 GMT
Organization: Philips C&P Austria/VAN Services


[e-mail] (Robert D. Morse) wrote:

> 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:

You may try to contact either Citibank or PHS Inc. (Philips Home
Services) directly:

   Citibank:  Ms Laurie A Fettinger, Director Access Services
              New York, NY, [phone]

   PHS Inc:   Ms S. Vladeck, Director Marketing
              8 New England Executive Park
              Burlington, MA 01803
          [phone]


Christoph F. Strnadl, Product Mgmt/VANS
PHILIPS C&P / VAN Services
Tel: [phone] FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #511
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec  8 17:18:16 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id RAA17219; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 17:18:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 17:18:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #512

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Dec 95 17:17:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 512

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    You Ought to be in Pictures (Kelly Breit)
    Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility (Robert Wolf)
    New Wiring Suggestions (Barry Roomberg)
    Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (Shri Balachandran)
    Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (Michael G. Reed)
    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (J. Grout)
    Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Robert Wolf)
    Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Roger Wells)
    Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (Kevin Paul Herbert)
    Re: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services (Mike Morris)
    Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Tayeb Damerji)
    Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Robert Wolf)
    Re: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes (Scott Robert Dawson)

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, 08 Dec 1995 14:54:01 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Kelly Breit)
Subject: You Ought to be in Pictures


For further information, contact: <[e-mail]>

"You Ought to be in Pictures"

Rick Smolan and the team that created the "Day in the Life", "From
Alice to Ocean" and "Passage to Vietnam" photography books, want to
shoot you and your friends!  They're looking for the best examples
about how Cyberspace is changing peoples lives all over the world and
if they like your story they may send one of the world's top
photographers to shoot pictures of you on Thursday, February 8, 1996.
On that day over 1000 photographers armed with digital cameras will be
dispatched around the globe to show how Cyberspace is beginning to
reach out and affect peoples lives. It's going to be one of the
largest photographic projects ever done and certainly one of the
biggest collaborative internet projects.

The Focus of "24 Hours in Cyberspace: Painting on the Walls of the
Digital Cave" will be on the human stories behind the technology; the
new ways in which we work, play, learn, conduct business and interact.
These photographs will be transmitted digitally back to project
headquarters in San Francisco that same day, where an international
team of 80 editors (representing {Time, Newsweek, Life, National
Geographic} etc), plus designers and programmers will assemble a unique
"instant" 24-hour World Wide Web site.  The goal is to produce
unprecedented online, real-time photojournalism on a global scale.

The idea is to use the power of the Internet to let people around the
world both contribute and view images and stories of things that
happened since they woke up that day.

The goal here is NOT to show people sitting at computer terminals and
it's not about collecting lots of random "bits".  The project is
driven by carefully researched assignments and is both photograpic and
edit driven.  The goal is to show in photographs and words how peoples
lives are being affected as a results of being wired.

The leads can be about you, a friend, something you read about that was
cool, etc.  A team of professional journalists on the 24 Hours staff will
follow up any interesting leads.

If you think you've got a great story to tell and would like to either
submit an assignment idea or learn more about how you can participate
in this cool project please send your ideas to: [e-mail] or
check out: http://www.Cyber24.com.  Please also feel free to pass this
along to people you know.

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:50:53 -0800
From: Robert Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility


A couple of weeks ago you posted a request for information about
equipment that will permit your tech support staff to roam about the
office and receive incoming calls.  Several companies make wireless
systems that work specifically with their own telephone systems.  Some
of the companies that provide this type of equiment include AT&T,
Northern Telecom and Ericsson, among others.  There is at least one
company, SpectraLink, that manufactures a wireless system which works
with most installed telephone systems.

All the above wireless systems consist of three components (1)
Controllers that connect to the host telephone system, (2) Base
Stations that are hard-wired to the Controller and are distributed
throughout the facility, and (3) Portable Telephones which are light
and typically small enough to fit in a pocket.

Most of these systems are a bit pricey, but the specific cost of the
system will depend on the size of the facility, how many Base Stations
you need to cover the building(s), and the number of Portable
Telephones you need.

I sent this via e-mail since Patrick Townson screens all postings to the
newsgroup and seems reluctant to post short replies to people who request
information.


Robert Wolf       Millennium Telecom
Consulting in Voice, Video, Data
URL: http://keyconnect.com/millennium
Voice: 818-790-7339


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish it were possible to print more
of the shorter replies which come in, but these days it is not even
possible to print all the original material which arrives. I may be
a victim of my own success with this Digest; two hundred pieces of
mail daily with submissions is not uncommon, and of necessity I hope
that people who can answer questions for other readers with a very
short reply (such as providing a contact name at a company or an
address) will do so directly to provide the fastest response. I am
looking at ways to be able to print more here, but there is no
immediate solution. If you send something in and it is not published,
but you really feel it would be of interest to a large number of
readers, *please resubmit it clearly marked *duplicate posting*
and ask for reconsideration. I will try to accomodate everyone I
can. Seriously, the volume of mail here has become horrendous.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Roomberg)
Subject: New Wiring Suggestions
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 18:58:51 GMT
Organization: Information Access Center


We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired
from scratch.  Current proposal:

Everyone get a four jack outlet.  Jacks will be RJ-11.
Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs.

1 Jack - Telephone
1 Jack - RS232 serial to Unix system.
1 Jack - Token ring - Novell
1 Jack - free for future use .

Parent corporation says to use Level 3 for the Telephone and RS232
jacks, Level 5 for others.  We really have no plans to "use" level 5
for high speed, but it'll be nice to have it. Also, while everyone
SAYS that the cost difference between 5 and 3 is minimal, would there
be a reason to use ALL level 5 as opposed to eight wires?

We'd like ALL jacks to come into a patch panel, and then patch
to phone/Unix serial/Token ring panels.

We'd like all the in-wall wiring to be the same, ie: no 2-3 pin
switches for serial, and then handle any differences in either the
hoods at the PCs or patch panel cables.  This way we could use a
single wall outlet for four of the same type of connections, as long
as we are not relying on the Level 5 aspect.

We gonna start cheap (most likely) concerning wall panel jumper
blocks, and if we ever really use the Level 5 we'll upgrade those as
needed.

Anything I should be looking for from the contractor, cable type,
distances, twist type (??), or whatever?

Are there any FAQs for this group that'll answer these question and
educate a newbie?

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

From: Shri Balachandran <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 11:44:54 -0600
Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System


A few points cellular providers would definitely NOT want to tell
you in their advertisement.

* GSM gives terminal mobility using a unique concept called
  SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card. Pick up any GSM phone
  and it becomes u'r subscriber id.

* GSM uses encryption. So security is excellent. Saves phone
  company and subscribers millions.

* APC's current PCS cost is less than what the cellular providers
  advt. No wonder the RBOCs without an active GSM n/w are *mad*.

* FCC has currently auctioned out only 2 bands. C and D band operators
  would cover up the rest of the areas to probably give seamless
  GSM roaming.

* In addition Ericsson and Nokia will be coming out with dual mode
  phones which will act as a GSM phone in the GSM area and as a
  DAMPS phone in other cellular area. This will also abet seamless
  roaming (all over US and even internationally, especially Europe).


Shri Balachandran
Ericsson Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael G. Reed)
Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System
Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:59:28 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory


[e-mail] wrote:

> Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has taken on an interesting negativity
> campaign against the new Sprint Spectrum digital cellular service.

> The advertisements mock the Sprint digital service primarily because
> you can't use it outside of the greater Washington/Baltimore area.

I noticed this also ... not being a big fan of BA (for reasons of
their ISDN tarrif), I was not impressed with their PCS bashing.  I'm
currently a BA cell user, but am rapidly considering a PCS phone
replacement.

> One new service that Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile just implemented was
> service in the subway (the Metro, as we call it), though it's not
> clear if the service is in the stations or in the tunnels themselves.

Both (at least for some of the metro lines -- I know red line is covered
end to end and I think orange is as well) -- they ran a pair of split
coax cables through the system to external transmitters/receivers to act
as a waveguide.  Look for a pair of thick (about 1") white wires in the
metro lines/stations (usually on the walls around human level).


Michael

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Grout)
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: 08 Dec 1995 18:16:16 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric
Ewanco) writes:

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

>> 3)  Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic
>> Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines
>> which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not
>> presubscribed to any interexchange carrier.  This charge is in addition to
>> the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland
>> and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
>> Virgin Islands.  These charges are effective on December 1, 1995.

> This is so bogus!  It really angers me how they are trying to evade
> the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary
> restrictions on those who do not presubscribe.  I really don't
> understand why they want to do it, because it brings them more
> business.  It is like they are attempting to discourage people from
> choosing AT&T freely.  And why does it only apply to residential
> lines, not business lines?

When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing
period,  which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided
900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly
bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for
subsequent calls.

However, since AT&T gets something like $.50 for handling a one-minute call to
a 900 number (to cover network services, billing, etc.), a $.40 surcharge on
non-subscriber calls sounds like more than is needed to recover the costs of
billing casual users.

Perhaps a $.25 surcharge would be fairer.


John R. Grout    Center for Supercomputing R & D        [e-mail]
Coordinated Science Laboratory     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

From: Robert Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers?
Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:31:13 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.


[e-mail] (Bob Izenberg) wrote:

> I was asked an infamous Kid's Question the other day, and as I
> don't know the answer I'm putting it out to the Digest readership.  If
> you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers,
> do you still pay for the calls?

> In pondering this procedural matter, I wondered how prevalent
> this sort of thing might be.  We have every other sort of
> irresponsible, money-driven behavior these days.  Surely this is a
> natural for the true Creatures of (Darkness in) the Nineties among
> us...  :-(

There are more Creatures of Darkness thay you might suspect who are
actively involved in getting someone else to pay for their  phone calls.
The typical approach is something like this:

They dial in on a business' 800 number, trick the company's phone system
into transfering them to an outside line, and then dial a number (usually
an international call).  This "service" is sold as discount international
calling to people without phone service or people of limited means.  The
charge for the 800 number and outbound calls is billed to the business.

This type of activity currently costs business about $4 Billion annually.
The long distance carriers have included in their tariffs (making it
enforceable in court) that calls originating frpm a business' phone system
are the responsibility of the business.  This clause includes 800 number
calls.

Is AT&T serious about collecting for these illegal calls?  It has sued its
customers (and won).  Occassionally, AT&T and MCI and Sprint will write
off these illegal charges the first time they show up on a phone bill, if
the amount is not too large.


Robert Wolf             member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants
Millennium Telecom      http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium
818-790-7339;           Fax [phone]
Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger Wells)
Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse
Date: 8 Dec 1995 18:43:56 GMT
Organization: U.S. Intelco Networks, Inc.


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Someone I know who runs a
> BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users.
> When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users
> (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit
> phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people
> already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not.
> He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the
> same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different
> than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly,
> 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to
> place this call.'

Does he assume nobody ever calls from a private PBX?


Roger Wells  (speaking only for myself)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He makes allowances for that. If the
ID given is 'out of area' or 'unavailable' he simply takes their
word for whatever they give as long as it 'looks like' a phone
number based on examples he has given the computer of things that
cannot be a legitimate phone number such as '911' or 000-0000.
After getting your note, I asked him again about this and he said
he no longer flatly rejects them as users. He tells them they will
be contacted by phone at the number *they gave* -- not the number the
caller-ID displayed -- and given their password verbally. Of course
the truthful ones get their password later the same day or the next
day; the liars get to sit there with egg on their face, or else wait
a discrete period of a few days and call back giving honest numbers
for his records. Very clever ploy, I think.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Paul Herbert)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 12:32:39 -0800
Organization: Cisco Systems, Ashland, OR


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bud
Couch) wrote:

> That's funny, I could have sworn that the entire telephone network running
> T1 used unshielded cables. May not be what you were thinking of, but it
> certainly qualifies as a "real-world large-scale structured cabling system".

Interesting you would bring this up.

I just had a T-1 circuit installed yesterday. The circuit was delivered
via HDSL (via a ADC box), and the Telco used CAT-3 STP for the HDSL side
of the circuit (incoming drop to HDSL interface), and used CAT-3 UTP for
the T-1 side (HDSL interface to junction box for my wiring).

I did my own internal wiring using CAT-5 UTP to extend the demarc up to my
office. When Sprint came out to install their FT1 CSU/DSU (also an
ADC/Kentrox unit), the installer used Cat-3 STP between the RJ48 that I
installed and the CSU/DSU, and told me that I really should have used STP
for the premises wiring.

Well, who's right? US West used UTP for the two-foot run to the demarc
(T-1 side), although they used STP for the HDSL side. Sprint says that
they (and I) should have used STP everywhere. I've always thought that you
were only supposed to use STP when you had a specific problem with AC
noise.

The six-pair drop that carries my HDSL service (and other things) is
also shielded, as is all underground drop wire (my service entrance is
underground via 2" conduit).

My circuit checks out clean, so it is obviously happy with this mix of STP
and UTP. The extension from the demarc is about 60', doesn't run parallel
to any power, and runs parallel to some 10-base-T ethernets, digital
telephones, and analog telephones.


Kevin

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:30:38 GMT


Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]> writes:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are
>> simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it?  I wonder
>> if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance?  PAT]

> To clarify the FCC Order: telcos who are EQUIPPED to transport Calling
> Party Number MUST DO SO.  They also, at minimum, must support *67 and
> *82 as standard per call options (blocking, unblocking).  In states
> where Per Line Blocking is permitted, telcos may continue to offer
> that service.

> Unfortunately today, there are plenty of telcos out there who are NOT
> equipped with SS7/ISUP or switch software needed to deal with
> transport of Calling Party Number.

> The FCC Order won't result in immediate gratification here, but will
> result in significant improvements in Caller ID service going forward.

I called Pacific Bell yesterday about a billing glitch, and in the
process I asked about Caller ID here in the Los Angeles area
(specifically 818-447-xxxx and 818-445-xxxx), and the customer
dis-service rep giggled and said "The technical people are working on
it, we hope to have it working by June of '96".  I didn't have time to
push it.


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] (Tayeb Damerji)
Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility
Date: 8 Dec 1995 16:53:54 GMT
Organization: Interactive Telecom, Inc. [phone]


Myron Jackson ([e-mail]) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, Robohn Scott
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 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.

You should check the PCS products from Northern Telecom. I don't
rememeber the exact name of the product but I know that it has been
used in some hotels and hospitals to do the same functions that you
describe.


Tayeb Damerji            Tel.[phone]
Interactive Telecom Inc.        Fax.[phone]
204 -190 Colonnade Rd           Email: [e-mail]
Nepean , Ont K2E 7J5, Canada    Web: http://www.intertel.net

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

From: Robert Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility
Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:02:29 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.


[e-mail] (Steve Schear) wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 95 08:13:00 PST, Robohn Scott <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 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.

> One solution is to install a 'private' cellular system in your
> building.  Many local carriers offer this option.  This is, however,
> not a cheap solution.

> Or you might contact Uniden America.  They have a line of 900 MHZ
> Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum phones, both consumer and commerical
> models which attach to PBX.  A model with roaming capability has been
> discussed.  I don't know if they ever manufactured it.

> Contact:
>        Tony Mirabelli
>        VP Marketing
>        Uniden America
>        4700 Amon Carter Blvd.
>        Fort Worth, TX 76155
>        817-858-3553

Several companies make wireless adjuncts to in-place phone systems.
The major phone system manufacturers, Northern Telecom, AT&T, Ericssonn
all make wireless adjuncts that are compatible with their particularr
systems.  SpectraLink makes a generic wireless system that works with
most in-place systems.  All of them tend to be a bit pricey at this time.


Robert Wolf              member: Society of Telecommunication Consultantss
Millennium Tele          http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium
818-790-7339             Fax [phone]
Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Robert Dawson)
Subject: Re: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 05:20:27 GMT
Organization: InterLog Internet Services


Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]> wrote:

[snip]

> Quebec originally had two areacodes assigned in 1947 -- 418 and 514.
> About ten years later, 819 was added (around 1957). 514 (Montreal
> area) is not indicated in Bellcore's lists as projected to exhaust,
> but since 514 serves a major metro area, it could need another
> areacode over the next five years (IMHO).

[snip]

Quebec may not need a new NPA as quickly as might be thought ... the
separatistes may not have won the referendum on 30 October, but it was
_very_ close. Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois fully intend to try
again.

I have seen a number of reports in the Toronto papers (the Star, the
Sun, and the Globe & Mail) about continued tension there. Apparently
there is a continuing outflow of Anglophones (that is, English-speaking
Quebeckers), mostly in the direction of Toronto. Some companies, too,
are still leaving. The national railway (no longer state-owned), for
instance, has announced plans to move its headquarters to Calgary.

I would not be surprised if the metropolitan Montreal area actually
loses population. As late as (I think) the 1960s, Montreal was larger
than Toronto and has a greater proportion of large national company
headquarters and population. After the 1976 election, in which the
Parti Quebecois was elected for the first time, a lot of companies and
Anglo people left.

The headquarters of the Bank of Montreal is the tallest building in
Toronto (ignoring the CN Tower).  They've been trickling out ever
since ... now The Greater Toronto Area is 4.5 million plus and the
metropolitan Montreal area is almost certainly under 3.5 million.
(Correct me if I'm wrong ...)


Scott Robert Dawson     Life is a learning ground...
[e-mail]   http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a shame that whole scene is up
there. I can easily sympathize with both sides, and understand the
positions of both sides. If as you point out, people are moving out
of Montreal and Quebec, that is unfortunate also. On its own merits,
regardless of where one might stand on the politics involved, the
city of Montreal is a beautiful place, and Quebec is likewise very,
very lovely. If they cannot resolve their differences, not only
will the people of Quebec lose, but so will all of Canada; indeed
North America as well. I've said before and will reiterate my own
position again that this is an issue for the people of Quebec to
resolve with their (existing) federal government. It is not some-
thing for the people in the USA to stick their noses into or get
involved in ... still, it hurts to think about it, even on this
side of the border doesn't it ...  Do have a nice weekend one and
all ... we will meet here again on Monday I suppose.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #512
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Dec 13 16:37:51 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id QAA04264; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:37:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:37:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #513

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:26:53 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 513

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Country Codes History (Dave Leibold)
    Group Member Publishes International Telecom Primer (Rob Frieden)
    Shame Telstra Shame (Peter Charles Tonoli)
    Cellular Airtime Resellers (Michael B. Chernoff)
    Re: Frontier Offering Cellular Service (Charles Buckley)
    Programming Information Needed For NEC P-110/120 (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    New Area Code in San Francisco in 1997 (Linc Madison)
    Phone *XX Codes? (John Wilkerson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 21:46 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Country Codes History


Country Codes History 10 December 1995
David Leibold ([e-mail])

This is an attempt to trace the development of ITU's (formerly
CCITT's) country codes assignments over the years. Information was
gleaned from vintage ITU/CCITT "Books" (i.e. the Recommendations which
are the international telecommunications standards), and whatever else
was available.

There will be numerous details to be filled in (dates of changes,
introductions, circumstances etc). Additional or updated information
to this end would be welcome.

Document History...

10 December 1995 - inaugural edition

Format...

This file is ordered first by time (when country codes were established,
changed, deleted, etc) then within each particular time by country code.
The initial list of 1964 is shown; only the changes are listed therafter.

-------
1 9 6 0
-------

The 1960 CCITT Red Book listed a set of codes for Europe that was the
precursor for the international telephone country codes.  Whether this
was ever available for subscriber use is unknown; this could have been
intended for operator dialing (such as was the case initially within
the North American Numbering Plan, prior to the introduction of
automatic direct dialing).

That list went as follows (* represents a code that remains in use in
today's country code plan):

00 to 19 - special codes - special routings, semi-automatic services,
           direct routes between countries, situations where digits
           of a destination number are not analysed, etc.
20 - Poland
21 - Algeria (Fr.) [* today is 213]
22 - Belgium
23 - Austria
24 - (unassigned)
25 - Finland
26 - Arabia
27 - Cyprus
28 - Bulgaria
29 - Gibraltar
30 - Greece *
31 - Egypt (U.A. Rep.)
32 - (unassigned)
33 - France *
34 - Israel
35 - Hungary
36 - Turkey
37 - Lebanon
38 - Norway
39 - Italy *
40 - Libya
41 - Jordan
42 - Portugal
43 - Malta
44 - Great Britain *
45 - (unassigned)
46 - Sweden *
47 - Rumania
48 - Morocco
49 - Germany * [presumably West Germany at that time]
50 - Spain
51 - (unassigned)
52 - Ireland
53 - (unassigned)
54 - Syria (U.A. Rep.)
55 - Netherlands
56 - (unassigned)
57 - Czechoslovakia
58 - (unassigned)
59 - Albania
60 - Luxembourg
61 - Denmark
62 - Tunisia
63 - Yugoslavia
64 - Iceland
65 - (unassigned)
66 - Switzerland
67 - (unassigned)
68, 69 - USSR
70 to 79 - European Republics / USSR
80 to 89 - spare codes
90 to 99 - intercontinental traffic

-------
1 9 6 4
-------

The 1964 CCITT Blue Book listed the initial country codes list for
international dialing, arranging the codes according to their world
zones. These corresponded to the initial digit of the one- to three-digit
country codes; Europe got two zones (3 & 4) due to a high number of
countries requiring two-digit country codes. The initial listing was
referred to as Recommendation E.29.

That initial country code list was as follows (country codes not listed
were spare at the time):

World Zone 1 (North America - country code 1 - note some of the nations that
were to be included, but were since assigned World Zone 5 country codes):

Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
French Antilles, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands
Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, USA, US Virgin Islands.

World Zone 2 (Africa):

20  - United Arab Republic
21  - Maghreb (integrated numbering plan): Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia
220 - Gambia
221 - Senegal
222 - Mauritania
223 - Mali
224 - Guinea
225 - Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire)
226 - Upper Volta
227 - Niger
228 - Togolese Republic
229 - Dahomey
231 - Liberia
232 - Sierra Leone
233 - Ghana
234 - Nigeria
235 - Chad
236 - Central African Republic
237 - Cameroon
238 - Cape Verde Island
239 - St Thomas & Prince
241 - Gabon
242 - Congo (Brazzaville)
243 - Congo (Leopoldville)
244 - Angola
245 - Portuguese Guinea
249 - Sudan
250 - Rwanda
251 - Ethiopia
252 - Somalia
253 - French Somaliland
254 - Kenya
255 - Tanzania
256 - Uganda
257 - Burundi
258 - Mozambique
260 - Northern Rhodesia
261 - Malagasy Republic
262 - Reunion
263 - Southern Rhodesia
264 - Territory of SW Africa
265 - Malawi
266 - Basutoland
267 - Bechuanaland
268 - Swaziland
269 - Comores
27  - South Africa

World Zone 3 & 4 (Europe):

30  - Greece
31  - Netherlands
32  - Belgium
33  - France
34  - Spain
350 - Gibraltar
351 - Portugal
352 - Luxembourg
353 - Ireland
354 - Iceland
356 - Malta
357 - Cyprus
36  - Turkey
37 -  [Note: not assigned until 1966]
38  - Yugoslavia
39  - Italy
401 - Finland
402 - Hungary
403 - Bulgaria
404 - Romania
405 - Albania
41  - Switzerland
42  - Czechoslovakia
43  - Austria
44  - Great Britain
45  - Denmark
46  - Sweden
47  - Norway
48  - Poland
49  - Germany (West)


World Zone 5 (South America):

(50, 51, 52 - unassigned in 1964)
53  - Cuba
54  - Argentina
55  - Brazil
56  - Chile
57  - Colombia
58  - Venezuela
591 - Bolivia
592 - British Guiana
593 - Ecuador
594 - French Guiana
595 - Paraguay
596 - Peru
597 - Surinam (Netherlands)
598 - Uruguay

Zone 6 (Oceania, Australia, etc):

60  - Malaysia
61  - Australia
62  - Indonesia
63  - Philippines
64  - New Zealand
65  - (unassigned in 1964)
66  - Thailand
672 - Portuguese Timor
675 - Papua New Guinea
676 - Tonga
677 - British Solomon Isles
678 - New Hebrides
679 - Fiji
682 - Guam
683 - Western Samoa
684 - American Samoa
685 - Cook Islands
687 - New Caledonia
688 - Niue
689 - French Polynesia
69  - (unassigned in 1964)

World Zone 7 - USSR (only country code 7)

World Zone 8 - Eastern Asia

80  - (unassigned in 1964)
81  - Japan
82  - Korea
83  - (unassigned in 1964)
84  - Vietnam
852 - Hong Kong
853 - Macao
855 - Cambodia
856 - Laos
86  - China
87  - (unassigned in 1964)
88  - (unassigned in 1964)
89  - (unassigned in 1964)

World Zone 9 (Western Asia, Middle East):

90  - (unassigned in 1964)
91  - India
92  - Pakistan
93  - Afghanistan
94  - Ceylon
95  - Burma
961 - Lebanon
962 - Jordan
963 - Syria
964 - Iraq
965 - Kuwait
966 - Saudi Arabia
967 - Yemen
969 - Aden
972 - Israel
975 - Hadramut
977 - Nepal
98  - Iran

-------
1 9 6 8
-------

Changes in the 1968 CCITT White Book ... the list is now listed as
Recommendation E.161 / Q.11. Changes listed in order of country code:

  1   - Antigua (territory added)
      - Barbados (territory added)
      - British Virgin Islands (territory added)
      - Cayman Islands (territory added)
      - Dominica (territory added)
      - Grenada (territory added)
      - Montserrat (territory added)
      - St Kitts (territory added)
      - St Lucia (territory added)
      - St Pierre & Miquelon (territory added)
      - St Vincent (territory added)
      x Guatemala (CHANGED to country code 500)
      x Mexico (CHANGED to country code 52)
      x Netherlands Antilles (CHANGED to country code 599)
  240 - Equitorial Guinea (NEW)
  243 - Congo (Dem. Rep. of the) (Name change)
  259 - Zanzibar (NEW)
  260 - Zambia (Name Change)
  263 - Rhodesia (Name Change)
  266 - Lesotho (Name Change)
  267 - Botswana (Name Change)
  269 - Comoro Islands (Name Change)
  355 - Albania (NEW - changed from 405)
  358 - Finland (NEW - changed from 401)
  359 - Bulgaria (NEW - changed from 403)
  36  x Turkey (CHANGED to 90)
  36  - Hungary (NEW - changed from 402)
  37  - East Germany (added - announced in ITU Notification #980 of
        10 March 1966)
  40  - Romania (NEW - changed from 404)
  500 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 1)
  52  - Mexico (NEW - changed from 1)
  599 - Netherlands Antilles (NEW - changed from 1)
  65  - Singapore (NEW)
  681 - Wallis and Futuna (NEW)
  686 - Gilbert & Ellice Islands (NEW)
  90  - Turkey (NEW - changed from 36)
  968 - Sultanate of Muscat & Oman (NEW)
  969 - Southern Yemen (Name Change)
  971 - Trucial States (NEW)
  973 - Bahrain (NEW)
  974 - Qatar (NEW)
  976 - Mongolia (NEW)

[Notes: ITU Notifications 992, 995 and 998 of 1967 announced the new
country codes 968 (Muscat & Oman), 971 (Trucial States), 974 (Qatar);
ITU Notification #984 of 10 July 1966 announced 973 (Bahrain). No
official reasons were found for the many country changes between
1964 and 1968 information.]

-------
1 9 7 2
-------

Changes in the 1972 Green Book for E.161/Q.11:

World Zone 1:

  1   x British Honduras (CHANGED to 501)
      x Costa Rica (CHANGED to 506)
      x El Salvador (CHANGED to 503)
      x Honduras (CHANGED to 504)
      x Nicaragua (CHANGED to 505)
      x Panama (CHANGED to 507)
  21  x "Maghreb" integrated numbering plan divided into separate country
         code assignments that follows ...
  210 - Morocco
  211 - Morocco
  212 - Morocco [only this country code used today for Morocco]
  213 - Algeria [only this country code used today for Algeria]
  214 - Algeria
  215 - Algeria
  216 - Tunisia [only this country code used today for Tunisia]
  217 - Tunisia
  218 - Libya [only this country code used today for Libya]
  219 - Libya
  243 - Zaire (Name Change)
  253 - Afars Alssas (Fr. Terr) (Name Change)
  500 x (CHANGED to 502)
  501 - British Honduras (NEW - was in 1)
  502 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 500)
  503 - El Salvador (NEW - was in 1)
  504 - Honduras (NEW - was in 1)
  505 - Nicaragua (NEW - was in 1)
  506 - Costa Rica (NEW - was in 1)
  507 - Panama (NEW - was in 1)
  51  - Peru (NEW - changed from 596)
  596 x Peru (CHANGED to 51)
  671 - Guam (NEW - changed from 682)
  682 x Guam (CHANGED to 671)

-------
1 9 7 6
-------

In the 1976 Orange Book, these changes appear:

  248 - Seychelles (NEW)
  509 - Haiti (NEW)
  590 - Guadeloupe (NEW)
  596 - Martinique (NEW - originally assigned to Peru)
  673 - Brunei (NEW)
  674 - Nauru (NEW)
  87x - (NEW - reserved for mobile/maritime assignments)
  880 - Bangladesh (NEW)
  978 - Dubai (UAE) (NEW)
  979 - Abu Dhabi (UAE) (NEW)

-------
1 9 8 0
-------

The Yellow Boo in 1980 had this:

  253 - Djibouti (Name Change)
  672 x (Portugues Timor DELETED)
  682 - Cook Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guam)
  683 x Western Samoa (CHANGED to 685)
  683 - Niue (NEW - changed from 688)
  685 x Cook Islands (CHANGED to 682)
  685 - Western Samoa (NEW - changed from 683)
  688 x Niue (CHANGED to 683)
  688 - Tuvalu (NEW)
  960 - Maldives (NEW)
  978 x (Dubai DELETED)
  979 x (Abu Dhabi DELETED)

[Notes: no reasons found for the shuffling of 6xx series country codes;
no information on the deletions of 978 (Dubai) and 979 (Abu Dhabi)
although these probably became part of 971 (UAE, originally listed
as "Trucial States").]

-------
1 9 8 4
-------

The 1984 book made some further changes:

  1   x St Pierre & Miquelon (CHANGED to 508)
  246 - Diego Garcia (NEW)
  298 - Faroe Islands (Denmark) (NEW)
  299 - Greenland (Denmark) (NEW)
  500 - Falkland Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guatemala)
  508 - St Pierre and Miquelon (NEW - was in 1)
  670 - Marianna Islands (NEW)
  672 - Australian Territories (NEW - originally assigned to Portuguese Timor)
  680 - Palau (NEW)
  690 - Tokelau (NEW)
  691 - Federated States of Micronesia (NEW)
  692 - Marshall Islands (NEW)
  850 - North Korea (NEW - South Korea retains 82)

-------------------
A f t e r   1 9 8 4
-------------------

The following country codes were added, changed, had country names
changes, or were otherwise noteworthy since 1984. Dates were included
if they were available.

The country codes are presently assigned under Recommendation E.164
(formerly E.163, in turn E.161/Q.11, in turn E.29).

  226 - Burkina Faso (Name Change)
  229 - Benin (Name Change)
  230 - Mauritius (NEW - year of introduction unknown)
  239 - Sao Tome & Principe (Name Change or use of domestic language form)
  245 - Guinea-Bissau (Name Change)
  247 - Ascension (NEW - year of introduction unknown)
  259 - Zanzibar (although assigned in 1968, routing via Tanzania
        country code 255 had been in effect for many years, and may
        still be in effect)
  261 - Madagascar (name change from Malagasy Rep.)
  263 - Zimbabwe (name change from Rhodesia)
  264 - Namibia (name change from Territory of SW Africa)
  269 - Comoros & Mayotte (Mayotte added - year unknown)
  290 - St Helena (NEW - year of introduction unknown)
  291 - Eritrea (NEW - seceded from Ethiopia in 1993)
  295 - San Marino (NEW then CHANGED - was assigned, but became 378)
  296 - Trinidad/Tobago (apparently assigned then removed)
  297 - Aruba (NEW - became autonomous of Netherlands Antilles as of
        1 Jan 1986 - dates of country code assignment and implementation
        are unknown)
  37  - East Germany (DELETED - with German reunification, numbers are
        under country code 49 now)
  370 - Lithuania (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
  371 - Latvia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
  372 - Estonia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
  373 - Moldova (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
  374 - Armenia (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 1 May 1995;
        this was split from country code 7)
  375 - Belarus (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 16 Apr 1995;
        this was split from country code 7)
  376 - Andorra (Principality of) (NEW - in effect Dec. 1994; formerly
        reached via France (33))
  377 - Monaco (Principality of) (NEW - in effect late 1995; formerly
        reached via France (33))
  378 - San Marino (NEW - split from Italy 39; formerly assigned 295)
  379 - Vatican City (NEW - implementation dates/details unknown;
        formerly reached via Italy (39))
  38  - Yugoslavia (DELETED - 1 Oct 1993, due to Yugoslav break-up)
  380 - Ukraine (NEW - announced Jan. 1995; in effect 16 Apr 1995;
        this was split from country code 7)
  381 - Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslav areas) (NEW - formed
        from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993)
  385 - Croatia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
        effect 1 Oct. 1993)
  386 - Slovenia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
        effect 1 Oct. 1993)
  387 - Bosnia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
        effect 1 Oct. 1993)
  389 - Macedonia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
        effect 1 Oct. 1993)
  41  - Liechtenstein (probably always was part of Switzerland system
        (country code 41))
  42  - (Czech & Slovak Republics now separate - country code remains for now)
  501 - Belize (Name Change - was British Honduras)
  592 - Guyana (was (or officially still is?) British Guyana)
  678 - Vanuatu (Name Change - was New Hebrides)
  686 - Kiribati, Gilbert Is (Ellice moved to 688 - year unknown)
  688 - Tuvalu, Ellice Is (Saipan?) (Ellice added - year unknown)

  800 - International "freephone" services (NEW - as of 1995)
  870 - Inmarsat "SNAC" service (NEW - 1995)
  871 - Inmarsat Atlantic East (NEW - originally assigned to all of Atlantic)
  872 - Inmarsat Pacific (NEW)
  873 - Inmarsat Indian (NEW)
  874 - Inmarsat Atlantic West (NEW - formed from split of 871 Atlantic)
  878 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW)
  879 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW)
  886 - Taiwan (Mainland China has reserved +86-6 for access to Taiwan)
  94  - Sri Lanka (Name Change - was Ceylon)
  95  - (Current regime refers to itself as Myanmar; some nations
        only recognise it as Burma.)
  967 - Yemen Arab Republic (Name Change?)
  968 - Oman (Name Change? Short form for Muscat & Oman?)
  969 - Yemen Democratic Republic (DELETED? Wity Yemen unification, 967
        would be the single country code; this territory was formerly
        called Aden)
  971 - United Arab Emirates (Name Change - was Trucial States)
  975 - Bhutan (Name Change - was Hadramut)
  994 - Azerbaijan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7))

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

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:08:51 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rob Frieden)
Subject: Group Member Publishes International Telecom Primer


I have written a comprehensive primer on many facets of international
telecommunications that may interest participants in this group. I
attempt to provide a desk reference tool for students, practitioners,
business executives and academics.  The topics include: explaining the
"rule of the road" in international telecommunications; current and
developing models, e.g., PTTs and privatized shareholder-owned
enterprises; technologies used; the ITU; standard setting; submarine
cables; IVANs; accounting rates; trade policy; development; satellites
(including Intelsat; separate systems and Low Earth Orbiting space
stations); deregulation; liberalization; privatization; spectrum
management; case studies and developing trends.

For further information please refer to my publisher's Web Site:
http://www. artech-house.com/artech.html or contact me at
[e-mail].


Thanks,

Rob Frieden Consultant and Assoc. Professor, College of Communications, Penn
State University

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

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 19:13:37 +1100 (GMT+1100)
From: Peter Charles Tonoli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shame Telstra Shame


Originally from: lucy.swin.edu.au

Shame Telstra Shame...

BBS Operators all over Australia will be receiving a letter like the one
below.

This affects people who run any sort of Online service that make use of
telephones.

Voice your concern now. I have set up an email address which can be used
to send email letters of complaint. These will be forwarded to Telstra
and to the Federal Government.

I am also in the process of setting up a WWW page.

NOW IS THE TIME TO FIGHT THIS!

Send letters of protest to:

[e-mail]


Today I received this letter:

Dear Customer,

Telstra is committed to providing a full rage of phone services at prices
that are fair and equitable to all Australians.

At present your Bulletin Board Service lines are being charged at our
Non Business rate of $139.80 per line per year. However, as part of a
review of Section 4.2.2 of the Basic Carriage Service tariff filed on
July 1, 1995, our Business rate of $274.80 per line was confirmed as
appropriate for all Bulletin Board Services and information providers.

Telstra is obligated under Section 197 of the Telecommunications Act to
charge all customers strictly in accordance with its filed tariff.

Therefore, we must now adjust your phone service charges to reflect
this change which will result in an increase of $11.25 per line per
month.  Please note that there is no change to your call charges. This
adjustment will take effect on 1 February, 1996.

Being classified as a Business customer has some real advantages for
Bulletin Board Services such as yours. For example, from the time your
Bulletin Board is classified as a Business Customer for Telstra
billing pursposes:

* You will have access to Telstra special commercial maintenance team, which
  guarantees a fast response whenever you report a service fault to our
  business fault reporting service on 13 2999

* You will automatically receive a free Yellow Pages Directory listing

* You can also make use of our special Business Customer Service by calling
  FREECALL 1800 068 133 between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday should you
  require information about Telstra business services, or wish to arrange
  connection of any additional Telstra services.

Bearing in mind the technical requirements of operating a Bulletin Board
Service, your organziation may well benefit from some of the many service
enhancements we can offer such as Line Hunt which will direct calls to your
next available line or distribute calls equally across every line in your
group or even super fast ISDN services.

If you have any questions or require further details about your telephone
charges, just call one of our Business Customer Support Representatives
on FREECALL 1800 068 133 and quote extension number 4392, Monday to Friday
between 9am and 5pm (EST). Call before 12 January 1996 and we'll answer
any queries you have in time for the preparation of you Frebruary 1996
account statement.

We Look forward to continuing to be of service to your organization.

Yours faithfully

Simone Semmens

Director Community Relations



Peter Tonoli [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Chernoff)
Subject: Cellular Airtime Resellers
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:36:43 GMT
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA


I am currently looking for a cellular airtime plan which doesn't charge
me a subsidy for a "free" phone since I already have a phone.  I've
seen ads in the paper for monthly rates as low as $10.00/month (if you
don't need a phone) and reduced airtime charges, but these are offered
by "no-name" cellular re-sellers.

    My question is, what are the risks in using a cellular airtime
re-seller?  Also, I am looking for suggestions for airtime providers
in the Washington/Baltimore cellular calling area.  Any help will be
greatly appreciated.


Michael


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say check out Frontier Mobile
Line, aka Allnet, aka Call Home America, aka Frontier Communications.
That is who I signed up with just recently (about a week ago in
fact, and so far they are *very good* at least here in the Chicago
area. Their customer service people seem a little confused, but
the service itself is good.

I made some errors in my original report on them last week and will
correct those in the mext message here today.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 02:41:45 -0800
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mauto
Subject: Re: Frontier Offering Cellular Service


[e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson) wrote:

> Frontier Communications is now offering cellular service around the USA
> in an interesting arrangement or service package.

> They charge a ten dollar per month service fee, and rates of 35 cents
> per minute during peak times and 18 cents per minute off-peak/weekends.
> They bill you on your existing account with them each month and
> offer discounts of four to ten percent monthly based on volume of
> usage. For example, from $50 to $125 per month in usage gets a four
> percent discount. $125 to $250 per month gets a six percent discount.

> The 35/18 pricing is not the best, and for the ten dollars per month
> service charge I am sure they can afford to give you 'features' for
> free. I am told however they charge 'double air' when using the
> three-way/call waiting features, and that they charge airtime on
> call forwarding even when the switch forwards the call to a landline
> number without even hitting the air.

Gee, from the Bay Area point of view, these prices seem pretty
competititive.  Do you know of better deals?  I have an acquaintance who
still just signed up for one of those .90/min peak rate accounts, at a
higher monthly rate, but she did get a $50 two-year-old analog Motorola
flip clunker in the bargain.

I wonder how Frontier get access to infrastructure, and why it would be
in the local A or B carriers interest to let them undercut in price.
Might this be some sort of come-on to encourage people to join their
landline services?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is the story, as best as I have
been able to sort it out. **I was in error on some of my statements
last week.**

They not only 'encourage' you to use their landline services, I
think you *must* use them on at least one line for long distance,
etc. I have an 800 number via Call Home America (four dollars per
month or so, rarely used). When I called to sign up for the cellular
service, their first question was 'what is your account number with
us now?' Having an 800 number from them got me past that hurdle.

They get their infrastructure from all the other carriers, based
on whatever part of the country it is. Apparently they cut whatever
deals they can with the A or B carrier and go from there. Here in
this area they use Ameritech, the B carrier. *They never admit to
that unless you ask them*. They keep it pretty well disguised as
their own product, and I guess actually it is their own product.

Very rarely in the course of using the service will you ever hear
any reference to Ameritech except in occassional recorded intercept
messages, etc. For example, they gave me my number a couple days
before it was actually turned on. When I dialed it, I got a 'number
not in service' message tagged at the end by Ameritech. But you
know me: I try all the odd and bizarre things I can think of; when
the phone was turned on, I tried 'star 611' figuring I would get
Ameritech customer service. But nope, a recording came on saying
I had reached 'Frontier customer service, please hold for a repre-
sentative ...' etc. It is well enough disguised that I doubt the
average user would know he was on Ameritech (or whatever carrier
they are reselling for in your part of the country.)

Things allowed and not allowed:

    900/976 is not allowed.
    1-500 is not allowed, but 0-500 is allowed.
    1 plus long distance goes to Allnet/Frontier, but zero plus on my
      phone goes to AT&T.
    10xxx is not allowed.
    800 is allowed.
    011 and 01 international are allowed, the latter via AT&T.
    0-700 is given a fast re-order.
    1-700 (or just 700) has some kind of bug at the present time; no
      matter what 700 or 1-700 number dialed, you ALWAYS get the
      voicemail box of a Mr. John Failex (Phallex? Felix?)
    'Star 711' which is frequently used to obtain roaming information
      goes to an intercept telling me that the number I dialed,
      708-something is not in service at this time. So they were
      clever about intercepting *611 from their customers, but have
      apparently overlooked *711 even thought their user instruction
      book does refer to it as the way to get roaming information.

They may or may not offer voicemail. I did not ask because I have
enough of it already. I suppose since John has voicemail on any and
all 700 numbers, they apparently do offer it.

Most important, I made a SERIOUS mistake in quoting their rates and
for that I apologize. It *is* 35/18 per minute as mentioned, however
they do NOT charge 'double air' on call-waiting or three-way calling.
They do NOT charge airtime on calls forwarded which go to a landline
phone without hitting the air at all. On calls forwarded which do not
go over the air, they apply something called the 'telco pass-thru
charge', meaning apparently whatever local rates the serving telco
gets for call forwarding stuff.

They get a ten dollar per month service charge in this market (I
have found out from others that their rates vary around the country)
and for the ten dollars, Frontier gives for free:

   Call waiting (hear beep, press send, press it again, etc);
   Three way calling (enter the digits, press send, etc);
   Immediate call forwarding (*72 plus number to activate and
     *73 to cancel);
   Transfer on busy/no answer (*68 plus number to activate and
     *73 to cancel);
   Frontier Roaming Service aka 'Follow Me'  aka Ameritech 'Fast
     Track' (*18 while in other than home market to turn on, and
      *19 to turn off in other than home market, or *73 at home);
   Standard roaming service using the roaming phone numbers;
   Detailed monthly billing reports.

Where roaming in general is concerned, they were very vague about
what charges would apply, and how the billing was done as you might
expect, and their booklet had a disclaimer saying that Frontier
could not be responsible for 'charges or conditions of service
imposed by carriers' in whose territory you roamed.

The example copy of the monthly bill they sent along seemed very
detailed and concise, showing times of day, numbers called, etc.
Best of all for some people, no contracts, no minimum service
periods, and a way to avoid the tyranny some claim is unavoidable
using the 'established' carriers. No credit checks since it is all
billed to your credit card a couple weeks after you get the bill.

I'd say it is probably worth giving them one of your lines for
default long distance purposes in order to qualify as a customer
for their cellular service. If you already have an account with
Frontier/Allnet/Call Home America to get a cellular number assigned
to you call them at 800-783-2020, which is their 'cellular department'.
They assign a number, take the ESN information, etc. If you need
help programming, they send you to some local technician at no charge.
If you want an 800 number call 800-594-5900, or otherwise call Allnet
and set something up with them, *then* get back to the cellular side
afterward. Beleive me, they won't talk to you unless you can give them
an existing account number or a phone number they recognize.

You asked why would the existing carriers let a reseller undercut them
on prices, etc. I suppose because the risk is so little to the carrier.
He no longer has to worry about fraud, he no longer cares about trying
to collect the bills each month, and he no longer has to listen to
cranky, complaining customers who know too much for their own good. <g>
All he has to do is maintain the system. Regardless of who the
carrier is or how much they charge, don't you think that if you had a
market of million or more ready-made customers and you went to the
cell carrier saying, "I have quite a few people here who want to sign
up for cellular service, but they will be working through my office
instead of yours, and here are the terms I am willing to offer you if
will accomodate these folks ..." if you went to a cell carrier with
that easily verifiable and bonafide message, don't you think the
carrier would immediatly drop to their knees and begin worshipping?

About 25 years ago, when the Diner's Club credit card service was
so poorly mismanaged, hit with fraud and millions of dollars in
uncollectibles from deadbeat customers that they were literally on
the verge -- days, maybe a month away from filing bankruptcy --
they were approached by Amoco Oil Company who asked them 'how would
you like ummm .. about thirteen million pre-qualified card holders
of ours ... the Amoco list at that point had about twenty million
credit card holders, but a good portion of those were deadbeats
also, or not the best when it came to paying on time. Amoco skimmed
the cream, the best of theirs and dangled it right in front of
Mr. Bloomingdale at Diners and told him 'sooey!  sooey! come and
get it!" The resulting deal was a new program for Amoco card holders
called 'Torch Club' which had full Diner's Club privileges and
acceptance. Diners got a nice piece of the action, and Amoco made
out nicely also. I think we may see more cellular resellers come
along with ideas on how to market it better, and as the existing
traditional carriers get more and more tangled up in their own
messes, they'll gladly let the resellers put their heads on the
chopping block for awhile instead.  Just my opinion.   PAT]

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programming Information Needed on NEC P-110/120
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:13:00 CST


Well, you guessed it!  The NEC-120 is the phone I bought to go
with cellular service from Frontier. I called their tech
support line in Texas asking for advice and they said take it
to a dealer here. I already have it programmed; it came all
set to use when Federal Express delivered it last week. But
I may need to -- you know -- reprogram it at some time in
the future. NEC apparently does not like people doing that.
They'd rather have you pay for it. On the other hand, I do
not like paying for things if I can avoid it.  <g>  All help
available on this phone will be appreciated.  Thanks.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: New Area Code in San Francisco in 1997
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:49:11 GMT


I was watching CNN Headline News this evening, and, during the segment
where they have a local station produce the local news blurb, they
mentioned that Pacific Bell has announced that 415 will either split or
overlay (not yet decided, nor has the new area code been decided) some
time in 1997.

That's all I've heard so far, and this is the first I've heard of it,
but I certainly will be watching.

As for a geographic split, it would almost have to be a three-way split,
with Marin County, San Francisco, and San Mateo County (plus the little
bits of Santa Clara County that are 415) going into separate area codes.
Marin County doesn't have nearly the population to warrant having its
own area code, but it would be insane to move Marin and San Mateo both
into the same new area code.  I suppose Marin could be left in 415 with
San Francisco, but that would advance the date of the next split.
There's actually enough capacity in 707 to accommodate Marin County, but
there is a problem with a number of duplicated exchanges (mostly in San
Rafael on the 415 side), so they'd have to take the highly unpopular
step of moving several thousand subscribers to new local numbers if they
wanted to move Marin into 707.

The other obvious question is, what's up with 510?  At the time of the
415/510 split, it was an almost perfect 50/50 split, and there's
certainly been plenty of growth in the East Bay.  A geographic split
there would be much more difficult, without the obvious clean lines.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Wilkerson)
Subject: Phone *XX Codes?
Date: 13 Dec 1995 10:30:11 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet


    I am in search of a list of all of the *XX codes, such as *67, *57,
*69 and the like.   Does anyone have a complete list, so I can see if they
work in my area?


Thanks...

John L. Wilkerson Jr...    [e-mail]
                            [e-mail]
                            71140,[e-mail]
                            http://www.right.net/~johnw

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #513
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 14 11:39:07 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id LAA29957; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:39:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #514

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Dec 95 11:39:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 514

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (Robert Casey)
    Inet Addresses in the Phone Book (Frank Atkinson)
    Wide-Screen Television (Toyo Kondo)
    Americas Telecom 96 - Call for Speakers (Fernando Lagrana)
    Cellular CID - It's Here! (Kevin Autrey)
    Wire Management (Ian Macdonald)
    GTE Rate Restructuring for Washington State (Ry Jones)
    BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Eric Friedebach)
    No LD --> No LD ?? (Glenn Foote)
    Beta Tester Wanted For GSM SMS (Kent Skagvik)
    KSU Needed (Jim Youll)
    Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics (Dave Leibold)

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] (Robert Casey)
Subject: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:59:11 GMT


Saw on the news last night (Dec 12) that New York state's Suffolk County
(at the end of Long Island) wants the 911 emergency number to be
off loaded with non-emergency police business (paperwork reports, barking
dog reports, noisy parties, and other non-life threating problems) and
to establish 811 for that non emergency stuff.  Leaving 911 free and
open for the important emergencies.  People are getting recordings on
hold on 911 now there.  One of the county politicians got put on hold
on 911 personally, and so thought up the non-emergency police number idea.

811 isn't being used for something else now, is it?

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

From: [e-mail] (Frank Atkinson)
Subject: Inet Addresses in the Phone Book
Date: 13 Dec 1995 11:22:16 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet


Ameritech in Columbus has announced that their next business yellow pages
will include Internet addresses. A company spokesperson said that
addresses would be handled as a second line in the yellow pages listing.
The release says that by 1997 or 98 they expect the white pages to also
include email addresses. 'Spose they know the difference between an email
address and a url. I would rather have my home page rather than a street
address, if I was to chose. I'm sure some single women would also rather
not have street addresses listed. Will caller id return a URL so you can
pull up their home page as you speak to them.


Frank Atkinson       [e-mail]
[e-mail]  http://han1.hannah.com/frank/frank.html

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

From: [e-mail] (TKondo2937)
Subject: Wide-Screen Television
Date: 13 Dec 1995 15:50:13 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (TKondo2937)


It seems that wide-screen television -- I think it has 9 to 16 aspect
ratio, which is the same as HDTV -- is popular in Japan.

My question is how the wide-screen program production, transmission, and
display are coordinated.

It is true in the United States that many feature films are made with 3-4
aspect ratio television audience in mind by positioning actors at the
center of the screen, or they modify the original films to fit them into
smaller display unites unless those films are shown as cinema scope with
both the top and bottom of the TV screen blacken out.

When you are showing conventional television programming in 3-4 aspect
ratio television, the situation is opposite. You have to blacken out the
both right and left edge of the television screen to display the
conventional television programming, or use a production method that is
compatible with the display units from the beginning.

However, modifying all the production method is an expensive process.
I wonder how they actually work. Is there anyone familiar with these
issues?


Thanks,

Toyo

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:39:00 CET
From: [e-mail] (Fernando Lagrana)
Subject: Americas Telecom 96 - Call for Speakers


                         AMERICAS TELECOM 96 FORUM
                       Rio de Janeiro, 10-15 June 1996
                             CALL FOR SPEAKERS

   After the tremendous success of TELECOM 95 (over 150,000 visitors,
850 speakers, 6000 delegates to the Forum), the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) is organizing its next event: Americas
TELECOM 96, to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 10 to 15 June 1996. As
usual, this event will encompass an exhibition and a set of confer-
ences (the FORUM).

   The FORUM at Americas TELECOM 96 will comprise two Summits to
address vital issues on the future of telecommunications in the
region. The Strategies Summit will give the floor to highlevel
speakers on policy and regulatory issues, regional alliances, finance
and trade, risk assessment, political challenges and other strategic
considerations. The Technology Summit will consider the technical
means by which the Americas region can achieve its leap forward,
including the latest advances in hardware, software and networking
concepts, taking particular account of regional needs. The two Summits
will run in parallel throughout the whole week.

   The Forum Advisory Committee has begun identifying topics and we
are now making a call for speakers (based on tentative proposals --
subject to change).

   If you wish to be considered as a speaker at either of the two
Summits -- which will both include Workshop Sessions please forward a
synopsis (not more than 300 words) on one of the following topics,
before 15 January 1996, indicating the Summit for which your paper is
intended and including a professional biography.


STRATEGIES SUMMIT

 * American geopolitical challenges
 * Between fragility and growth
   - international financing entities
   - trade opportunities and perspectives
   - foreign direct investments and ownership
   - private initiatives, investment prerequisites
 * Assessing risks, maximizing growth potential
 * New market paradigms
   - entertainment & broadcasting
   - mobile trends
   - cultural diversity
 * Regional alliances, market globalisation
 * From Regulator to Trend-Setter
   - challenging the "traditional" regulators
   - privatising for growth
   - fair competition
 * Regional standards, international integration
 * Political challenges
   - telecommunications and the environment
   - research & development
   - accounting rates
* Narrowing the knowledge gap
* Managing by example: American success stories
* From development to growth
   - the new trade environment
   - regional cooperation
   - Americas, a broad perspective: a solutions review
* The Information Age
   - electronic democracy
   - cybertrade
   - educational perspectives
* The Information Highway: the missing link or a new frontier?
* Upsizing for growth
   - human resources development
   - new trends - wireless is fine
   - investing in inflationary economies
* Interacting towards the global information society

TECHNOLOGY SUMMIT

* Wireless telecommunications
* Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT)
* Broadband telecommunications
* Transport Network Evolution
* Multimedia Applications
* American Realities
* Information Highway Technologies
* TV in progress

 WORKSHOPS

* Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)
* Mobile Standards
* The World Wide Web
* Human resources and tele-education
* Telemedicine
* Maintenance
* Emergency telecommunications

NOTE TO THE APPLICANTS: Sales/product promotion papers will not be
accepted.  Material must be original and previously unpublished.

For further information on the FORUM, please contact Elizabeth A. Lake
at the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva, on tel: +41 22
730 5680, fax: [phone] or e-mail: [e-mail] or consult
our WWW home page at http://www3.itu.ch/TELECOM.

I wish you a busy and studious Christmas!


Fernando Lagrana
FORUM Coordinator, ITU/TELECOM

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Autrey)
Subject: Cellular CID - It's Here!
Date: 14 Dec 1995 13:30:58 GMT
Organization: Ericsson North America Inc.


AT&T Wireless (formerly known as Metrocel) -- a cellular carrier in
the Dallas/Fort-Worth area has begun delivering Caller-ID data on
calls from a cellular phone to a non-cellular number.  It's kind of
got some kinks that they are working out at this point (see below),
but it does indeed deliver my cellular number to my CID box at home
when I call home from my mobile phone.

For now, all cellular numbers in the system are apparently set to a
default value of "Per-Line Blocking ON".  When I call home -- just
dialing my seven-digit number, and where I have "Anonymous Call
Rejection" turned ON, I got the reject message that the phone company
plays to anonymous callers.

In order to turn off Per-Line Blocking for a given call, you dial *82,
then the number you are dialing, and then <SEND>.  Just like you would
on a regular land-line (well, except for that <SEND> button).

Hopefully, there will be a way for a user to toggle the Per-Line
Blocking setting in the future.  The recorded message at AT&T Wireless
indicates that the *82 is just a "temporary measure" to get around the
Anonymous Call Rejection message.  But the message also indicated that
the eventual goal of their work is to deliver CID data on Cellular
calls as a default.

<Gratuitous Employer Plug Alert ON>

I know that AT&T Wireless switched out their entire system last year -
pulling out their old switches and putting in brand new Ericsson
switches.  I honestly don't know if other cellular switch
manufacturers have the capability to deliver CID data.

<Gratuitous Employer Plug Alert OFF>

<Gratuitous Sprint Slam Alert ON>

Let me see - MCI can get it right.  AT&T can get it right. Cellular
providers are working towards delivering CID - but Sprint can't... Hmm.

<Gratuitous Sprint Slam Alert OFF>


Kevin Autrey | [e-mail] | [phone]
Ericsson Inc. (USA), Richardson, TX
Radio Systems - Research & Development
EUS/RD/KD Design Services - Design and Verification Tools

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

From: [e-mail] (IAN MACDONALD)
Subject: Wire Management
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 05:39:23 GMT
Organization: Online at Wimsey


VELCRO HARNESSES PUTS THE REIGNS ON DATA CABLE NIGHTMARE

VANCOUVER, October 25, 1995 - Microsoft's head office is stuck on it,
so are Northern Telecom and Georgia Tech, numerous phone companies and
other businesses across North America.  Polygon Wire Management
Systems of Port Coquitlam, B.C., manufactures a line of Velcro wire
management products for organizing and securing the disarray of cables
on telecommunication racks, work stations, computer networks and
cabling systems.

A major problem setting up telecommunication and computer networks is
the tendency for wires, most notably category five and fiber optic
cables, to bend beyond their specified bend radius.  This bending
through tray sections and to relay racks and storage cabinets can
cause serious kinks, thus changing the shape of the cable core.  This
results in deformed designed symmetry and distorted or canceled data
transmission.  Cables can also be pulled from their connectors due to
excessive strain causing permanent and costly damage.

Polygon's Velcro systems are designed for instant installation using
self-adhesive or screw mounts.   Unlike nylon tie wraps and rigid systems,
these proven secure systems are sensitive enough to avoid crushing category
five wire or glass fibers.

Company President Ian MacDonald explains that, "In the 90's there has
been a tremendous rush to set up computer and telecommunications
networks.  With that rush it appears cable management was often
neglected.  That is now being addressed.  After assessing the market,
we designed and now supply products to organize existing and new
locations.  Network engineers now specify our line into planned
networks."

Polygon offers a number of devices that are adaptable to most network
setups worldwide.  Polygon also encourages customized solutions for
more challenging situations.  Their products are available through
Anixter, a major international data product distributor.

For further information contact:

Ian MacDonald, President , Polygon Wire Management Systems
407-1952 KINGSWAY AVE.,    PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. CANADA  V3C 6C2
Phone:             [phone]
Fax:                [phone]
email                [e-mail]
Internet Home page        http://www.portal.ca/~polygon

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

From: [e-mail] (Ry Jones)
Subject: GTE Rate Restructuring for Washington State
Date: 14 Dec 1995 06:47:39 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services


My bill from GTE today had an insert that reads:

"IMPORTANT NOTICE

Recently, GTE has filed a proposal with the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC) to consolidate existing Washington
tariffs with those of the former Contel telephone company. Contel
became a part of GTE in 1993.

The company has filed tariffs with the WUTC that, if approved,
decrease some rates while increasing others. Some charges have been
eliminated and some services restructured.

This new tariff is designed to eliminate certain inequities that have
existed since GTE merged with Contel and to simplify the terms,
conditions, and services to all customers."

Later, a table breaks out two charges as an example:

                      GTE   Contel Proposed
Busy Line Interrupt: $0.40  $2.10  $2.10
Busy Line Verify:    $0.20  $1.37  $1.35

Returned check fee goes from $7.50 GTE to $15.00 Contel.

Call waiting goes from $2.81 to $3.25 (res) and $3.31 to $4.00
business.

ISDN is renamed Digital Single Line Service and is restructured.

It in amazing to me that the only tariff that went down was the Busy
Line Verify, which went down two cents. However, since the DSLS and
the new CentraNet/ISDN-BRI services aren't broken out into price
ranges, I can't say what happened with those prices.

 From the looks of the insert, GTE is taking an opportunity to rake in
some more dough. Which is fine, they're a business, they're allowed to
make money. Since I don't use BLV or BLI, it doesn't seem to really
affect me, but I fear that If I don't speak up, I'll end up like this
fellow:

"First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I
didn't speak up.

Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up." - anon

And then my rates will go up, and I'll have no moral ground to stand
on. So I don't know where I stand. A $15.00 fee is in line with what
other businesses charge for a bounced check, so I just don't know.

The address to comment is:

Secretary
WUTC
PO Box 47250
Olympia WA 98504
1-800-662-2967


Ry   http://www.wicker.com/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I can say is whoever took that
quote from Martin Neimoller and *perverted* it to apply to Internet
had a lot of nerve. First of all, I disagree with the idea that
because 'they' come for one person or group of people 'they' will
soon return for another person or group of people. The one does not
absolutely follow the other at all. Second, Neimoller made it clear
*which groups* he was speaking about. People quote him now as though
it was an all-purpose catch-all thing, and that is *not* what he was
saying. I am too young to remember him in person but people older
than myself who did see him (for instance, an elderly aquaintence
who passed away a few years ago heard him in person twice at the
Chicago Sunday Evening Club in the late 1930/early 1940's) were
always annoyed that modern day usage of his quote only includes
less than half of the whole thing. To compare the present day gov-
ernment of the USA -- as bad as it is in some respects -- to the
Nazi movement in 1930/40 Germany, and users of the Internet today
to the Jewish victims of Hitler is absolutely ludicrous. To further
compare them to people who are likely to see some increases in
their phone bill as a result of tariff realignments is obscene.
Where are the GTE gas chambers located?  Where are their concentration
camps?  You begin by saying you did not speak up when 'they' first came
for people who had committed crimes with computers (what crimes had
the Jews committed?) and then reach the conclusion that when your
rates go up you won't have any moral ground to stand on. Huh???   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 21:57:25 -0800
Subject: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*!


I was making a flight connection at the Charlotte Douglas Intl.
Airport in Charlotte, NC today when I noticed that about one in
five of the BellSouth payphones in the terminal have a special
coin box installed in them with a full color Olympic logo with
the words *Official Sponsor of the 1996 U.S. Olympic Team*.
Very colorful and unique!

I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such
promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are
a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is). So the question
is; what's going to happen to all those special coin boxes after
the 1996 Games? Maybe some BellSouth employees will have a neat
little bookend on their shelves in 1997 ...


Eric Friedebach   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn Foote)
Subject: No LD --> No LD ??
Date: 14 Dec 1995 02:45:12 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet


A friend of mine has two kids in different cities.  Right now they are
both out of work, and have gotten a little behind on their bills,
including that important one, the telephone.

He had both of their long distance accesses turned off, until things get
better. (Daddy has deep pockets, but he does believe in being ... well
cheap.)

He asked me, and I didn't know ... can the kids call each other by
reversing the charges?  Can anyone with the long distance access turned
off recieve collect calls?  Just how extensive is that data base anyway?

Just a small question to pass the time ...


Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, they can call each other collect.
What 'Daddy' needs to do is have Billed Number Screening added to
all phone lines, then when attempting to call to the number collect,
the call will be bounced back to the caller with a response that,
'collect calls are not accepted. Please choose some other billing
method to pay for the call.'     PAT]

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

From: Kent Skagvik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beta Tester Wanted For GSM SMS
Date: 14 Dec 1995 13:36:51 GMT


Beta tester Wanted for GSM/SMS

Meum is a Swedish company specialised in Mobile computing and
communication.  One of our products, an application called ShortCut
sends SMS (Short Message Service) to GSM phones. A SMS is a small text
message (160 character) which could be sent from a PC running MS
Windows.

ShortCut has been a hit in Sweden and we are now delivering 100 - 200
samples per day.  Shortcut is a UseWare. It means that the customer
pays when he is using it, not when he is buying it.

We are now releasing an UK version and an US version of ShortCut. We
know that the US market is not GSM based but we belive that there is
an interest to be able to send SMS to GSM phones all around the world.

ShortCut handles today 27 different GSM operators from Australia, South
Africa to the European countries.

The great advantage of the product is that a message will be sent to the
GSM phone even if the recepient is using his phone or he has forward his
calls to the company Switchboard.

We are now looking for beta testers both in the UK and US.  If there
is anyone that want to test the product, please send us email.

Since we also have products like Email/SMS gateway we also want to come in
contact with companies both in UK and US which can help us marketing our
other products.


Email address: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Youll)
Subject: KSU Needed
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:17:06 -0500
Organization: Bowling Green State University


I have a Panasonic KSU and I like it a lot. One of my clients needs a
KSU for his new office and I'm suggesting a Panasonic ...

So: I'm looking for people who sell them, either new or USED (at a good
price).

He needs ~6 CO lines, ~12-16 inside extensions, nothing larger than
that and 1-4 feature phones depending on price.  I've heard that the
newest digital Panasonic units have problems with 28.8K modems so I'd
appreciate any comments about that.  Also, if you carry something
that's not a Panasonic but which will do the trick (primarily,
allowing POTS devices and feature phones in any combination, and which
is easily programmable) then let me know about it.

New or used ...

Purchase will be made within four weeks.

Please email at this address for more information or if you carry this
stuff.


Thanks,

Jim Youll   [e-mail]
            [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Date: 13 Dec 95 19:17:34 -0500
Subject: Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics


Here's the latest summary of some of the daily funnies dealings
with the phone system over the past several months, as listed in
comic name and date order.

- - -

Adam 15 Oct 95: Clayton invites a classmate over to check out some
"cool toys". His classmate proceeds to check with his parents right
away by pulling out a cell phone ... Clayton then wonders who should be
going to who's place.

Animal Crackers 10 Dec 95: Lyle phones Lana ... but goes on indefinite
hold: "I have 'call waiting' without paying for it".

Beetle Bailey 16 Nov 95: Sergeant yells expletive-ridden shot through the
phone ... the other party shoots back with an even more-expletive-filled
response. Sergeant hangs up: "Gee, no matter how bad I get I keep falling
behind".

Bound & Gagged (appeared Toronto Star 26 Nov 95 - probably had actual
earlier date): One Prisoner is #161125 ... the other is #60180 ...
Fax #40112.

Broom Hilda 1 Oct 95: Broom Hilda keeps answering a wrong number
callers. After enough calls, BH gets ready to administer the
air-horn treatment, only to be pre-empted when the "wrong number
caller" uses the same strategy first, saying, "Electronic mail
will never replace the true joy of good old-fashioned personal
communication."

Dave (July 95 ... actual date uncertain): Attempts to enter an e-mail
for [e-mail] are hindered by typos ... first [e-mail], then
[e-mail] ... wife wonders why "mandatory typing skills" aren't
mentioned in the infobahn-mania.

Family Circus 26 Nov 95: The kids make a tin can and string phone ...
actually, a three-way "conference call" network.

Friends (apparently just a local Toronto Star comic): Of all the pages
in a phone book, "why is it always the page that I need?" that gets
tore out.

The Fusco Brothers (date in 1995 uncertain): Rolf's idea of "a non-dedicated
telephone line" is something one says, rather than what one plugs into
the telco lines.

Hi & Lois 28 Jul 95: Chip chats extensively with a girl on-line ...
even though she's in a different end of the nation, they can still get
into trouble ... to the tune of a $300 phone bill. (Must be long
distance to reach an access port unless telcos are doing more 'net
services that we thought ...)

Hi & Lois 9 Sep 95: Plumbing repair is needed, but messages via
answering services, machines, faxes, pages, etc. are to no avail ...
Lois: "I'm reaching out, but I'm not touching anyone."

Hi & Lois 16 Sep 95: Hi visits as Thirsty goes on-line ... Thirsty has
met some on-line folks ... "Littlebit" who was over 400 pounds, a bald
netter named "Hairguy", a 4'10" tall "Skyscraper"... Thirsty himself
goes as "Mel Gibson".

Marmaduke 23 Sep 95: Marmaduke gets beeped instead of yelled for
dinner.

Non Sequitur 25 Sep 95: As an incentive to get the older guys on-line,
a company realises savings in training by using cyberporn.

On The Fastrack 29 Jun 95: Bud gets a fax coming in through his mobile
phone ... his car explodes with paper ... back at the office, Art's
"in" basket seems to be relieved of its enormous stack.

On the Fastrack 9 Oct 95: Bud: "I knew this would happen once they
started regulating the net" (that is, install customs procedures into
cyberspace).

On the Fastrack 6 Nov 95: 20 years earlier, Wendy is seen redialing
through to a radio contest line ... that experience comes in handy
today as she faces that "all operators are busy, please dial again
later" syndrome.

Sherman's Lagoon 14 Oct 95: Hawthorne gets Sherman's answering machine,
says some not so nice things for his message ...

Sherman's Lagoon 26 Oct 95: Sherman is kidnapped to Oceanworld ... but
manages to send an e-mail home. (This comic has the website
http://www.slagoon.com)

Shoe 5 May 95: Wizard seeks a way to make money fast on the 'Net,
so he buys a book ... for $35.95 ... Shoe to Wiz: "There's your answer."

Shoe 23 Jul 95: Cosmo's idea of what happens when the infobahn technologies
are mixed with a nation of couch potatoes: "A nation of couch fries."

Shoe 28 Jul 95: A waiter takes a customer to a smoking booth ... a
telephone booth, that is.

Shoe 22 Sep 95: The 'Net is described as "people with computers
talking to other people with computers about computers ... behold,
the information beltway." ["beltway" refers to a highway that goes
around a city in circles]

Shoe 28 Sep 95: "Last warning ... no more wake-up calls from the
switchboard."

Shoe 19 Oct 95: describes the pressing of ties with a fax machine ...
as long as it's a local call.

Walnut Cove 24 Sep 95: News stories can come via computer, but someone
can't download the news with the software at hand ... "the electronic
equivalent of having the morning newspaper thrown on your roof".

Walnut Cove 26 Oct 95: A girl figures her brother Andrew is very low
on the social food chain ... "He calls women on 1-900 lines and they
hang up on him."

Walnut Cove 10 Dec 95: A computer setup is ready to go on-line, but
one of the boys is hesitant to go on-line: "I'm not sure I want
a bunch of weirdos to know my address."


Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/[e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #514
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 14 20:08:52 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id UAA10033; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:08:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:08:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #515

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Dec 95 20:09:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 515

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Internet Access via RF/Infra-Red? (Pete Kruckenberg)
    Timing Cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS (Paul C. Kocher via Dave Farber)
    Frontier Cellular Service and Resellers (Clifford D. McGlamry)
    Frontier Cellular Service Requiring LD (Stacy Sherman)
    Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice (A. Padgett Peterson)
    Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Carl Moore)
    Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (Elana Beach)
    Telemarketing Issues and This Forum ([e-mail])
    Recent Experiences With BellSouth Caller ID (Paul Selig)
    Programming Information For an ATT 8130 Phone (Marc Wiz)
    How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Jodi Weber)
    Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Hovig Heghinian)
    Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Bill Moynihan)

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] (Pete Kruckenberg)
Subject: Internet Access via RF/Infra-Red?
Date: 14 Dec 1995 06:09:36 GMT
Organization: inQuo Internet [phone]


I would like to research the possibility of providing Internet access
via RF (microwave, or spread-spectrum, or other) or infrared, as an
alternative to using "traditional" telecom transports such as
frame-relay or leased lines (and up-and-coming ones like cable and
ISDN). I'm interested in this on both a local-access (within a radius
of maybe 15-20 miles line-of-site), and a state- or region-wide basis
(probably using some kind of existing RF network to get over
mountains, etc).

Any advice, pointers, suggestions, en- or discouragement would be
appreciated. In particular, I'm interested in:

Equipment to use in local-access stuff, both on our side and on the
customer's side. Must be able to go 28.8kb to 1.5Mb, and hopefully up
to 20 miles. Recommendations, suggestions, experiences, etc.

Equipment for "long-haul" (over 20 miles, or not line-of-site)
connections, and what kind of providers can help haul our data over
their existing RF networks.

How to establish a "network" that customers can hook into (we run
via RF to a remote location, then customers connect to that via
RF, infrared, or copper).

FCC/Federal/Regulatory requirements for doing this kind of thing
and whether we should license RF space, use spread spectrum, etc.

Pointers, FAQs, books, magazines, etc on how a system like this would
work, what we'd need, costs, RF providers, etc.

Possibility of using satellites instead (like digital TV)?

Equipment that would let people connect via small, affordable
sets (that could possibly replace a traditional modem or CSU/DSU).

Any other input on other similar attempts at doing data over
RF/infrared would be appreciated. We are just doing research into this
now, so anything that'll help us put together a reasonable technical
plan and business model would be very helpful.


Thanks,

Pete Kruckenberg   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500
From: Dave Farber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Timing Cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:

 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 21:48:19 -0800
 From: [e-mail] (Paul C. Kocher)

I've just released details of an attack many of you will find
interesting since quite a few existing cryptography products and
systems are potentially at risk.  The general idea of the attack is
that secret keys can be found by measuring the amount of time used to
to process messages.  The paper describes attacks against RSA, fixed-
exponent Diffie-Hellman, and DSS, and the techniques can work with
many other systems as well.

My research on the subject is still in progress and the current paper
does not include many of my findings.  I will eventually publish a full
paper, but am releasing a preliminary draft now to alert the community
as quickly as possible.  A copy of the abstract is attached at the end
of this message and the full text can be downloaded in PostScript
format from:

  ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps
  ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps.gz

I've also made an HTML version which is accessible at:

  http://www.cryptography.com

(The HTML uses subscripts and superscripts which aren't supported
in older web browsers.  The PostScript version is the "official"
one and looks nicer.)

The results have already been seen by Matt Blaze, Martin Hellman, Ron
Rivest, Bruce Schneier, and many others.  While the full significance
of the attack is not yet known, I think everyone who has seen it
considers it important (including Netscape who awarded me a $1000
bugs bounty prize).


    ABSTRACT.  Cryptosystems often take slightly different
    amounts of time to process different messages. With network-
    based cryptosystems, cryptographic tokens, and many other
    applications, attackers can measure the amount of time used
    to complete cryptographic operations.  This abstract shows
    that timing channels can, and often do, leak key material.
    The attacks are particularly alarming because they often
    require only known ciphertext, work even if timing
    measurements are somewhat inaccurate, are computationally
    easy, and are difficult to detect.  This preliminary draft
    outlines attacks that can find secret exponents in Diffie-
    Hellman key exchange, factor RSA keys, and find DSS secret
    parameters.  Other symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic
    functions are also at risk. A complete description of the
    attack will be presented in a full paper, to be released
    later. I conclude by noting that closing timing channels
    is often more difficult than might be expected.


Cheers,
Paul Kocher

*********************************************************************
VERY IMPORTANT: If you send me e-mail, please understand that I
probably won't have time to respond to all who write.  Please keep
messages SHORT and send them to [e-mail] (**not** my
netcom address -- misdirected messages will be ignored).  PGP when
used for e-mail is not vulnerable to the attack.  Please state in
your note whether you would like a reply.
********************************************************************

Paul C. Kocher           Independent cryptography/data security consultant
E-mail: [e-mail] (please see above before replying)

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

Date: 14 Dec 95 13:06:39 EST
From: Clifford D. McGlamry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Frontier Cellular Service and Resellers


> My question is, what are the risks in using a cellular airtime
> re-seller?  Also, I am looking for suggestions for airtime providers
> in the Washington/Baltimore cellular calling area.  Any help will be
> greatly appreciated.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say check out Frontier Mobile
> Line, aka Allnet, aka Call Home America, aka Frontier Communications.
> That is who I signed up with just recently (about a week ago in
> fact, and so far they are *very good* at least here in the Chicago
> area. Their customer service people seem a little confused, but
> the service itself is good.

You bring up many points in discussing this issue, but some of the
conclusions reached are just flat out wrong.  First of all, cellular
resale is nothing new.  It is mandated by Federal law.  Most carriers
would like to get rid of resellers, but the FCC has found time and
time again that these requests were not in the best interests of the
public.

How do cellular resellers operate cheaper?  Well, just like any other
business, you have to buy at one price, sell at another, and live in
the margin.  By the way, the carriers only obligation to the reseller
is to provide pricing equal to or better than their best retail
customers.  This is often a hotly contested issue, but of important
note, there is NO requirement for a wholesale rate that provides any
sort of guaranteed or fair margin.  As a result, many areas don't have
resellers as the required return can't be achieved.

As far as Frontier aka whoever they are this week, I wish you luck.
Every time they have tried operating as a reseller, they have failed
miserably.  The reason revolves around the support cellular customers
require.  Frontier aka Allnet is used to providing customer service
reps at a ratio of about 15000 to 1 or higher.  This is appropriate
for the volume of calls a LD carrier/reseller would handle.  However,
in cellular, anything over about 3000 to 1 results in unhappy
customers due to long hold times.  Add in the fact that cellular
problems are FAR more complex when they arise and have many more
variables involved, this is where they lose the ability to satisfy the
customer.

As far as credit card billing, I am amused.  As a cellular reseller
myself, we KNOW what happens with that scheme.  I have a friend with
an operation with approximately 45,000 subscribers.  He tried this in
Mass.  Six months later, after being cancelled by six different credit
card processing clearing houses for unsatisfactory chargeback ratios,
this program was canned.  THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD PASSED CREDIT
CHECKS!  A seller of telecommunications services has no recourse in
the event of chargeback for services paid by credit card (other than
collection agencies and lawyers) and the chargeback window is right at
five and half months!

You may be getting a "good deal" with Allnet aka whoever they call
themselves this week, but I think you will find yourself very
shortchanged in the long run.  Why?  Refer to your own Editor's Note
at the end of the V15 #513 Digest.  We reprogram OUR customers phones
for FREE and are willing to help them do it, when necessary, over the
phone.  Why do we do this?  Because it's good business. If you have a
problem, we have a shop and can often fix things while the customer
waits.  Generally, we find 60% of the complaints customers have about
their equipment when it malfunctions are very easy and quick to fix.
We don't charge for these small repairs.  If your phone has to go off
for service, we provide loaners (at no charge) until yours comes back.
Me thinks you get what you pay for in the long run.  You are buying a
fair weather supplier.  I look forward to hearing what you think about
them when the rain comes.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well don't confuse where I got the phone
with who supplies the air ... unless they are one and the same and I
don't know it. Calls to Frontier about the phones illustrated in their
brochure were referred to a company called 'Cellular World' in Texas,
where NEC happens to be located. What their tie-in with Frontier is,
if any, I do not know.

The next message in this issue is from someone who might take exception
to some of what you said.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:17:59 -0500
Subject: Frontier Cellular Service Requiring LD


     I'm a new subscriber to your fine electronic journal.  I'm
surprised to see all the hullabaloo over Frontier reselling cellular
service.  There is nothing new about reselling airtime -- it's been
around since the beginning of cellular service in a lot of markets.
Of course the underlying carriers love their rebillers!  They have a
guaranteed revenue stream and are not responsible for collection,
customer service, etc.  It' what they call a "win/win" since Frontier
gets to penetrate a bigger share of the telecom market without a lot
of capital investment.

      Perhaps I can be of a assistance to your readers.  I am an
independent agent of Frontier (as well as 1/2 dozen other long
distance carriers).  Since you do have to have an account with
Frontier before you can get their cellular service, I'd be happy to
help set you up.  You can e-mail me and I will call you back.


Telecom 216@AOL
(Stacy Sherman,
Vice President/National Sales
Telecom Resources, Inc.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, Mr. McGlamry in the message
just before yours says that the cellular carriers do not like the
resellers and would be rid of them if not for laws stipulating other-
wise. So who is correct here?  I would agree witn you that it probably
makes good sense to work with them. The carrier can greatly reduce the
price he charges 'regular customers', allowing the reseller to mark
it up to somewhere higher and both still make a profit. Now I cannot
comment on his remarks about Frontier as a 'fair weather supplier'
since I have not been on line with them long enough to form an opinion.
I also have to take care when forming opinions because sometimes those
people (of whom I form them) know I write this Digest and they treat
me a little differently.

Today in the mail from Frontier in response to my request to them, I
got a complete list of all their charges, the markets they operate in
at present, and a couple other things. They do indeed have a very wide
range of monthly fees and charges per minute. For example, the most
expensive I found on their list were:

   Los Angeles   $40.00 per month service charge, and 35/23 per minute.
   Miami         $27.95 per month service charge, and 37/25 per minute.
   Atlanta       $23.95 per month service charge, and 37/25 per minute.

and the real shocker, to me at least was:

   New York      $21.95 per month service charge, and 53/40 per minute.

Imagine, fifty three cents per minute, but 'only' forty cents per minute
if you want to stay up all night making calls. What could *possibly* be
the reason for a forty dollar per month fee in Los Angeles?

Look at Boston: $15.00 per month (better, however)   45/39 per minute.

Who came in least expensive?  Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus,
Detroit, Grand Rapids and Milwaukee ... all Ameritech cities and all
at $10 per month and 35/18 per minute.

Their custom calling features are all installed free and there is no
monthly fee except for Called Party Pays; for that they still charge
the cell phone user $3 per month. The one exception is Atlanta where
I guess they can't make do with $23.95 per month and 37/25. In Atlanta
you pay $15.00 *for each feature* as a set up fee. Talk about heaping
on a little insult to add to the injury!

In Los Angeles, $40.00 per month service charge is not all you pay
either. To that monthly fee there is added a 'surcharge' for Universal
Service Tax and a second tax to fund communications services for deaf
and disabled persons. They assess those taxes on your actual calls as
well.

If we in Ameritech territory are getting it for $10  --> 35/18 then I
wonder how much Ameritech is charging Frontier? Probably next to
nothing. Any ideas *why* Ameritech territory is so much less?

Also, times are rounded upward to the next minute in all markets. Time
is calculated from SEND until END, including ringing, except that
there is no charge for DA/BY. There is a disconnect fee of $25 per
number.

They also sent me some handy wallet cards reminding me how to use the
Custom Calling Features, and a little wallet card entitled 'B System
Roaming Directory' with numbers from all over the USA/Canada, most of
which end in 'ROAM'.

Anyone have experience with other resellers?  Anyone gonna send me the
hacks -- oops, I mean 'programming instructions' for the P-120?   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:22:31 EST
From: A. Padgett Peterson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice


When my wife needed an emergency phone to keep with her and concious
of horror stories of being cloned, I attempted to obtain a service that
did not permit any toll calls. Long distance was not anticipated as
a need and is just an 800 number away if necessary (I know but as
said was not anticipated to be needed).

First barrier was when the service company insisted on a long distance
provider. Second barrier was when I was told that blocking of toll calls
was a "feature" that had to be added and not a just a service I did not
want to select.

Bottom line was that for $1.75 a month (which was waived for a year), only
non-toll calls could be dialed. The downside which I did not understand
was that roaming was also disallowed. Would like to know why roaming
(making calls from a different LATA ) must be blocked if outward toll calls
are blocked ? Seems like it would be easy to separate.


Warmly,

Padgett

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 13:31:28 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*!


[e-mail] writes:

> I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such
> promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are
> a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is).

What games are over?  The 1996 Games have not taken place yet.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He is not saying the games are over.
He said *after* the games are over, and I assume is reference was
to the cost of amortizing the stuff involved. It is doubtful it will
have all depreciated before it is required to take it out of service.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Elana who?)
Subject: Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:45:23 GMT


Brian Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It is an interesting article describing the true goal of predictive
> dialing.  If you are willing to pay the big bucks and staff
> accordingly, the dialer puts the call through _as soon as it hears
> "hello"_ so you can't tell.

Which is precisely the reason why I normally answer the phone by
saying: "Hi, this is Elana" instead of "hello".  If I hear dead
silence even if I say my usual greeting more than once, then I hang
up -- or use it as a means to have some fun.  ;-)

> Admittedly, however, the vast majority of uses of these dialers are
> used for nuisance calls.

No kidding.  I have found that if I found that I've been called by
a robot, and I am in a mischevious mood that day, I'll happily say
"hello" just to trigger it.  Then when the human phone droid says:
"Mrs. Elana J. Engstrom?" (why do they always say Mrs. to a female?) I'll
put on a sad voice and say: "She died in an accident last week.  I'm
cleaning out the apartment."  This results in the human phone droid
going into slight shock, and they then often say: "I guess I'll have to
take her off our calling list then."  Me: "Yeah, I guess you have to."

I now have a nice, quiet phone.  Very few junk calls.  :-)
Works with any type of phone solicitor, it seems ...

Would this work with bill collectors?  I rarely have any outstanding
bills, so not much chance of me finding out firsthand ...


Elana


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: <suspicious> ... Say, aren't you the
person who wrote me some time ago to tell about the phones you found
at the train station in Chicago where you could place calls for free?
Is that why you don't have many outstanding bills? <g> ... Seriously
Elana, messages like yours are an affront to people in the
telemarketing industry, as the next message in this issue will
illustrate.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (PhoneRoom)
Subject: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum
Date: 14 Dec 1995 11:34:25 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (PhoneRoom)


Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to
the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has
negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join
discussions in a more unbiased area.


Please Email [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:47:49 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Paul Selig)
Subject: Recent Experiences With BellSouth Caller ID


I've had Caller-ID & Name service from BellSouth for about a year and
a half now in Columbia, SC.  I've watched with interest how things
have changed since the December 1 deadline for nationwide Caller-ID.

Alltel, which serves parts of South Carolina, has always provided a
number with a city/state pair.  Other non-local exchanges which are
BellSouth previously reported "Out of Area".  Local exchanges always
provided the number and database name.

On December 1st, and for about a week thereafter, all non-local
BellSouth numbers reported "Out of Area", though most of my calls were
coming from the Atlanta Metro area.  Calls from Ameritech regions were
spotty - some neighborhoods in Cleveland, OH came through with the
number and city/state, while others still showed "Out of Area".

Finally, on Dec. 12, calls from other BellSouth areas started showing
the number and database name.  Calls in both directions in Columbia,
Atlanta, Charlotte, and Birmingham are now working properly.  As has
been reported earlier, all calls from Sprint are showing up as "Out of
Area".

An interesting note: As part of BellSouth's Touchstar(R) "Deluxe
Caller-ID" package ($7.50/mo), I also get Anonymous Call Reject.  It
simply routes all callers who have blocked their number to an
intercept which states that I don't accept calls when the number has
been blocked.  As an experiment, I toggled that service off for about
a week.  During that week, calls from telemarketers more than
quadrupled (13 calls in one week!) , with most showing up as "private
call".

Of course, I've had people call me at work to tell me that they tried
to get ahold of me at home and thought that my line was out of
service.  It turns out that they had recently installed one of those
"in-line" boxes which automatically dials the number blocking code
before every call.  The anonymous reject message is the typical
low-quality scratchy telco recording, so it does sound like a "line
out of service" message to callers if they don't listen carefully.


Paul Selig


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In my phone bill which arrived yesterday
was an insert from AT&T saying, "As of December 1, we are required to
pass your telephone number and name to the party you are calling. To
prevent this from happening, dial *67 at the start of your call."   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Wiz)
Subject: Programming Information For an ATT 8130 Phone
Organization: Wizywyg Software
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:17:34 GMT


I just saw an ATT 8130 phone at an ATT store today.  This looks like a
wonderful toy to me.  It's a two line speaker phone that can also
display caller id.  What's even better is that the phone has an RS-232
port that allows a computer to obtain the caller id info.

But the real kicker is that you can control the phone via the RS-232
port.  The phone comes with software for Windows but I want to use
the phone with my Unix box at home.

Does anyone know if the "protocol" the phone uses is available and
where I might get it?


Thanks,

Marc Wiz  [e-mail]
Yes, that really is my last name.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:30:46 EST
Subject: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State?
Organization: AT&T


Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the
same state? I'm not trying to dial the AT&T operator ("00"). I've been
trying to dial the local operator in NV (specifically Contel, the LEC
for the Lake Tahoe area) from NJ, and so far the only way I've been
able to get connected is by calling Contel's business office, who put
me through.

Any suggestions much appreciated!


Jodi Weber
[e-mail]   or   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The short and simple answer is, you
don't.  Under almost all circumstances, there is nothing the 'local'
operator in some community not your own can do for you. Anything
which requires some local 'presence' in a distant community should
be initiated with a call to *your* long distance operator who will
attempt to resolve the problem, or lacking the ability to do so
place a call to 'inward' in the desired location. If you must speak
with someone at the phone company in the distant location, then you
do exactly what you did: you call the business office in that town
and work through them. If you are asking is there some magical code
to dial which will get you through, the answer is no. Not any codes
that you as a customer can dial from your line. Things like AC+121,
AC+131, etc do not work from customer lines. Neither does 702+181
which reaches an operator handling Nevada toll stations, although
they sometimes answer saying 'Reno Microwave'.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Hovig Heghinian)
Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest
Date: 14 Dec 1995 21:39:05 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In reply to PAT's question, of why so few are "involved" in this Great
Censorship Debate:

Because we don't care all that much.  This is why we have three
branches of government and elections all the time.  The Senate can
pass any law they so choose.  So let them.  They can even pass a
flag-burning amendment if they want, since they apparently have too
much time on their hands to worry about stupid things like the economy
or maintaining foreign alliances -- which are probably better off
without them, anyway.  (This is what happens in a spoiled and
philosophical society like ours, where everybody is an expert on
everything, yet skilled at nothing.)

But then the Supreme Court says, Um, sorry, but, like, dumb law.

And no matter who screams -- or how loud -- in the words of Aesop,
"Nature will out." These laws and protests are all short-term bumps in
the unummerable turnings of the world.  We're all going to live a
century or so in this, the freest and most comfortable society ever,
and senators like Exon, who have brought very little credit to their
names otherwise, need something to keep their aging and imminently-
retiring blood boiling.  So be it.  And the ACLU, who turns every
molehill they find into a mountain, needs issues like this to validate
their existence.  So be it.

Liberals, conservatives: who cares?  Most of us have work to do,
families to raise, and taxes to avoid.  This is usually the best cure for
infantile paranoia and a general lack of confidence in life.

Rantingly yours (thanks for the venting space =),


Hovig Heghinian <[e-mail]>         |  Open your mind too far,
Department of Computer Science              |  and your brain may fall out.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  |


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for the good reply. Like you,
I have about reached the point I say 'who cares' any longer where our
national politics are concerned. You would not believe how much stuff
I get here for publication from 'those people', i.e. the ones who are
doing battle with Exon and the others this week. I get easily five or
six huge mailings each week from people wanting me to publish something
in the Digest decrying the 'religious right' and other 'right wing'
organizations, people, etc. I could fill up the Digest day after day
with their stuff. Admittedly, there *are* some problems on the net
these days, and things may come to a boiling point before long, but
then, we have been hearing that for years haven't we?  I guess when
you live under the sword of Damocles long enough, you eventually
learn to ignore it.  After 'they' have come for the rest of you and
taken you all away and there is no one left to protest on my behalf,
then maybe I will start worrying; or maybe at that point I will just
call it quits.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Moynihan)
Subject: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator'
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:46:49 GMT
Organization: campusMCI


Hello,

I need a little help defining some equipment for an application.

The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that
will:

a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or;

b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is
a  voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user-
directed assistance.

The modem pool/terminal server and the VRU applications are not part
of  an integrated chip/box, and are stand-alone applications today.
The  mystery box would simply 'discriminate' between call types and
route  appropriately.

I've seen this in small applications (i.e., the call center software
on ThinkPads and on  Packard Bell machines at Best Buy), so I have to
think that someone has implemented this on a larger scale (e.g., a
real call center with multi-line/multi-T1 terminations with concurrent
sessions).  Any recommendations, suggestions, etc. would be
appreciated.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.


Thank you!

Bill   SGUS TC
Madison, WI

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #515
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 14 21:27:52 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id VAA15199; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:27:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:27:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #516

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Dec 95 21:28:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 516

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 (Old Time Radio via Andrew C. Green)
    Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split (Mike King)
    Three New Area Codes in 1997 (Mike King)
    Prime Dime Long Distance (Richard Thomsen)
    New Beeper Numbers (Jonathan A. Solomon)
    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Tom Peters)
    Re: Reactions to Congress and Indecency on Net (Stanley W. Henson)

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: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:17:44 -0600
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888


The following first appeared in the {Old Time Radio Digest}, and
I think it's a fascinating example of how people of the late 1800's
viewed the possibilities of their new technology. Having read Bill
Gates' effort in {Newsweek} recently, I found this excerpt from the
_last_ century to be just as interesting ... if not more so. Notice
below how the telephone system, then a fledgling industry, is worked
into the future vision in an intriguing way.

It is reprinted here with the permission of Prof. Bensman, the
original poster.

 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:12:29 -0600
 From: [e-mail] (Marvin R. Bensman)
 Subject: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888

 Radio in 2000:  The View From 1888

        Edward Bellamy was born in Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts, March 26,
1850.  He trained as a lawyer and journalist, but soon he devoted himself
to his major interest: writing.  He wrote three novels and several short
stories before he married Emma Sanderson in 1882.  In 1888 Looking Backward
was published.  It aroused considerable interest and Bellamy toured
lecturing on the book.  He died of tuberculosis on May 22, 1898 after
writing several other novels and founding a Boston newspaper that failed.

        In April 1888 in response to a review in the Boston Transcript
Bellamy wrote:

        Looking Backward, although in form a fanciful romance, is intended,
in all seriousness, as a forecast, in accordance with the principles of
evolution, of the next stage in the industrial and social development of
humanity, especially in this country; and no part of it is believed by the
author to be better supported by the indications of probability than the
implied prediction that the dawn of the new era is already near at hand,
and that the full day will swiftly follow.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        Looking Backward was written in the belief that the Golden Age lies
before us and not behind us, and is not far away.  Our children will surely
see it, and we, too, who are already men and women, if we deserve it by our
faith and by our works.

        Looking Backward is the story of Julian West, who falls asleep in an
underground chamber on May 30, 1887.  He wakes to find that it is September
2000.  He is the guest of a Dr. and Mrs. Leeta and their daughter, Edith.
His house had burned the night he had fallen asleep, but hypnotized he had
slept all these years until he was discovered in his chamber.

        Throughout the book he is told what transpired in the 20th century.
Business had merged into giant combinations, and since about 1925 there
had been few small businesses left.  Stores have only showrooms and send
out all their goods by pneumatic tubes directly from warehouse to home.
Women had achieved equality, no money was used but payment (credit) cards,
relations between men and women were more frank and open, there is no war,
etc.  It was utopia.

        Bellamy in the novel predicts radio-or at least a music room.
Certainly he was not the first with such a prediction, but his explanation
and detail are interesting.

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

        When we arrived home, Doctor Leete had not yet returned, and Mrs.
Leete was not visible.  "Are you fond of music, Mr. West?" Edith asked.

        I assured her that it was half of life, according to my notion.

        "I ought to apologize for inquiring," she said.  "It is not a
question that we ask one another nowadays; but I have read that in your
day, even among the cultured class, there were some who did not care for
music."

        "You must remember, in excuse," I said, "that we had some rather
absurd kinds of music."

        "Yes," she said, "I know that.  I am afraid I should not have
fancied it all myself.  Would you like to hear some of ours now, Mr. West?"

        "Nothing would delight me so much as to listen to you," I said.

        "To me!" she exclaimed, laughing.   "Did you think I was going to
play or sing to you?"

        "I hoped so, certainly," I replied.

        Seeing that I was a little abashed, she subdued her merriment and
explained.  "Of course, we all sing nowadays as a matter of course in the
training of the voice, and some learn to play instruments for their private
amusement; but the professional music is so much grander and more perfect
than any performance of ours, and so easily commanded when we wish to hear
it, that we don't think of calling our singing or playing music at all.
All the really fine singers and players are in the musical service, and the
rest of us hold our peace for the main part.  But would you really like to
hear some music?"

        I assured her once more that I would.

        "Come, then, into the music room," she said, and I followed her into
an apartment finished, without hangings, in wood, with a floor of polished
wood.  I was prepared for new devices in musical instruments, but I saw
nothing in the room which by any stretch of imagination could be conceived
as such.  It was evident that my puzzled appearance was affording intense
amusement to Edith.

        "Please look at today's music," she said, handing me a card, "and
tell me what you would prefer.  It is now five o'clock, you will remember."

        The card bore the date "September 12, 2000," and contained the
longest program of music I had ever seen.  It was as various as it was
long, including a most extraordinary range of vocal and instrumental solos,
duets, quartets, and various orchestral combinations.  I remained
bewildered by the prodigious list until Edith's pink fingertip indicated a
particular section of it, where several selections were bracketed, with the
words "5 P.M." against them; then I observed that this prodigious program
was an all-day one, divided into twenty-four sections answering to the
hours.  There were but a few pieces of music in the "5 P.M." section, and I
indicated an organ piece as my preference.

        "I am so glad you like the organ," she said.  "I think there is
scarcely any music that suits my mood oftener."

         She made me sit down comfortably, and, crossing the room, so far
as I could see, merely touched one or two screws, and at once the room was
filed with a music of a grand organ anthem; filled, not flooded, for, by
some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size
of the apartment.  I listened, scarcely breathing, to the close.  Such
music, so perfectly rendered, I had never expected to hear.

        "Grand!" I cried, as the last great wave of sound broke and ebbed
away into silence.  "Bach must be at the keys of that organ; but where is
the organ?"

        "Wait a moment, please," said Edith.  "I want to have you listen to
this waltz before you ask any questions.  I think it is perfectly
charming."  And as she spoke the sound of violins filled the room with the
witchery of a summer night.  When this had also ceased, she said:  "There
is nothing in the least mysterious about the music, as you seem to imagine.
It is not made by fairies or genii, but by good, honest, and exceedingly
clever human hands.  We have simply carried the idea of labor-saving by
cooperation into our musical service as into everything else.  There are a
number of music rooms in the city, perfectly adapted acoustically to the
different sorts of music.  These halls are connected by telephone with all
the houses of the city whose people care to pay the small fee, and there
are none, you may be sure, who do not.  The corps of musicians attached to
each hall is so large that, although no individual performer, or group of
performers, has more than a brief part, each day's program lasts through
the twenty four hours.  There are on that card for today, as you will see
if you observe closely, distinct programs of four of these concerts, each
of a different order of music from the others, being now simultaneously
performed, and any one of the four pieces now going on that you prefer, you
can hear by merely pressing the button which will connect your house wire
with the hall where it is being rendered.  The programs are so coordinated
that the pieces at any one time simultaneously proceeding in the different
halls usually offer a choice, not only between instrumental and vocal, and
between different sorts of instruments, but also between different motives
from grave to gay, so that all tastes and moods can be suited."

        "It appears to me, Miss Leete," I said, "that if we could have
devised an arrangement for providing everybody with music in their homes,
perfect in quality, unlimited in quantity, suited to every mood, and
beginning and ceasing at will, we should have considered the limit of human
felicity already attained, and ceased to strive for further improvements."

        "I am sure I never could imagine how those among you who depend at
all on music managed to endure the old-fashioned system for providing for
it," replied Edith.  "Music really worth hearing must have been, I suppose,
wholly out of the reach of the masses, and attainable by the most favored
only occasionally, at great trouble, prodigious expense, and then for brief
periods, arbitrarily fixed by somebody else, and in connection with all
sorts of undesirable circumstances.  Your concerts, for instance, and
operas.  How perfectly exasperating it must have been, for the sake of a
piece or two of music that suited you, to have to sit for hours listening
to what you did not care for!  Who would ever dine, however hungry, if
required to eat everything brought on the table?  And I am sure one's
hearing is quite as sensitive as one's taste.  I suppose it was these
difficulties in the way of commanding really good music which made me
endure so much playing and singing in your homes by people who had only the
rudiments of art."

        "Yes," I replied, "it was that sort of music or none for most of us."

        "Ah, well," Edith sighed, "when one really considers, it is not so
strange that people in those days so often did not care for music.  I dare
say I should have detested it, too."

        "Did I understand you rightly," I inquired, "that this musical
program covers the entire twenty-four hours?  It seems to on this card,
certainly; but who is there to listen to music between, say, midnight and
morning?"

        "Oh, many," Edith replied.  "Our people keep all hours; but if the
music were provided from midnight to morning for no others, it still would
be for the sleepless, the sick, and the dying.  All our bedchambers have a
telephone attachment at the head of the bed by which any person who may be
sleepless can command music at pleasure, of the sort suited to the mood."

************************************************************************
*Professor Marvin R. Bensman, J.D., Ph.D.                              *
*Department of Communication; Office Phone: [phone] or 678-2565 *
*University of Memphis        Fax: [phone]                      *
*Memphis, TN 38152                                                     *
*E-mail: [e-mail]                                       *
*
*
* See: http://www.memst.edu/radio-archive/radio-archive-homepage.html  *

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


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]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for passing along
this interesting article. I found it fascinating, and hope other
readers enjoyed it as well.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike King)
Subject: Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:36:32 PST


Forwarded FYI...

  Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:43:00 -0800
  From: [e-mail] (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Teresa Ruano)
  Subject: NEWS:  Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split

>>>>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<<<<
Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split

December 5, 1995

Contacts:
Pacific Bell:  John Britton, 619-237-2430
GTE:  Larry Cox, 800-227-5556
Contel:  Al Sabsevitz, 619-243-0210

Pacific Bell has filed the final plan for the splitting of area code 619
with the California Public Utilities Commission. The plan represents the
consensus of more than 20 telecommunications companies.

A second area code is needed because 619 is rapidly running out of phone
numbers.   The new 760 area code  will begin operation March 22, 1997.
There will be a six month permissive calling period where you will be able
to get through by dialing either area code.  The new area code will not
affect the price of telephone calls.   The cost of a call will be the
same, even if you dial into a different area code.

With the new plan, the existing 619 area code will start at the
Mexican border and include the following cities and communities: Chula
Vista, National City, Coronado, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Rancho Santa
Fe, Poway, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, Rancho San Diego, Santee,
Lakeside, east to the Imperial County line, and all of the city of San
Diego, except the San Pasqual Valley.  The new 760 area code will
include Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido,
Ramona, Julian and all the other communities in San Diego County.

Phone customers living in the counties of Imperial, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Inyo, Mono and Kern who currently have area code 619 will
change to area code 760.

People who change to area code 760 will keep their existing 7-digit
telephone numbers.   It's also important for customers to know that PBX's,
auto-dialers and other telecommunications equipment will have to be
re-programmed to recognize the new area code.

"Announcing the exact date now gives business and individuals a chance to
plan for changes in stationary and advertising,"  said Sweet.

The only change to the previously announced plan is that the San Diego
East County communities of Alpine, Pine Valley, Jacumba, Dulzura and Campo
will remain in area code 619, instead of transferring to the new 760 code.

"At the public meeting we held in East County, we heard from many people
who felt that Alpine and the rest of East County should remain in 619,"
said Area Code Relief Administrator Tom Sweet.  "The industry agreed that
would simplify the boundary line.  We were able to include these prefixes
because of the small number of  telephone lines in these rural areas."


Mike King   *   [e-mail]   *   Oakland, CA, USA   *   +1 510.645.3152

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike King)
Subject: Three New Area Codes in 1997
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:38:21 PST


Forwarded FYI...

  Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 13:08:47 -0800
  From: [e-mail]
  Subject: NEWS: Three New Area Codes in 1997


>>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<<

Three New Area Codes To Be Unveiled In 1997
   916, 415 And 714 Running Out of Numbers, Need Relief

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 8, 1995

CONTACT:
Dave Miller  (Sacramento) 916 974-2811
Beverly Butler (San Francisco) 415 542-9468
John Britton (Orange County) 619 237-2430

San Francisco - Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, new
area codes will be introduced in some or all of the areas that now
use the 415, 916 and 714 area codes in California.  The telecommun-
ications industry expects to start using the three new area codes as
early as December 1997.

A group comprised of representatives from the telecommunications
industry is currently developing and evaluating different options for
introducing the new area codes.

Under California law, public participation and comment must be
obtained before the industry can submit proposed area code relief
plans with the California Public Utilities Commission and
administrators at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), the
organization that administers the North American Numbering Plan.

Bruce Bennett, numbering plan administrator for Pacific Bell and
coordinator of the industry area code relief efforts for the 415, 916
and 714  area codes, said a series of meetings will be held before the
end of June 1996 to seek public comment and input on potential area
code introduction options and proposals.

Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced
at a later time, Bennett said.  Boundaries for the new area codes, as
well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced later next
year after customers have an opportunity to evaluate various boundary
proposals in the upcoming public meetings, he said.

The 415 area code currently serves all of Marin, San Francisco and
San Mateo counties and the northern portion of Santa Clara County.
The 916 area code currently serves an 18-county portion of Northern
California from Sacramento north to the Oregon border, except the
North Coast.  The 714 area code currently serves most of Orange
County.


Mike King   *   [e-mail]   *   Oakland, CA, USA   *   +1 510.645.3152

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:08:54 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Thomsen)
Subject: Prime Dime Long Distance


I received an advertisement in the mail for Prime Dime Long Distance.
They advertise guaranteed $0.10 per minute, 24 hours a day, *without*
canceling your existing service ($0.14 in-state).  Plus a $5.00 monthly
access fee per telephone line for each month you use Prime Dime.
There is a three-minute minimum billing.

Has anyone heard about this place, and have any comments?


Richard Thomsen        Network Engineering
[e-mail]        CIC-5, MS B255
Voice: 505.667.4210    Los Alamos National Laboratory
FAX:   [phone]    Los Alamos, NM  87545

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

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 12:12:34 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan A. Solomon)
Subject: New Beeper Numbers


My beeper has been set up so I can receive pages in NYC and
Hartford/Springfield. I am going to be setting it up for Boston too.
Right now my beeper has four numbers; three in Hartford, and one in
NYC.  It's neat that I can get a fex line to NYC to ring on my beeper
while paying for a beeper with four local numbers (it costs no more to
do Hartford/NYC/Boston ...). The only thing that costs a lot is to
have the beeper ring me in NYC and Boston for any of the above beeper
numbers (and in Hartford).

The NYC number is 917-953-1849. The Hartford numbers are 860-939-5573,
and 860-842-7811. The fourth line will be released when I set up the
Boston number, so its area code should be 617. I am thinking of a
Chicago number too, but that will either require me to remove one of
the Hartford numbers, or purchase a new beeper.

This plus my calling cards will allow me to live without toll calling
from my home phone (that's another story).  I made about $1k of toll
calls when I was in the rest home, and paid it off, but now the phone
company wants $600 ... as a deposit. Right now my lines are toll
restricted (I can use my roommate's line to make toll calls, or my ATT
MCI and Sprint calling cards, or my SNET prepaid calling card.) So
much for fascism ...

These numbers (except one of the Hartford numbers) are for my
consulting business. It's neat to be able to carry your phone numbers
(with voice mail ... :) anywhere. Two or three beepers doesn't faze
me. It's even better than cellphones, which can only have two numbers.
It's also cheaper for me than purchasing a cellphone; rates for
calling card calls are much lower than cellphone airtime rates.

Looking forward to those who are in the areas my beepers cover to call
me whenever. I get 300 calls per month per line.

Voice mail lets you enter your number (with area code) or a message
(which will cause the beeper to display the number you dialed).

I have decided not to use an 800 number, because of the insecurities
involved. Believe it or not, these lines combined cost less than an
800 number.


Cheers,

jsol


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jon Solomon, or 'jsol' as he is known
to many users was the founder of TELECOM Digest, and the moderator
for about seven years in the early 1980's.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Peters)
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: 14 Dec 1995 19:21:14 GMT
Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc.


>> 3)  Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic
>> Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines
>> presubscribed to any interexchange carrier.  This charge is in addition to
>> the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland
>> and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
>> Virgin Islands.  These charges are effective on December 1, 1995.

> This is so bogus!  It really angers me how they are trying to evade
> the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary
> restrictions on those who do not presubscribe.  I really don't

Like many people who read this Digest, I subscribe to a small carrier
and only use AT&T for special occasions, so this change may impact me.
I point this out because I don't want to sound sanctimonious when I say
that most 10288 dialers are cream skimmers who are taking advantage of
AT&T's regular customers.

I don't like price increases either, but it is silly to pretend that
AT&T has done something *wrong*. A free market in long distance has to
include the right to raise prices and to give better prices to frequent
customers. Most non-subscribers are infrequent customers who tend to use
AT&T only for the difficult calls that other carriers don't do. From a
business point of view, why shouldn't AT&T want to make this type of
customer pay more? They provide minimum revenue and maximum headache.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stanley W. Henson)
Subject: Re: Reactions to Congress and Indecency on Net
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:59:03 -0600
Organization: University of Illinois, CCSO-Communications


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Digest Editor
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> The actions in the United States Congress this past week regarding the
> Internet and 'indecency' has spurred a considerable protest by many on
> the net. A "Day of Protest" -- which actually is going on all this
> week -- has been called. The articles below discuss it in detail.

>   From: [e-mail]
>   Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:23:48 -0500 (EST)
>   Subject: *** URGENT ACTION ALERT - Stop Net Censorship ***

> Do you oppose censorship?

Of course, I oppose censorship -- practically everyone does!  But
that's the wrong point.  Any restrictions can be considered
'censorship' from the appropriate point of view.  Even copyright laws
could be argued to be censorship of a person's right to information.
The problem is that some people are taking advantage of the freedom of
the Internet to put inappropriate information in public places, and
the hard issue is how to protect children (and adults, too, for that
matter) without undue restriction of free communication.

Instead of one more knee-jerk reaction of thousands of people
screaming about the infringment of their rights, it would seem that
the Internet community would be better served by offering positive
suggestions of ways of preserving the public's Right to Decency.
There are still a few behaviors that most of us would agree could and
should be restricted from public display for any and all ages.  The
hard part is how to define these and impose appropriate 'censorship'
on these behaviors while preserving as much individual freedom as
possible.  I do not think that a few hundred thousand email messages
and phone calls will contribute much to solving this social dilemma.
But then -- email is cheap and easy, and it doesn't take much thinking
to blast off a few flames to our leaders who are struggling with these
issues.


Stan Henson


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good points you raise. I suggested earlier
that in view of the email flood going into Congress right now on this
issue -- apparently most of it very, very negative and probably quite
a bit of it extremely hostile if I know the netters like I think I
know them, a very short and postive note would probably be appreciated
and let our legislators know that there is far from uniform agreement
on the net about the problems we face. I agree with you that email can
be cheap and easy, but it doesn't have to be that way. It can be
thoughtful and carefully presented.

No, I don't want to see 'censorship' either; but I fear we will be
forced into a reform situation by the government unless it comes to
pass on its own. As I said in an article earlier this week in the
{Computer Underground Digest} (you may have seen it), self-censorship
is the best censorship of all.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #516
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 14 23:34:03 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id XAA25011; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:34:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:34:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #517

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Dec 95 23:34:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 517

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Digital Cellular Service (Edward A. Kleinhample)
    Line Test Standards Request (Michael J. Gallo)
    Anyone Used NHT for T1, T3, or POTS? (Timothy H. Ohara)
    Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers (Mark D. Tenenbaum)
    Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Lawrence Chen)
    Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Mitch Wagner)
    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Thompson)
    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Rosenberg)
    Caller ID Information From Canada (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Vista 350 Phone From Northern Telecom (Johnny K. Lai)
    Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
    Re: New Wiring Suggestions ([e-mail])
    Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Jason J. Kennedy)

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, 14 Dec 1995 13:00:10 -0500
Subject: Digital Cellular Service


I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone in the coming
months.  I live near Tampa, FL. where the available carriers are GTE
Mobilnet and AT&T Wireless. I have heard plenty of advertising hoopla
about AT&T's digital cellular service. Although I will pay more for
the phone (costs start at $100 and go up), the monthly service is
considerably less ($20/month as opposed to $30/month for either the A
or B carrier). My immediate feeling is that the cost of a $100 phone
is recouped in the first year by the $10/month difference in service
prices.

I have several questions that are delaying my purchase:

What digital technology is in use by AT&T in Tampa?

How widespread is this technology in other areas (AT&T advertises
digital coverage in most of Florida)?

Can a digital cellular phone roam to a non-digital area? (the phones that
I have seen include the Motorola PERSONALD and MICROTACD, and several
Ericson offerings -- I don't know model numbers).

Is the technology likely to be obsolete soon -- should I wait?

Does digital REALLY offer a significant advantage over the analog
service? AT&T advertises better sound quality, better security (less
fraud) -- what's the real story?

What are general opinions about AT&T Wireless, GTE Mobilenet, good
experiences, bad experiences, etc?

Both local carriers bundle the mandatory one year service at the rates
stated above. What kind of rates are typical 12 months from now when I
have completed the mandatory service agreement? Am I correct in assuming
that a portion of the price of the phone is ammortized into the monthly
service rate for the first year? Should I expect lower rates once this
period is over?

Thanks in advance for any information that you can provide.


Ed Kleinhample                      [e-mail]
Land O' Lakes, FL.     or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Line Test Standards Request
Date: 14 Dec 1995 23:13:03 GMT
Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA


Request help on finding specs I can hand to local phone companies on
what to test for on POTS lines.

I am working with a retailer with 500 stores nationwide; we call out
nightly to the stores registers and pull back the daily sales from the
registers. Ten stores are consistent problems. I either lose the
connection in the middle, or I can't make a connection at all.  I have
identified that the real problem is the phone line.  On a couple of
the stores when I put a standard analog phone on the line I can either
crosstalk, other lines dialing, or hiss and pop.  Yet when I call the
local phone company they can't find anything wrong.

My real question is: Are there specifications I can get hold of that I
can point the local phone company to so they know what to test for, or
is there a standard list of tests I can tell them to run?


Thanks,

Michael Gallo

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

From: [e-mail] (Timothy H Ohara)
Subject: Anyone Used NHT for T1, T3, or POTS?
Date: 15 Dec 1995 01:11:00 GMT
Organization: UB (State University of New York at Buffalo)


I think the subject says it all.  Looking for anyone with experience
with NHT providing a Local Loop for T1, T3, or POTS.

Please Email [e-mail]


Thanks in Advance,

Timothy H. O'Hara     Senior, Electrical Engineering
State University of New York at Buffalo
tohara @ eng.buffalo.edu
World Wide Web Home Page: "http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~tohara"

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:13:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers


Bob Izenberg asked:

> If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong
> numbers, do you still pay for the calls?

To which you responded, after a very interesting essay on Jerry
Falwell's woes with 800:

> Short form answer to your question: yes and no. The circumstances
> and context are all-important. Technically telco owes you nothing
> except, I suppose, the peaceful and unhindered use of your phone
> line. In practice, they will help you out sometimes.   PAT]

Made me wonder:

Suppose you have an 800 number like 800-543-2273 which if you glance at
your keypad translates to being one very little slip of the finger away
from being 800-THE-CARD.  I suppose that this unlucky entity receives
more than its fair share of wrong numbers.  Same goes for the unlucky
soul or entity who has 800-656-9377, just one mis-digited punch away
from 800-FLOWERS.

Made me wonder even further:

Do 800 number providers account for this possibility or do they just
hand their allotment out consecutively and buyer beware if his number is
close to a very frequently dialed number?

And wondering even more:

What are the most common types of mis-dialings?  Slipping digits?
Reversing numbers?  Maybe some Government agency has spent mucho dollars
to find out.

I'm reminded of when I lived in Raleigh, NC where almost daily I would
get at least one call for the Foot Locker shoe store at a nearby mall.
Why?  My last two digits were the reverse of their last two digits.
The rest of our numbers were the exact same.  After telling Foot
Locker callers to reverse the last two digits and try again, it was
amazing how many times, not ten seconds later, after answering
"Hello," I'd hear the same guy in my ear: "This Footlocker?"  I always
felt like responding "Yea sure it is, we always answer our phone,
'Hello' instead of 'Footlocker'"


MARK D. TENENBAUM    Plano, TX

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

From: [e-mail] (Lawrence *The Dreamer* Chen)
Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse
Organization: Combustion Dynamics Ltd.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:48:16 GMT


[e-mail] (Roger Wells) writes:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Someone I know who runs a
>> BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users.
>> When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users
>> (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit
>> phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people
>> already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not.
>> He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the
>> same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different
>> than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly,
>> 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to
>> place this call.'

> Does he assume nobody ever calls from a private PBX?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He makes allowances for that. If the
> ID given is 'out of area' or 'unavailable' he simply takes their
> word for whatever they give as long as it 'looks like' a phone
> number based on examples he has given the computer of things that
> cannot be a legitimate phone number such as '911' or 000-0000.
> After getting your note, I asked him again about this and he said
> he no longer flatly rejects them as users. He tells them they will
> be contacted by phone at the number *they gave* -- not the number the
> caller-ID displayed -- and given their password verbally. Of course
> the truthful ones get their password later the same day or the next
> day; the liars get to sit there with egg on their face, or else wait
> a discrete period of a few days and call back giving honest numbers
> for his records. Very clever ploy, I think.    PAT]

Huh, did I miss something ...

So, the user has to provide a number that can be called voice ... while
the caller-ID will be providing the number they are calling from.  Or
do they provide the number they are calling from, and suddenly be
expected to answer instead of modems to validate themselves.

Here at work, we have six lines ... three for voice ... we always give
out the main number (except the secretary who uses it to track her
personal calls 8-), but caller-ID will show one of three possible.  We
have two lines for data and a fax line.  There are no telephones
attached to any of the data or fax lines.  So, if your human ... don't
bother trying to call these lines.

While at home, I have five lines; only one is voice, the others are
all data ... good luck trying to talk to me calling any of them.
(Actually the one I called voice used to be a SupraFAXmodem on silent
answer and my answering machine; now its just the answering machine).

I used to track caller-Id for my BBS callers, but there were lots of
cases where it didn't work; namely the ones where the voice number
doesn't match the data number.  Or people calling from work or their
friend's place and other variations where the number to reach the
person doesn't match the one they call from.  And, a lot of people
don't realize how to give me the number they are actually calling
from.  A lot of my callers are school teachers that have enough
trouble figuring out how to call out from the school as it is.


SNAIL:  Lawrence Chen, P.Eng.           VE6LKC/VE6PAQ
        Computer Engineer               Phone: [phone]
        Combustion Dynamics Ltd.        Fax:   [phone]
        #203, 132 4th Avenue S.E.       Email: [e-mail]
        Medicine Hat, Alberta  T1A 8B5         [e-mail]
CIS:  74200,2431     FIDONET:  1:134/3002      [e-mail]
DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed are mine and *NOT* my employers

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

From: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:38:17 GMT


There was a time when I had a line in my house that got used only for
outgoing data calls. And that line was billed to my employer, too.
I could never remember what the phone number on that line was -- why
should I? Nobody ever called me there?

So when your friend asked me the first question -- "Please enter your
full ten digit phone number" -- I probably would've answered with
my voice number, not the one I was calling from. The second time, I
guess I just would've been disconnected.

My point here is a minor one, I guess: There are times when a person
might have legitimate reason not to divulge the number he's calling
from. He might, simply, not know.


mitch w.     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Thompson)
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 20:13:32 GMT
Organization: TCS Telecommunications


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (John R. Grout) wrote:

> When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing
> period,  which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided
> 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly
> bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for
> subsequent calls.

> However, since AT&T gets something like $.50 for handling a
> one-minute call to a 900 number (to cover network services, billing,
> etc.), a $.40 surcharge on non-subscriber calls sounds like more than
> is needed to recover the costs of billing casual users.

But, that would mean that AT&T customers, and customers of other long
distance carriers would pay different rates for the 900 number.
Instead of saying "$2.99 first minute, $1.99 each additional" at the
bottom of the ad, it would be someting like "$2.99 first minute for
AT&T customers or 10-288 callers who have made at least one call this
month or customers who have called at least one AT&T 900 number this
month, or $3.39 first minute for non-AT&T customers, $1.99 each
additional".

40 cents does seem like enough for AT&T to _prepare_ the bill for the
LEC.  But, doesn't the LEC charge AT&T for the billing?  I was told by
an AT&T employee about five years ago that the LEC (Bell Atlantic,
anyway) charges about $5 per customer to include AT&T's (or anybody
else's) bill with the local phone bill.  Of course that was 5 years
ago, and I could be wrong, but I know that the LEC must charge
something.  So, a very casual user, even if they are an AT&T Dial-1
customer could actually cost AT&T money to service, provided they get
their bill through the LEC.  Right?

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Organization: RockMug
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:02:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (John R. Grout) wrote:

> When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing
> period,  which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided
> 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly
> bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for
> subsequent calls.

What back office cost? The only cost that I can see is if the person is
placing a call from a LEC that is not yet on AT&T's list of LECs (one time
cost to add that LEC to the Billing Cycle which is eaten by AT&T). Once
there is already a billing tape going to the LEC, there is no extra cost to
add new numbers to be billed (why keep track of WHO is placing the call at
call PLACEMENT time?). The file is an audit trail of the phone calls and
gets sorted in Phone Number Sequence by AT&T as part of cutting the billing
file (so volume discounts can be applied) to be sent to the LEC. If you are
not a Subscriber, the request for your account record gets a "Not a
Subscriber" result and you get billed at full rate.

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:17:45 CST
From: Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Information From Canada


Friday evening, I received a call from a friend in Canada. He used his
chosen primary carrier, Bell Canada (a Stentor member), dialing 1+504+my
number. His full telephone number showed up on my CID box. The NPA-NXX
was 905-842, which is Oakville, ON. But for the name portion of the CID
box, I received `ONTARIO' (left-justified) spelled out, followed by 8
spaces. Probably when BellSouth checked its LIDB, it didn't have the full
town/ratecenter name for Canadian NPA-NXX codes, and rather only the
province name for Canadian NPA's.

I asked my friend to redial me using the Unitel's 10-XXX carrier code. I
received an Out-of-Area message on that try, however.


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] (Johnny K Lai)
Subject: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:43:26 GMT
Organization: ITS, UWO


Hi,

        I just wonder, is anyone here in Canada is using the Northern
Telecom Vista 350 Phone with Bell Canada, which provides Visual
Call-Waiting (allows you to see the CID number even for
call-waitings), and CallMall?  I wanna to have some technical
information on this phone. (It is quite a wonderful phone to me.)


Regards,

Johnny K LAI  Electrical Engineering '98 & CompSci.
E-Mail: [e-mail] or  [e-mail]
Homepage:  http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~stevenl/johnny.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What is 'CallMall', or did you mean
'Call Mail', as in another name for voicemail?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions
Date: 14 Dec 1995 07:40:32 -0600


> We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired
> from scratch.  Current proposal:
> Everyone get a four jack outlet.  Jacks will be RJ-11.
> Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs.

Anyone have experience with 25-pair Cat 5?

Bring up a spreadsheet on the screen and do a cost comparison between
using separate cables compared to 25-pair cables.  Last time I did
that, it was cheaper to use separate cables for six RS-232 terminals
when the terminals were no further than three feet from the wiring
closet.  The wire cost per foot and installation time easily exceeded
the extra costs for harmonica or other modular wiring components, and
to have the 50-pin connectors put on each end of the 25-pair cable.

Also note that a cable in one wall can often service two rooms.

If you'll be using Token Ring, I think Cat 5 is a good idea both for
speed and reliability.  You don't want to lose tokens often.


Scot E. Wilcoxon    [e-mail]
Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid.
The stupid refuse to read.        Their lawyers read to them.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 13:43:55 PDT
Organization: GE Capital News Server


Barry,

    You may want to re-post to the cabling newsgroup.

Basically, your plan looks pretty solid, with a few minor items:

1. Verify from your PBX vendor what is required for voice.
   Specifically, determine the number of pairs required, the
   jack    type and the block type.

2. Check distance limitations for your RS-232 connections.
   You can easily run into trouble.

3. Token Ring should be RJ45, not RJ11. CAT5 will help you meet
   speed requirements.

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

Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions
From: [e-mail] (Jason J Kennedy)
Date: 14 Dec 95 14:23:58 PST
Organization: Ministry of Social Services


In article <[e-mail]>, barry_roomberg@iacnet.
com says:

> We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired
> from scratch.  Current proposal:

> Everyone get a four jack outlet.  Jacks will be RJ-11.
> Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs.

> 1 Jack - Telephone
> 1 Jack - RS232 serial to Unix system.
> 1 Jack - Token ring - Novell
> 1 Jack - free for future use .

Just FYI: we recently rewired one of our premises, and have found a
system that works quite well for us is as follows:

2 4pr. Cat 5 runs to each w/s, terminated at w/s in AMP ACO duplex.

First Cat5 run split (using AMP ACO modular inserts) to:
    1 RJ12 for voice (single pair)
    1 RJ45 for 3270 (only needs single pair)

Second Cat5 run terminated in Cat5 ACO insert RJ45 for TR LAN attachment.

The modular inserts allow us to mix and match our terminations, and
the two sheaths allow us some flexibility as well. We found this
solution minimizes our installation costs, and allows us some room for
change in the future.

Just food for thought.


Opinions are those of Jason J Kennedy, not necessarily BC Systems,
Ministry of Social Services, or Province of British Columbia.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #517
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec 15 01:14:13 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA01469; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:14:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:14:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #518

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Dec 95 01:14:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 518

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! (Lynne Gregg)
    Re: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice (Steve Granata)
    Re: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility (Lynne Gregg)
    Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (D Burstein)
    Re: You Ought to be in Pictures (Dr. Peter Beill)
    Re: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! (Stan Brown)
    Fax --> E-mail (Robert Speirs)
    Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. (Roger Kennealy)
    Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Robert Vietzke)
    Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges (Joe Hearn)
    Information Wanted; Legislation on Telephone Recording (David Steurn)
    Nikko CID Unit Chokes on Name Display (Tim Meehan)
    New PCS Networks Online? (Brian Isherwood)
    Re: Need Satcomm Help (Dr. Peter Beill)
    Telecommunications Programs Wanted (Joe Biernat)
    Digital Music On Hold Device (Jack McGee)
    Looking for Worried Reps and Resellers ([e-mail])
    Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? (Toby Weir-Jones)
    Wanted: POTS Designer/Consultant (Bill Shields)
    Need Info on Online Configuration (Fardad Vakil)

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: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular CID - It's Here!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 14:38:00 PST


[e-mail] (Kevin Autrey) commented on AT&T Wireless.

Thank you, Kevin for your comments about AT&T Wireless Caller ID.  I
think you read the situation well.  Our Dallas market is in process of
ISUP migration (MF to ISUP trunks needed to deliver CPN and offer
Caller ID).  For your benefit and those of other AT&T Wireless
cellular subscribers, let me just run down what occurs throughout our
network as we equip ourselves to deliver CPN.

 -ISUP INSTALL/TEST phase -

Until such time as all ISUP trunks are in and tested in a metro area,
we apply a default line block as a matter of practice. This default
ONLY is applied while we're in the install/test phase.  The purpose
is to protect our customers from our transporting their cellular
numbers without their awareness or consent.  Our cellular customers
generally are a tad sensitive about distributing their numbers.
Charges are incurred for inbound calls that could be generated as a
result of publicizing the cellular number. Once the trunks are in and
all's well, we send a notice (bill message page) to all active
subscribers and release the block.

 -AT&T WIRELESS CUSTOMER options on blocking -

Once customer notification occurs, we fully comply with the FCC Order:

Customers who request Per Line Blocking (in those states where it is
available), may order this feature at no charge from AT&T Wireless.
When a customer orders this block, *82 may be used on outbound calls
to unblock on a per call basis (i.e., *822068288077+SEND).

Per Call Blocking is accomplished by pre-pending *67 to the dialed
number (i.e., *672068288077+SEND).

 - THE 'MOBILITY FACTOR' AND PRIVACY-

When roaming occurs, the cellular operator may *not* have visibility
to whether the roamer has Caller ID on their home network or whether
they have chosen Per Line Blocking or not.  The FCC Order states that
default line blocking cannot be applied in areas where Caller ID
services are offered (consumers must affirmatively choose Line
Blocking).  In this case where we have no visibility to what's in the
home market, we must SEND THE NUMBER.  Therefore, if roamers want to
ensure blocking of the cellular number, they should use *67.  We are
in process of adding support for *67 to our entire network in order to
consistently process calls.  If *67 support is offered in an AT&T
Wireless city with no Caller ID service (no ISUP), the CPN can't be
sent and NO ID or OUT OF AREA appears on the equipment.

Kevin and other AT&T Wireless customers: if you want to have the
temporary block removed from your cellular lines, place your request
with Customer Care or email me ([e-mail]).  We'll take
care of it for you.

AT&T Wireless now offers Caller ID services to digital (TDMA)
subscribers throughout Washington, Oregon, and Florida.  Other cities
will offer Caller ID during the first half of 1996.


Regards,

Lynne Gregg
Product Manager, Personal Services
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Headquarters
5000 Carillon Point, Kirkland, WA  98033

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Granata )
Subject: Re: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice
Date: 15 Dec 1995 04:03:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom


In <[e-mail]> A. Padgett Peterson
<[e-mail]> writes:

> Would like to know why roaming (making calls from a different LATA)
> must be blocked if outward toll calls are blocked? Seems like it
> would be easy to separate.

With a cell phone there actually is very little difference between
making an interLATA seven-digit-dial (NXX-XXXX) call and making an
outbound toll call.  If you dial NXX-XXXX from your roaming location
 -- across LATA bounds -- back to your home service area, you'll be
charged the long distance toll for the call. As far as the switching
sequence is concerned, it makes very little difference whether you
dialed NXX-XXXX or 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX.  The switching system still must
haul the call across LATAs from the cellular servicing switch to the
terminating phone number.

Furthermore, depending on the technology available at the switch
servicing your cell phone, your cellular long distance PIC may not be
available.  In that case you are at the mercy of whatever is the
switch's carrier of choice.  In rural areas there often is only one IXC
to which the servicing switch is connected.  To add insult to injury,
when you make the NXX-XXXX roaming call between LATAs, most cellular
providers bill you your standard roaming rate, in addition to the toll
you'll have to pay from the IXC.


Steve Granata   Reston, Virginia

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

From: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 15:53:00 PST


Robert Wolf stated that "Several companies make wireless systems that
work specifically with their own telephone systems.  Some of the
companies that provide this type of equipment include AT&T, Northern
Telecom and Ericsson, among others."

AT&T Wireless's Cellular Office solution works with most major PBX's
and most analog or digital cellular phones.  For more info, write to
[e-mail] or reply to me.


Regards,

Lynne

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number
Date: 14 Dec 1995 18:52:55 -0500
Organization: mostly unorganized


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
Casey) writes:

> Saw on the news last night (Dec 12) that New York state's Suffolk County
> (at the end of Long Island) wants the 911 emergency number to be
> off loaded with non-emergency police business (paperwork reports, barking
> dog reports, noisy parties, and other non-life threating problems) and
> to establish 811 for that non emergency stuff.  Leaving 911 free and
> open for the important emergencies.  People are getting recordings on
> hold on 911 now there.  One of the county politicians got put on hold
> on 911 personally, and so thought up the non-emergency police number idea.

Let's see now.  Based on this concept and other events going on in
NYS, a 'deaf-tty' caller uses 311, a minor emergency uses 811, a
serious emergency uses 911.  Oh, let's not forget the campaign in NYC
to call 999-1111, 999-2222, 999-3333, 999-4444, or 999-5555 to reach
the fire dispatcher (depends on which of the 5 boroughs you're in) so
as to 'reduce' the load on the general 911 operator andcut down on the
delay.

Hmm, sounds to me like it would be much simpler, safer, and effective
to finally simply staff 911 centers with the right number of people
and with decent equipment.

In the famous words of a former NYC City Council President (Andrew
Stein), who, when questioning why 911 (ambulance) response was so
slow was told it was the middle of the summer and call volume was
higher beacuse it was so hot, replied:

   "It was hot last July, it's hot this July, and it'll be hot next
July."

It's not like stochastic probability and queuing theory are anything
new.  It's a simple (???) matter of assigning (paying for) appropriate
resources.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jdrintel)
Subject: Re: You Ought to be in Pictures
Date: 14 Dec 1995 19:04:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jdrintel)


I would like to discuss how videoconferencing is changing the shape and
the way we communicate and do business. If interested call me, at:

Dr. Peter Beill    814-946-4505
3037 Broad Avenue  Altoona, Pa. 16601

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

Subject: Re: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:07:09 EST
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Mike P. Storke ([e-mail]) wrote in article
<[e-mail]>:

> My understanding is that business (of course) flat rate billing will
> be phased out in a year to a year and a half, with residental
> following some time later.  While this may seem a long way away for
> you, in reality, it's probably much closer than you think.  As soon as
> businesses (all internet providers, and most bbs's fall under this
> classification on their phone lines) have to pay by the minute, guess
> what -- SO WILL YOU!!

Why?  A BBS doesn't make a significant number of outgoing calls.  The
duration of incoming calls is irrelevant -- unless Nevada Bell is
going to start charging on both ends of the call, and you didn't say
anything about that.


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA

Can't find FAQ lists?  http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/faqget.htm for
instructions, or email me.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about the Fido BBS which spends
an hour or two every night polling other systems for mail and news?
They are going to get hit hard aren't they?   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:15:18 -0400
From: Robert Speirs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax --> E-mail


In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the
service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail
addresses?


 Robert Speirs, 12 Briarwood Cres, Halifax, NS, B3M 1P3, Canada
        tel/fax:[phone], tel:[phone] cellular
                   e-mail:[e-mail]
           http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ab304/Profile.html
                        44.39 N, 63.36 W
                   time zone: AT = ET + 1 hr
     29/10/95 - 06/04/96: AT = GMT - 4 hr; 07/04/96+: AT = GMT - 3 hr


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How do you like the above .signature? I
don't think I've seen anything quite like it before. To answer the
reader's question, I think we should call on Doug Reuben. He is
involved with a company doing just that, or perhaps it is in reverse
with email out to faxes, etc. He has not contributed anything here in
awhile now, so perhaps this will prompt him to write.   PAT]

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

From: "aeo452::kennealy_r"@annecy.enet.dec.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 10:20:25 MET
Subject: Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc.


> We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is
> finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to
> many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the
> basement line).  The coax lines of course will be used for television,
> maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line.  For TV/FM, the
> source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right
> now we're using an attic antenna).

> Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to
> how to wire it properly.  What type/size of coax to use, fittings,
> etc., as well as the layout of the wiring.  My engineering sense tells
> me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely
> affected throughout the whole house.  Or am I being overly-cautious
> here?

> Any advice would be most appreciated, and do post to the followup-to
> newsgroups as I think others contemplating doing something similar may
> be interested in your words of wisdom.

Even the best crystal ball gazers of the world are unable to tell you
how to cable your house for the next five years -- never mind for the
longer term!

I would therefore suggest installing flexible conduit throught (making
sure the pull-wires are all intact). I would have them all 'joined'
together by occasional empty wall sockets which can be covered with a
blank plate.

I would use lots of conduit all over the place 'interconnecting' all
conceivable future equipment sites (let's face it, flexible conduit is
cheap enough to be able to overdo it a bit).

I would then pull through the coax that is in current use. Next time
there is the need for it, be prepared to use the existing wires to
pull through the next generation of wiring.

Coax for 1996, twisted pair for 1997, category 3 for 1998, category 5
for 1999, and fibre optic for 2000!


Regards,

Roger Kennealy
Telecommunications Consultant
International Projects Inc.      Tel : [phone]
74230 Dingy-Saint-Clair, FRANCE  Fax : [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Vietzke)
Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions
Date: 15 Dec 1995 03:14:32 GMT


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

> Current proposal:

> Everyone get a four jack outlet.  Jacks will be RJ-11.
> Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs.

Think about using RJ-45's instead of RJ-11's. Also, run a separate
cable to each RJ-45. Don't break-out a four-pair to multiple jacks.
Some high speed LAN products require all four pairs. If you need 11's,
you can just use the appropriate pairs on the 45's.


Rob

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

From: hearn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges
Date: 15 Dec 1995 04:52:52 GMT
Organization: GTE Intelligent Network Services, GTE INS


rob.m.saiter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While staying in a hotel in Chapel Hill, NC last week, I was charged a

> Anyone from this area (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) of NC that can
> substantiate either side of this argument ...

I am no longer from the area, but my distinct memory is that all three
areas have toll free dialing into the Research Triangle Park and RTP
has free dialing to Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill.


Joe Hearn    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Steurn)
Subject: Information Wanted: Legislation on Telephone Recording
Date: 14 Dec 1995 20:28:38 -0500
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway


What are the rules at the _Federal_ level about recording of telephone
conversations by one of the two parties to a call ?

I understand that if both parties agree to the recording there is no
issue.  What about if one party is recording while the other is not
aware that the conversation is being recorded?

Also, does anybody know which are the relevant piece(s) of legislation
(or rule making by an agency such as FCC) about this?


TIA,

David

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:32:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Meehan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nikko CID Unit Chokes on Name Display


A few questions for TELECOM Digest readers:

I have had a Nikko NCID 20, Industry Canada approved CID unit for
about two years now.  It works fine, except with Name Display.

When Bell Canada started offering it last year, the unit would briefly
display the name and then 'reset', losing all saved data in the memory
and would not work until the batteries were physically removed.  I
eventually called Bell and removed the feature from the line.

Nikko has told me 'it should work' but won't fix it as it's now out of
warranty.  I think that perhaps Nikko was working with draft specs
when they designed the unit, and the actual implementation varies.

Questions: Does anyone else have this problem, is there a solution,
and when was the Name Display standard implemented?  The date of
manufacture on the unit was August, 1993.


Thanks,

Timothy John Meehan - Toronto - Ontario - Canada - M3A 2P5 - [e-mail]
      [e-mail] - http://www.interlog.com/~duke/index.html
 "'Dog bites man' isn't news. 'Man bites dog' is news. And 'Dog bites man on
     the Internet' is a weekly 12-page section." -- Greg Boyd, eye Weekly

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Isherwood)
Subject: New PCS Networks Online?
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 19:01:30 GMT


I have been told that Western Wireless in Hawaii and Microcell 1-2-1
have PCS networks up and running commercially.  Can anyone confirm
this, and perhaps provide me with a contact telephone number for
either?


Thanks.

brian isherwood

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

From: [e-mail] (Jdrintel)
Subject: Re: Need Satcomm Help
Date: 14 Dec 1995 18:53:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jdrintel)


Why the expense of satellite communications, when there are many
popular videoconferencing solutions to those same issues?

I cannot think of very many situations where videoconferencing cannot
provide a superior solution.

Correct me if I am wrong.

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

From: [e-mail] (JBier10575)
Subject: Telecommunications Programs Wanted
Date: 14 Dec 1995 09:18:17 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (JBier10575)


I am a Telecommunications Manager looking for traffic engineering
programs that will help me better manage my 300 line PBX. Programs
such as calculating grade of service, CCS, and erlangs are my
immediate interest, but am also interested in any programs that will
help in managing my telecommunications responsibilities.

Can anybody tell me where I can find such files or programs on the
Internet?


Thank you in advance.

Joe Biernat    e-mail  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack McGee)
Subject: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 02:19:17 GMT
Organization: Orion
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage,
so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out.  Probably two or
three minutes would be good.  Anyone got any ideas for specific
machines, and where they can be purchased?

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

From: [e-mail] (IbssTelCom)
Subject: Looking for Worried Reps and Resellers
Date: 14 Dec 1995 22:08:14 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (IbssTelCom)


We are looking for industry people who may be interested in joining a
loose knit confederation of telco reps and resellers who have pooled
to weather the storm of the coming dereg.  This will allow participants
to write paper for many tariffs, and give you "off tariff" negotiation
clout.

The pool is already over $22,000,000.00 in monthly traffic. We do not
are how small your client list is at this time.  This program may help
you to keep the ones you have during the coming price war.

If you are interested email "[e-mail]" or call 708-637-1234
and ask for Jeff.

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

From: [e-mail] (Toby Weir-Jones)
Subject: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia?
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:49:05 -0500
Organization: Cornell University


Greetings folks,

Are there any problems taking a North American-spec modem and plugging
it into a phone line in Australia?  Any particular adapter that's
needed?  Anything else I should know?  Will it even work?


Thanks in advance,

Toby Weir-Jones   Cornell University   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Shields)
Subject: Wanted: POTS Designer/Consultant
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 16:30:26 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services


Consulting position available for experienced POTS engineer:

Knowledge of Belcore and International Telco Standards
Line and Ringer equivalents, etc.
Some experience with ISDN a plus.

The project involves the design of a low-cost POTS interface
(SLIC/SLAC based) suitable for use in a variety of ISDN Modem, NT1
type products.

If you've been through this before and have design expertise, we have
an immediate requirement for a part-time or short-term consultant.

Interested parties, please E-mail a brief description of your
background and contact details (i.e. phone number) to:


Bill Shields   [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Fardad Vakil <[e-mail]
Subject: Need Information on OnLine Configurations
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:00:00 GMT


Hi there,

One of my friends wants to go into the business of an Internet Provider
Service and offering her customers ISDN BRI service. I need advice on
an economical, and more importantly, a ROBUST configuration to have
minimum downtime. I appreciate your generous responses. Right now, she
is considering buying Pipeline 400 from Ascend to connect to a T1 line
from telco, and from there to a Cisco 2500 series.


Thanks.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #518
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec 15 09:57:36 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id JAA20755; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 09:57:36 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 09:57:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #519

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Dec 95 09:57:30 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 519

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    800 Ration Update (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Peter Simpson)
    New Draft AUSTEL Standard on End-to-End Network Performance (Arthur Marsh)
    Re: Line Test Standards Request (Stephen Satchell)
    Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers (Steven Lichter)
    North American Area Codes (Hardy Rosenke)
    Norstan Communication Customers? (Mark P. Beckman)
    Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (John Thompson)
    LD Carrier Confirmation Number (Keith Bergen)

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] (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: 800 Ration Update
Date: 15 Dec 1995 07:31:12 -0500
Organization: ICB


The FCC has notified DSMI that the reporting procedure implemented
upon the June 14th rationing has been modified.

Only the largest eight RespOrgs have to provide weekly reports to
DSMI, and only in summary form.  The rest no longer have to report
each week on their 800 activity.

Also of interest: During a meeting of DSMI and SNAC this week to
discuss SMS software changes, DSMI representatives emphasized concern
over potential carrier abuse surrounding the impending 888 launch.
Specifically, the SMS software provides carriers with a "now" function
that allows for immediate processing of an order.  This is supposed to
be used for fixing routing errors and other immediate necessities for
servicing existing 800 customers.

It appears that some carriers abuse this function by using it for
number reservations and other non-emergency orders.  Because the SMS
system contains no technical safeguard to block phony "now" orders,
larger RespOrgs in particular were repeatedly implored to self-police
with an "honor system" in this regard, so that the system would not
crash.

A more formal appeal is to be put forth by DSMI at the January SNAC meeting
in Orlando.


Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand
A leading source of information on 800 issues.
[e-mail], (ph) 1 800 The Expert, (fx) 212 684-2714
http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As you probably know Judith, many of
the very, very small carriers are still continuing to issue 800
numbers to new custoers from their supply. What is the legality of
this based on your understanding of present FCC instructions?   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 09:04:06 EST
From: [e-mail] (Peter Simpson)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum


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

> Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to
> the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has
> negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join
> discussions in a more unbiased area.

Dear Mr. Phoneroom:

Most of us have negative feelings toward the telemarketing industry.
For some unknown reason, the telemarketing industry is surprised
by this.

You know, there's something about a phone call around dinner time
that's very annoying.  That's why my name is on a list of people
who have registered with NYNEX as not wishing to be called by
automatic diallers.  Unfortunately, there is no such national
list.  It's currently against Massachusetts law for a telemarketer
to dial a number on that list.  This is a very good idea,
because it saves telemarketers the time and effort of calling
people who don't want to hear their message.  As a telemarketer,
you should encourage your fellow telemarketers to push for a
national list, and encourage the FCC to make it illegal for
telemarketers to call anyone on that list.  Just think of all
the goodwill you'd gain!

Telemarketing is advertising, plain and simple.  Invasive, annoying
and poorly timed advertising.  Many of us don't like it at all, and
rank telemarketers with politicians, used car dealers, insurance
salesmen and lawyers in our hierarchy of esteem.


Regards,

Peter Simpson, KA1AXY       Linux!       [e-mail]
3Com Corporation         The free Unix   [phone] voice
Boxborough, MA 01719      for the 386    [phone] fax

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

Subject: New Draft AUSTEL Standard on End-to-End Network Performance
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 23:32:43 +1030
From: Arthur Marsh <[e-mail]>


On 13 December, Standards Australia issued AUSTEL Draft Technical
Standard TS 027 (95), End-to-end Network Performance.

As well as providing minimum end-to-end performance levels for
parameters relevant to conventional voice telephony over the fixed
PSTN in Australia, it also specifies maximum values of line
impairments relevant to voice-band data applications (modem, facsimile
and TTY) such as Attenuation/Frequency Distortion, Continuous Random
Noise, Impulse Noise, Transmission Loss, Group Delay Distortion, and
Signal-to-Total Distortion Ratio.

Austel DR TS 027 (95) is available for inspection and purchase from
Standards Australia (email [e-mail]) with a closing date
for comments of 28 February 1996.

The Chairman of the AUSTEL Working Group 12/1 that developed this
draft is Mr. Ken Bell, who can be contacted as [e-mail].

As far as I know, there has not been a similar standard published
elsewhere, and as a member of the working group, I recommend that
other telecommunications regulators undertaking similar work make use
of this document.


Arthur Marsh, telephone [phone], fax [phone]
              [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (ssatchell on BIX)
Subject: Re: Line Test Standards Request
Date: 15 Dec 95 06:01:22 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


[e-mail] writes:

> Request help on finding specs I can hand to local phone companies on
> what to test for on POTS lines.

> I am working with a retailer with 500 stores nationwide; we call out
> nightly to the stores registers and pull back the daily sales from the
> registers. Ten stores are consistent problems. I either lose the
> connection in the middle, or I can't make a connection at all.  I have
> identified that the real problem is the phone line.  On a couple of
> the stores when I put a standard analog phone on the line I can either
> crosstalk, other lines dialing, or hiss and pop.  Yet when I call the
> local phone company they can't find anything wrong.

> My real question is: Are there specifications I can get hold of that I
> can point the local phone company to so they know what to test for, or
> is there a standard list of tests I can tell them to run?

ANSI IEEE 743 -- 1995, "IEEE Standard Methods and Equipment for Measuring
the Transmission Characteristics of Analog Voice Frequency Circuits"

The newest version of this, and the equipment that supports it, can read
out line characteristics in 30 seconds or less.  In your case, though,
you can get those lines fixed by showing that fax machines can't send
over them.

Except in California, you will get some guff from the local exchange
carriers about using modems over phone lines.  The tariffs don't require
switched voice circuits to carry data, period.  In California, they
only have to handle speeds to 4800 bps.

Also, one or more of your stores could have a line which has "pair
gain" on it, which will hurt speed, AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO
ABOUT IT.

Here's a way to limit the effect of pair gain and the noise and brack on
the lines:  tell your modems to operate either V.32 or V.34 at no faster
than 4800 bps.  If the volume of data is small (4000 characters or less)
drop back to V.22bis 2400 -- in the time it takes for V.32, V.32 bis, or
V.34 modems to echo-range the connection, you can be *finished* with the
data transfer.

If you need more direct consultation, send me e-=mail.


Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
Publisher of SEPTeL, THE Modem Testing Journal
Testing modems for publication since 1984

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Lichter)
Subject: Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers
Date: 14 Dec 1995 22:02:15 -0800
Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University


[e-mail] writes:

> Made me wonder:

> Suppose you have an 800 number like 800-543-2273 which if you glance at
> your keypad translates to being one very little slip of the finger away
> from being 800-THE-CARD.  I suppose that this unlucky entity receives
> more than its fair share of wrong numbers.  Same goes for the unlucky
> soul or entity who has 800-656-9377, just one mis-digited punch away
> from 800-FLOWERS.

My having an 800 number on my BBS for my personal use and that of our net
has brought some interesting problems with wrong numbers, which are
almost always under 30 seconds and AT&T will remove them if I ask. They
did have me set off just the area codes I use for incoming and that
helped a lot. My only real problem was when someone in New York found it
and used the number to call my board and racked up some major time. I was
stuck with the charges and the person who's number was on my bill claimed
they never called; right!!.

I had New York blocked as well as others that are not used. They did
offer me passcode protecton, but that would be a pain since it is
computer to computer in the middle of the night. I could also get some
programming dome for my BBS that will check a person's phone number
against my systems records and drop them off if they call using the
800 number since the ANI would be detected, but not many programs like
that for the Apple II right now and I don't have the time to write one
now. I get about three a month and that amounts to less then 50 cents
with tax so I don't worry about it much now.


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: [e-mail] (Hardy Rosenke)
Subject: North American Area Codes
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:24:02 GMT
Organization: Home HARDware (!) BBS
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I know that there are various listings out there of the area code
splits that are occuring, and that there are some gopher sites that
have (RATHER) outdated listings ...

I was wondering if anyone had a complete listing of all the area codes
currently in use in North America (and the Carribbean, I guess, seeing
that 809 has split) ...

Any information appreciated.


[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Carl Moore and David Leibold are working
on a new 1996 revision to the area codes file in the Telecom Archives
which hopefully will be as accurate as it can be. Watch for it soon.  PAT]

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

From: Beckman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Norstan Communication Customers?
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:13:03 +0000
Organization: Minnesota Regional Network (MRNet)


I was wondering if anyone else has had experience with Norstan
Communications, and what their impressions of N.C. were.


Thanks,

Mark P. Beckman    Network/Telecommunications Administrator
DRI-STEEM Humidifier Co.   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 18:02:04 PST


TKondo2937 said:

> Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video
> signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible
> in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic.

No; digital transmission is possible over radio links as well.  The
ALOHA protocol is more primative form of CSMA-CD (ethernet) in that it
isn't able to sense a carrier on the frequency.  Satelits also send
digital signals using wither the SPADE protocol or Reservation ALOHA.

> Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already
> underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as
> an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of
> telephone network?

No. The radio signals are transmitted using a digital carrier.  Shift
keying is used to encode the signals.  Different protocols use
different encoding methods, but I would be willing to be the video
signals are transmitted using Manchester encoding so that the receivers
need not be clocked with the sending station.


Steve
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Thompson)
Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 02:18:30 GMT
Organization: TCS Telecommunications


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric
Ewanco) wrote:

> I did some testing with a friend.  It works over AT&T between AC 201
> (NJ) and AC 508 (MA), but not over LDDS Worldcom (even between the
> same two lines).  I'm tempted to call LDDS and ask them why they are
> in violation of the law.

Don't bother ... I've found that LDDS Customer Service Reps are
relatively clueless, especially about Caller ID.  (Customer Service,
Early October -- "Of course it works.  Long distance carriers have
nothing to do with Caller ID.  If you haven't been getting it, it's
because your local phone company's equipment is broken".)

Anyway, I resell WilTel long distance, and had someone call a WilTel
Tech.  Apparently, they're having trouble blocking the Caller ID from
being displayed when the calling party uses the *67 blocking code.  I
was told they were granted an extension by the FCC, and Northern
Telecom expects to have everything functional by January 1st.  Since
LDDS is WilTel's parent company, I assume it's the same story there.


John Thompson
TCS Telecommunications
879 West Park Avenue, Suite 275
Ocean, NJ  07712

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: LD Carrier Confirmation Phone Number
Date: 14 Dec 1995 23:25:08 GMT
Organization: Construction Market Data, Inc.


I know this has probably been posted, and is probably in the FAQ. I've
watched the group for a couple of weeks only to find no FAQ.

What is the phone number to call to get the automated message that
tells you who your LD carrier currently is?

E-mail response would most likely be appreciated by all who already
know the answer.


Thanks,

KeItH     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess it is about time to publish the
Frequently Asked Questions file for telecom again on Usenet. Although
each new subscriber to the mailing list gets it automatically sent out
as part of their new subscription, the newsgroup readers do not get to
see it that often. Thanks for reminding me. Anyone else who does not
have a current FAQ for this group can pick one up in the Telecom Ar-
chives using anonymous ftp, ftp.lcs.mit.edu or by request.

To answer your question, try 1-700-555-4141. You should get back a
recorded announcement which identifies the carrier providing your long
distance service.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #519
******************************


From [e-mail]  Sun Dec 17 09:07:16 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id JAA01250; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:07:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:07:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #520

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Dec 95 09:06:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 520

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Mike Godwin on Internet Censorship (Mike King)
    Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Using an 800 Number to Get Thru to Congress! (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (John Higdon)
    Censorship Protest Continues (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Fax --> E-mail (Robert A. Rosenberg)

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] (Mike King)
Subject: Mike Godwin on Internet Censorship
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:36:34 PST


Forwarded FYI to the Digest

  Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:05:02 -0500
  From: [e-mail] (Keith Bostic)
  Subject: Mike Godwin on Internet censorship.

Forwarded-by: Phil Agre <[e-mail]>

Posted-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 03:35:33 -0500
From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>

Thought you might be interested in the speech Mike Godwin
delivered in San Francisco:

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

Listen. Take a moment now and listen. (Sound of ripping paper.) That's
the sound of what the United States Congress has been doing to the
Constitution in the last few months, all in the name of protecting our
children.

But do they really care about our children? I doubt it.

What they care about, for the most part, is being *seen* as pro-family and
pro-children. And since the religious right has seized much of the high
ground of pro-children-and-family rhetoric, guess who they're afraid of.

Were their votes grounded in an intelligent appraisal of the technology
and functions of the Net? Were they based on knowledge and reflection? The
short answer to these questions is "No." The votes of Senators and
Representatives were driven, for the most part, by fear and ignorance.

Last Thursday I was sworn in as a member of the state bar of California.
This is the third jurisdiction I'm admitted to practice in, but it was
only the first time I'd ever attended one of the group swearing-in
ceremonies. Like all the other new admittees, I echoed the words of the
attorney at the front of the auditorium. In unison, we all swore to
dedicate ourselves to upholding the United States Constitution.

This oath is not terribly different in wording or philosophy from that
taken by each member of the United States House of Representatives, or
each member of the United States Senate, or the Governor of any state, or
the President of the United States. We have all sworn to uphold the
Constitution.

Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment. And whenever you think
about the First Amendment, the first thing you should remember is that it
was designed by the Framers of the Constitution to protect offensive
speech and offensive speakers. After all, no one ever tries to ban the
other kind.

And this was what I was thinking about as I stood in that auditorium and
took my oath -- that I was once again swearing to uphold the First
Amendment and the Constitution of which it is a part.

But where are all the Representatives and Senators who have sworn to
uphold the First Amendment, I asked myself? Now that we face the greatest
attack on the freedom of speech of the common man that this nation has
ever seen, where are the other defenders of the Constitution? Are they
educating themselve about the new medium of the Net? Have they read a word
of Howard Rheingold's book on virtual communities? Have they logged in
themselves? Have they surfed the Web? Have made a friend on the Net? Or
are they satisfied with doing something that doesn't require any online
time at all -- passing bad laws?

One senator from my state, Dianne Feinstein, is ready to ban information
from the Net that is legal in every library -- perhaps because she's under
the impression that it costs nothing  to create the fiction that she's
preventing another  Oklahoma City. But it does cost something -- it costs
us the freedom that our forefathers shed their blood to bequeath to us.
Here's the sound of what Senator Feinstein is ready to do to the First
Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.)

And what about Senator Jim Exon from Nebraska? Is it any surprise that
Senator Exon gets all nervous and antsy when interviewers ask him whether
he personally has logged on? Is it any surprise that, for Senator Exon,
the Net is just another place to make an obscene phone call? Here's the
sound of what Senator Exon is ready to do to the First Amendment. (Sound
of ripping paper.)

And the issue of shutting down free speech on the Net is hardly one that
divides liberals and conservatives.  Here's the sound of what Rep. Pat
Schroeder, a liberal Democrat, and Senator Orrin Hatch, a conservative
Republican, have already voted to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of
ripping paper.)

You may wonder, by the way, why I'm using the sound effect of ripping
paper to symbolize what Congress is about to do to online speech, which
involves no paper at all. The answer, of course, is that most of Senators
and Representatives who voted for imprisoning the Net in a new censorship
regime don't know enough to find the Delete key. You'd think that if
they're going to legislate in cyberspace, they'd at least learn to use
computers themselves, so that the sound we hear as our freedoms are
whisked away would be the click of a keyboard or a mouse. But no.

We may also hear, of course, the occasional voice of someone to whom the
Constitution still has meaning.  Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Speaker
of the House Newt Gingrich have gone on record as opposing any broad ban
of "indecency" on the Net. Which goes to show you: the cause of freedom of
speech is not a partisan issue either.

For the most part, the issue is one of ignorance of the Constitution and
what it protects. The First Amendment, so the courts tell us, does not
protect "obscenity" -- and the word "obscenity" has a special legal
meaning. It doesn't mean profane language. It doesn't mean Playboy
magazine. According to the Supreme Court, it has something to with
community standards, with "prurient interest," and with a lack of any
"serious" literary, artistic, scientific, or political value. What is the
sound of obscenity? I'm not sure, but I'm told that if you dial up a
certain 900 number you just might hear some of it.

But Congress isn't even trying to outlaw "obscenity" on the Net -- they're
banning something called "indecency," which is a far broader, far vaguer
concept. Unlike "obscenity," indecency is protected by the First
Amendment, according to the Supreme Court. But that same Court has never
defined the term, and Congress hasn't done so either.

Still, we have some notion of what the sounds of indecency are. Thanks to
George Carlin and a case involving Pacifica Radio, we know that sometimes
indecency sounds like these seven words:

"shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits."

Now, this isn't the politest language in the world -- on that point I
agree with the Christian Coalition. But I must say, as the father of a
little girl, that I lose no sleep over the prospect that Ariel will
encounter any of these words on the Net -- she is certain to encounter
them in the real world, no matter how or where she is raised. What causes
me to wake up in the middle of the night, whiteknuckled in fear, is the
prospect that, thanks to Senator Exon and the Christian Coalition, my
little girl will never be able to speak freely on the Net, for fear that
some bureaucrat somewhere doesn't think their language is polite enough --
that it's "patently offensive" or "indecent."

What is the sound of the indecent speech? Thanks to my friend Harvey
Silverglate, a lawyer in Boston, we know part of the answer. Harvey wrote
the following last week:

'As a result of the FCC's ban on "broadcast indecency", Pacifica Radio has
ceased its broadcasts each year, on the anniversary of the publication of
Allen's Ginsberg's classic poem, "Howl", of a reading of Ginsberg's poem
by the poet.  Pacifica and Ginsberg and others have sued the FCC, and
while they won a small modicum of relief in the Court of Appeals, they
have petitioned the U S Supreme Court for review.  The Supreme Court
should act within the month.  Meanwhile, high school kids read "Howl" in
their English poetry anthologies, but it cannot be read on the radio!'

What is that the FCC thought was indecent? Try the sound of these words:

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving
hysterical naked, /dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix/angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient
heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night."

And if they found Allen Ginsberg indecent, is there any doubt they'd come
to the same opinion about James Joyce's ULYSSES, whose character Molly
Bloom closes one of the most sexually charged monologues in the English
language with this passage?

"... and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as
well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and
then asked would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my
arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts
all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will
Yes."

That's the sound of indecency for you. And it's a measure of the climate
of fear created by Congress that America Online felt impelled to delete
all user profiles that include the word "breast" in them -- much to the
dismay of countless breast-cancer survivors. Now I ask you, don't be mad
at America Online, whose management has already apologized for this gaffe
-- be angry at Congress, whose crazy actions have created a world in which
the word "breast" is something to be afraid of.

Now at this point the proponents of this legislation will cavil -- they'll
say "Look, we're not trying to ban artists or literary geniuses or
brilliant comedians. We're just trying to protect our children."

To which I have two answers:

First, if you really want to protect our children, find a better way to do
it than to force all of us who engage in public speech and expression to
speak at the level of children. There are laws already on the books that
prevent the exposure to children of obscene speech, and that prohibit
child abuse -- before you start passing new laws, make sure you understand
what the old laws do. It may be that no new legislation is required at
all.

Second, remember that freedom of expression isn't just for artists or
literary geniuses or brilliant comedians. It's for all of us -- it
provides a space for each citizen to find his own artistry, his own
genius, his own comedy, and to share it with others. It also provides a
space in which we can choose -- and sometimes must choose -- to say things
that others might find "patently offensive." And the First Amendment
protects that space most. Don't pass laws that undercut the very
foundation of a free society -- the ability to speak freely, even when
others are offended by what we have to say.

I'm speaking now to you, Congress. If you pass a telecommunications bill
with this "indecency" language in it, we will remember. And we will
organize against you and vote you out.

This isn't single-issue politics -- it's politics about the framework in
which *all* issues are discussed, and in which even offensive thoughts
are expressed. And you, Congress, are threatening to destroy the framework
of freedom of speech on the Net, the first medium in the history of
mankind that holds the promise of mass communications out to each
individual citizen.

At this point, Congress, I'm not afraid of sexual speech on the Net. And
I'm not afraid that my little girl will encounter sexual speech on the
Net. What scares me is what you will do to the First Amendment on the Net
if we don't stop you.  That's more of a perversion than any citizen of the
United States should have to witness.

And I'm telling you now, Representatives and Senators, we stand ready to
stop you. Listen to us now, or soon you will be listening to this sound:
(Sound of ripping paper.) That's the sound of what we will do to your
political future if you forget the oaths you swore.

Long live the First Amendment and the Constitution. And long live freedom
of speech on the Net.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 15:29:34 CST
From: [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest


I'm one who usually stays out of this kind of thing. But the article
PAT chose as representative of the pro-censorship view just rankles me
beyond my tolerance.

[e-mail] (Florack,Eric) writes:

> Rest assured, the Congress, and not the liberal Democrat groups, have
> my support on the matter.

And yet your article takes a strangely liberal viewpoint; "more
government to control the actions of others to conform to MY desires."

> I'm no newcomer to the internet, or to
> online services. I've been a SysOp for nearly 15 years, too. It is my
> considered opinion, that given the situation, their actions, and this
> bill are justified, Constitutional, and timely.

The courts have universally held that the Constitution lets me say "shit"
in public. I can wear it on a T-shirt in public. I can paint it on my car,
tattoo it on my forehead or announce it over a public address system
or cable TV show. But the bill you propound says I can't transmit it
over the Internet. Hell, I dasn't even type it into my computer, lest
someone find it and challenge me to prove I never transferred it to another
computer. And yet you feel this bill is Constitutional?

> Anyone following the usenet groups will tell you, that the vast
> majority of the graphics traffic there is of a pornographic nature.

Gee, Eric, I'm really sorry there aren't enough pictures of trees
there for you. But people tend to post pictures that interest _them_.
And the censorship that already exists because of people like you who
require that the world work to raise your children keeps a lot of
whatever it is you're calling "pornographic" out of the hands of a
lot of people who want to have it.

> Personally, I have no constitutionally based objection to the content,
> where adults are concerned, although I am concerned about the
> measurement of society. I do have MASSIVE problems with the  free
> access that under-age kids have to such material.

So do I. So do many of us who denounce the use of censorship to prevent
them from getting it.

I have MASSIVE problems myself with the underlying cause of both the
censorship and the access kids have.

Unfortunately, to address the underlying cause requires that we talk
about parents who refuse to participate sufficiently in their kids'
upbringing. And in my experience, the worst offenders are the first
and loudest to launch into a tirade about how they do soooooo much
for their kids; the people who raise their kids well usually just
nod and agree that discipline and training have gone the way of the
Model T.

> I'm fully aware of, and have experience with, the various 'net guards
> out there. I do not consider these to be sufficient to the task.

THE TASK. Which task? The task of keeping the universe safe from everything
that anyone could possibly find offensive? Or The Task which The State
should be doing (raising our kids so parents won't have to be bothered)?

> Fully half of them don't understand how newsgroups work, (understanding
> only the web!) and therefore I do not consider them to be even a good
> stop-gap measure. Consider: Do you know of any kids who can't blow
> their parent's ability to operate a computer out of the water? Do you
> really think it's possible that such cracker-box technologies can't be
> defeated by today's 12-year-olds? I don't.

YOU don't seem to understand how the Internet works. What's here is here.
If you don't like it, go play on AOL. If you don't want your kids to have
it, limit them to AOL. Tom Jennings started an entire microcomputer network
(FidoNet) around a concept and a simple piece of software; you can do the
same.

I never fail to be amazed at the attitude of such people. Hey, guys,
you built a nice network; now WE'RE taking over!

> Until such time as some method can be had, that will determine the
> user's age and only allow access appropriate to that age, I consider
> this action the only means available for keeping such material out of
> the hands of kids.

"I can't be bothered teaching my kids any better or supervising their
activities, so until they're grown, everyone stifle yourselves."

As always, the parents are the only REAL people who can determine the
ages of these users. False IDs are very simple to get, even a fake
birth certificate.

> To those who suggest that the is censorship of the net, I suggest we
> already have that; we always have. (Can you say Kiddie Porn?) What
> we're discussing here is not if there should be net censorship or not,
> or if not, but what will be censored.

I see. We've never been able to legally distribute kiddie porn, so
it's okay that we're now not allowed to use certain words?

No reasonable person would equate saying "shit" with distributing
kiddie porn. The proposed law does, making either punishable by severe
legal sanctions.

Kiddie porn REQUIRES that kids be violated, by definition. My saying
"shit" on the net only violates your kids if YOU fail to prevent them
from seeing it. (And if you haven't already taught them the word through
your own use of it.)

> The group's charges of the 'religious right running the country' are
> patent nonsense.  This is nothing more than an attempt of the left to
> get itself back into power. It's amazing the lengths to which
> desperate people will go.
>
> And oh, BTW; If you think this group of theirs, this coalition of
> leftists, is large and powerful, consider: How many of these members
> of one group, show up on the membership lists of ALL the groups?

Leftists?

A couple of years ago Rush Limbaugh commented on a lawsuit in California;
people were suing fast-food restaurants in an attempt to force them into
carrying vegetarian specialties. His comment was that these LIBERALS should
be starting their own vegetarian restaurants rather than forcing the
owners of successful businesses to bend to the will of a few. Matter
of fact, he made mention of it in today's radio show.

Now comes a group of "conservatives" who obviously can't get their
own "internet" to work (else they'd be doing it), and who demand that
the Internet make itself over completely in THEIR image, under THEIR
rules and regulations, for THEIR reasons.

Any real conservative will tell you that it's the liberals and leftists
who need to legislate and/or litigate those things they know a majority
of the population will not support. REAL conservatives will work to
create what they want instead of forcing Government to give them someone
else's.

And gee, how terrible that those who decry censorship do it consistently.

Just remember that famous bleeding-heart liberal who said something
like "Those who would trade essential liberty for a little safety
deserve neither safety nor liberty."

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

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:37:38 -0500
Subject: Using an 800 Number to Get Thru to Congress!
From: [e-mail] (Judith Oppenheimer)


With all the talk of both the Communications Decency Act, and "creative"
800 use, I thought you might enjoy this.


Judith

  From: College Activism/Information List <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Christian Coalition 1-800 #'s (fwd)

> I've read on Usenet that the Christian Coalition has set up two
> 1-800 numbers that will allow people to make free phone calls to
> Congress.  The purpose of this is (obviously) for people to call in
> their support for the "Communications Decency Act," but the person who
> posted these numbers suggests that there is no reason why we can't use
> these same numbers to call in and protest the act.

> Here are the phone numbers:

>         1-800-962-3524 and 1-800-972-3524

> The best of luck to all.

These numbers will put you through to the Capitol switchboard, and
from there, you're in contact with your Senator or representative. And
they can be used to lobby for ANY subject, PREFERABLY in favor of
issues that would make Robertson's cold heart explode.


Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand
A leading source of information on 800 issues.
[e-mail], (ph) 1 800 The Expert, (fx) 212 684-2714
http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith, I am **assuming** -- making a
big assumption -- that as a responsible person, you have verified
the above. I am **not** interested in inviting people to abuse the
800 phone numbers of others. If these are indeed established for the
purpose of allowing citizens to communicate with Congress at no
charge, then by all means people should use them in that way.
If they are for some specific purpose, then they should not be
abused. I'll let readers decide for themselves.     PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 19:47:08 -0800
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest


At 2:54 PM on 12/14/95, Patrick A. Townson wrote:

> my feeling is the future of the net as we know it is going to be
> formed in the next few days, so it would be well to express yourself
> one way or the other.

Unfortunately, you may be absolutely correct.

My question is simple: in more than two decades of the Internet, why has
pornography suddenly become a matter of overwhelming concern to
legislators?

Is it because such "pornography" has only just begun to appear?

Is it because more people (read "children") now have access to the Internet?

Is it because the Internet is now the king of buzzwords and enjoys, for
better or worse, a high profile?

Is there an overriding reason that those who are deathly afraid of
encountering pornography need to deal with the Internet at all?

As a fairly active participant on the Internet, I have yet to see any of
this dreaded pornography. But then I have not gone looking for it, either.
Makes me wonder about those who rail against it so hard.


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             |


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is, quite simply, because of the
large number of people who have just begun to discover the Internet.
In the past, the use was so limited relative to the large number of
people around; now with millions and millions of new users coming on
board this was bound to happen. Was it me to made the analogy to
CB radio a couple years ago?  I hate to say "I told you so,"  but
I did tell you so.    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:17:17 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Censorship protest continues
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Begin forwarded message:

  Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 23:35:59 -0800
  From: "Audrie Krause" <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Censorship protest continues

  CPSR Activists and others -


The Internet censorship protest is continuing, and appears to have a
broad base of support.  Please continue to write, phone, fax and
send e-mail to Congress and especially to President Clinton.

As you know, the Internet censorship issue is part of a larger piece
of legislation that would dramatically deregulate media and
communications activities in the United States.  Powerful interests,
including local and long distance telecommunications companies,
cable and broadcast television, the entertainment industry, radio,
the press and electronic communications interests, all have high
stakes in this legislation.

But so do all of us as citizens.  Censorship of the Internet is only
one of the issues CPSR is concerned about, but it is a big one.  And
because there is a broad base of support for free speech, there's a
chance Congress and President Clinton might listen if enough of us
speak up right away.

Congress is expected to be in session for one more week. If deals
that have been cut are not completed, signed, sealed and delivered
by Dec. 22, they're likely to fall apart and not get revived again
next year because of the election.

Legislation like H.R. 1555 and S. 652, the telecommunications bills
now being resolved by a joint Senate-House conference committee,
involves numerous, complex and often ugly trade-offs, agreements and
concessions. Although telecom *reform* has been a big issue this
year, it is now a side issue to the bickering between Clinton and
Congress over the federal budget, which in turn is related to another
series of complex and often ugly trade-offs, agreements and
concessions.

Given all this, there's a chance we can have an impact if we act
right now.

Please continue to send e-mail, postal mail and faxes to President
Clinton and your representatives in Congress, and if you can spare
the time, phone their offices, as well.  Unfortunately, while e-mail
messages are certainly the easiest way to communicate our concerns to
our elected officials, it seems that the easier technology makes it,
the more dismissive our elected officials are of what they hear.  So,
to make sure they listen, contact them by phone, fax or postal mail.


Capitol Switchboard:      [phone]
Connects caller to all members of Congress

President Clinton:    [phone] Phone

            [phone] Comment Line
            [phone] Fax
E-mail:            [e-mail]


CPSR's message:        Just Say No to Censorship!

Please also continue to share CPSR's letter to President Clinton and
Congress with others.


Audrie Krause     * Executive Director *    CPSR

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
P.O. Box 717   *   Palo Alto   *   CA   *  94302
Phone: [phone]    *   Fax: [phone]
Send E-mail to:                 [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or, just use the 800 numbers which
Judith Oppenheimer provided earlier in this issue if, upon your
verification, that is the intended purpose of the numbers.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: Fax --> E-mail
Organization: RockMug
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 20:05:54 GMT


> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the
> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail
> addresses?

Since the Fax Message format is standardized (otherwise Faxes would
not work), it would seem that providing a service to accept incoming
Faxes and then Email them as MIME attachments would be feasible.
There would need to be a separate number for each user AND the
incoming fax raw data would need to be converted/enveloped into the
format of the user's Fax Software (ie I use FaxSTF81 for the Mac and
thus the raw data would need to be converted into a FaxSTF81 incoming
file). An alternative would be for a RYO format and software for the
different Platforms.

The same applies for outgoing Faxes. You would create the Fax like
normal and then Email the file to the server which would then outward
dial from a local phone (just as is currently done for Text-to-Fax
support such as CIS/GEnie/etc provide). Again, the Server would need
to be able to extrac= t the Raw Image or a RYO Fax Driver (as opposed
to a normal Fax Driver) would be required.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #520
******************************


From [e-mail]  Mon Dec 18 21:12:30 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id VAA15578; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 21:12:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 21:12:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #521

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Dec 95 21:12:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 521

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Network Management: A Practical Perspective, 2nd ed (Allan Leinwand)
    Virginia SCC Adopts Rules for Local Telephone Competition (Nigel Allen)
    AT&T Card Fraud (Paul O'Nolan)
    No Ring Voltage a Connection Setup Failure? (Arthur Marsh)
    Can Somebody Give us Insight For a New Vendor? (Pete Holler)
    Windows NT Jobs Available (Luke M. Olsen)
    Cellular One Phones (Rebecca Ann Ladew)
    Need Leads For Net Topology Softare Packages (Jennifer Mir)
    CFP: 4th Int'l Conf on Spoken Language Processing (Jim Polikoff)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Curtis Wheeler)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Jalil Latiff)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Seymour Dupa)
    Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (M Fletcher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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] (Allan Leinwand)
Subject: Network Management: A Practical perspective, 2nd ed
Date: 18 Dec 1995 20:13:25 GMT
Organization: cisco Systems


Hello folks,

Since the publication of "Network Management: A Practical Perspective,
second edition" a month or so back we have been receiving email with
basic questions about the book.  So, hopefully, with one blanket email
we can answer most questions.

The second edition of "Network Management: A Practical Perspective"
updates the first edition concerning the five areas of network
management (fault, configuration, performance, security, and
accounting), adds some discussion on choosing and building a network
management system, explores MIB-II and RMON MIB objects in detail
(i.e.: how to use these to accomplish network management), and
explains SNMPv2 (or should that be SNMPv2c now? :-).

Other relevant facts:

ISBN 0-201-609990-1
URL == http://heg-school.aw.com/cseng/authors/leinwand/netman2e/netman2e.html

Please feel free to contact myself or my co-author Karen Fang Conroy
([e-mail]) if you need any other details or information on our
new book.


Thanks,

Allan Leinwand
Consulting Engineer
cisco Systems
[phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 12:58:41 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Virginia SCC Adopts Rules for Local Telephone Competition
Organization: Internex Online, Toronto


Here is a press release from the State Corporation Commission (SCC)
of Virginia. I found the press release on the U.S. Newswire BBS
in Maryland at [phone]. I do not work for the SCC.

 Virginia SCC Adopts Rules for Local Telephone Competition

 Contact: Ken Schrad of the State Corporation Commission,
          804-371-9141

   RICHMOND, Va., Dec. 13 -- The State Corporation Commission (SCC)
has adopted rules to allow local telephone service competition to
Virginians after the first of the year.

   The rules, which promote and seek to assure competitive services to
all customer classes in Virginia, outline minimum certification
requirements.

   The 1995 General Assembly changed Virginia law to allow local
telephone service competition (beginning Jan. 1, 1996) within what has
been the exclusive service area of an existing local telephone
company. Companies interested in providing local telephone service
must first be issued a certificate by the SCC. While companies can
submit applications immediately, it is unlikely that customers will
have choices in the local telephone service market on Jan. 1.

   At a minimum, those seeking to provide telephone service
in Virginia must:

   -- provide access to 911 and E911 services;
   -- provide white page directory listings;
   -- provide access to telephone relay services (service for
the hearing and speech impaired);
   -- provide access to directory assistance;
   -- provide access to operator services;
   -- provide equal access to interLATA long distance carriers;
   -- provide free blocking of 900 and 700-number services (as
(long as the same requirement applies to incumbent local exchange
companies);
   -- provide interconnection on a non-discriminatory basis
with other local exchange telephone service companies;
   -- comply with applicable commission service and billing
standards or rules, and;
   -- provide procedures to prevent deceptive and unfair
marketing practices.

   Under the SCC rules, telephone numbers would be portable within
certain geographic areas regardless of the chosen local exchange
carrier, making it possible for consumers to change providers without
having to change telephone numbers.

   Resolving more controversial issues, such as technical
interconnection between carriers and compensation for completing calls
that begin with one carrier's local network and end with another's, is
permitted through negotiation or through SCC hearings if needed.

   The commission has established two new cases to address the issues
of universal service and resale. The rules allow the SCC to establish
a universal service fund to assure that affordable local phone service
is available to all consumers, particularly those in certain high-cost
or rural areas where competitive alternatives may not exist. In the
universal services proceeding, the SCC will examine its definition of
basic local exchange telephone service and determine if any subsidies
are necessary.

   Resale of local exchange telephone service is not addressed in the
rules, but will be the subject of the second new proceeding.  The
commission will invite comments and establish procedural schedules on
each new docket.


forwarded by Nigel Allen   [e-mail]   http://www.io.org/~ndallen/

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

From: Paul O'Nolan <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Card Fraud
Organization: NLnet
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 06:14:13 GMT


Season's greetings from The Netherlands.

Yesterday I received a call from AT&T's card protection service asking
me to confirm that I was in The Netherlands (where I live). "Unusual
activity" had been noted on my card, namely a Filipino in Florida was
trying to call home with what he said was his "mother's card". After
confirming that I didn't have children in the US etc. I was issued
a new card and pin code over the phone.

I was concerned as I was told that this guy had my PIN. This was
strange as I've only used this card about five or six times in the
year I've had it. The number was never written down or carried by me
(it was very similar to my post code and easy to remember therefore),
nor was it ever printed out in a hotel as I am well aware of the risks
of entering PINs via hotel phones.

How did he get the number?

Last month I tried to use the card in Washington DC and was told by
two different operators that it was invalid. On return I called to
find out what the problem was and was told it was ok. The operators to
whom I spoke would not report a fault.

Since I am certain that I was not overheard giving the PIN number in a
public place -- as I only used the card from hotel rooms in which I
was alone -- I have to wonder if the security problem was in AT&T.
Unlikely?

One other thing: a colleague was anxious on discovering that I had a
PIN number (he didn't). He called AT&T. "You have to ask for one"
Ditto for Sprint. MCI don't provide PINs.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There may have been 'leakage' in the
hotel also; via someone with the ability to listen to calls made in
guest rooms.  PAT]

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

Subject: No Ring Voltage a Connection Setup Failure?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 01:17:36 +1030
From: Arthur Marsh <[e-mail]>


One problem that can be difficult to detect is when you dial a number,
hear the "ringing" tone, but the destination line doesn't receive ring
voltage.

This could be due to mis-routing (the call being directed to an
unintended destination), or the line card for the destination line not
supplying ring volatge.

In the latter case, it appears that the run-of-the-mill line cards in
the Ericsson AXE and Alcatel System 12 switches in heavy use in this
country do not confirm outgoing line voltage before indicating back to
the network that the call was successfully routed to its intended
destination.

The first time I was aware that the latter problem had occurred was in
calling my local Telstra business office and having someone answer my
call not knowing that I had dialed in. The second time was early this
week when a modem line was not answering and I was able to go on site
and replace the modem with a standard telephone. I could dial 19123
and have the correct number spoken back to me, call the line's number
from the telephone on that line and get the engaged signal, and
receive a call by picking up the handset when someone was calling, but
did not get ring voltage.

Can anyone explain how telephone companies can ensure (and confirm)
that ring voltage is applied to lines being called, without invading
the privacy of their customers? (Recording the number of the caller is
not an option in Australia).


Arthur Marsh, telephone [phone], fax [phone]
              [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 07:34:05 CDT
From: Pete Holler - Quad/Telecommunications <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can Somebody Give Us Insight For a New Vendor?


Hello,

In the wake of our maintenance vendor filing chapter 11, we are faced
with the immediate task of finding a new vendor for our Astra-Phacs
call accounting system.  I was wondering if any subscribers out there
use this system and can give some insight to helping us find a new
maintenance vendor.  Thanks in advance.


Pete Holler
<pete holler><[e-mail]><telecommunications tech><quad/graphics>

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

From: [e-mail] (Luke M. Olsen)
Subject: Windows NT Jobs Available
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:21:57
Organization: Teleport, Inc.


TelLogic Communication Systems

Join a fast growing company nestled in the Pacific Northwest specializing
in the billion dollar computer Telephony market. TelLogic is a dynamic
and progressive company which recognizes the potential of new and
integrated technologies.

Become a member of a dedicated and highly motivated team. As a company
committed to diversity in hiring and promoting, we are currently seeking
the following individuals:

Windows NT Kernel Specialist

The Windows NT Kernel Specialist will be responsible for the design
and writing of software which resides at the Kernel level in the
Windows NT operating system.  This person will be integrating various
device drivers, messaging protocols, and other operating system
components.

This position requires a BSCS degree or equivalent, a minimum of one
year working at the Windows NT Kernel level and proficiency in using
Visual C++. SPOX and Computer Telephony experience is a plus.

Windows NT Device Driver Programmer

This person will be responsible for the engineering of device drivers
for Microsoft's Windows NT.  The NT device driver programmer will be
working closely with the Kernel Specialist, the Project Manager and
various hardware specialist. The person will need to design and
document the interface between the various hardware components, handle
interrupt latency issues, timing issues and make sure events are
handled in real-time.

This position requires a BSCS degree or equivalent, a minimum of one
year working at the Windows NT device driver level, two years of
device driver experience, SPOX experience, knowledge of hardware
interfacing and Visual C++ proficiency.  Computer Telephony experience
is a plus.

Software Project Manager

The individual for this key position will set the direction of the
various Windows NT projects that are planned. The manager will be
responsible for coordinating engineers both on-site, off-site and
consultants. The software project manager is also responsible for
defining and maintaining timelines and communicating issues to the
executive management. The manager will be expected to manage a design
team of up to 50 people.

This position requires a BSCS degree or equivalent, a minimum of two
years managing projects and engineers. Programming experience is
preferred to but is not needed.

TelLogic Communication Systems offers a competitive salary
(commensurate with experience), excellent benefits and a positive
environment that rewards accomplishments.  Please forward resume with
salary requirements, to:

TelLogic Communication Systems
Attn: Personnel Dept.
6441 SW Canyon Court
Portland, OR 97221

Fax: [phone] or send an email resume to [e-mail]

Qualified applicants only.

We are an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:21:54 EST
From: Rebecca Ann Ladew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular One Phones


I wonder why Cellular One phones are not hearing-aid capatible? AT&T
has two car phone models that are.  You have to use the Cellular One
phones with a TTY and a special 800 number that transfer/ translates
calls for deaf and hard-of-hearing users.  Who is going to carry a TTY
around except maybe a 'portable TTY?'  Not many of us, especially
those who use TTY, are going to carry a TTY and a cellular phone.

Is there a difference between Cellular One phones and AT&T 'car' phones?


Thank you,

Rebecca Ladew


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not sure what you are referring to
by 'Cellular One phones'. Cellular One is a tradmark name used by many
cellular carriers operating on the 'A' side of the network, but I do
not think they endorse or sell any specific kind of phone instrument.
You purchase (or are given for free, or whatever) a phone from the
dealer of your choice, and you then usually wind up on the A or B
side, depending who the dealer is associated with. I should imagine
that the AT&T phones you are speaking about which seem to meet your
needs could as easily be used via the local Cellular One service as
they could on any other system once properly programmed. Are you at
present locked into some sort of deal with Cellular One? If not, or
if you can break the deal, why not go shopping *first* for a hearing
aid compatible phone from the many dealers around, and then second
arrange to get cellular service from whatever carrier that dealer
does business with. Perhaps I am missing something here, since all
the carriers from time to time offer their own deals on whatever
phones they are promoting at the time, but I would not actually
refer to any cellular phone specifically as a 'Cellular One phone'
since they are all quite interchangeable among whatever carrier you
choose to go with.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:20:04 +0000
From: jennifer mir <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Leads For Net Topology Softare Packages
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.


Greetings,

Hate to post another "Hi i'm looking for..." message, but I am looking
for software packages which do network topology computations. Package
can be commercial or research-oriented.  Some desirable features of
the package are:

Telecom network buildout, optimization, development
Costing of link hierarchies
Computation of Grade-of-Service factors (response time for data, etc.)
Center-of-Gravity
Erlang-B (both finite and unbounded M)
M/M/N and M/D/N computation
GUI interface and PC or Mac platforms

Actually, I already know of a package that exists, but was wondering if
any others are out there that are close to it in functionality.


J. Mir   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Polikoff)
Subject: CFP: 4th Int'l Conf on Spoken Language Processing
Date: 18 Dec 1995 14:24:55 -0500
Organization: AI duPont Institute


                            October 3-6, 1996
                         Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel
                           Philadelphia, PA, USA

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.

      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)

______________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. A plain text
version of the announcement is located in the same directory as file
call.txt

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

From: Curtis Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: 18 Dec 1995 02:47:33 GMT
Organization: CCnet Communications


[e-mail] (Jack McGee) wrote:

> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage,
> so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out.  Probably two or
> three minutes would be good.  Anyone got any ideas for specific
> machines, and where they can be purchased?

If you are only in reducing tape wear, why not just switch to CDs.  We
have been doing with our PBXs for a while now.  Sure, the players
eventually wear out, but the CDs themselves don't.

You can get a reasonable single disk player for $100. We bought
several five disc changers for $169 each.  Comparing that to the cost
of our Muzak subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them
each year if necessary.

(A note on CD changers: We thought it might be cool to use the
"shuffle feature" on the changers to mix up the music a bit.  We have
since decided that changing the discs for every track might storten
the machines' life due to added wear and tear.  So we just use the
"continuous" selection that starts at disc one, goes through disc five
and then starts over).


Curtis G. Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA

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

From: [e-mail] (Jalil Latiff)
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 06:37:44 GMT
Organization: Universal Telecommunication Network Services


Try Eletech in Hong Kong. E-mail me if you want the address details.


Best Regards,

Jalil Latiff - Universal Telecommunication Network Services
Telecommunication Turnkey Systems Engineering
Tel : + 60  (0)3 735 6980   Fax : + 60  (0)3 735 6978

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

From: [e-mail] (Seymour Dupa)
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: 17 Dec 1995 16:46:31 GMT
Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc.


Jack McGee ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage,
> so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out.

Why digital storage instead of a radio?  I installed a message-on-hold
device for one of my customers -- holds a two minute message loaded from
cassette -- costs $2,500.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Haven't we been warned many times about
possible copyright infringments and the need to pay royalties when we
use a radio playing music over the phone line?     PAT]

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

From: Mark Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number
Date: 18 Dec 1995 18:32:26 GMT
Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ


[e-mail] (danny burstein) writes:

> Let's see now.  Based on this concept and other events going on in
> NYS, a 'deaf-tty' caller uses 311, a minor emergency uses 811, a
> serious emergency uses 911.  Oh, let's not forget the campaign in NYC
> to call 999-1111, 999-2222, 999-3333, 999-4444, or 999-5555 to reach
> the fire dispatcher (depends on which of the 5 boroughs you're in) so
> as to 'reduce' the load on the general 911 operator andcut down on the
> delay.

> Hmm, sounds to me like it would be much simpler, safer, and effective
> to finally simply staff 911 centers with the right number of people
> and with decent equipment.

Well, Danny, I have to agree and disagree. True, staffing should not
suffer in any kind of emergency service, however I hate to use 911
 from my cell phone to report important, but not life threatning
situations.

Maybe two numbers would do just fine, 911 for emergencies and 811 for
general police reports, etc. As far as the five separate numbers for
the fire dispatcher, that's completely stupid! The whole concept
behind 911 was to route you to the proper dispatching center! What the
hell happened there!

The main root of the problem is 911 is a catchall, we all needed a
common number to dial for police emergencies, but people are just to
darn lazy to look up the non emergency number so they just dial 911.
Well, you're not going to change people, at best you might get them to
modify their habits a little, and I think 811 might be a solution.

A funny sidenote, that happens to be my local CO's PBX access number!


Mark


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not that people around Chicago
are 'too lazy to look up the non-emergency number', although some of
them might be that way. The problem here, and I suspect it is true
in many other places, is what I will term the politics of 911, the
local police involved and associated government agencies, etc. In
Chicago, if you call the local police station direct to discuss a
non-emergency matter -- indeed, much of anything at all -- you are
told to hang up and dial 911 instead. The quicker they can brush off
your call, the happier they are. So we call 911 to report something
which happened *yesterday* or any other non-emergency event we wish
to speak about to the police and we reach a very condescending dis-
patcher who, if we had picturephone and could observe, sits there
and rolls her eyes wondering 'why these civilians do not understand
how busy and understaffed we are here without having to listen to
them bellyache about a barking dog or some graffiti they found on
the side of their house' ... The problem would seem to be that no
one at the local police precinct wants to take responsibility for
making a decision to dispatch officers. That way, if something goes
wrong, it can be blamed on the communications center instead.

And why no cellular 911 service in the Chicago area? Well you see
none of the police agencies and/or municipal governments want to
allow anyone else to handle their emergency calls. They're afraid
that if something goes *right*, someone else will get the credit,
but that if something goes *wrong*, they'll be the ones to catch hell.
So we live with the embarassment of having no 911 service for people
in cars or people walking down the street with a cell phone in their
pocket like myself. That's the politics of 911 I was referring to.
We have something called *999 for the interstate highway patrol,
but when there is an inch or more of snow on the ground all you get
dialing that number is a busy signal.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #521
******************************


From [e-mail]  Tue Dec 19 00:03:04 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id AAA28028; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:03:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:03:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #522

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Dec 95 00:03:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 522

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Jodi Weber)
    Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom (Jeff Bamford)
    Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom (Stephen Knight)
    Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom (Scott Montague)
    Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Jim Youll)
    Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Robert Bulmash)
    Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (Pat Martin)
    Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (B Margolius)
    Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' ([e-mail])
    Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers (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: [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] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State?
Date: 18 Dec 1995 09:10:31 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn


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

> Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the
> same state?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The short and simple answer is, you
> don't.]

This reminds me of a challenge I had a few years ago in trying to get
a rate quote from Pacific Bell.  I was in Sacramento at the time, and
needed to know if a call from a certain East Bay exchange to a
certain San Francisco exchange was or was not a local (untimed) call.
Both Sacramento and the bay area are served by Pacific Bell, but they
are in different LATAs.

So, I call the local Pacific Bell operator and ask my question.  Almost
before I can finish my question, I am told in a somewhat condescending
tone: "Sir, San Francisco is a long distance call from here.  You
need to call your long distance operator."  I carefully repeat my
question, emphasizing that I'm asking information about a
Pacific Bell-handled call, with both the caller and called parties
in the Bay Area.  Again, I am scolded that San Francisco is a long
distance call from where I am, and that I need to call my long distance
company.  I try a third time, asking what my long distance company
would know about intra-LATA calls.  I'm told, "Sir, it's *not* an
intra-LATA call to call from here to San Francisco!"  The best I
could tell, this operator had some sort of macro running in her
mind:

HEAR:          any mention of far-away place
RESPONSE:    rudely refer customer to long distance carrier,
        making special effort to not listen to actual
        question.

So, I play along with the game, and call the AT&T operator.  She
types in the two exchanges, then says "Oh, those two exchanges are
in the same area.  That's a Pacific Bell call."  I tell her my
story, and she kind of thinks it's funny, but can't tell me what
I'm supposed to do.

So, I call my local Pacific Bell business office, and explain my
situation.  After repeating myself about four times, the rep
finally understands my question, but does not know how to get the
information.  She checks with her supervisor.  The answer is
that I'm supposed to call the business office in the bay area, and
they give me the number.

I call them, and am told to call the Operator to get rate quote
information.  I explain that I have no way of doing that, because
I'm not in the LATA.  Again, I get a bewildered reaction.  She
checks with her supervisor.  The solution this time is for her
to take her printed White Pages off her shelf, and look up the
information herself!  The response was "it's a toll call."

After all of that, I find out a month later that this was one of
the old "Zone 2" calls under the "ZUM" intra-LATA toll scheme that
California has ("Zone 2" and "Zone 3" calls were "toll" calls, but
not distant enough to be called "long distance").  But, the previous
year, Pacific Bell had changed the rate structure such that Zone 2
calls were now just like Zone 1 calls:  unmeasured local calls.
My rep had been using an out-of-date directory to quote me the
rate.

So, I came to the determination that there just was no way to get
reliable information of this sort (i.e. intra-LATA rates from
another LATA), short of having someone in that LATA call the
operator for you.

Also, PAT mentions that the AT&T operator can reach "inward" by
dialing NPA+121.  While trying to resolve a routing problem about
3 years ago, an AT&T operator told me that 121 no longer reaches
an LEC operator in the distant NPA, but instead goes to an AT&T
operator there.  She claimed to have no way to reach an LEC
operator in a distant NPA.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 11:12:23 EST
Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State?
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

> Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the
> same state? I'm not trying to dial the AT&T operator ("00"). I've been
> trying to dial the local operator in NV (specifically Contel, the LEC
> for the Lake Tahoe area) from NJ, and so far the only way I've been
> able to get connected is by calling Contel's business office, who put
> me through.

The reason I was trying to reach the local operator was to get rate
information to find out if calling a certain exchange from a certain
other exchange was a toll call.  Except for looking at a Nevada phone
book, which I didn't have access to, I couldn't think of any other way
to find that out.

Thanks for the reply!


Jodi Weber
[e-mail]   or   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are welcome, and this is just what
Steve discussed in his message in this issue isn't it ... perhaps the
thinking is you don't need that information since the only way you
could possibly make such a call -- and thus be subject to the rates --
would be if you were in the area in question. And of course in that
case, you would be within easy reach of an operator who would be glad
to stir the confusion up even further for you.   <g>     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Bamford)
Subject: Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom
Date: 18 Dec 1995 22:12:14 GMT
Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada.


    I know Call Mall is offered by NBTel in New Brunswick.  It is
some sort of "Shop-at-home" service that uses the display on the Vista
350.  They were the first phone company to offer it, not sure where
else it is available.


Jeff

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Knight)
Subject: Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom
Organization: Nortel
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 15:49:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
uwo.ca (Johnny K Lai) wrote:

>         I just wonder, is anyone here in Canada is using the Northern
> Telecom Vista 350 Phone with Bell Canada, which provides Visual
> Call-Waiting (allows you to see the CID number even for
> call-waitings), and CallMall?  I wanna to have some technical
> information on this phone. (It is quite a wonderful phone to me.)

> E-Mail: [e-mail] or  [e-mail]
> Homepage:  http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~stevenl/johnny.html

He's probably referring to the "Call Mall" currently being (to the best of
my knowledge) operated by New Brunswick Tel.

"Call Mall" is an interactive service where a caller with an ADSI-capable
phone (like the Vista 350) can dial in to a "mall".  Menus are presented
where the caller can request catalogs and place orders with various
companies/businesses (sorry, I have no idea how many companies/businesses
are participating).

While not having seen it in action myself, I expect it would remind people
of the old CompuServe text-driven shopping areas.


steve knight   nortel   rochester, ny

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Montague)
Subject: Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 15:56:35 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Pat, you asked:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What is 'CallMall', or did you mean
> 'Call Mail', as in another name for voicemail?   PAT]

Nope, it's Call Mall.  Our name for VoiceMail is Call Answer up here
in Bell Canada territory.  Here's the news release regarding the
service from http://www.bell.ca/bell/eng/read/nr/95/nr950927.htm


Bell offers Vista 350 telephone with CallMall to London-area customers

(LONDON, September 27, 1995) -- Starting October 10, 1995, Bell Canada
will offer the new Vista 350(TM) telephone set featuring free access
to CallMall* Services to London-area customers.

CallMall is a convenient, easy-to-use electronic marketplace,
featuring banking, information gathering and personal shopping. The
Vista 350** is the telephone that makes these routine tasks easier
because they can be done from home.

Designed by NORTEL, the Vista 350 features a large, back-lit screen
that is able to display up to eight lines of text 20 characters in
length; six option keys; a directory that can hold up to 50 names and
numbers; scroll and cursor buttons; message waiting indicator; and
handsfree/mute features.

The telephone will also support Visual Call Waiting, a package of
services that combines the benefits of Bell Call Display service with
the name display option, and Bell Call Waiting service. This new
service allows users to see the name and number of a second call
waiting to be answered when a call is already in progress.

Visual Call Waiting will be offered in those areas where Bell
SmartTouch(TM) services currently are available.

The Vista 350 telephone will also provide one-button access to other
SmartTouch*** services, such as pay-per-use Last Call Return, Busy
Call Return and Three-Way Calling.

The most advanced feature of the Vista 350 is its ability to offer
free access to the CallMall, an electronic marketplace. Easy-to-follow
display prompts will navigate customers through the CallMall. They
will be able to view brief product and service information, access
more details delivered in both audio and video form and even connect
automatically to the retailer or sponsor.

By selecting merchandise or service categories of particular interest
to them, customers will be able to take advantage of special offers
from local retailers. These may be advertised through short, four-line
messages displayed on the screen of the Vista 350 several times each
day.

For retailers, the CallMall will offer an alternative outlet to market
their products and services. Advertisers will be able to reach their
target groups very effectively and efficiently.

The Call Mall is provided by Bell in partnership with New North Media,
a joint venture of Bruncor (parent company of New Brunswick Telephone)
and NORTEL.

One offering that will be available to all London-area customers with
the Vista 350 is the Bell Services electronic catalogue of products
and services that will include details on special offers and rate
discounts. Bell Services will also direct users to the appropriate
company source for additional information or ordering.

Trial participants will need Touch-Tone(TM) service and be willing to
rent at least one Vista 350 telephone. To gain the full benefits of
the trial package, customers should also subscribe to Visual Call
Waiting.

Residence customers will pay $8.50 per month for the Vista 350
telephone with CallMall and $11.00 monthly for Visual Call Waiting.
The charge for individual-line business customers is $13.50 per month
for the Vista 350 and $14.00 for Visual Call Waiting.

Businesses wishing to participate in CallMall and the Quick Ads
program should call Phil Bywater at [phone] for more
information. Rates, amounting to pennies per day, are based on the
number of ads, households reached and customer access to services.

Bell Canada, the largest Canadian telecommunications operating
company, markets a full range of state-of-the-art products and
services to more than seven million business and residence customers
in Ontario and QuΘbec.

Bell Canada is a member of Stentor -- an alliance of Canada's major
telecommunications companies.


* Call Mall is a trademark of New North Media.
** Vista 350 is a trademark of NORTEL.
*** SmartTouch is a trademark of Bell Canada

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

Now if that doesn't sound like a press release, I don't know what
does.  Personally, I'd find ads rolling across my screen quite
annoying, a PANBQAS (Pretty Amazing New but Quite Annoying Service).
Now, if by having the advertising on the screen it would pay for a
portion of LD calls or extend the Local Calling Area ...

We can only dream.


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] (Jim Youll)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 21:07:58 -0500
Organization: Bowling Green State University


On Fri, 15 Dec 1995, Peter Simpson wrote:

> Dear Mr. Phoneroom:

> Telemarketing is advertising, plain and simple.  Invasive, annoying
> and poorly timed advertising.  Many of us don't like it at all, and
> rank telemarketers with politicians, used car dealers, insurance
> salesmen and lawyers in our hierarchy of esteem.

Just for the record, I like my insurance salesman quite a lot, and he has
never once called me during dinner.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Possibly that is because he has dinner
at the same time as yourself, and he hates to be disturbed while he
is eating.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Prvt Ctzn)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum
Date: 18 Dec 1995 01:20:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Prvt Ctzn)


[e-mail] (Peter Simpson) wrote:

> As a telemarketer, you should encourage your fellow telemarketers
> to push for a national list, and encourage the FCC to make it illegal for
> telemarketers to call anyone on that list.  Just think of all
> the goodwill you'd gain!

When the FCC was going through its Rulemaking proceedings concerning the
TCPA, a `national do-not-call database' was one of the mechanisms that was
suggested to it by Congress.

Sadly, but predictably, Mr. Phoneroom's telenuisance industry fought
against its implimentation.  The reason?   Because, if their was a
national list in place that was free to consumers, the telenuisance
industry would have no one left to call.


Robert Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc.  1/800-CUT-JUNK

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

From: [e-mail] (Pat Martin)
Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:29:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Steve Cogorno) wrote:

> TKondo2937 said:

>> Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video
>> signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible
>> in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic.

> No; digital transmission is possible over radio links as well.  The
> ALOHA protocol is more primative form of CSMA-CD (ethernet) in that it
> isn't able to sense a carrier on the frequency.  Satelits also send
> digital signals using wither the SPADE protocol or Reservation ALOHA.

>> Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already
>> underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as
>> an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of
>> telephone network?

> No. The radio signals are transmitted using a digital carrier.  Shift
> keying is used to encode the signals.  Different protocols use
> different encoding methods, but I would be willing to be the video
> signals are transmitted using Manchester encoding so that the receivers
> need not be clocked with the sending station.

This is an interesting area, what is digital and what is not? All
digital RF systems I have dealt with encode the data on to an analog.
This analog modulation is often very similar to, or exactly the same
as, that used by analog voice band modems, though the data rates and
passed bandwidths are often much higher. In RF the only limitation to
bandwidth is your allocated channel space. Its been a while but most
systems I dealt with in the past used 64 QAM (Quadrature Amplitude
Modulation) or 128. I suppose there are systems out there that go
higher. On wide bandwidth channels with high baud rates you can get
some very high bit rates.

The spec for V.32 modems states that 16 QAM at 2400 baud will be
supported for 9600 BPS, among other modulation specs.

I am not sure about the quoted access methods above, but TDMA, GSM and
CDMA are methods to allow sharing of the digital channel and do not
neccesarily specify the modulation method. I am not positive about
CDMA but from what I have learned CDMA takes regular RF and runs it
through a 'spreader' before tranmitting and on the receive side
un-spreads(?) the signal. I would assume that QAM modulation can still
be used in this process, the modulator inserted prior to the spreader
and the demodulator inserted after the de-spreader?

The real question is, what is really digital? I suppose stuffing bits
on a coax at TTL levels is probably pure digital but even T1
transmission encodes the data as AMI for better tranmission distance.
What about most fiber transmission, is it digital or analog? I think
in most cases you are not going very far with the data if it is not
encoded as analog.


Patrick L. Martin       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Margolius, NYC)
Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 17:34:34 GMT


[e-mail] (danny burstein) wrote:

> Let's see now.  Based on this concept and other events going on in
> NYS, a 'deaf-tty' caller uses 311, a minor emergency uses 811, a
> serious emergency uses 911.  Oh, let's not forget the campaign in NYC
> to call 999-1111, 999-2222, 999-3333, 999-4444, or 999-5555 to reach
> the fire dispatcher (depends on which of the 5 boroughs you're in) so
> as to 'reduce' the load on the general 911 operator andcut down on the
> delay.

> Hmm, sounds to me like it would be much simpler, safer, and effective
> to finally simply staff 911 centers with the right number of people
> and with decent equipment.

Danny, I agree with your basic premise, but it seems reasonable to use
the phone system to separate urgent/emergency calls from less urgent
ones.  Either using 911/811 or using a "press 9 if this call is ugent"
approach.  It makes performance dependent on people respecting the
conventions, but I still think it's worth it.  I definitely do agree,
however, that it's all too easy to carry this separation of functions
too far.  I don't look forward to a "red pages" section of the phone
book which just lists 911 type numbers. :-)


Barry F Margolius, New York City
[e-mail]    For PGP Key, finger [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator'
Date: 18 Dec 1995 14:20:17 GMT
Organization: North Shore Access/Eco Software, Inc; ([e-mail])
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> I need a little help defining some equipment for an application.
> The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that
> will:
> a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or;
> b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is
> a  voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user-
> directed assistance.

Bill,

Have you selected your VRU system yet?  If not, you can easily solve
this problem by using a VRU with MVIP capability.  The MVIP is a "call
routing bus" that would let you route your call initially from the T1
to an analog output line (which you would connect externally to a
modem) and to listen (using the voice processing capabilities of the
VRU unit) to see if the handshaking tones are present.  If not, the
VRU could re-route the call from the T1 directly to the voice
processing subsystem for normal VRU operations.

One vendor that makes voice boards with this kind of capability is
Natural Microsystems (508-650-1300).  They make boards, not turn-key
systems so you'll need to do your own system integration and write
your own application software (or hire one of NMS's value added
resellers to help you with it).  There are some good applications
generation tools on the market that you could use to write your
applications if you don't want to program in C.

I hope this helps.  If you need more info, get in touch.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:27:54 EST
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers
Organization: Penn State University


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) says:

> My only real problem was when someone in New York found it
> and used the number to call my board and racked up some major time. I was
> stuck with the charges and the person who's number was on my bill claimed
> they never called; right!!.

As far as I can tell, telephone numbers and vehicle license plates do
NOT identify people, but OWNERS of same.  Those who use those media
might not be the OWNERS.  That does NOT obviate their responsibilities
though, it might help explain a certain lack of knowledge e.g., when
you move into an apartment and turn on telephone service and find that
somehow others are using your telephone service even though you have
the only key to your apartment.


Pete Weiss -- Penn State

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #522
******************************

From [e-mail]  Wed Dec 20 12:32:47 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id MAA29398; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:32:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:32:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #523

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Dec 95 12:33:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 523

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Shubu Mukherjee)
    International Opportunities in Cellular (Lynne Gregg)
    What Do I Have Here? (Jim Haynes)
    D4 Channel Bank (Paul Reynolds)
    Bridging Two Worlds - Internet Voice and PSTN (Tom Bateman)
    New Area Code for Virginia (Greg Monti)
    US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts Available (Tim Sweeney)
    Howard Rheingold Urges Action on the Telecommunications Act (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Digital Cellular Service (Richard Kinch)
    Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! ([e-mail])
    Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! (Kurt Joplin)
    Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? (David Clayton)

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] (Shubu Mukherjee)
Subject: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 19 Dec 1995 23:28:23 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin


Has anyone been recently ripped off by a Dating Service called
International Telemedia Association (ITA) operating from Atlanta,
Georgia?  Is this a big scam?

Here is our story.  Suddenly, in our phone bill we found a $45 charge
for VOICEMAIL_1.  Our local telephone company informed us that this is
a dating service operating from Atlanta.  When my roommate called up
ITA, they claimed that someone from our house called them up and
established this service on such and such date, which is absolutely
false.  When he demanded that they refund our money, they refused and
referred us to the Attorney General's office.  Our local telephone
company (Ameritech) has been equally uncooperative.  They say that
they cannot stop the payment to this ITA service and we have to pay
them.  The funny thing is though that along with the dating service
charge, there was a teleconference charge of around $50 (for two
minutes) with some company called Integretel.  This company, however,
immediately refunded our money saying that this must have been a
mistake.

Is there anyone out there who has suffered the same fate?  Our local
telephone company (Ameritech) told us that they have received similar
complaints from other customers.

Please email me ([e-mail]) or call me up (608-255-3244) if a
similar incident has happened to you and we can teach ITA a lesson.


Thanks!

Shubu Mukherjee        University of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences

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

From: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Opportunities in Cellular
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 16:38:00 PST


If you are interested in exploring international opportunities with AT&T
Wireless Services, please send a resume and note detailing area of interest
to Marsha Alexander at [e-mail].

We seek individuals with the following backgrounds for positions in Latin
America, India, and Europe.

RF & Microwave Engineering
Network Engineering and Construction
Switch Engineering
Financial and Business Analysis
Customer Operations
Marketing, Sales


Regards,

Lynne

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 10:10:06 -0800
Subject: What do I Have Here?


I was in San Antonio last week.  My cousin took me on a tour of used
book stores.  At one of them I was about to leave when I saw "The
Telephone Book" on a shelf.  And I was about to pass that up because I
already have enough telephone books.  But I took it down and saw it
had lots of nice historical pictures - seems to be a book that was
produced for the 1976 telephone centennial.  So I looked at the price,
and was about to decide that was too much just for a book with pretty
pictures.  Then I noticed on the front cover, in gold letters, "John
D. DeButts" !  Could it be that I have here the president's personal
copy of this book?  (Of course I bought it.)  And how did it get to
San Antonio?

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Reynolds)
Subject: D4 Channel Bank
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 21:28:18 GMT
Organization: Optical Data Systems, Inc.


Greetings,

I have a "brand-new" never installed D4 Hubbell/Pulsecom 48 port
channel bank for sale to a good home ...

This bad boy has over (30), 4 wire E&M cards, mulitple LIU's, & dual
power supplies

I'll  pay the shipping ...


Thanks,

[e-mail]

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

From: Tom Bateman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bridging Two Worlds - Internet Voice and PSTN
Date: 19 Dec 1995 17:50:35 GMT
Organization: NBTel


Has anyone out there come up with a good method of bridging between the
PSTN and the internet voice world. I'd be interested in sharing info on
this topic either via private e-mail or via this or other newsgroup
postings.

The overall objective is to come up with a  cost effective configuration
for a Call Center ACD agent to participate in both traditional Call
Center ACD agent activities (via 800/PSTN/ACD technologies) and also
participate in Internet calling activities via  internet voice software
congfigurations. We are looking to build or buy in this area.


Tom Bateman   NBTel
[phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 18:43:45 PST
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Area Code for Virginia


A friend noted a short article in the {Washington Post} and later a
press release from Bell Atlantic: Virginia will get its fourth area
code in late 1996.

Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Suffolk, Chesapeake and Williamsburg will be
in a new code.  Richmond, Petersburg, Charlottesville and Lynchburg
will remain in 804.  The new code, the exact date, and exact border
line have not been announced.

804 has started using N1X and N0X prefixes.


Greg Monti     Arlington, Virginia, USA     [e-mail]

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

From: Tim Sweeney <[e-mail]>
Subject: US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts Available
Date: 19 Dec 1995 23:27:22 GMT
Organization: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission


The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has posted on
its web page the transcript of the quality of service hearings
conducted on November 9, 1995, in Olympia, Washington.  The hearing
was held as part of the U S West rate case.  No decision has been made
on this case.  Hearings on quality of service continue January 8, 1996
with the rest of the case issues taken up during the following two
weeks in January.

Included in the transcript is the cross-examination of U S West
Vice-President Dennis Okamoto and consultant Mike Bookey and testimony
from about 20 members of the public including Internet service
providers commenting on T-1 and ISDN access.

The text file is about 400K and can be found on the WUTC page at:
http://www.washington.edu/wutc


Tim Sweeney
WUTC Policy Office

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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 00:07:12 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Howard Rheingold urges action on the telecommunications act
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:

 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:41:30 -0800 (PST)
 From: Phil Agre <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Howard Rheingold urges action on the telecommunications act

 From: [e-mail] (Howard Rheingold)
 Subject: Call The White House Now

The following "Tomorrow" column will be published by King Features client
newspapers the week of December 25. Permission is granted to reproduce this
and retransmit this column electronically. Fax it to offline friends.

Last Stop Before the Censorship State

By Howard Rheingold

        Americans have one last chance before we lose the Net. If
American citizens write, call, and fax the President now and urge him
to veto the telecommunications deregulation bill, we might not lose an
opportunity to revitalize the democratic process and grow hundreds of
thousands of small Net-based businesses. And we might not hand over a
nascent native industry (the dominant industry of the twenty first
century) to international competitors.

        The effects of this legislation (S 652) go far beyond the
Internet, reaching into every aspect of American lives, undoubtedly
influencing the shape of the democracy our children will grow up in.
This telecommunications bill encourages the concentration of ownership
of all news, entertainment, and communication media, institutes
censorship provisions that will put online service providers out of
business, cut off universities from the worldwide network, and turn
American scientists, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs into a nation
of Net-morons in an increasingly online world. This bill allows rates
to rise too high and too fast, is generous with megacorporations and
stingy with education, and it completely ignores the widening gap
between information-rich and information-poor.

        Through months of committee debates and decisions, censors and
monopolists have won every battle over the future of the Internet. By
shamelessly exploiting legislators' and citizens' ignorance of the
nature of the Internet, a small group who are intent upon imposing
their brand of morality on everyone else,are about to silence a
potentially powerful medium for citizen-to-citizen communication,
cripple American industries trying to compete in global markets, and
create a Federal bureaucracy with the power to determine what is
decent for citizens to say.

        Congress will almost certainly send to the President a
telecommunications reform bill that can send people to jail for two
years and fine them $100,000 for mentioning the seven words that are
forbidden from radio and television. Mention of abortion, condoms or
safe sex are almost certain to be the next items forbidden. American
universities, on the advice of their attorneys will turn off all
Internet access for their students as soon as the law goes into
effect.

        American citizens don't have to be electrical engineers to
understand the nature of the new communication media. But we do need
to have the truth told and the complexities explained, and that has
not happened. Computer BBSs, e-mail, citizen networks, mean that you
no longer have to own a press to benefit from freedom of the press:
every desktop connected to the Net is a printing press, a place of
assembly, a broadcasting station. The idea that ordinary taxpayers
should have the power to publish eyewitness reports, argue policy,
distribute information threatens the old power structures. Politicians
and corporations whose fortunes are based on control of mass media
fear their power will erode to the citizens.

        Legislators have failed to uphold their oath to defend the
Constitution by pursuing such nonsense as flag-burning amendments to
the Constitution while at the same time destroying the liberties that
flag symbolizes. Internet censorship legislation is not about
pornography on the Internet (which will easily move offshore). It's
about who will have the power and control to broadcast words, images,
and sounds, to everyone else.  Citizens? Or cartels?

        A trillion-dollar pie is being cut up. We, the people, are
getting cut out. Speak up. We still have the right to communicate with
the President and demand that he hold the line. Tell him to send this
back to Congress. We've been living for sixty years under the rules
set forth in the Communications Act of 1934. Now the Congress is
changing the rules again, determining the way our nation and its
industries will communicate, educate, and do business for decades to
come. We deserve better than this.  Tell Clinton to tell Congress to
try again, to cut the citizens of this country into the deal, and to
keep their hands off the Bill of Rights.

        Contact the White House right now:
        [phone] Phone

        [phone] Comment Line
        [phone] Fax.


Howard Rheingold [e-mail]
http://www.well.com/user/hlr/
Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Kinch)
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Service
Organization: The Road Kill Cafe
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 07:24:47 GMT


[e-mail] wrote:

> I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone in the coming
> months.  I have heard plenty of advertising hoopla
> about AT&T's digital cellular service ...

I've had a digital cellular in Palm Beach County, Florida for six
months.  Motorola Micro Tac.  Good, rugged phone.

> Can a digital cellular phone roam to a non-digital area? (the phones that
> I have seen include the Motorola PERSONALD and MICROTACD, and several
> Ericson offerings -- I don't know model numbers).

A digital cellular phone is a superset of an analog phone.  When in an
analog-only area, the phone switches to being analog.  You can also
program the phone to only use analog.  The unit will clearly say it is
"dual mode"; to my knowledge you can't buy one that ain't dual mode.

> Is the technology likely to be obsolete soon -- should I wait?
> Does digital REALLY offer a significant advantage over the analog
> service? AT&T advertises better sound quality, better security (less
> fraud) -- what's the real story?

If you want cellular and know you want it for a period where you can
recoup the extra expense of the digital unit in lower monthly rates,
then of course go ahead.  The phone is "yours" after six months
anyway.  You can switch to the wireline carrier then and use your old
(digital+analog as analog) phone.

The security I believe only extends to eavesdropping, not cloning.

The advantage is that you get lower digital rates because up to three
digital conversations (I believe three is the number) can TDMA
multiplex on one cellular conversation.  The rates are not
proportionately lower, just marginally lower (e.g., 20/month versus
30/month, same air time rates).

The voice quality of the current TDMA digital is, in my experience, at
best slightly POORER to a clear analog channel and often MUCH POORER
to INCOMPREHENSIBLE.  This is only to be expected, since you're taking
bandwidth optimized for one conversation and splitting it into three.
When the system is busy or you have spotty transmissions, you get the
hashy digital noise instead of clear voice.  Of course they still
charge you full price for the air time.

Of course, heh heh, you can just pay the digital rate and set your
phone to analog-only operation.

> Both local carriers bundle the mandatory one year service at the rates
> stated above. What kind of rates are typical 12 months from now when I
> have completed the mandatory service agreement? Am I correct in assuming
> that a portion of the price of the phone is ammortized into the monthly
> service rate for the first year? Should I expect lower rates once this
> period is over?

You're right about the bundling, they're not making much until the six
or twelve months are over unless you use a lot of air time.  I tried to
dicker on rates but if you're an individual I think your stuck paying
their advertised rates.


> Ed Kleinhample                      [e-mail]
> Land O' Lakes, FL.     or [e-mail]

Love that butter you folks make.


Richard J. Kinch               [e-mail]
Kinch Computer Company         Publishers of TrueTeX (R) brand of software
6994 Pebble Beach Court        Tel [phone]
Lake Worth FL 33467 USA        FAX [phone]
Info at http://www.emi.net/~kinch

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular CID - It's Here!
Date: 19 Dec 1995 21:58:49 GMT
Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468


On 13 Dec 1995 19:27:49 GMT, Gary Davis ([e-mail])
posted:


>> For now, all cellular numbers in  the system are apparently set to
>> a default  value of "Per-Line  Blocking ON".   When I call  home -
>> just dialing my  7-digit number, and  where I have "Anonymous Call
>> Rejection" turned  ON, I  got the  reject  message that the  phone
>> company plays to anonymous callers.

> That explains  why  one caller  told  me   she got  that   "strange"
> rejection message. She had called me from her cellular and because I
> have anonymous  rejection enabled, she  received the message telling
> her to not block her caller ID being passed.

I had the same precise problem.  I paged a friend of mine and he tried
to  call me back from his  cellphone.  I have Anonymous Call Rejection
and so he  heard "...  Please  hang up, do not  block the delivery  of
your number, and call again."

He didn't know  HOW to do  just that and so  I missed a very important
call.  He thought I blocked "cellular phones" altogether.  I'm sure
most cell-users will think the  same, especially those who never  used
*67 in their life.  We gotta educate the ignorant.

Why don't they change that  Call-Rejected-Announcement to: "... Please
hang   up, allow delivery of   your number by   dialing  *82, and call
again"?

Evidentally,  when they originally recorded that  prompt, the only way
to block delivery  of your number was by  dialing *67.  This  is still
generally true  here  and in about  20  other states which  only allow
per-call blocking  (no per-line blocking).  Today, however, cellphones
block delivery of number by DEFAULT (which is the right thing to do).

Whether they change the prompt or not, I'm sticking with A.C.R.  I get
calls  from cellphones once   a year anyways.   I'll  just temporarily
disable A.C.R. by  dialing *87 whenever I expect  a call from  someone
who might have a cellphone.

Won't work for emergencies, but then again, I'm not 911.  ;)


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.

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

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 21:42:39 +0000
From: Kurt Joplin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular CID - It's Here!
Organization: Nortel


To further expand on Kevin's article:

I just read a brochure from Southwestern Bell Mobile stating that they
are, just now, offering CID. They are offering Caller ID service that
uses a digital cellular phone's display to show the phone number of
the in-coming call while the phone rings. This service is only
available to *certain* digital cellular phones. They only list about four
vendors.

<Gratuitous Employer Plug Alert ON>

Nortel (Northern Telecom) has provided Calling Number Identification
(CNID) presentation (CNIP) and restriction (CNIR) on our Cellular
switches for a number of years.

Our first offering was CLID for Mobile to Mobile calls within our own
switching network. This past year we introduced CNIP and CNIR for
mobile to land calls. This service is offered on TDMA mobiles
operating in either digital or analog modes.

In our PCS product line we offer a customized Smart Card application that
provides the name of the calling party as well as the phone number.

<Gratuitous Employer Plug Alert OFF>


Kurt Joplin  [e-mail]
[phone]
Nortel Wireless Networks
Richardson, Texas
International Wireless Product Manager

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

From: [e-mail] (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 95 04:47:52 GMT
Organization: Access One Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Toby Weir-Jones) wrote:

> Are there any problems taking a North American-spec modem and plugging
> it into a phone line in Australia?  Any particular adapter that's
> needed?  Anything else I should know?  Will it even work?

Apart from the fact that we use different sockets, (but are moving to
RJ-11's, and you can easily get adaptors), it is technically illegal
to connect anything to the Australian Telephone Network that is not
"Austel" approved, (Austel is the regulator in Australia).

All that said, modems are modems, the standards are international, the
problems that you have with modems in North America will most likely be
the same in Australia, but it should work.


Regards,

David Clayton, Switchview Australasia Pty. Ltd.
e-mail: [e-mail]
Phone:  + 61-3-9558 9285
Fax:    + 61-3-9558 9286

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #523
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Dec 20 22:42:48 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id WAA16396; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:42:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:42:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #524

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Dec 95 22:42:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 524

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    2nd CFP Conf. Smart Card Research & Advanced Applications (Pieter Hartel)
    411 and Information/Directory Assistance (Doug Faunt)
    Pacific Bell Encouraged by PUC Vote (Mike King)
    Distinctive Ring and *70 (Robert A. Rosenberg)
    Re: SMDR Data Available? (Jose Cordones)
    Ending Junk Calls (Doug Smith)
    Helping New User Select Proper Newsgroup For Posting (Lionel Ancelet)
    Areacode Lookup Program (Josh Hildebrand)
    Last Laugh! The Exon Song (funny@clarinet via Monty Solomon)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Pieter Hartel)
Subject: 2nd CFP Conf. Smart Card Research & Advanced Applications
Date: 20 Dec 1995 17:25:18 GMT
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam


                              CARDIS 1996
    SECOND SMART CARD RESEARCH AND ADVANCED APPLICATION CONFERENCE
            September 18-20, 1996, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

AIMS AND GOALS

Smart cards or IC cards offer a huge potential for information
processing purposes. The portability and processing power of IC cards
allow for highly secure conditional access and reliable distributed
information systems. IC cards are already available that can perform
highly sophisticated cryptographic computations. The applicability of
IC cards is currently limited mainly by our imagination; the
information processing power that can be gained by using IC cards
remains as yet mostly untapped and is not well understood. Here lies a
vast uncovered research area which we are only beginning to assess, and
which will have great impact on the eventual success of the technology.
The research challenges range from electrical engineering on the
hardware side to tailor-made cryptographic applications on the software
side, and their synergies.

Many currently existing events are mainly devoted to commercial and
application aspects of IC cards. In contrast, the CARDIS conferences
aim to bring together researchers who are active in all aspects of
design of IC cards and related devices and environment, such as to
stimulate synergy between different research communities and to offer a
platform for presenting the latest research advances. CARDIS 1994,
sponsored by the International Federation for Information Processing
(IFIP) and held in November 1994 in Lille, France, has successfully
brought together representatives from leading IC research centers from
all over the world. CARDIS 1996 will be the second occasion for the IC
card community in this permanent activity. CARDIS 1996 will be
organised jointly by the Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science at
Amsterdam (CWI) and the Department of Computer Systems of the
University of Amsterdam (UvA).


SUBMISSIONS

Submissions will be judged on relevance, originality, significance,
correctness, and clarity. Each paper should explain its contribution in
both general and technical terms, identifying what has been
accomplished, saying why it is significant, and comparing it with
previous work. Authors should make every effort to make the technical
content of their papers understandable to a broad audience. Papers
should be written in English.

Authors should submit:

* 16 copies
* of a full paper
* typeset using the Springer LNCS format (see instructions below)
* not exceeding 20 pages in length
* printed double-sided if possible
* addressed to

  Pieter H. Hartel
  Univ. of Amsterdam
  Dept. of Computer Systems
  Kruislaan 403
  1098 SJ Amsterdam
  The Netherlands

In addition, each submission should be accompanied by information
submitted via WWW, (http://www.cwi.nl/~brands/cardis.html) or
submitted via email to [e-mail] that consists of:

* a single postal address and electronic mail address for
  communication
* complete title, author and affiliation information
* the abstract of the paper
* a small selection of the keywords that appear on this call for
  papers, which best describe the contribution of the paper

Proceedings will be available at the conference. It is intended to
publish the proceedings in the Springer LNCS series. Authors of
accepted papers may be expected to sign a copyright release form.


IMPORTANT DATES

  Submission deadline           March 1, 1996
  Acceptance notification       May 15,  1996
  Camera ready paper due        July 1,  1996
  Conference                    September 18--20 1996

THEMES

    Technology/hardware
 1    IC architecture and techniques
 2    Memories and processor design
 3    Read/Write unit engineering
 4    Specific co-processors for cryptography
 5    Biometry
 6    Communication technologies
 7    Interfaces with the user, the service suppliers
 8    Reliability and fault tolerance
 9    Special devices
10    Standards
    Software
11    The operating system
12    Models of data management
13    Communication protocols
    IC Card design
14    Tools for internal or external software production
15    Validation and verification
16    Methodology for application design
    Electronic payment systems
17    Road pricing
18    Internet payment systems
19    Untraceability
    Algorithms
20    Formal specification and validation
21    Identification
22    Authentication
23    Cryptographic protocols for IC cards
24    Complexity
    Security
25    Models and schemes of security
26    Security interfaces
27    Hardware and software implementation
28    Security of information systems including cards
29    Formal verification of transaction sets
30    Protocol verification
    IC Cards, individuals and the society
31    IC cards and privacy
32    Owner access of data
33    IC cards: political and economical aspects
34    Is the IC card going to change legislation?
35    Patents, copyrights
    Future of ic cards
36    Innovative technologies
37    Moving towards the pocket intelligence
38    Convergence with portable PCs, lap tops etc ...
39    PCMCIA
    Innovative applications
40    Design methodology of applications
41    IC cards and the information system
42    Examples of new applications
43    Requirements for innovative cards
    Standards
44    Emerging standards
45    Compliance and approval


ORGANISATION

Steering committee chairman:

  Vincent Cordonnier (Rd2p, Lille)

Local organisation:

  Pieter Hartel (Southampton, UK and Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  Stefan Brands (CWI, The Netherlands)
  Eduard de Jong (QC consultancy, The Netherlands)

General Chairman:

  Pieter Hartel (Southampton, UK and Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Program Chairmen:

  Pierre Paradinas (Rd2p/Gemplus, France)
  Jean-Jacques Quisquater  (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium)

Program committee

  Stefan Brands (CWI, Amsterdam)
  Andre Gamache (Quebec, Canada)
  Louis Guillou (CCETT, France)
  Josep Domingo-Ferrer (Univ. Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain)
  Pieter Hartel (Southampton, UK and Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  Hans-Joachim Knobloch (Karlsruhe, Germany)
  Pierre Paradinas (Rd2p/Gemplus, France)
  Reinhard Posch (Graz, Austria)
  Jean-Jacques Quisquater (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium)
  Matt Robshaw (RSA Laboratories, USA)
  Bruno Struif (GMD, Germany)
  Doug Tygar (Carnegie-Mellon, USA)

LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE

Advice to Authors for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to
LNCS/LNAI Proceedings

The preparation of manuscripts which are to be reproduced by
photo-offset requires special care. Manuscripts which are submitted in
technically unsuitable form will be returned for retyping or cancelled
if the volume otherwise cannot be finished on time. In order to make
the volume look as uniform as possible the following instructions
should be followed closely.

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

* PRINTING AREA:
Using 10-point font size for the main text the printing area should be
12.2 x 19.3 cm. Manuscripts prepared in this preferred format are
reproduced in the same size in the book. With these settings, the
interline distance should be arranged in such a way that some 42 to 45
lines occur on a full-text page.

* TYPEFACE and SIZE:
We recommend the use of Times or one of the similar typefaces widely
used in phototypesetting. (In Times and similar typefaces the letters
have serifs, i.e., short endstrokes at the head and the foot of
letters.) Please do not use a sans-serif typeface for running text,
except for computer programs.

The text should always be justified to occupy the full line width, so
that the right margin is not ragged. For normal text please use
10-point type size and one-line spacing. Small print (abstract and
affiliation) should be set in 9-point type size. Please use italic
print to emphasize words in running text; bold type in running text
and underlining should be avoided.

Headings should be capitalized (i.e., nouns, verbs and all other words
with at least five letters should have a capital initial) and should,
with the exception of the title, be aligned to the left. The font
sizes are as follows:

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

Heading level      Example Font          size and style

Title (centered)     Type Theory           14 point, bold
1st-level heading    1 Introduction        12 point, bold
2nd-level heading  2.1 Simple Connections  10 point, bold
3rd-level heading    Typing Rules.         10 point, bold
4th-level heading  Remarks: (text follows) 10 point,italic

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

* FIGURES:
If possible, originals should be pasted into the manuscript and
centered between the margins; if no originals of the required size are
available, figures may be reduced in scale and pasted into the text.
For halftone figures (photos), please forward high-contrast glossy
prints and mark the space in the text as well as the back of the
photographs clearly, so that there can be no doubt about where or
which way up they should be placed. The lettering of figures should be
in 10-point font size. Figures should be numbered. The legends also
should be centered between the margins and be written in 9-point font
size as follows:

(bold) Fig. 3. (text follows)

* PAGE NUMBERING:
Your paper should show no printed page numbers; they are decided by
the volume editor and finally inserted by the printer. Please indicate
the ordering of your pages by numbering the sheets (using a light
blue/green pencil) at the bottom of the reverse side. There also
should be no running heads.

* PRINTING QUALITY:
For reproduction we need sheets which are printed on one side only.
Please use a high-resolution printer, preferably a laser printer with
at least 300 dpi or higher resolution if possible. It is desirable
that on all pages the text appears in the middle of the sheets.

* REMARK 1:
If your typesetting system does not offer the variety of font sizes
needed for the preparation of your manuscript according to these
instructions, you may choose a different (larger) font size and a
correspondingly scaled printing area (12-point font size for the
running text, for example, corresponds to a printing area of 15.3 x
24.2 cm and to a final reduction rate of 80%).

* REMARK 2:
You are encouraged to use LaTeX or TeX for the preparation of you
camera-ready manuscript together with the corresponding Springer style
files "llncs" (for LaTeX) or "plncs" (for TeX) to be obtained by
e-mail or by ftp/gopher as follows:

Mailserver: Send an e-mail message to
   [e-mail]  containing the line
   get /tex/latex/llncs.zip  for the LaTeX syle files or
   get /tex/plain/plncs.zip  for the TeX style files.

Sending "help" to the server prompts advice on how to interact with
the mail server. The style files have to be unzipped and uu-decoded
for use. In case of problems in getting or uu-decoding the style files
please contact "springer vax.ntp.springer.de".

Ftp: The internet address is "trick.ntp.springer.de", the user id
"ftp" or "anonymous". Please enter your e-mail address as password.
The (above mentioned) files reside in "/pub/tex/latex/llncs".

Gopher: Point your client to "trick.ntp.springer.de".

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Faunt N6TQS [phone])
Subject: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance
Organization: at home, in Oakland
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:04:27 GMT


I finally got to my local library when it was open.  The first
reference to 411 for Information was in 1948.  There's a reference to
Information (Directory Assistance) in 1967.

Apparently, 211 for access to the long distance operator precedes
that, but it's hard to tell since the fronts of the directories are
pretty beat up.


73, doug

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike King)
Subject: Pacific Bell Encouraged by PUC Vote
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:06:56 -0800 (PST)


Forwarded to the Digest FYI...

 ----- Forwarded Message -----

  Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:02:00 -0800
  From: [e-mail] (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Teresa Ruano)

** High Priority **

>>>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<<<

Pacific Bell Encouraged by Public Utilities Commission Vote

For Immediate Release:  Dec. 20, 1995    Contact: Jerry Kimata 415-394-3739

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Public Utilities Commission today voted
unanimously to change the way Pacific Bell is regulated. This decision
suspends the so-called productivity factor as part of the five-year-old
incentive-based regulation formula.

The commission also froze prices of phone service for homes and businesses
for three years.

The productivity factor had reduced Pacific Bell's revenues by $690
million over the past five years.

Pacific Bell issued the following statement in response to the PUC vote.
It is attributable to John Gueldner, regulatory vice president.

"We're encouraged by today's commission decision. The decision is clear
recognition that competition in the California telecommunications market
is here, and that regulation needs to change to accommodate the
competitive marketplace.

"It sends the right signal to companies based in California as well as
those considering investing here. It will allow us to continue investing
in our California infrastructure, and will encourage economic growth and
jobs throughout the state."

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

Mike King   *   [e-mail]   *   Oakland, CA, USA   *   +1 510.645.3152


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

From: [e-mail] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Subject: Distinctive Ring and *70
Organization: RockMug
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 20:01:55 GMT


I am interested in knowing what (if any) interaction there is between
Distinctive Ring (which allows multiple incoming numbers to be
assigned to the same line with each number having a different Ring and
Call-Waiting Pattern) and *70 (Per-Call Outgoing Call-Waiting
disable). My question is if I place a call on a line with Distinctive
Ring and use *70 to disable Call-Waiting for the period the call is in
progress (for example, to prevent an Incoming Call from disrupting a
Modem or Fax session), will that busy-out all the numbers or just the
primary number (which is the only number that gets used for out-going
calls).


Thank you.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What happens around here (and seems to
be pretty standard) is that *70 busies out any and all numbers which
are associated with your line for the duration of the call. As you
have probably noticed there are distinctive ringing patterns for the
various numbers associated with your line, and likewise there are
distinctive call waiting tones associated with each. You might wonder
with such a short burst of tone in call waiting exactly how distinctive
it can be to the human ear, but it is.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jose Cordones)
Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available?
Date: 20 Dec 1995 15:29:18 -0500
Organization: spacelab.net Internet Access


Jeff Keller ([e-mail]) wrote:

> 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?

Hi.  I have similar interests.  So far, I have looked at the format
output for the AT&T Partner II PBX, but I also have noticed that PC
Programs meant to work with the Partner work with other brands, such as
Panasonic.  One probably just needs a flexible parser for the input
coming from the SMDR port, although unless told otherwise, we probably
can't assume that these inputs won't be a bit contradictory across brands.

I would like to know if anyone has further info on the subject, whether
that is books, videos, people, ftp sites, etc.

Specifically,

1. Can I talk back to the SMDR port?  (most importantly, does it understand
   anything?)  I imagine that this capability varies with brand and
   model.  Any cases out there?  I don't have my only manual on me, but I
   think there's also another port just for signalling/control purposes.
   Any interfacing info (from a PC) ?

2. If the answer to 1. is negative, what are my options for extending the
   capabilities of some "simple" PBX such as the AT&T Partner by connecting
   it to a PC.  For example, if I wished to have a system where a caller is
   identified with CID, looked up on a database, offered a voice prompt
   [for a PIN #], and if they match, give clearance to call.  Alas, if I
   wanted to impose even more restricted accounting, and say, I only
   allow that user to spend $N dollars and the ammount is reached, I'd
   like to be able to play a recording for the user, then hang up.  Is
   that too much for those small PBXs?  Would I have to re-invent one of
   those larger PBXs?  Maybe one can build some control circuits to be
   driven by the PC/software, and this circuitry would the talk in the
   language of a "control station" telephone?  Where could I learn more
   about this type of circuitry, specifically, the line interface between a
   control station and the PBX?

Yikes, I have my work cut-out, but I really could use some pointers ...
or I'll be going around in circles.


Thanks for your help,

Jose Cordones

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Smith)
Subject: Ending Junk Calls
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 13:33:03 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Internet Services


I understand there is a law that fines companies who call you after
being told not to.  Does anyone have the details on how that works?
Specifically, how do you report it and how do you prove it sufficiently?


Doug Smith  *  [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A regular reader/participant here is
Bob Bulmash of the 'Private Citizen' organization in the Chicago
area. I imagine he will be writing you directly with details very
soon. His organization does just what you are seeking.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lionel Ancelet)
Subject: Helping New User Select Proper Newsgroup For Postings
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Well
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:30:29 GMT


[e-mail] (PhoneRoom) wrote:

> Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to
> the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has
> negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join
> discussions in a more unbiased area.

> Please Email [e-mail]

I suggest you try alt.telemarketing.die.die.die


Lionel <[e-mail]>

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

From: Josh Hildebrand <[e-mail]>
Subject: Areacode Lookup Program
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 02:08:06 CST


TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> 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.

I was wondering how I can use this service ... what email address do I
send my query to?  Is there an online service for areacode geographic
lookups yet?  A CGI web script, or a telnet service of some sort?


Thanks,

Josh Hildebrand         System Administrator of JEDI.NET
Email: [e-mail]    Pager: http://www.jedi.net/josh/pager
WWW Home Page and Resume: http://www.jedi.net/josh


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The one available in the Telecom Archives
is not in the best of condition right now. It is lacking many of the
new area codes installed over the past year. It will be in *great shape*
soon when Carl Moore and David Leibold finish working on it. It will
not only include area codes in the USA/Canada, but will respond to
worldwide country code and city code inquiries as well. In other words
if you give it 312 it will respond Chicago, but if you give it a country
and city code combination it will tell you where in the world that is
also. I am hoping those guys have it ready in a few days.

To use it now (or the revised updated version when available) you have
two choices: if using anonymous ftp, you connect with ftp.lcs.mit.edu
and login anonymous. Give your name@site as password. You must then
'cd telecom-archives/areacodes'. Pull the file 'areacode.program.in.c'
and take it back to your site where you will compile it and run it as
an executable. When compiled, you then enter at your command line the
phrase 'areacode <argument>' where argument is the area code and/or (in
the revised version) the country-city code being requested. You'll get
a response. For example, 'areacode 312' will respond 'Chicago, Illinois'.

Take it now, or wait until the new version gets installed as you wish.
If using ftp, you might want to pull other areacode-related files in
that same sub-directory. If you take a copy back and compile it to
run at your site, you might want to tell the sysadmin about it and as
a public service let him install it where all users can get to it. I
did that with the old version a few years ago.

The second way of using it now is interactively via the Telecom Archives
Email Information Service. The TAEIS is a very useful service for people
without the ability to use anonymous ftp or who are just looking for a
quick retrieval of a missing issue of the Digest or some other file. A
help file on using TAEIS goes out to each new subscriber on the mailing
list automatically, but if you don't have one, you can obtain one by
writing and requesting it. I won't repeat all those instructions here
except for the ones which pertain to the interactive searching part
of the service.

Email is sent to [e-mail]. The subject line does
not matter. In the text of the message, beginning at the left margin
you enter these commands:

REPLY your name@site
AREACODE argument       (runs the executable 'areacode' in the archives)
GLOSSARY argument       (greps the /glossary/* files in the archives)
SEARCH string           (greps the author-subject files in the archives)
CARRIER xxx             (greps the carrier file looking for 10xxx)

   ... and in each case, returns the results via email to the address
specified in REPLY. The above four are just the 'interactive' commands
available; that is they cause a program to executed here with the
results returned to you in email. Other commands available are GET,
PUT, SEND, SUBMIT, INFO, HELP, and more ... you can get back issues of
this Digest going badk to August, 1981 and hundreds of other telecom-
related files. Over the New Year's holiday I will be sending out an
updated index to the Archives along with new help files, etc, and I do
hope David and Carl have the areacodes program updated.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:09:55 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! The Exon Song
Reply-To: [e-mail]


FYA

Begin forwarded message:

 Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
 Subject: net censorship
 From: [e-mail] (Kevin Hinshaw)

With all the recent commotion about net censorship, and with the
approach of the holiday season, I was inspired to write the following
song for our department's annual holiday party skit.

(Note that some of the lines are identical to the real version.  I
don't know if that poses copyright violations for posting purposes or
not.)

Kevin Hinshaw
[e-mail]

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

The Exon Song
<sung to "The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)">


Sex nuts posting on an open wire
Sick thoughts dripping from their prose
Dirty pictures showing young girls for hire
And men dressed up in women's clothes

Everybody knows
That mountains of pornography
Have been appearing left and right
Tiny tots with their eyes all a-glow
May find the ones with sheep tonight

We know that Satan's on the Net
Along with all the creeps and perverts he could get
Enticing every child to try his luck
At finding pictures of people who fundamentally undermine

     the morals of society

And so I'm offering this simple phrase
To kids from one to ninety-two;
Although it's been said many times, many ways
"Let us censor for you."

--
Selected by Jim Griffith.  MAIL your joke to [e-mail].
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible.  A Daemon will auto-reply.

Jokes ABOUT major current events should be sent to [e-mail]
(ie. jokes which won't be funny if not given immediate attention.)
Anything that is not a joke submission goes to [e-mail]

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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And a happy holiday season to all
of you from myself, my family, my two cats, etc.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #524
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 21 01:24:10 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA26009; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:24:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:24:10 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #525

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Dec 95 01:23:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 525

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CFP: Thirteenth UK Teletraffic Symposium (Richard Gibbens)
    Rob Slade's Review of my Book _Digital Cash_ (Peter Wayner)
    Telecom Questions (Thomas Riedy)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Clarence Dold)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Steve Peterson)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Jack McGee)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Tom Watson)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Curtis Wheeler)
    Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (Tom Watson)
    Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (John Fricks)
    Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air ([e-mail])
    Florida ISDN User's Group Meeting (Bill Mengelson)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Richard Gibbens)
Subject: CFP: Thirteenth UK Teletraffic Symposium
Date: 19 Dec 1995 14:14:35 +0000
Organization: Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge


             C A L L  F O R  P A P E R S
         Thirteenth UK Teletraffic Symposium
        Performance Engineering In Information Systems
                to be held at
           The Strathclyde Graduate Business School
               18-20 March 1996

The UKTS is held annually as a forum for the discussion of the latest
analysis and performance characteristics of communication systems.

Contributions are invited that review current techniques, discuss
generic problems or introduce novel methods. Presentations are
particularly welcome if they relate these matters to operational
experience in dimensioning, capacity planning and quality of service.

Areas on which we hope to attract papers include:

* Radio communications; capacity planning and quality of service
  issues relating to cellular and wireless networks

* High speed multi-media And ATM networks - wide area, LANS and MANS

* Network evolution towards multi-media and ATM

* AI techniques for network management and control

* Network interworking, including Internet and SuperJANET

* Signalling and intelligent network performance

* Traffic management

* Real-time service delivery - protocols, network architectures,
  quality of service guarantees and traffic characteristics

* New mathematical methods and simulation techniques

* Design tools

* Software performance analysis

There will be invited talks on several key issues. To avoid using
parallel sessions, the committee has decided that all papers that are
accepted will be published in the Proceedings, but at the Symposium
they may be divided into presented contributions and poster session
contributions.

Prospective authors are invited to submit a synopsis of approximately
250 words to Professor D G Smith, Department of Electronic and
Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Royal College, 24
George Street, Glasgow, G1 1XW by Friday 5 January 1996. In addition,
it would be helpful if a statement accompanying the contribution could
indicate the main subject area, the nature of the paper (survey, work
in progress, new analysis testing, new results on system performance
or some other category) and a brief indication of the main
contribution made by the paper.


>>> Richard Gibbens ............ Royal Society University Research Fellow <<<
>>> [e-mail] ............... Statistical Laboratory <<<
>>> http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~richard/ ..... University of Cambridge <<<

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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:23:11 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Peter Wayner)
Subject: Rob Slade's Review of My Book _Digital Cash_


Readers of the TELECOM Digest who checked out Rob Slade's review of my
book, _Digital Cash_, might get the impression that I don't know much
about RSA, DES and other forms of encryption. He attempted to prove
that my book was filled with misleading statements by writing:

  The lack of straightforward discussion of the United States government
  policy on encryption is also a weakness.  Combined, this allows
  misleading statements such as the one that "full 768 bit RSA as well
  as DES encryption ... can't be used to keep secrets."

After you read this, you might believe that I really feel that 768 bit
RSA mixed with DES can't be used to keep a secret. Hah.  Here's the
quote in context:

   In fact, at this writing, [Cybercash] has
   the destinction of being the first system to
   be exportable {\em and}  as secure as
   desirable. The company writes, ``CyberCash
   uses full 768 bit RSA as well as DES
   encryption of the messages. All transactions
   are authenticated with MD5 and 768 bit RSA
   signatures.'' The software can be exported to
   everywhere except Lybia, Syria, Cuba, North
   Korea, Sudan, Iraq and Iran. This is because
   the software can't be used to keep secrets.

It is taken from a section discussing how the U.S. government's policy
on encryption affects various digital commerce systems.  The software
built by Cybercash, for instance, will NOT encrypt your files. It will
only use the encryption to hide the transaction details. That's why
the U.S. Government approved a very broad export license for their
product.

Mr. Slade also says that the book lacks a "straightforward discussion
of the United States government policy on encryption." I'm not sure
where he came up with this notion. The section that he used for his
chopped quote discussed how encryption affected each system. Here's a
quote from the beginning of this section:

  To some extent, the tension between the
  government and encryption systems is easing
  in this arena. The U.S. Government, for
  instance, seems willing to approve the export
  of strong encryption algorithms as long as it
  is apparent that the encryption software
  can't be used for anything except protecting
  financial transactions.

Much of the debate over US Encryption policy is very important for the
country, but it is not as important to the world of digital commerce.
The US government seems to be quite willing to allow people to use
strong encryption to protect financial transactions -- as long as that
is all the software will do. But maybe this section wasn't
"straightforward" enough?

Finally, Mr. Slade seems to feel that there is not enough description
about encryption that will help someone who doesn't have a degree in
number theory. Well, I don't think that is true, but the book contains
ample pointers to other books that concentrate on encryption and
encryption alone. I included a description of the encryption
algorithms so the new reader would have some introduction, but they
can follow the pointers to other books if they're still curious.

I want everyone to know that Rob Slade gave me a chance to look over
the review before he posted it. When I read his chopped quote, I
suggested that at the very least he could include the context. Readers
could make a decision for themselves and decide whether what I wrote
was misleading. After all, text is dirt cheap on the Net. He had no
reason to chop it for space considerations.  But he just ran it
anyway. I think that this is negligent, malicious and a deliberate
misrepresentation of the book.

If anyone wants to bring any real errors to my attention, I would
really appreciate hearing from you. An author's job is never done. In
the meantime, I hope that readers will help make sure that this
correction is posted to the same places that carried Mr. Slade's
review. If anyone discovers a Web site that carries his review, I also
hope that they'll notify me.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:50:40 -0500
Subject: Telecom Questions


Hello,

I have a question that you might be able to help me with. I am a small
telephone vendor based in the Los Angeles area.  Mostly I do premise
wiring and small LAN installations. I was given a "universal" ANI
number to use in the field by a local alarm installer.  Apparently it
belongs to AT&T? The number is 1073214049889664.

However, I found out this past week that after dialing that number it
does not return the number you are calling from any more.  I have checked
that number and some friends who used to work for Pac Bell recognize the
digits.  Now it just tells you that you are connected to a private
network.  Do you know this number I am referring to?  At the end of the
number announcement the voice would speak a series of digits, do you know
what this meant?  And most important do you know of any ANI numbers that
are "universal" or at least good in the greater Los Angeles Area.  The
local exchange cariiers are not very helpful.  They keep giving me the
run-around and won't disclose any information.

I also sort of stumbled onto a rather interesting number.  When I dial
1-213-426-6058 I get a recording that announces my callback number is
01181337002114.  Then is asks if the number is correct and gives the
option of changing it with a authorization code.  Do you know anything
about this number?


Thanks in advance,

Thomas Riedy


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 10732 is a special network which belongs
to AT&T and is used by certain customers of theirs. It is not for use
by 'regular' customers. Like the number 800-MY-ANI-IS, it served a very
useful purpose. Like 800-MY-ANI-IS, it most likely got abused to the point
of no redemption. In the case of 800-MY-ANI-IS, the proprietor of the
number (MCI) got hit with a hellish long distance bill as phreaks and
others all over the USA used it to learn thier calling numbers, etc.
Don't expect it back -- at least for open ended, non-discriminatory
use -- any time soon. I don't know of any other services which do this
at the present time. We used to have one here in the Chicago area that
Illinois Bell operated: of all things, 1-200-changed-weekly; varies by
central office. You never could keep up with it, but if dialed correctly
at the right moment in time it would read back your number. Maybe they
decided area code 200 would come along eventually so they got rid of it.

That other number you found appears to be part of an international
callback service. These are services which sell US dialtone to people
in foreign countries due to the much higher rates for calls from other
countries to the USA than the other way around. In the example you
provided, it is a customer in Tokyo, Japan. When customer wants to
make an international call, he dials that number in Los Angeles, lets
it ring one time or maybe half of one ring, and disconnects. The
service then calls him back at 011-81-337-etc in Tokyo and gives him
Los Angeles dialtone for use to call wherever. If he wants to make
changes in his callback setup, he stays on the line and after
a few rings it answers and presents him with the message you described.
In the very early days of such systems, like about three or four years
ago, they were very profitable. Some foreign countries have now
outlawed their use, and in any event rates on international calls into
the USA from other countries have been reduced in many cases in order
to counter the private competition.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: 20 Dec 1995 17:23:41 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH


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

> So we just use the "continuous" selection that starts at disc one,
> goes through disc five and then starts over).

You put people on hold for a long time, don't you?        :-)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Haven't we been warned many times about
> possible copyright infringments and the need to pay royalties when we
> use a radio playing music over the phone line?     PAT]

That consideration does not go away for tapes or CDs, since it is
either ASCAP or BMI that wants the royalties.  There are tapes and CDs
that have been "cleared" for this purpose, but most of the
off-the-shelf albums have a notice to the effect of: "Copyright 1995
Foo Records, Inc.  All rights reserved.  Unauthorized copying,
reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting
prohibited."  Apparently, ASCAP and BMI have been empowered to
negotiate those rights on behalf of the copyright owners.  When a
representative of one of those groups approached me several years ago,
while operating sound systems for a local fair, I simply unplugged the
tuner and tape deck and said "no thanks."


Paul S. Sawyer
[e-mail] UNH Telecommunications Voice: [phone]
College Road FAX: [phone] Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523

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

From: Clarence Dold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: 20 Dec 1995 18:20:29 GMT
Organization: a2i network


Jack McGee ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage,
> so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Haven't we been warned many times about
> possible copyright infringments and the need to pay royalties when we
> use a radio playing music over the phone line?     PAT]

First, the copyright portion: Yes, one should (must?) pay royalties.
My favorite way is to buy a BMI annual license, based on how many
lines might be on hold simulatneously.  The smallest license is "8",
for $150/year.  We have a single disc CD player, with an extended
warranty.  The cheap sleazy one lasted less than a year.  The Pioneer
$169 player has been running for over a year, nonstop, in shuffle
mode, more for the comfort of the inhouse users, who play the music
over their speakerphones (which does not count toward users in the
license).  The strange part of this is that the good CD player _sounds
better_ than the cheap one!  Over the telephone!!  I thought CD was
CD ...

Part two:

This is an advertisement, but perhaps it is an appropriate posting here.
I saw it in another newsgroup, and know nothing else about it.

Date: 14 Dec 1995 14:51:46

 .If you have a Music On-Hold port, Viking makes a Promotion On-Hold
 .announcer that will record 1 - 4 minutes of digital message at 64K and
 .will fade individual messages in and out with an auxillary music source.
 .The DVA-2W uses non-volatile EEProm and will never lose its memory.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Peterson)
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 23:19:25 GMT
Organization: Reality Interactive, Inc.


If you have a short clip that doesn't need to be changed regularly,
consider burning a one-off CD and using a cheap consumer portable CD
player.  You could also consider this if you're using professional
voice talent -- the same recording studio that you use to record the
talent can likely cut you a one off CD of your master tape.


Steve Peterson         [phone]
Reality Interactive, Inc.  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack McGee)
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 03:38:19 GMT
Organization: Orion
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Seymour Dupa) wrote:

> Jack McGee ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage,
>> so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out.

> Why digital storage instead of a radio?  I installed a message-on-hold
> device for one of my customers -- holds a two minute message loaded from
> cassette -- costs $2,500.

Well, I've found them a lot cheaper than that, ($400), but more to the
point, BMI, SESAC, ASCAP may have a small problem with using the
radio, plus I want to put customized (weekly) messages on MOH, and the
radio stations don't like to broadcast those for me 24 hours.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you considered starting your own
radio station so you can have the kind of broadcasts you want?  <g> ..
Or how about one large company we discussed here sometime ago which
uses a *live disc jockey* to spin records and announce holding times
in the queue. I found that pretty incredible, but it is true.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 16:18:20 -0800
Organization: The 3DO Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>, Curtis Wheeler
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> [e-mail] (Jack McGee) wrote:

>> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage,
>> so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out.  Probably two or
>> three minutes would be good.  Anyone got any ideas for specific
>> machines, and where they can be purchased?

> If you are only in reducing tape wear, why not just switch to CDs.  We
> have been doing with our PBXs for a while now.  Sure, the players
> eventually wear out, but the CDs themselves don't.

> You can get a reasonable single disk player for $100. We bought
> several five disc changers for $169 each.  Comparing that to the cost
> of our Muzak subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them
> each year if necessary.

> (A note on CD changers: We thought it might be cool to use the
> "shuffle feature" on the changers to mix up the music a bit.  We have
> since decided that changing the discs for every track might storten
> the machines' life due to added wear and tear.  So we just use the
> "continuous" selection that starts at disc one, goes through disc five
> and then starts over).

I agree that CD's are the way to go here.  In the local area one can
easily obtain a five disc CD player for under $100.  In addition, a CD
recorder can be had for "nominal" expense (around $2000 I believe).
This would allow one to do a "personal mix" for the music on hold
stuff.  It could include some interspersed promotional items.  If you
don't feel like doing the production work, a recording studio can
probably do the job.  This way you can have several CD that include
specials of the day/week/month that you put into your "mix".  Given
that a five CD changer has about five hours (more or less) of
playtime, this may be a suitable alternative.

As mentioned above, the shuffle probably causes a bit more wear and
tear on the changer, but the bigger "problem" is that there is a
longer gap between the audio "segments".

btw: I have a friend that did make up some "custom" music on hold CD's
interspersed with "disc-jockey" intros.  It sounds quite good.


Tom Watson  [e-mail]  (Home: [e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well let's hope that rather than
forcing his callers to listen to gaps between audio segments, he
chooses to hire enough help to answer the phone more promptly. The
default here is people calling to get service, not calling to listen
to music, gaps between segments, or whatever.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:51:31 -0800 (PST)


Curtis Wheeler said:

> You can get a reasonable single disk player for $100. We bought
> several five disc changers for $169 each.  Comparing that to the cost
> of our Muzak subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them
> each year if necessary.

Just a reminder: playing CDs for Music on Hold is against the law
unless you are paying subscription fees.  Music on Hold constitutes a
"public performance" and the musicians and songwriters expect
(rightfully so, IMHO) to be paid for their work.  This is why regular
Music on Hold subscriptions are expensive.

There have been cases of companies being sued for this; make sure you
are using licensed CDs!


Steve    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:20:18 PST
From: Curtis Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device


On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, John R Levine wrote:

>>> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, ...

>> Comparing [the cost of a CD player] to the cost of our Muzak
>> subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them each year
>> if necessary.

> One of the reasons that Muzak costs what it does is that they pay the
> royalties on the performances (such as they are) that they broadcast.
> If ASCAP and BMI figure out that you're using regular recordings for
> MOH, they will come after you for royalties, since MOH isn't one of
> the "fair use" applications for consumer recordings.

You're not the first to bring this up.

We pay ASCAP and BMI directly for our use.  It is not as costly as some
might think -- we still save money over Muzak for our application.


Curtis G. Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:59:27 -0800
Organization: The 3DO Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert
Casey) wrote:

<<<discussion about implementing 811 service>>>

> 811 isn't being used for something else now, is it?

Here in California, the 811 prefix was used for business office routing.
All Pacific Bell business locations had an 811-xxxx number.  They were
even listed on the phone bill.

History has it that the '811' code, usually used alone, similar to '411',
was used to contact the local business office.  In small central offices
it was usually quite easy to wire this up.

The real problem (emergency/non-emergency calls) is that the '911' systems
usually don't have a 'route to non-emergency' button that the operators
can push after they ask "what is the nature of your emergency?".  Having a
multitude of numbers was THE reason for nationwide '911' service.


Tom Watson    [e-mail]   (Home: [e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:43:48 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air
Organization: Nortel


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat
Martin) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Steve Cogorno) wrote:

>> TKondo2937 said:

>>> Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video
>>> signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible
>>> in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic.

> This is an interesting area, what is digital and what is not? All
> digital RF systems I have dealt with encode the data on to an analog.

> The real question is, what is really digital?............etc.

What is really digital (and what is not), in the context of digital
transmission of video signals over the air? "Over the air" implies
modulation and demodulation of a radio frequency carrier. Analog
modulation means continuous (not discrete) variation of carrier signal
characteristics (such as carrier amplitude, phase, or frequency).
Digital modulation means that the carrier signal characteristics are
changed in discrete steps. An analog signal, such as audio or video,
must be encoded to a series of finite states, typically represented as
a piece of digital data, before application to a digital modulator.

Commercial digital RF transmission of audio, video, and data, began
widespread use in the early 1970's in domestic and international satellite
communications.


John Fricks     Email: [e-mail]   Nortel Inc.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:31:25 GMT


> The real question is, what is really digital? I suppose stuffing bits
> on a coax at TTL levels is probably pure digital but even T1
> transmission encodes the data as AMI for better tranmission distance.
> What about most fiber transmission, is it digital or analog? I think
> in most cases you are not going very far with the data if it is not
> encoded as analog.

I've always considered digital as an interpretation of a signal.  All
"digital" signals are analog -- even on a PC board with 5v ttl logic
you have to worry about ringing, undershoot and other "analog"
components of the digital signal.

If a signal is interpreted as a continuously varying signal (i.e. volume
control) it is analog.  If it is interpreted as one of two or more discrete
values (each value has a voltage range) then it is digital.  For instance,
TTL logic interprets 0.0-0.8 volts as a "0", and 2.0-5.0 volts as a "1"
(note that 0.8-2.0 volts is undefined).  QAM uses more than 2 logic levels
(64 quam uses 64 levels).  A 4 level system would give you two bits for
each sample; an 8 level system gives 3 bits.  Note that most data comm
app's in the wide area are synchronous which means that they take a sample
based on a clock (usually embedded in the data stream itself).  Clocking is
not a requirment for a digital system.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Mengelson)
Subject: Florida ISDN User's Group Meeting
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:47:11 GMT
Organization: PacketWorks Public Newsserver


The kickoff meeting of the FIUG will be at:

            Half Moon Beach Club
            2050 Benjamin Franklin Drive
            Lido Beach
            Sarasota, FL 34236
            Tel: [phone]

The meeting will be from 9 AM until noon, January 13, 1996.

Directions:  Take exit 39 from I-75, go west to Highway 41 (Tamiami
Trail).  South on 41 to Gulfstream through St. Armands Circle.
Continue west to Lido Beach and Benjamin Franklin Drive. The resort is
located at the southern end of Lido Key.

Agenda items include:

            Organizational Matters
            Tutorial for those who haven't used ISDN
            Discussions of experiences with ISDN
            ISDN answer man with Bob Cameron

You might consider making it a day with the family on Lido Key.  And
as far as shopping, St. Armands is hard to beat.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #525
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 21 11:35:59 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id LAA21479; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 11:35:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 11:35:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #526

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Dec 95 11:35:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 526

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Canada Gets Satellite Telephone Service (Nigel Allen)
    Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? (Peter Capek)
    Software Maker Recalls PC Memory Program (Newsday via Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? (Dale Robinson)
    Re: AT&T Card Fraud ([e-mail])
    Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Carol Schuller)
    Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Steven Lichter)
    Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Chuck McDonald)
    Re: Fax --> E-Mail (Doug Reuben)
    Re: Fax --> E-mail (Edward T. Spire)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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, 20 Dec 1995 22:53:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canada Gets Satellite Telephone Service
Organization: Internex Online


Canada will be getting satellite telephone service from a company
associated with the cellular affiliates of Canada's landline telephone
companies.  The cost of about $2.50 (Canadian) is steep compared to
regular cellular, but is substantially less than the $17 (Canadian)
per minute for satellite calls to or from ships at sea handled through
Intelsat satellites.

Here is a press release about the service from Mobility Canada
Cellular. I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at
htt[://www.newswire.ca/

MOBILITY CANADA SATELLITE'S GOT YOU COVERED!

New Satellite Telephone Service Covers Virtually Every Square Inch of
North America

            TORONTO, Dec. 20 - Canada's first satellite telephone
service will become commercially available on January 15, 1996,
Mobility Canada announced today. Mobility Canada Satellite will
provide phone coverage via satellite to virtually every square inch of
North America, and 300 km off shore, making it easier for those in
remote areas to conduct business, get help in an emergency, and
generally stay in touch.

            ``There are about 3 million people, living and working in
remote areas of Canada that aren't covered by cellular or land line
phone service,'' said Louise Bissonnette, General Manager, Mobility
Canada Satellite. ``Satellite was the most efficient and economical
way for us to bring phone service to them. Now they'll be able to make
and receive phone calls to and from virtually anywhere in the world,
just like the rest of us.''

            Although Mobility Canada satellite service will be
available to everyone, it will be of particular benefit to those in
the transportation, mining, off-shore drilling, forestry and tourism
industries.

            To use Mobility Canada Satellite all you'll need is either
a satellite phone, or a satellite-cellular phone which can be used to
make calls via satellite and Mobility Canada's cellular networks.
Both types of phones are expected to retail for about $5,000 to
$7,500. Airtime will average $2.50 a minute, with free long distance
to calls placed to Canadian and US destinations. Shortly after launch
you'll be able to use Mobility Canada Satellite to send faxes and
data. Both phones also pinpoint your location by providing your
geographic co-ordinates.

            The Mobility Canada satellite is geo-stationary, remaining
permanently fixed above a point on the equator and moving with the
Earth as it turns. This will ensure that coverage is even and
continuous.

            Mobility Canada Satellite will be available across the
country through Mobility Canada member companies which together serve
more than 1.5 million customers. Each company has a thorough
understanding of the telecommunications needs of their local areas and
participates in the largest network of dealers in the country. The
Mobility Canada member companies are: AGT Mobility, Bell Mobility, BC
Tel Mobility, Island Tel Mobility, MTS Mobility, MT & T Mobility,
NewTel Mobility, NB Tel Mobility, Nortel Mobility, NorthwestTel
Mobility, QuebecTel Mobilite, SaskTel Mobility, Telebec Mobility and
Thunder Bay Mobility.

            Call 1-800-927-0125 for the Mobility Canada Satellite
dealer nearest you.


   For further information: Angela Hislop, Mobility Canada,[phone]

forwarded by Nigel Allen   [e-mail]  http://www.io.org/~ndallen/
(no affiliation with Mobility Canada)

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

Date: 20 Dec 1995 23:29:24 EST
From: [e-mail] (Peter Capek)
Subject: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone?


I had a weird experience this morning.  I was at a train station and
used a pay phone to call an 800 number stock price service.  The
following happened four times: I was able to initiate the call, and to
get a couple of quotes, but the first time I hit a touchtone key pad
after about 90 seconds into the call, the call was disconnected and I
got a dial tone.  My train came and I didn't have time to discuss this
with the operator or repair, but I will do so when time allows.

What occurred to me is that NYNEX is limiting call duration because of
the traditionally high usage of pay phones in train stations, when the
call is an 800 call.  Does this seem plausible?


Peter Capek

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Software Maker Recalls PC Memory Program
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 23:32:27 -0500


 Forwarded from {Newsday}, December 20, 1995

SOFTWARE MAKER RECALLS PC MEMORY PROGRAM

By Dan Beucke. STAFF WRITER

    In an unusual recall of a top-selling software product, Syncronys
Softcorp yesterday said it would give full credits or refunds for
customers who return its SoftRAM95 memory management program, which
critics say doesn't work.

    Syncronys also said the New York regional office of the Federal
Trade Commission has opened an "inquiry" into SoftRAM95, and said at
least two lawsuits have been filed by customers.

    The recall is the latest wrinkle in a controversy that began when
critics, including a University of Oregon computer scientist and PC
Magazine, tested SoftRAM95 and claimed that it didn't double a
computer's random access memory capacity, as claimed by the Culver
City, Calif., company.

    The $30 product, which claims to use a data compression technology
to increase RAM, comes with two versions on the same disk, one for
Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 3.1 operating system and another for the
newer Windows 95. Syncronys has acknowledged that the program doesn't
work with Windows 95, and had already promised to send out a fix. But
critics say the Windows 3.1 version doesn't work, either.

    Syncronys disputed that and pointed to the program's popularity.
SoftRAM95 has been one of the top-selling Windows programs, according
to PC Magazine's listings, and as of a month ago had sold more than
600,000 copies.

     Then, earlier this month, Microsoft said in an online newsletter
that it had not granted Syncronys permission to use a "Designed for
Windows 95" logo on SoftRAM95. Microsoft also claimed Syncronys had
improperly copied some of its code.

    In an interview yesterday, Rainer Poertner, Syncronys' president,
said there is no technical problem with the Windows 3.1 version of
SoftRAM95. He said the company had tried unsuccessfully to relabel the
product to make that clear, and thus was resorting to a recall.

     Poertner said the company issued the recall on its own and was
not pressured to do so by the FTC. Agency officials declined to
confirm or deny an investigation into the company. Syncronys said it
plans to issue a repackaged version of the Windows 3.1 program -- with
the same coding as the existing product -- sometime this month. A new
Windows 95 version will be shipped, it said, "in the near future."

    For information about the recall, call [phone].

Copied from the PRODIGY(R) service 12/20/95 22:54

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:40:04 +0930
Subject: Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia?


Toby,

> Are there any problems taking a North American-spec modem and
> plugging it into a phone line in Australia?

It should work.

Is it legal?  Well no, any device you connect to a telephone line in
Australia requires an AUSTEL permit.

If you can get it past our customs service, then good luck!

> Any particular adapter that's needed?

New installations are RJ11 socketed.  Older installations are four pin
plugs (sorry, can't think of name, been too long).  Either way, you
can buy an adapter at a Tandy store.

> Anything else I should know?  Will it even work?

AUSTEL & Telstra take a dim view of connecting non-approved hardware
to the line.

Digressing a bit:

Some years ago, Telstra used the Fidonet Nodelist to find the sysop's
running NON-APPROVED modems (USR's I think).  This resulted in a
number of cheap, high-speed modems being offered for sale, for PRIVATE
LINE USE only :-).

To sum it up:
Yes it will generally work.
No, it is not legal.
You may even get your modem confiscated by Australian Customs, when
you enter the country.

If you would like further information, I could post a message in the
aus.modems newsgroup on your behalf.


Regards,

Dale Robinson

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud
Date: 20 Dec 1995 07:29:18 GMT
Organization: Northern Virginia Elephant Sanctuary
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, Paul O'Nolan <ponolan@inter.
nl.net> writes:

> Since I am certain that I was not overheard giving the PIN number in a
> public place -- as I only used the card from hotel rooms in which I
> was alone -- I have to wonder if the security problem was in AT&T.
> Unlikely?

I don't know about AT&T specifically, but there has already been a
documented instance of insiders in card verification services selling
blocks of tens of thousands of card numbers for fraudulent use.

The U.S. media didn't ever report the details in a coherent enough
fashion for the average phone user to be worried, which I consider
unfortunate. A few million irate callers can work wonders.


Strat


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Probably the biggest concern of any
organization in the business of credit granting, card-issuing and
such is fraud *from the inside* among employees. Another big problem
in large urban areas comes from dishonest postal service employees.
I don't know how many times in the past twenty years or so the Postal
Inspectors have broken up fraud rings working successfully with the
cooperation of insiders at the Chicago main post office in the sorting
room, etc. When Amoco Oil Company had their credit card processing
office here in Chicago back in the 1960-70 era, they also handled
processing of Diners Club at that location. Both Amoco and Diners were
hit with a lot of fraud from the inside. About that same time, Illinois
Bell was hit with a lot of insider fraud from employees who worked
with their (then very flimsy, made out of cardboard paper, and very
unsophisticated) telephone credit cards.  PAT]

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

From: Carol Schuller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 06:18:18 GMT
Organization: Isomedia.com, Redmond, WA


We had closed our AT&T calling card account because of some billing
problems several years ago. About three months after we closed our
card account someone in New York (we are in Seattle area) made
hundreds of dollars worth of calls on our supposedly closed account. I
personally think AT&T might have some internal security problems.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the case of Amoco, someone got into
several hundred inactive/supposedly closed accounts which had been
around prior to the conversion to computer operations. In other words,
left over from the manual days. Credit grantors usually microfilmed
the source documents, i.e. the original credit application, etc and
the computer had a reference number shown such as 01234567 which told
the collectors they could pull the original documents for review in
this case from new accounts film reel 123, frame 4567 and subsequent
frames on the film. At the time of the conversion from manual to
computer record-keeping some of the paperwork was not filed very well,
and many old, inactive accounts with unlocatable source documents
were just 'indexed' as 0000000, meaning original paperwork was very
old and unlocatable. A couple of clerks went through combing the
computer records looking for such 'zero index' accounts. They found
all they could particularly with customers long since deceased or
otherwise no longer using Amoco for whatever reason, meaning the
customer would be unlikely to miss getting a bill, since he would not
have gotten one for years anyway. They changed the address for these
customers to a post office box under their own control at that
(at the time) notorious fraud hive, the downtown postal lock box
station, Chicago IL 60690. Every couple days they went and cleaned
out the box of whatever customer accounts they had converted to their
own use. The new plastic issued on those accounts would then get
used, abused and mis-used. Sooner or later, the accounts would age
out to delinquent status and the collectors would get them. Collector
finds no current phone number for the 'customer' and only a post
office box address. He decides to order the microfilm and try to
skip-trace the customer only to get all zeros for the index, and
his order returned from the file clerks in the warehouse rubber
stamped with the notation, "We regret we cannot locate ...".

Those dishonest employees were even smart enough that they did *not*
waste the Amoco cards they misappropriated. They knew the routine
well enough that they would get a car wash once a month or maybe
a single tank of gas *and pay for it promptly*. It mattered not how
little or how much you used the card, only that your payment history
stayed in perfect, A-1 condition for 12 months, at which point the
nice computer would automatically offer you a Diners Club card as
a 'pre-approved, preferred customer'. A year or so after this scam
got underway, all that plastic with the Diners logo started going
out to the fraud customers. *That* is what they wasted ... <grin> ..
to the tune of a couple million dollars. It took a long time before
the collectors got wise. The fraud was scattered around through
various billing cycles enough that no one collector got much of it;
not enough to at first treat it as anything other than an ordinary
delinquency.

And remind me sometime to tell you about the very early days of
Visa, back when it was known as BankAmericard. Ooooh, did they
take some incredible hits before they finally learned how to
administer their program. The fraud-hives took Visa/BankAmericard
for millions of dollars during the first two years of operation.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Lichter)
Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud
Date: 20 Dec 1995 19:07:00 -0800
Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University


Paul O'Nolan <[e-mail]> writes:

> Season's greetings from The Netherlands.

> Yesterday I received a call from AT&T's card protection service asking
> me to confirm that I was in The Netherlands (where I live). "Unusual
> activity" had been noted on my card, namely a Filipino in Florida was
> trying to call home with what he said was his "mother's card". After
> confirming that I didn't have children in the US etc. I was issued
> a new card and pin code over the phone.

Something about the call does not sound right. First the pin in most
cases is on the card unless it is requested to be left off. Second if
they called I have never heard of them giving a new calling card
number over the phone and giving a PIN would make no sense. You did
not happen to give that person who called you the number and pin did
you? When my wife lost her card they sent a new one in a few days and
during that time any calls had to be verified. It just sounds strange.
Maybe someone from AT&T could come forward.


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]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Long ago, AT&T did not use pins. The
calling cards (or credit cards as they were known then) were actually
issued by the individual Bell companies using a simple, easy formula
which all of them understood and agreed on. They used 'key letters'
which were keyed to certain digits of the seven digit phone number.
One year they might use the fourth digit; another year they might use
the sixth digit, etc. Whatever digit they decided to use that year
(little *paper* cards, like business cards with your number handwritten
on them were issued annually in December of each year to begin the
first of January), they then took letters of the alphabet and assigned
one to each number. For example 1=J, 2=K, 3=L ... so if my actual
telephone number was HYde Park-3-3714 and the sixth digit was the one
being used that year, then my telephone credit card number was merely
4933714013-J. The final three digits (in this example 013) were the
RAO, or Regional Accounting Office code. This would have been about
1955-60, in that time period. The letters and key digits changed yearly.

Most people had no idea how the J came to be on the end, or what
formula telco used to decide what letter to put there, so it worked
out pretty well for years. All the phreaks knew of course, and by
a week or two into the new year they would have the formula for the
new year mastered. Picture the scene: January 1, 1960 at a New Year's
Day brunch ... a half-dozen phreaks sitting at the table together.
After each one solemnly promises not to abuse the credit cards of
the others present, each one present takes his new 1960 telco credit
card out of his pocket and lays it on the table for everyone else
to observe. Everyone carefully looks for patterns. John and Bob both
have a '4' as the fifth digit in their phone but they have different
key letters. Therefore, telco is not keying on the fifth digit this
year. Pete and Bob on the other hand both have '3' as the sixth
digit of their phone number, and they both have the same key letter.
On the other hand, the sixth digit of Jason's phone number is '5',
or two digits higher than Pete and Bob. His key letter is two letters
higher in the alphabet than theirs ... bingo!  A dozen or so test
phone calls just to tidy up loose ends and make sure nothing was
overlooked, and the formula for the new year is established and
circulated.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck McDonald)
Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud
Date: 21 Dec 1995 13:48:04 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.


Paul O'Nolan ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Since I am certain that I was not overheard giving the PIN number in a
> public place -- as I only used the card from hotel rooms in which I
> was alone -- I have to wonder if the security problem was in AT&T.
> Unlikely?

I received my Mastercard bill the other day...  232.62 in phony Long
distance charges. The funny thing is, the AT&T person was able to tell
me who made the calls, the number calling to AND from.  I always
thought that most vendors who accept credit card payments verify AT
LEAST the name on the card.  It almost sounded like the person's
residential line is PIC'ed to AT&T, because they came up with the info
in a matter of seconds.  At least neither I nor my credit card company
has to pay for the fraud.  I am still plotting my actions at this
time, but am open to suggestions.


Chuck McDonald   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About ten years ago I was riding on
the subway in Chicago when these two creeps picked my pocket and
got my wallet, including my telephone calling card from Bell. When
I got the phone bill the next month, these idiots had actually
placed calls using the calling card from a residence number on
the south side. I rubbed my hands with glee at that point and said
won't we have some fun now ... you would think they'd have known
enough to make all their calls from a pay station.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Re: Fax --> E-Mail
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 03:30:51 EST


On Thu, 14 DEC 1995 02:15:18, Robert Speirs <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the
>> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail
>> addresses?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] To answer the
> reader's question, I think we should call on Doug Reuben. He is
> involved with a company doing just that, or perhaps it is in reverse
> with email out to faxes, etc. He has not contributed anything here in
> awhile now, so perhaps this will prompt him to write.   PAT]
  ^^^^^^

Indeed, and I apologize (if anyone's missed my voluminous posts :) ). We
have been busier than ever here, and we're finally at the stage where we
can higher full-time help to alleviate the workload on the principals.

Anyhow ...

To answer the poster's question, it depends on what you mean by
"receiving" faxes at their e-mail addresses.

We think there is a market, albeit a limited one, for a service which
allows callers to upload a fax to a given DID, 800, or generic "port"
number, and to then have the fax converted to a UUENCODED graphics
format (JPEG, etc) for transmission via e-mail. We have a number of
customers who use ONLY this service, but they tend to be technically
inclined and are willing to take the time to get the (generally)
public domain or shareware software to UUDECODE and view the graphics
files, or to set up Eudora, etc. A few customers also use our basic
fax to e-mail service as a "gateway" in the US in order to pass faxes
to an international site, where it is automatically converted to fax
and then sent out over the PSTN. This is a more specialized
application which we have seen a sizeable *initial* interest in, but
when the costs and maintenance of a local node, etc. are factored in,
only a few firms find it very cost effective (or they can do it "in
house" for less, etc.)

In light of the above, we developed our FaxUp WWW(sm) service, which
allows Interpage customers to receive, view, annotate, name, store,
fax, and e-mail their faxes from a "WWW Account" which we create on
our server.  The closest approximation I can think of right now is
that of laptop or PC-based fax software which allows owners to
receive, manage and send their faxes out "on demand", except that ours
is on the WWW and allows users to log on from any WWW browser
worldwide.

Our FaxUp WWW service has attracted a good deal of interest, because
(I think) instead of having the customer go out and get all the
software necessary to decode e-mail and then download it, it is all
done for them via Netscape, Mosaic, or whatever browser (customers can
even access their faxes via Lynx -- one of the text-only browsers --
but of course can not view the files online that way...) Customers who
need to receive faxes as e-mail may do so as part of the FaxUp WWW
service, although this is a seldom used feature.

Overall, I think the "neatest" part of Interpage's FaxUp WWW product
is that you can basically manage a good deal of your fax traffic
directly from the WWW, which we have found is especially attrative to
international customers who need to develop a US/Canada presence.
Typically, a user from outside the US/Canada can have senders here
upload to our server in the US. The customer abroad can be notified
that a new fax has arrived by e-mail (and/or pager), and log in via
the WWW to review their faxes. They can then print out the fax,
re-upload it to us (as a postscript file), view it and/or annotate it
from their WWW account, and re-transmit it to the customer in the US
without ever having to pay an international toll charge. Additionally,
they can store these faxes in order to uitilize the FaxUp WWW service
as a "fax-on-demand" server, or create new text or postscript faxes to
send out from our server at reduced rates.

So yes, I do think there is a good deal of potential for a company
offering a "fax to e-mail" gateway service. However, in my mind, it
*must* be implemented in a way that is universal *and* easy to access.

Our first product was universal (or as universal as e-mail gets :) ),
but no one wanted to take the time to download and view their faxes
unless there was a significant cost advantage to them and/or they were
very interested in the technology and simply "liked" the concept. I
*think* we are on the right track with the WWW-based fax mailbox, but
who knows?  Maybe it's just a fad...it does seem, however, that this
is an untapped market, and that the more firms who get involved in
this the greater degree of public awareness of such a versatile
product will be, which will benefit all of us who offer it, Interpage
and others alike. (Either that or we'll go out of business...:) )

Anyhow, just so this doesn't sound like a *complete* ad for Interpage,
I'll end now by saying that there are a number of other firms which
offer Internet-based fax services, one of which, "tpc.int", does it
for free to many areas (check Yahoo, etc. for others).

My next post will NOT be about Interpage! :)


      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, Info., and WWW/E-Mail Fax Svcs

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

From: [e-mail] (Edward T Spire)
Subject: Re: Fax --> E-mail
Date: 20 Dec 1995 17:57:23 GMT
Organization: The Workstation Group


Robert A. Rosenberg ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the
>> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail
>> addresses?

> Since the Fax Message format is standardized (otherwise Faxes would
> not work), it would seem that providing a service to accept incoming
> Faxes and then Email them as MIME attachments would be feasible.
> There would need to be a separate number for each user AND the
> incoming fax raw data would need to be converted/enveloped into the
> format of the user's Fax Software (ie I use FaxSTF81 for the Mac and
> thus the raw data would need to be converted into a FaxSTF81 incoming
> file). An alternative would be for a RYO format and software for the
> different Platforms.

> The same applies for outgoing Faxes. You would create the Fax like
> normal and then Email the file to the server which would then outward
> dial from a local phone (just as is currently done for Text-to-Fax
> support such as CIS/GEnie/etc provide). Again, the Server would need
> to be able to extrac= t the Raw Image or a RYO Fax Driver (as opposed
> to a normal Fax Driver) would be required.

There are systems like this available on the market.  I was planning to
modify hylafax to do this, and I may end up just buying one that already
supports this instead.

As to getting the number, you can use a DID trunk to provided the
originally called number and translate that number into the userid to
send the email to.  As to getting the DID number, exacom sells a box
you can strap on the front of any fax modem to get the number from the
DID line and pass it along to the fax modem as DTMF data.

I was not gonna actually send the fax as an attachment, just store the
fax in a central library and send a notification of receipt, and let
the recipient access the fax via NFS and a viewer like xv.  No reason
why a more complete implementation as described above wouldn't work.


=========== When you believe in things you don't understand, ===========
=========================== then you suffer ============================
Ed Spire                                    Voice: 708-696-4800 ext 69
The Workstation Group                       Fax:   [phone]
6300 River Road, Suite 501                  Email: [e-mail]
Rosemont, Illinois, USA                     Web:   http://www.wrkgrp.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #526
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 21 16:57:13 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id QAA17916; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:57:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:57:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #527

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:57:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 527

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    A Message to Japan re Our Censorship Bill (Dave Farber via Gordon Jacobson)
    Agreement Reached on Telecom Bill (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cellphone Clone Scheme (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: Rob Slade's Review of My Book _Digital Cash_ (A. Padgett Peterson)
    Connecticut to End Local Phone Monopoly (Alan Lange)
    Caller ID Over AT&T (Scott Plichta)
    Book Review: Understanding SONET/SDH (Steve Silverman)
    Some Thoughts on the New NPAs (James E. Bellaire)
    Re: US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts ([e-mail])
    Re: Prime Dime Long Distance (Arnold Brod)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:30:59 -0500
From: Dave Farber <[e-mail]> (via <[e-mail]>)
Subject: A Message to Japan re Our Censorship Bill


I sent the following message to some Japanese friends. I hope you find it
interesting.

Dave

 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 11:25:48 -0500
 To: japan friends
 From: Dave Farber <[e-mail]>
 Subject: the right is winning
 Cc: [e-mail]

I am sorry that you guys did not get to hear all my talk at the
Frontiers in Telecom. That final part of the speech was focused on the
impact of the "Exon" bill and its descendants on the growth of the
NII/GII. It talked about the catastrophe that bill could be for the
evolution of the network.  It was the first time I have managed to get
a Japanese audience to stir and ask real questions.

I believe that such a bill, if passed as part of the Telecom reform
bill, will cause a shock wave that will leave debris in its path. For
example, the Universities will have to face what to do when 25% of
it's students are under the age of 18. Commercial services will, in my
mind, have to severely restrain the free acting type of interaction
that is currently encouraged.  ECommerce will get stalled since at
this time the major market for it is pornography and that is certainly
indecent communications. Just how they can operate and how any carrier
can allow them to operate is a problem.

Will the law be constitutional? Who knows. Most likely no but ... if
the opponents cannot get a restraining order (must show severe
irreversible impact) then things will start unraveling.

How will that impact the GII? It will encourage the passing of similar
bills in other nations. It, due to the belief on the part of the USA
that it has extra-territorial reach, slow and stop the use of
facilities that might be used to carry such indecent material for fear
that the US will seize their US property and even arrest their
executives when they land in the US.

Sound scifi?

I wish it was. The spectacular growth of the network outside the
commercial arena is due to the freedom and adventure it offers. If
that is limited and regulated and if the model for the network becomes
the broadcast/AOL model -- controlled, then I believe it will loose
the drive it has and will be like many other fads that peak and die.

My bet is 50/50 on this one. Those are damn poor odds given the
importance of the net to the future prosperity of the planet.

I for one intend to contimue to speak and warn in front of any
audience that will listen.


Dave


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We appear to be getting closer to it
happening, if the news reports from today are to be believed. In
the next article in this issue, I discuss it further. Will it
happen? It seems almost assured. Will it have the far-reaching
consequences some are predicting?  I really just don't know.  It
might help to recall however that in the very early days of radio,
in the first quarter of this century, there were dire predictions
about the 'death of radio' if government regulation came into
existence, as it did in the early 1920's via the Federal Radio
Commission. Quite a few people then were convinced the government
would regulate the airwaves so much radio could never survive.
We have seen that proven wrong. Where will Internet and Usenet be
ten or twenty years from now? Dead at the hands of Exon and Company?
Or, as robust and vibrant as ever?  Makes you wonder ....  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:50:14 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: Agreement Reached on Telecom Bill


The White House and Congress reached agreement Wednesday night on
legislation that Vice President Gore promised would lower prices
and improve telephone, broadcasting and cable television services.

The massive overhaul of communications law in the USA will effect
virtually everyone, but there may well be a wrenching period of
change which could see some rates go up and numerous differences
in how we do business with these carriers before prices come down
again and anything really *improves* for the common person.

As agreed upon by the White House and Congress, the new legislation
will allow local telcos, long distance carriers and cable companies
to all get involved in each other's business. LD carriers will offer
local service without any restraints placed on them; local telcos
can offer cable television service; the cable services can cut deals
with the long distance carriers to provide connections for local
phone service, etc.

The bill also has a provision requiring manufacturers of television
receivers to include a 'V-chip' that would allow the person who
owns the television receiver to decide what others could or could
not view. This is primarily intended to block out violent programs
from being seeing by children but the 'V-chip' is non-discriminatory;
you define for it what programming is offensive or unwanted. You can
program it for whatever you don't wish to have appear.

Of particular interest to users of the Internet is a provision in
the new legislation which would outlaw transmission of pornographic
or indecent material to children over computer networks. This single
part of the legislation has raised considerable controversy among
Internet users as we know.

Congress and the White House are now in agreement on the wording and
provisions of the new legislation.

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

Vice President Gore has committed President Clinton to signing the
bill. He stated the president would execute his signature 'as soon
as Congress formally sends it to him ...'

A Christmas/New Year's present for netters perhaps? There does not
appear to be a lot of sympathy for computer users in the various
printed accounts of this which appeared in the newspapers Thursday
morning. The {Chicago Sun Times} for example used several columns
over a couple of pages to discuss the many things which will change
as a result, but only a single sentence was given to the dilemma
facing the net in these words:

    "The telecom measure would outlaw the transmission
     of smutty material to children on computer networks."

While that is is true, it will do that, it seems much to me the same
as saying that dropping a nuclear bomb on your neighborhood is
one sure-proof way to kill the weeds growing in your lawn.

So, Clinton is ready to go, and Congress is ready to go ... my
question in these closing days of 1995 is, where are YOU going to
go?


PAT

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:19:50 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cell Phone Clone Scheme


US Attorney James Burns here in Illinois joined a task force of
federal agents, along with representatives of Ameritech and Cellular
One in Chicago on Wednesday to announce the indictments of four people
charged with cloning cellular phones and selling those phones and
associated equipment.

Involved in the investigation which had gone on for several months
were agents of the US Secret Service; the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and security representatives
of Cellular One and Ameritech.

The government charges the four indicted trafficed 'extensively' in
cellular fraud not only in the Chicago area but throughout the USA.
Persons who wished to pay for the services of the ring members could
do so in cash of course; cocaine was also acceptable for barter or
trade as were firearms.

The four persons indicted were:

Martin O'Shield, 26, of 440 West St. James Place, Chicago
Brenda Gomez, 23, 7500 West 62nd Street, Summit, IL
Malik Thomas, 26, 600 block North Central Avenue, Chicago
George Riddles, 27, 2020 West 80th Street, Chicago

All were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy
to clone cellular phones, and sell the cloned phones and equipment
to do the same to other phones. In addition, Riddles is charged
with possession of equipment to clone phones, firearms, cloned
phones and cash to exchange for uncloned phones.

O'Shield is the son of Chicago Police Commander Leroy O'Shield.
He is accused of being the leader of the ring, and having recruited
Gomez and Thomas. O'Shield is additionally charged with soliciting
for the sale of illegal cloning equipment.

Ms. Gomez is additionally charged with possession of one kilogram of
cocaine, and offering to trade same to a government agent in exchange
for receiving several stolen cellular phones which would then be
cloned and resold 'on the street'.

All have been arrested by the United States Marshall and are being
held in custody pending their trials.

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

I dunno ... <scratching head> ... when I go into a store I always
ask 'do you accept VISA or MC?' ... I guess when you dealt with this
bunch you would inquire, 'do you accept cocaine or sawed-off shotguns
as payment?'  ......


PAT

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 11:22:32 -0500
From: [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Re: Rob Slade's Review of my Book _Digital Cash_


Mr. Wayner wrote to review Rob Slade's review of his book:

> Mr. Slade also says that the book lacks a "straightforward discussion
> of the United States government policy on encryption."

Book quote provided by author:

> The U.S. Government, for instance, seems willing to approve the
> export of strong encryption algorithms as long as it is apparent that
> the encryption software can't be used for anything except protecting
> financial transactions.

Rob stated essentially that the book lacked substance. Judging from
the selected quotes, I have to wonder also (realize I hold books to a
different standard than postings). The "policy" in question is
obviously ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulation) and I would
expect the book to provide three things:

1) Mention that the requirement stems from ITAR;
2) Cite the paragraph;
3) Specify the relevance.

Now in this case I think what the book is referring to is the following
(taken from an ITAR copy downloaded over the net - I did not verify it
so caveat y'all) - note the word "except" in XIII(b)(1):

       --- begin selected ITAR extract----

  Category XIII-Auxiliary Military Equipment
 ...
  (b) Information Security Systems and equipment, cryptographic devices,
       software, and components specifically designed or modified therefor,
       including:
    (1) Cryptographic (including key management) systems, equipment,
        assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components or software
        with the capability of maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of
        information or information systems, except cryptographic equipment
        and software as follows:
 ...
     (ii) Specially designed, developed or modified for use in machines for
          banking or money transactions, and restricted to use only in such
          transactions. Machines for banking or money transactions include
          automatic teller machines, self-service statement printers, point
          of sale terminals or equipment for the encryption of interbanking
          transactions.
 ...
     (v)  Limited to access control, such as automatic teller machines, self-
          service statement printers or point of sale terminals, which
          protects password or personal identification numbers (PIN) or
          similar data to prevent unauthorized access to facilities but does
          not allow for encryption of files or text, except as directly
          related to the password of PIN protection.

  ---end ITAR extract ---

As can be seen from the quoted paragraphs the book seems to be mixing
the exemptions provided in (ii) and (v) but I am not real sure which.
Since the mechanism AFAIK was software that would seem to leave (ii)
out (not a machine though possibly "equipment"). (v) relates to
passwords and PINs but does not refer to transactions.

The final thing that strikes me as odd is that if the whatever
qualifies under any of the XIII(b)(1) exemptions then the government
does not have to approve its export since export is not restricted.

In short "the government seems willing" seems to me a bit weak when
used as a quote to demonstrate the book's credibility.


Warmly,

Padgett


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If Mr. Wayner wishes to make a final
response, I will print it here.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 07:01:44 EST
From: Alan Lange <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connecticut to End Local Phone Monopoly


The headline story in {The Hartford Courant} today (12/21/95)
discusses the state PUCA decision to end SNET's local phone monopoly.
SNET currently provided local service to almost all residents in the
state; a small number are served by the Woodbury Telephone Co. and a
few others by the New York Telephone Co.

Five companies have already been certified by the DPUC to provide
local service (MCI, MFS Intelnet, Brooks Fiber Communications of
Connecticut, Teleport Communications Group, and Cable and Wireless,
Inc.)  All five say they will target business customers first.

Under the regulators' decision, SNET must provide service at
discounted "wholesale" rate to its competitors so they can resell it.
These wholesale rates are temporarily being imposed by the regulators
after rejecting SNET's.  Some of SNET's proposed wholesale rates were
higher than it charges retail to its residential customers.  Under the
order, SNET must come up with new wholesale rates and cost studies to
justify them, as well as a volume discount scheme.


Alan Lange <lang0251.hgc.edu>
PGP keyID: bea6e65d
Finger Print: 9edb0db4 d9acf05d b2067981 20b42201

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

From: Scott Plichta <[e-mail]>
Organization: Applied Telematics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 08:28:20 EST
Subject: Caller ID Over AT&T


I live in PA, and my parents live in Maryland.  They have AT&T
selected as a long distance carrier.  Whenever they call me, my caller
ID box is still showing "NO CID NBR". Of course, we all know that
after Dec.1 this isn't supposed to happen, so I made it a point to try
to find an answer.

I figured I'd start with Bell Atlantic to see make sure that their
were no technical difficulties at my switch.  The operator who
answered, properly explained that they passed along whatever the LD
carrier gave them and that my box was fine. He suggested contacting
AT&T and gave me 800-222-0300.  This is AT&T's billing/Customer
Service line.  After arguing for three or four minutes with the
attendant over whether it was a Bell or AT&T issue, she decided that
she wasn't qualified to answer such questions (but did feel qualified
to say that it wasn't AT&T's problem for two or three minutes).  She
pointed me to the AT&T operator.  Ok, I call, 10ATT0+0.

First the operator informs me that Caller ID is not available in
Colorado (that's where he is), I inform him that I appreciate the
information, but can't see how Colorado is important in my 300 mile
phone call on the East Coast.  Next he points me to Bell.  After the
same "discussion" as the billing rep, he checks with his supervisor to
see if AT&T passes Caller ID information.  He then tells me it should
work and it is probably a "download" problem.

I then explain the FCC ruling and that I would like a satisfactory
reason that AT&T won't pass the CID (maybe the switch isn't SS7 I
suggest [knowing full well that it is]).  He then determines that he
isn't the right person and gives me to the supervisor.  She
understands the questions and tells me to call 800-222-0300, which I
inform her they sent me to her.  She asks me why they referred me to
the operator, how should I know?  Anyway, she tries AT&T equipment
leasing, AT&T Universal Card Center, and about three other numbers, who
hear my whole story and decide it isn't their problem.  She gave me a
new number 1-800-222-3000; LD repair.  This is my next challenge, but
by this time we are at 1.5 hours.

I love big companies ...
I'll let you know the results, if I ever get someone who knows
anything about telecom at AT&T.


Scott Plichta
Western Interactive Media
([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Silverman[smb] MT 3F-114)
Subject: Book Review: "Understanding SONET/SDH: Standards and Applications"
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 19:26:00 GMT


I have just learned of the existence of a new book on SONET and
thought that the group would be interested in it:

Understanding SONET/SDH: Standard and Applications"
Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 95-83682
ISBN: 0-9650448-2-3
Author: Dr. Ming-Chwan Chow (908-957-6829)
Andan Publisher, 4 Aufra Place, Holmdel, NJ 07733  (908-946-4155)

"Understanding SONET/SDH" is a book written by Dr. Ming-Chwan Chow,
published by Andan Publisher. This book covers many aspects of
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH) and is a product of many years of research and teachings worldwide
in the topic matter.  The text is written in such a way that it will
attract a broad audience with diverse backgrounds. The presentation of
the material in this book has been successfully delivered to an array of
audiences ranging from technicians, engineers, managers, sales and
marketing teams as well as university students.

This book consists of ten chapters as follows. The first chapter gives
a review of Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy (PDH) characteristics and
the need for SONET/SDH standards in global communications. Chapters
two and three cover SONET signal hierarchy, pointers, and
applications.  To follow, Chapters four and five cover SDH signal
hierarchy, pointers, and applications. Chapter six discusses the
timing and synchronization of SONET/SDH networks.

The next three chapters describe network management, optical interface
specifications, and network elements, including functional
descriptions. The final chapter, "Beyond SONET/SDH" describes
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) basics, transport, and ATM
management.  This book is structured to highlight key concepts through
a series of review questions contained at the conclusion of each
chapter. This book provides an excellent, comprehensive review of
SONET/SDH and is highly recommended to readers of varying backgrounds
with interest in the telecommunications industry.

An introductory unit price of $50 is available from Andan Publisher.


Steve Silverman
Technical Education-AT&T Bell Labs

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 02:59:54 -0500
From: James E. Bellaire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Thoughts on the New NPAs


Steve Grandi's newest list has the three new Caribbean codes split
from 809 ...

  809> 441   Bermuda      10/ 1/95 -  9/30/96  All 19 exchanges!!!
  809> 787   Puerto Rico   3/ 1/96 -  1/31/97  All of Puerto Rico.
  809> 246   Barbados      7/ 1/96 -  1/15/97  All 27 exchanges!!!
  809> 242   Bahamas      10/ 1/96 -  3/ 1/97  All 49 exchanges!!!

The new 312 (after 773 breaks off) may be the most dense small NPA,
but these Caribbean splits are crazy!  The only bonus is that PBX
administrators will know which countries are being called without
getting down to the NXX level.

As far as frequent changes go, the first two second level splits
(both in Canada) were made within ten years of the first split ...

  902> 506  (1955) New Brunswick / Newfoundland
  506> 709  (1962) Newfoundland
and
  613> 705  (1957) Ontario
  705> 807  (1962) Ontario

And the first third level split is on its way...

  213> 714  (1951) California
  714> 619  (1982) California
  619> 760  (1997) California

The first ten years of the NPA system had 17 splits.
But then we could pass them off as 'adjustments'.

  317> 219  (? 48) Indiana
  816> 417  (1950) Missouri
  914> 516  (1951) New York
  213> 714  (1951) California
  416> 519  (1953) Ontario    (Includes part of 613)
  305> 813  (1953) Florida
  915> 817  (1953) Texas      (Includes part of 214)
  405> 918  (1953) Oklahoma
       507  (1954) Minnesota  (218/612/507 realignment)
  315> 607  (1954) New York
  901> 615  (1954) Tennesee
  404> 912  (1954) Georgia
  704> 919  (1954) North Carolina
  402> 308  (1954) Nebraska
  502> 606  (1954) Kentucky
  902> 506  (1955) New Brunswick / Newfoundland
       608  (1955) Wisconsin  (414/715/608 realignment)

One question (for the history and politics minded).  I noticed that
the first split, estimated to have occured in 1948, was in Indiana.
The 219 area leaving the 317.  Most of the 219 area is served by
independents and GTE.

I wonder if the lack of an original area code for Northern Indiana
(and other independent dominated areas) has its roots in the old
interconectivity feud between the old Ma Bell and GTE and the
independents.

Any thoughts?


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, they were having their interconnect
fights back in the 1920's and prior ... nothing as late as 1948. They
were all good friends by that time. Regards your 'first three level
split is on the way', I think we are going to beat California on that
here in the Chicago area in about a month when 847 is started. I
guess it depends on your interpretation of things, but consider this
history:

312 covered all of northern Illinois since whenever out to the
    border with 815 in the far western suburbs.

312 > 708  all the 312 suburbs of Chicago broke off into 708 in 1988.
708 > 630  beginning January, 1995 cell phones and pagers were yanked
           out of 708 and put into 630.
708 > 847  with only landline phones left, 708 has to split again in
708 > 630  January, 1996 *and* July, 1996. North suburbs go to 847,
           followed by western suburbs to 630 in July. The 'original'
           708 only stays in the south suburbs.
           815 meanwhile remains the same as it always has been.
630 > 847  Beginning in January with the north suburbs move to 847,
630 > 708  those north suburban people with cellphones/pagers who were
           forced out of 708 last year can return to their 'home'
           area code of (now) 847 if desired, or they can remain 630
           as desired.
312 > 773  Meanwhile, 312 splits again, also late next year.

So whatever they are doing in California, we are coming a close second
at the least. And don't forget New York City with its 212 which lasted
for years and years only to be followed in rapid succession by 718 and
then 917.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts Available
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:41:19 GMT


In Article<[e-mail]>, Tim Sweeney
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has posted on
> its web page the transcript of the quality of service hearings
> conducted on November 9, 1995, in Olympia, Washington.  The hearing
> was held as part of the U S West rate case.  No decision has been made
> on this case.  Hearings on quality of service continue January 8, 1996
> with the rest of the case issues taken up during the following two
> weeks in January.

> Included in the transcript is the cross-examination of U S West
> Vice-President Dennis Okamoto and consultant Mike Bookey and testimony
> from about 20 members of the public including Internet service
> providers commenting on T-1 and ISDN access.

> The text file is about 400K and can be found on the WUTC page at:
> http://www.washington.edu/wutc

I read an interesting article in the Portland, OR {Oregonian} about
this meeting.  It seems that one of the US West guys left an internal
"confidential" memo on the table at the end of the day.  The memo gave
away US West's real attitude toward customer service.  Among other
things it said that they did not want customer service to be overseen
by a third party (regulators) and should be an internal only issue --
that competition should set the service standards.  The memo said to
be cordial but don't give up anything.  I wish I could remember more,
but the attitude was clear -- we are the phone company and don't want
to be bothered by those pesky people (regulators or customers).  I
wish I had a choice for my local service -- I'd vote US West right out
of my office and home.

When US Worst asked for an example of a Bell company with good
service, the response (which I love) was "US West in 1982".

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

From: Arnold Brod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prime Dime Long Distance
Date: 20 Dec 1995 02:59:31 GMT
Organization: TeleCom Associates


There are a number of variations on this theme.  One is by a company
carrier called Vartec.  They have the same 10 cent rate but you have
to use their intra state rate program.  The program that you have will
probably need a 800 access code or a five digit pic code to bypass your
current carrier.  BE CAREFUL.  Check your bill for the number of calls
that you have below three minutes and consider what the $5 does to your
cost per minute.  Good luck.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #527
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec 22 02:13:49 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id CAA21767; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 02:13:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 02:13:49 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #528

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Dec 95 02:14:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 528

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Toll Fraud on French PBX's - Phreaking (JeanBernard Condat)
    New First Amendment Subscription Service (Chris Roth)
    10-732 ANI Number (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? (Carl Moore)
    Ten Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland (Carl Moore)
    CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? ([e-mail])
    15th Century View - was Re: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 (Elana Beach)
    Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Thomas Grant Edwards)
    Telecom Financial Questions (Larry Rubin)

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

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

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (JeanBernard Condat)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Toll Fraud on French PBX's - Phreaking
Date: 21 Dec 1995 17:14:16 GMT
Organization: FranceNet


In France it is estimated that PBX trunk fraud (toll fraud) costs
companies over $220 million a year. Criminal phreakers figure out how
to access PBXs owned by businesses and then sell long-distance calling
capacities provided by these systems to the public. In European
markets where PSTN to PSTN connections are illegal it has not to date
been such an issue. However, for a number of reasons this is likely to
change.

Trunk to trunk connection barring through PBXs is expected to be
deregulated throughout Europe.

The telecom industry has done more this year to prevent toll fraud
than any other time. Yet, toll fraud losses will top more than $2
billion again this year. If you aren't doing anything to prevent being
hit, it's not a matter of if you'll be hit, it's when you'll be hit
and for how much. So, here are some low-cost ways to stop toll
fraud-or at least lessen the blow if you do get hit.

Increasing numbers of international companies have private networks
and provide DISA (Direct Inward System Access) access to employees.
Such companies are prime victims for phreaking. For example, a phone
hacker can access the network in the UK, France, or Germany and break
out in another country where it is legal to make trunk to trunk calls,
and from that point they can call anywhere in the world.

Voice mail is taking off across Europe. This, together with DISA, is
one of the most common ways phreakers enter a company's PBX.

Raising these issues now and detailing precautionary measures will
enable companies to take steps to reduce such frauds.  The following
looks at the current situation in France.

In France a whole subculture, like a real phone underground culture,
of these technology terrorists is springing up on city streets. Stolen
access codes are used to run call-sell operations from phone booths or
private phones. The perpetrators offer international calls for circa
FF 20, which is considerably less than it could cost to dial direct.
When calls are placed through corporate PBXs rather than carrier
switches, the companies that own the PBXs end up footing the bill.

What are the warning signs that your own communication systems are
being victimized by toll fraud? In inbound call detail records, look
for long holding times, an unexplained increased in use, frequent use
of the system after normal working hours, or a system that is always
busy. In records of outbound calls, look for calls made to unusual
locations or international numbers, high call volumes, long duration
of calls, frequent calls to premium rate numbers and frequently
recurring All Trunks Busy (ATB) conditions.

Toll fraud is similar to unauthorized access to mainframe computers or
hacking. Manufacturers such as Northern Telecom have developed
security features that minimize the risk of such theft.

Telecommunication managers, however, are the only ones who are ensure
that these features are being used to protect their systems from
fraud.

Areas of Intrusion Into Corporate Systems:

PBX features that are vulnerable to unauthorized access include call
forwarding, call prompting and call processing features. But the most
common ways phreakers enter a company's PBX is through DISA and voice
mail systems.  They often search a company's rubbish for directories
or call detail reports that contain a companies own '05' numbers and
codes. They have also posed as system administrators or France Telecom
technicians and conned employees into telling them PBX authorization
codes. More sophisticated hackers use personal computers and modems to
break into data bases containing customer records showing phone
numbers and voice mail access codes, or simply dial '05' numbers with
the help of sequential number generators and computers until they find
one that gives access to a phone system.

Once these thieves have the numbers and codes, they can call into the
PBX and place calls out to other locations. In many cases, the PBX is
only the first point of entry for such criminals. They can also use
the PBX to access company's data system. Call-sell operators can even
hide their activities from law enforcement officials by using
PBX-looping-using one PBX to place calls out through another PBX in
another state.

Holding the Line-Steps That Reduce Toll Fraud:

Northern Telecom's Meridian 1 systems provide a number of safety
features to guard against unauthorized access. It is the most popular
PBX phreaked in France. The following information highlights Meridian
1 features that can minimise such abuse.


DISA Security:

The DISA feature allows users to access a company's PBX system from
the public network by dialing a telephone number assigned to the
feature. Once the system answers the DISA call, the caller may be
required to enter a security code and authorisation code. After any
required codes are entered, the caller, using push button tone
dialling, is provided with the calling privileges, such as Class of
Service (COS), Network Class of Service (NCOS) and Trunk Group Access
Restrictions (TGAR), that are associated with the DISA DN or the
authorisation code entered.

To minimize the vulnerability of the Meridian 1 system to unauthorized
access through DISA, the following safeguards are suggested:

1) Assign restricted Class of Service, TGAR and NCOS to the DISA DN;

2) Require users to enter a security code upon reaching the DISA DN;

3) In addition to a security code, require users to enter an authorization
code. The calling privileges provided will be those associated with the
specific authorization code;

4) Use Call Detail Recording (CDR) to identify calling activity
associated with individual authorization codes. As a further
precaution, you may choose to limit printed copies of these records;

5) Change security codes frequently;

6) Limit access to administration of authorization codes to a few,
carefully selected employees.

Meridian Mail Security:

Northern Telecom's Meridian Mail voice messaging system is also
equipped with a number of safeguarding features. The features that
allow system users to dial out; Through Dial, Operator Revert and
Remote Notification (Outcalling) should be controlled to reduce the
likelihood of unauthorised access. The following protective measures
can be used to minimise tool fraud:

Voice Security Codes -

Set security parameters for ThroughDial using the Voice Security
Options prompt from the Voice Systems Administration menu. This prompt
will list restricted access codes to control calls placed using the
Through-Dial function of Meridian Mail. An access code is a prefix for
a telephone number or a number that must be dialled to access outside
lines or long-distance calling. If access codes are listed as
restricted on the Meridian Mail system, calls cannot be placed through
Meridian Mail to numbers beginning with the restricted codes. Up to ten
access codes can be defined.

Voice Menus -

With the Through-Dial function of Voice Menus, the system
administrator can limit dialling patterns using restricted dialling
prefixes. These access codes, which are defined as illegal, apply only
to the Through-Dial function of each voice menu. Each Through-Dial
menu can have its own restricted access codes. Up to ten access codes
can be programmed.

Meridian Mail also allows system administrators to require that users
enter an Access Password for each menu. In this way, the Through-Dial
menu can deny unauthorized callers access to Through-Dial functions,
while allowing authorised callers access.

Additional Security Features -

The Secured Messaging feature can be activated system-wide and
essentially blocks external callers from logging to Meridian Mail. In
addition, the system administrator can establish a system-wide
parameter that forces user to change their Meridian Mail passwords
within a defined time period. Users can also change their passwords at
any time when logged in to Meridian Mail.

System administrator can define a minimum acceptable password length
for Meridian Mail users. The administrators can also determine the
maximum number of times an invalid password can be entered before a
log-on attempt is dropped and the mailbox log-on is disabled.

Some of the features that provide convenience and flexibility are also
vulnerable to unauthorized access. However, Meridian 1 products
provide a wide array of features that can protect your system from
unauthorised access.

In general, you can select and implement the combination of features
that best meets your company's needs.

General Security Measures:

Phone numbers and passwords used to access DISA and Meridian Mail
should only be provided to authorized personnel. In addition, call
detail records and other reports that contain such numbers should be
shredded or disposed of in an appropriate manner for confidential
material. To detect instances of trunk fraud and to minimize the
opportunities for such activity, the system administrator should take
the following steps frequently (the frequency is determined on a per
site basis according to need):

1) Monitor Meridian 1 CDR output to identify sudden unexplained increases in
trunk calls. Trunk to trunk/Tie connections should be included in CDR output;

2) Review the system data base for unauthorised changes;

3) Regularly change system passwords, and DISA authorisation and security
codes;

4) Investigate recurring All Trunks Busy (ATB) conditions to determine
the cause;

5) If modems are used, change access numbers frequently, and consider
using dial-back modems;

6) Require the PBX room to be locked at all times. Require a sign-in
log and verification of all personnel entering the PBX room.

Two Practical Cases:

Bud Collar, electronic systems manager with Plexus in Neenah, Wis.,
transferred from its payphone operations branch. As the PBX manager,
he's blocked all outside access to his Northern Telecom Meridian 1 and
meridian Mail. Just in case a phreaker does gain access, Collar
bought a $600, PC-based software package from Tribase Systems in
Springfield, NJ, called Tapit. With Tapit, Collar runs daily reports
on all overseas call attempts and completions. But the drawback to
Tapit is that by itself it has no alarm features, so if a phreaker
does get in, Collar won't know about it until he runs the next report.
Tribase does offer Fraud Alert with alarms for $950, but Collar chose
not to use it.

Erica Ocker, telecom supervisor at Phico Insurance in Mechaniscsburg,
PA, also wanted to block all of her outside ports. But she has
maintenance technicians who need routine access, so she needed a way
to keep her remote access ports open, without opening up her Rolm 9751
to toll fraud. The solution is to buy LeeMah DataCom Security Corps's
TraqNet 2001. For $2,000, Ocker got two secured modems that connect to
her maintenance port on her PBX and to her Rolm Phone Mail port. When
someone wants to use these features, they dial into the TraqNet and
punch in their PIN number. TraqNet identifies the user by their PIN
and asks them to punch in a randomly selected access code that they
can only get from a credit card-sized random number generator, called
an InfoCard. That access code matches the codes that are generated
each time the TraqNet is accessed. The TraqNet 2001 is a single-line
model that supports up to 2,304 users for $950. More upscale can
support up to 32 lines and run call detail reports, but they cost as
much as $15,000.  InfoCards each cost an additional $50.

Conclusions:

The ultimate solution will be, as I read in a French consultancy
review, <to program the PBX ACD agent ports as toll denied.>

The more pleasant story directly linked with French phreaking was the
night that I saw on my TV screen in Paris a luxurous computer ad for
the Dell micro-computers. At the end of the ad, a toll-free number was
presented in green: 05-444-999. I immediately phoned this number ...
and found the well-known voice of all French Northern Telecom's
Meridian Mail saying in English: "For technical reasons, your call
cannot be transferred to the appropriate person.  Call later or leave
a message after the tune." The dial of 0* gave the open door to more
than Dell information. My letter to this company already is without
(free voice-) answer!


Jean-Bernard Condat
Computer Security and Toll Fraud Expert
(Paris, France)

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:04:58 -0600
From: Chris Roth <[e-mail]>
Subject: New First Amendment Subscription Service


To subscribe to The First Amendment Teach-In's newsletters, send
an e-mail message to: [e-mail]
Leave the subject line blank and in the body write:
                      subscribe FAU [your name here]
[Example:             subscribe FAU mary smith     ]


Dear Patrick:

You may want to subscribe [see above]. No ads. No fees.  Quality
content. This is not an open-access discussion area.

Kindly pass the above information on to anyone interested in freedom
of expression and separation of church and state.

Thank you for your time, Patrick.

Cordially,

Chris Roth
The First Amendment Teach-In
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Separation of church and state, huh ...
Well, I am not sure that is as great an idea as some people think,
but anyway, here is your announcement and I imagine a lot of folks
will want to subscribe. Most people who call for 'separation of
church and state' don't really know what they are talking about and
would not *really* like the results if they got their way. What they
mean is, they are perfectly happy letting the church continue to
carry a huge portion of the social service load i.e. the welfare
and medical/hospital programs they operate and the burden of
educating people i.e. the numerous church-run elementary and high
schools, to say nothing of the universities. They just don't like
it when the church butts into their personal lives. Imagine the
chaos which would result if the churches took all that quite
literally and said in effect, "okay, you want separation? Well,
the job of educating children is a function of the government,
so take the 400,000 children enrolled in the Catholic Archdiocese
of Chicago schools alone and dump them in the public system.
Think of all the money we (the church) can save ... you want
separation? Well okay, it is the government's job to provide
medical care for indigent citizens so how about we close a dozen
or so church-run hospitals and medical centers; the County
Poor People's Hospital can take those clients. Think of all the
money we will save without those enormous write-offs we make
every year when half or more of the patients at Bethany Hospital
on the west side of Chicago don't ever pay nickle one on their
bill. The (state run) University of Illinois Medical Center or
Cook County Hospital can handle the load, right?

And I have only scratched the surface, and you know it ... the
government would collapse under the weight of the social service
load alone if the church were not picking up a huge amount of
the burden. The public schools would collapse under the load if
the church was not educating a sizeable percentage of the children
instead. So you don't really want separation, you just want the
church to shut up and quit reminding you of your wretched existence
living in moral bankruptcy. They hurt your feelings and make you
feel uncomfortable, that's the main problem.

Madalyn Murray Ohare, noted American atheist commented recently on the
passage of time since the famous Supreme Court decision in which she
was involved many years ago. She said, "When I killed God -- what was
it, over twenty years ago now -- I and other separationists sincerely
believed that one could be good or moral or ethical without the church
leaning over our shoulder and breathing heavily on us. I for one never
anticipated having this vacuum or total void just spring up in place
of where the church used to be. I thought something would take its
place. Which is worse, for people in those years to have the church
in every aspect of their lives it seemed; in all the public places;
everywhere you went, or for people now a large number of whom seem to
believe in nothing. No morals, no ethics; many never heard of such
concepts; many these days seem to just wander around in a complete
moral and ethical void."

She did *not* say she regretted what she had helped to occur, but
she did say she had underestimated the importance of the church
where *some people* -- apparently, if the increasing decay and
disorder in our civilization is any indicator, a lot of people --
are concerned in maintaining some semblance of decency and respect
and a modicum of law and order from eras long past and largely
forgotten in American history.

So although it is out of character for liberals to show much in
the way of tolerance -- and some liberals are downright bigots --
try to give the church a little tolerance and elbow room, okay? Anyway,
your notice is printed for anyone who wishes to subscribe to your
newsletter. Personally, I have always found the First Amendment
to be a little irksome and a nuisance, but if you send your material,
I'll read it and bite my tongue now and then trying not to badger
you too much.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:45:49 CST
From: Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10-732 ANI Number


Re: 10-732-1-404-988-9664, it seems that with the split of Atlanta's
404 into 404 and 770 that the old 404-988 went into 770-988.

One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664.
                       ^^^
There is also a number in 412 (Pittsburgh PA NPA) which AT&T has for
their 10-732-1+ ANI number, but I don't have it handy at the moment.
Maybe one of the readers knows the 10-732-1-412- number offhand.

As for 1-800-MY-ANI-IS (800-692-6447): after dialing, one reaches an
`OCC' dialtone. A *passcode* must be entered with DTMF (Touchtone).
The passcode has been posted to some alt.* groups, but I am *NOT*
going to mention it here.

When calling out from the PBX here, the outgoing trunk number used for
that particular call would display on a called party's CID box (along
with the name `TULANE UNIVERSI' truncated at 15 characters. The
outgoing trunk numbers would be quoted back on *both* the 10-732...
and 1-800-MY-ANI-IS.

When I use my cellphone inthe New Orleans Bell South Cellular Service
area my Caller-ID shows Out-of-Area'. 10-732-1+ ANI numbers quote back
my actual cellphone's number. 800-MY-ANI-IS quotes always quotes back
the *same* trunk number of BellSouth Mobility for New Orleans.

When I've roamed to Cellular South (Gulfport MS), I get their (single)
trunk number on 800-MY-ANI-IS. I haven't tried 10-732-1+ yet, nor have
I had the chance to roam there since Inter-State CID via various
carriers started this month.

When I roamed to MobilTel (areas south and west of New Orleans metro),
I would get *their* trunk number on 800-MY-ANI-IS, but I haven't
roamed there recently so I don't know what 10-732-1+ does nor have I
been there since Inter-State/LATA CID started with (most) IXC's.

BellSouth Mobility usually doesn't (yet) allow me 10-XXX access but I
can do the 10-732-1+. I'm not yet sure if I am being charged airtime
or toll for these calls, however- I've been told by others that they
haven't been charged toll.


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, 21 Dec 95 17:19:36 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone?


In some cases, you make a long distance call via a particular carrier
by starting with an 800 (or, soon to be 888?) call.  This is a way (an
alternate way) of reaching the AT&T carrier, and when I use the Orange
Card, I always start that way.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 17:38:34 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ten-Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland


10-digit dialing
Confusion will be a phone call away

By Shawn Donnan, Associated Press Writer

BALTIMORE -- All Susan Zelenakas knows is that soon she'll be dialing
10 numbers to make a local phone call -- and she doesn't like it.

"I hate it already," the Anne Arundel County resident said Monday.

Under a plan approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission last
week, Marylanders will have to dial 10 numbers for all phone calls
beginning in 1997 and will have to get used to two new area codes
covering the same regions as the 301 and 410 codes.

Bell Atlantic and the public service commission see the move as an
inevit- able step toward the future as phone numbers are gobbled up by
cellular phones, computers, pagers and fax machines.

All consumer advocates see is confusion.

"It's a big change that people are not expecting," said Michael
Travieso, the state People's Counsel.

Travieso, who opposed the plan on behalf of residential phone
customers during hearings this year, and other opponents of the
overlay plan see it as clumsy and confusing and a hindrance to
competition for the local phone service market.

Maryland is not the first state to use such a plan.  The 281 area code
went into an effect as an overlay for the 713 area code in the Houston
area in March, even though debate continues in Texas over the system
proposed for the Dallas area as well.

Southwestern Bell has begun assigning 281 numbers to new customers in
the Houston area but the plan has been challenged by the state Public
Utility Counsel, which represents residential and small business
custom- ers.  A ruling is expected next month.

Other states including Illinois and California are considering overlay
plans to free up more phone numbers.

According to Bell Atlantic, available numbers in the 301 and 410 area
codes will run out by the end of 1997, even though they were expected
to last through 2012 when the 410 area code was added in 1992.

The public service commission considered adding two more regional area
codes instead but after months of debate approved the overlay plan last
Wednesday, which will require 10-digit dialing everywhere in Maryland.

Ten-digit dialing, like it or not, is something that will be a reality
nationwide in the future, according to the public service commission.

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

From: [e-mail] (HI Systems)
Subject: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When?
Date: 21 Dec 1995 19:29:59 -0700
Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet, Inc


US West has been advertising that "soon" Caller ID will work during
Call Waiting.  Naturally, the customer service person, while sincere
and diligent, couldn't really find out much for me (tho he did
research it and call me back as promised).

1.  How can this be done?  Does the "Beep" that lets you know another
call is coming in get replaced with a 1200bps unidirectional modem signal
like that used for normal "between first and second ring" Caller ID
signaling?

2.  What caller ID presentaion units can handle this?  It would seem
that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get
an acceptable modem signal.  Is that what happens?

3.  How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle
this?  Buzzwords?  When will they be available?

4.  When will the local telcos start offering this service?  "Soon" was
all I could get.

Thanks for any info.  I'd really like such a service, even more useful
than regular caller ID potentially.


Zhahai


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It requires a special phone. Regular
phones and regular Caller-ID boxes won't work.   PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Elana who?)
Subject: 15th Century View - was Re: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 02:59:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Andrew C. Green
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> In April 1888 in response to a review in the {Boston Transcript}
> Bellamy wrote:

> She made me sit down comfortably, and, crossing the room, so far
> as I could see, merely touched one or two screws, and at once the room was
> filed with a music of a grand organ anthem; filled, not flooded, for, by
> some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size
> of the apartment.  I listened, scarcely breathing, to the close.  Such
> music, so perfectly rendered, I had never expected to hear.

So this was written in 1888, huh?
I can beat THAT!  :)

Check this out:

"We have also Sound-houses, wher wee practise and demonstrate all
Sounds, and their Generation.  Wee have Harmonies which you have not, of
Quarter-Sounds, and lesser Slides of Sounds, Diverse Instruments of
Musick likewise to you unknowne, some sweeter than any you have;
Together with Bells and Rings that are dainty and sweet wee represent
Small Sounds as Greate and Deepe; Likewise Great Sounds, Extenuate
and Sharpe; Wee make diverse Tremblings and Warblings of Sounds, which
in their Originall are Entire.  Wee represent and imitate all Articulate
Sounds and Letters, and the voices and notes of Beasts and Birds.  Wee
have certaine Helps, which sett to the Eare doe further the Hearing
greatly.  Wee have also diverse Strange and Artificiall Eccho's,
Reflecting the Voice many times, and as it were Tossing it; And some
that give back the Voice Lowder than it come, some Shriller, and some
Deeper; Yea, some Rendering the Voice, differing in the Letters or
Articulate Sound, from that they receyve, Wee have also means to convey
Sounds in Trunks and Pipes, in strange Lines and Distances."

Extract from "The New Atlantis" by Sir Francis Bacon, (1561-1626)


Elana

Elana ([e-mail]) <*> Portland, Oregon - That's "Elana" not "Elena"!
Please do NOT mistype my address as "[e-mail]" because it bugs her.
Do you love Synergy, J.M. Jarre, Vangelis, TD, etc?  Ask me for "The Blurb"

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps
Date: 21 Dec 1995 17:43:08 -0500
Organization: Project Glue, University of Maryland, College Park


I have now heard of two ISPs in Bell Atlantic territory who got burned
when getting a SLC96 installed to handle their large numbers of phone
numbers.  Apparently the SLC96's are incapable of handling 28.8 kbps,
and regularly result in 21 kbps and worse for users.

This sets up the perverse situation where larger regional ISPs have
worse dialup speeds that little Mom-n-pop ones who dialtone over
copper.

Has anyone else heard of this?  I imagine there are probably many
large office buildings that might also have SLC96 service which are
similarly "speed impaired."

Of course, we all know 28.8 kbps is a "best case" scenario, but this
is sad for the future of analog dialup net connectivity (hmm - could
it be the RBOCs would use this "feature" to leverage ISDN?)


Thomas

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Rubin)
Subject: Telecom Financial Questions
Date: 21 Dec 1995 10:54:45 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


I am working on a research project and am looking for information
concerning the typical expense percentages (as it relates to income) of
small and medium size long-distance companies, as well as the average
cost of getting a business and residential customer, and average
mumber and duration of calls per month for residential and business
customers.

If someone could help point me in the right direction, I would greatly
appreciate it.


Larry Rubin               [e-mail]
N3QGH                     +1-500-OSSUARY
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #528
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec 22 17:18:53 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id RAA19241; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 17:18:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 17:18:53 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #529

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Dec 95 17:19:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 529

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: Time Limits on 800 Number Calls From Pay Phones ([e-mail])
    Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Bill Garfield)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Mike Stump)
    Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? (Matt Gebhardt)
    Seasons Greetings (Djung Nguyen)
    Greetings of the Season (David Leibold)
    Last Laugh! And a Merry Christmas Was Had by All (Stan Schwartz)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance
From: [e-mail] (WES LEATHEROCK)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 08:26:00 -0500
Organization: Bare Metal BBS * Oklahoma City, OK * [phone]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (WES LEATHEROCK)


[e-mail] (Doug Faunt N6TQS [phone]) wrote:

> I finally got to my local library when it was open.  The first
> reference to 411 for Information was in 1948.  There's a reference to
> Information (Directory Assistance) in 1967.

> Apparently, 211 for access to the long distance operator precedes
> that, but it's hard to tell since the fronts of the directories are
> pretty beat up.

          What place are you talking about?  Did you just look in
the telephone directories for your town?

          In many cities it was 110 for access to the long distance
operator and 113 for access to "Information."  This was very widespread.

          In other cities it was 211 for access to the long distance
operator and 411 for access to "Information."  This also was very
widespread.

          The 11... series of service codes were generally consistent
throughout a city or metropolitan exchange or a whole state.

          The X11 codes were also generally consistent, usually used
in large cities and the 11... series of codes might be used in other
places in the same state.

          It normally depended on what kind of hardware was used at
the time the service codes were first established (in other words,
the first dial hardware that went in in that place).  Then it would
generally be followed throughout that area.

          Both systems were in common use in the 1930s; how long
before that I don't know.


Wes Leatherock
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud
From: [e-mail] (WES LEATHEROCK)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 08:26:00 -0500
Organization: Bare Metal BBS * Oklahoma City, OK * [phone]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (WES LEATHEROCK)


[e-mail] (Steven Lichter)

> Something about the call does not sound right. First the pin in most
> cases is on the card unless it is requested to be left off. Second if
> they called I have never heard of them giving a new calling card
> number over the phone and giving a PIN would make no sense. You did
> not happen to give that person who called you the number and pin did
> you? When my wife lost her card they sent a new one in a few days and
> during that time any calls had to be verified. It just sounds strange.
> Maybe someone from AT&T could come forward.

       Are you talking about an AT&T telephone credit card or an AT&T
"Universal Card" (Visa card), which may also be used to make telephone
calls.

       I have twice had calls from AT&T's card protection service
about suspected fraud in use of my AT&T Visa card (for purchases, not
for telephone calls).  In both cases their explanation of why the
transactions had been flagged made sense, but since I was able to
confirm that the charges were legitimate, I don't know what would have
ensued if fraud had been involved.


Wes Leatherock
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 11:34:29 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Time limits on 800# calls from Pay Phones


Dear Peter Capek:

I posted an inquiry a couple of months ago about this same occurence.
I was in Little Italy/SoHo and used the new yelllow NYNEX calling card
payphones, but dialing with my MCI 800 Calling Card. I got cut off
every time after about 90 seconds, and I used various new yellow
calling card payphones in Manhattan.

Not having the time to time each call and test a more scientific
sampliing of such payphones, I presumed (with the natural instincts of
a jaded telecommunications consultant) that this could be (repeat
could be) a deliberate ploy to stop non NYNEX calling card users from
using these new phones. I did notice that these new yellow calling
card payphones are always next to a coin payphone. (They travel in
pairs). This had effetively halved the number of available coin
payphones in some areas. And there was always a line (usually rather
hostile) (and I lived in Manhattan for seven years so I paid my dues
and can say such things). But there was never a line at the calling
card payphones.

Aha! I thought this is where creative engineering meets new age
marketing.  I can just imagine the special task force assembled to
promote these new profitable calling card payphones that another 'task
force' has decreed should be next to a coin payphone, thus cutting the
number of pay phones in half in the city and forcing people to get
more profitable (and more convenient) NYNEX calling cards ... "Lets
cut off the non NYNEX calling card user after 90 seconds." and later
"If we're found out we'll say its a programming glitch -- no one will
ever be able to prove this -- after all look what we've got away with
for years!" (Other 'task force' members applaud -- the minutes are
shredded.

I presume this is what we have to live with now with deregulation.
NYNEX wants to cut usage on 800 number calls on these payphones and
give priority to more profitable NYNEX calling card customers.

This looks bleak for the consumer. Perhaps you should write to the NY
PUC or are you already laughing at me? The other alternative is use
your NYNEX cellular phone for the 800 number and only pay $XXX/minute
transport fee!


Happy holidays,

Nicholas Spill
telecommunications consultant
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 17:16:11 GMT
Organization: Associated Technical Consultants
Reply-To: [e-mail]


On 21 Dec 1995 17:43:08 -0500, [e-mail] (Thomas Grant
Edwards) wrote:

> I have now heard of two ISPs in Bell Atlantic territory who got burned
> when getting a SLC96 installed to handle their large numbers of phone
> numbers.  Apparently the SLC96's are incapable of handling 28.8 kbps,
> and regularly result in 21 kbps and worse for users.

> This sets up the perverse situation where larger regional ISPs have
> worse dialup speeds that little Mom-n-pop ones who dialtone over
> copper.

> Has anyone else heard of this?  I imagine there are probably many
> large office buildings that might also have SLC96 service which are
> similarly "speed impaired."

> Of course, we all know 28.8 kbps is a "best case" scenario, but this
> is sad for the future of analog dialup net connectivity (hmm - could
> it be the RBOCs would use this "feature" to leverage ISDN?)

"Been there, done that."

The issue with the SLC-96 and V.34 (28.8) modems is actually one more
directly attributable to the use of D4 framing and AMI line coding
than blaming the SLC itself.  If the telco will cooperate in setting
the SLC up to use Extended Superframe and Binary 8-zero substitution
(ESF/B8ZS) then you'll miraculously begin to see lots of 28,800 bps
connections.  Alas, few telcos will be that cooperative ... :)

But there's still a bit more to it.  The additional digital-to-analog
conversions involved in using the SLC-96 will have a marked negative
impact on your signal-to-noise ratio.  The quantizer noise introduced
by the codecs at each end will also make it more difficult to achieve
full speed 28.8k connections.

It would help the situation if the telco can provide full "integration"
of the SLC at the Central Office end (meaning the T1 channels of the
SLC are switched digitally in the CO without breaking down to analog
ahead of the switch).  Unfortunately this isn't possible if the CO
itself is an analog machine.

You can improve performance too by equipping the host end with a fully
integrated modem rack (one which connects directly to the T1s) - an
example of which would be the USRobotics Enterprise Network Hub. Alas,
these aren't cheap.

There is no cheap solution that I know of, short of moving the host
modem POP across the street from the serving C.O. and provisioning with
conventional 1FB analog business lines. -not Centrex!-

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 08:24:08 GMT


Say hi to Damian for me!  Below is my saga, the short of it is, refuse
to pay that portion which belongs to ITA, submit the money in dispute
according to your local phone company's instructions.  In CA, this
means sending the money to the CPUC, although CPUC claimed they
couldn't resolve it, and just sent the money right back to me.  But
that took care of it. Once I told PacBell (my local telco) the CPUC
had the money, they said, of, then we'll just axe it off the bill for
you.  But, I had asked them to do this for me before, they claimed
before that they could not do this.  While at the time it feels like
your local telco is reaming you too, right there along with ITA, hold
out, they will relent.

After PacBell removed the charge, they told ITA that they would have
to bill separately. Also, I think ITA found out I involved the CPUC,
because they called within a very very short period of time, and said,
oh, out of the goodness of our hearts (yeah, right!), we'll forgive
that charge for you.

Please, write up your story, and post it here when done.  Feel free to
CC me on it. Let us know how you came out.  Also, we should start a
web site for ITA, and all fraud shops, just so others know what a
slimy company they are, and how to beat them over the head.
Personally, I did it because I wanted to know how they were going to
try and defraud me.


Mike Stump   Northridge CA

       ** Here is the letter sent to the California PUC **


California Public Utilities Commission
State Office - Room 5109
107 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012


Dear Commissioner,

  On Mar 26, 1995 I placed a call to 1 800 568 5952.  When I was
unexpectedly cut off the first time, I redialed the number.  On my
next phone bill from Pacific Bell, I received a page for `ITA' billing
for a total of $99.25.  I did not authorize any charges for these
calls, nor was I informed of any charges for the calls, nor was any
announcement made of any charges that applied for the call, nor had I
entered into any agreement with ITA to be billed for these calls.

I am led to believe that 1 800 calls from my home phone as free, as my
phone book from Pacific Bell for the Northwestern Area dated May 1996
states on page A43,

  Call Some Businesses Toll-Free
  Long-distance calls can be made without charge when calling a business
  with an "800" number.  Just dial:

       1 + 800 + phone number

Further, the phone book states on page A44:

  No Unauthorized Charging
  It's against the law for anyone to charge long-distance calls to your
  number or calling card without permission.  Anyone placing such calls
  can be prosecuted under the California Penal code.

I called ITA at 1 800 866 8889, on May 11th, 1995 at 8:31am to inquire
about the charges.  The transcript of the conversation I had with them
follows.  I first talked with the ITA operator, and she said should
would be willing to remove the first call, but that is all she could
do, so I asked to speak with her supervisor.  I decided that they
might not be willing to remove the unauthorized charges from my
Pacific Bell bill, so I turned on my phone recording device.

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

ITA:  This is Damian, how can I help you?

ME:   I have to advise you that this telephone call is being recorded.

ITA:  That is fine sir.

ME:   Ok.  On my May second bill from Pacific Bell there is a page for ITA...

ITA:  I have the account listed here in front of me, what can we do for you?

ME:   It shows two charges...

ITA:  Which are on the 26th...

ME:   For a total of 96.36...

ITA:  Correct, plus tax...

ME:   And I did not authorize these charges and I would like them removed...

ITA:  Ok, We are unwilling to issue credit for the calls sir.  Someone has
      physically been at your residence.  XXX XXXX is the number that accessed
      initiated the service.  It is to an entertainment service, the company
      that sponsors the service is Absolute Communications, they do provide an
      adult oriented service, the particular call that was accessed was
      accessed through a live operator, reached through a 800 number, be glad
      to provide you will the exact times the calls where placed, the first
      call was initiated at 10:44 pm, the second call was initiated at 10:47
      pm, the lengths of the call are 3 minutes and 33 seconds, 7 minutes and
      25 seconds concurrently, and at this point, we are unwilling to issue
      credit for the phone calls sir, what else can we do for you today?

ME:   Hum, on what basis are they charged?

ITA:  They are direct dial calls, they do tell you at the beginning of the
      recording, you must be 18 years of age to participate in their service,
      what the the rate of the call will be, and give you the opportunity...

ME:   There was no such mention of the rate of the call.

ITA:  I am sorry, if you'll review what you just recorded, you'll say that you
      didn't authorize these calls.  Did you make the calls yourself sir?

ME:   I made the calls personally.

ITA:  Then you have lied to me sir.  Hold on just a moment, let's see if... Let
      me go back and review the recording that we made, just a moment.

[ long pause ]

ITA:  All right sir, in your conversation you did say that these were
      unauthorized calls, you did not give your authorization, which story
      would you like to proceed with sir?

ME:   I believe I said unauthorized charges.

ITA:  No sir, you said that you did not authorize these calls.  That's exactly
      what you said.  Do you...  Can you stop the recording, and go back and
      review that, I'll wait.  I said that exactly.

ME:   Ok.

ITA:  If it's a recording then it should be no problem sir.  We are unwilling
      to issue credit for the phone calls.  We'll be glad to restrict your line
      to prevent any future calls from being dialed direct from XXX XXXX, but
      we are unwilling to issue credit for the calls that you have yourself
      made.

ME:   Ok, could you please restrict service from my telephone.

ITA:  We'll be glad to do that sir.  And from now on, when you do decide to go
      on with the service after this maybe you can find someone that will do
      that for you, that does have a correct story that, you know, or that, or
      be consistent in the story that you're going to project, when you tripped
      yourself up like that, that's just not, I am unwilling to speak with you
      any further.  You have a good afternoon.

ME:   Ok, bye bye.

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

I think the conversation pretty well speaks for itself.  ITA is not
what I would consider a reputable long distance provider, nor should
they be allowed to continue operations.  It is fairly clear to me that
they exist only to defraud people out of money, with Pacific Bell
acting as an unwitting collection agent.  I think if you analyzed
their revenue and expenses, this fact would be borne out.

I ask that you rule on whether or not they should be allowed to
collect money for the two calls that I made.  I have paid my Pacific
Bell bill, minus the pretax amount of the ITA portion of the bill
which amounts to $96.36.  I have informed Pacific Bell that I would be
doing this, and submitting the matter to you, for your consideration.
Enclosed is the amount of $96.36 in dispute.

If you do find against me, I ask that you require Pacific Bell to
change the phone book, and remove the section that states that 1 800
calls are free as it would be deceptive.  I hope that this would not
be the case.  Also, could you inform me of my options to appeal the
matter.

Unfortunately I did not record the original two calls to 1 800 568
5952; I wish I had.  I fear that ITA and or Absolute Communications
are fairly skilled professionals, and have already either changed the
service, or changed the announcement in an effort to keep all the
money the have collected, or to prevent any findings of wrong doing
against them.

In the event that you are unable to render a decision I ask that you
inform Pacific Bell of this, return the check to me, and ask that
Pacific Bell be required to consider my account paid in full, and have
Pacific Bell inform ITA that ITA will be required to bill me
separately for any outstanding charges they wish to pursue.

If you do find in my favor, I think I am due a credit of $2.89 by
Pacific Bell which is the tax already paid for the ITA portion of the
bill.

If you have any questions, or if I can provide any other details for
you to fully consider the matter, please call me at the above number.
Thank you.


Mike Stump


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is
being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to
the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is
concerned, it is reversed to the called party. In other words, yes
indeed, Absolute Communications did pay for the carriage of your call
in an effort to get you to do business with them. This is no different
than any other 800 number you call; the person owning the number
*does* want to hear from you and agrees to pay for the call. But when
you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve
tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you
thought it should have been free since you called via 800?

There is no doubt at all that many/most of the 'adult oriented' sex
lines operating are run by sleazy people, but in their defense I
must say they are not trying to make you pay for the phone call to
them, they are trying to make you pay for the actions they took in
your behalf. That's the kindest or most discrete way I can phrase it.
You call Western Union on an 800 number to convey a message. You get
billed on your telephone bill if you choose. You call any one of
several long distance carriers via 800 to use their direct lines to
place your call. Do you complain that because you dialed 800-CALL-ATT
to convey a message or cause some action to occur that it should be
'free' to you since you dialed 800 and were told by PacBell there
would be no charge for your call? Even though you dialed 800 at no
charge, you expect to pay for resulting services don't you?

You are paying for the *consultation* with the person on the other
end of the line ... NOT for the phone call itself to that person. Now
it may be too bad that they are allowed to bill you via telco; for
that, blame the events of the telco revolution over the past decade.
Every one of the adult oriented lines operating via 800 used Western
Union as their guinea pig: if WUTCO gets to accept calls on a toll
free number, convey information between the caller and others, etc
and charge the same to the telephone bill of the caller, *then so
do we*. And you know what? They are right. Unfortunatly perhaps,
telco has to treat every one of those services at arms-length, even
as they hold their own noses to avoid the stench.  The true solution
is for telco to get out of the business of billing for anything but
their own services.  PAT]

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

From: Gebhardt, Matt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When?
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 08:24:00 AST


[e-mail] (HI Systems) writes...

> US West has been advertising that "soon" Caller ID will work during
> Call Waiting. [cut]
> 1.  How can this be done?  Does the "Beep" that lets you know another
> call is coming in get replaced with a 1200bps unidirectional modem signal
> like that used for normal "between first and second ring" Caller ID
> signaling?
> 2.  What caller ID presentaion units can handle this?  It would seem
> that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get
> an acceptable modem signal.  Is that what happens?
> 3.  How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle
> this?  Buzzwords?  When will they be available?
> 4.  When will the local telcos start offering this service?  "Soon" was
> all I could get.

Believe the feature being referred to is known as Spontaneous Call
Waiting Identification (SCWID) and requires the use of Analog Display
Services Interface (ADSI).

ADSI (TR-NWT-001273) could be used for both SCWID (TR-575) or
Spontaneous Call Waiting ID with Disposition (DSCWID, TR-NWT-416),
where when the call's presented to the already-on-a-call ADSI set,
several options "pop up" on the ADSI set.  You could choose to answer
the call, or route it to your vmail, or put it on hold, or put it to
busy and drop.

Believe that you'll find the ADSI protocol described in BellCore
document TR-1273.

In a DMS, there's a CPE Alert Signal (CAS) tone that's sent down from
the switch via a 202 modem signal to (e.g.) NT's "PowerTouch 350"
telephone set.

To borrow from NT customer product information:

[[ Picture : 2113 in WINMAIL.DAT ]]

In other words, you need to have either calling number display or
calling name display (or both) for SCWID to work.

[[ Picture : 2112 in WINMAIL.DAT ]]

DSCWID then would allow you choices. You could answer the call, or
"route" it to (eg) your vmail, to busy tone, to another number, or?

With ADSI, will come downloadable, display-based services for ADSI
compliant sets.  NT refers to this as Advanced Call Management Server
(ACMS). Do not know if this is a generic name nor do I have the
subsequent BellCore reference.  Regardless, the ADSI user would dial
into the ACMS to receive a feature download that provides the soft
keys and displays associated with that service. Hope this helps.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 13:34 EST
From: Djung Nguyen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seasons Greetings


Patrick,

I've been on the subscription list for several months now and have
enjoyed it tremendously.  Keep up the great work and I look forward to
hearing from you in the coming year/s.  I want to wish you and your
love ones a great and safe holidays.


DJ Nguyen
Technical Services Manager
MCI Telecommunications
San Francisco, CA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for your gracious note. The
success of this Digest in the past has been not so much due to my
efforts as it has been the marvelous commentaries and articles sent
in by the readers over the years. I love working on the Digest, and
look forward to the mail I receive each day; for truly it is the
mail from the readers which make the Digest what it is. Happy holidays
to you as well.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 23:07:08 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Greetings of the Season


All the best for the Christmas season and for the New Year... see y'all
on the 'net ...


 ... [e-mail]
---> http://www.io.org/~djcl/

* * *  All the best
 ***   for the
*****  holidays and
 ***   for 1996...
* * *  ............


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: David Leibold's gift to the net community
for many years has been his effort in preparing the Telecom FAQ, or
Frequently Asked Questions file. He in turn relies on the dedication
of his many correspondents in preparing it and keeping it up to date.
I have the new version available now, and will be sending it out as
a special mailing during the next week probably.

David's other continuing contribution is in association with long-time
Digest participant Carl Moore. They have done a huge amount of work
in preparing area code and country/city code files for the Telecom
Archives. My thanks go to both.   PAT]

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! And a Merry Christmas Was Had by All
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:23:36 -0500


In TELECOM Digest #526, Patrick A. Townson wrote:

> And remind me sometime to tell you about the very early days of
> Visa, back when it was known as BankAmericard. Ooooh, did they
> take some incredible hits before they finally learned how to
> administer their program. The fraud-hives took Visa/BankAmericard
> for millions of dollars during the first two years of operation.

Like the company that I worked for that decided to buy its
pre-approved Visa card mailing list from {TV Guide}!  It stands to
reason that television viewers in some of the worst neighborhoods of
the City of New York are a good credit risk, doesn't it?  This was one
step removed from buying the list from Columbia House.  Needless to
say, many of the addresses were kids, dogs, and empty lots.  Most of
the cards on that promotion were sent out during November of that
year, and a Merry Christmas was had by all!

About four years later, those cards whose balances hadn't yet been
charged off were zeroed-out in anticipation of an upcoming system
conversion.  It was cheaper to write off many of the still-remaining
balances than to convert them to a new system (many were under $1000).
One woman, when getting a bill with a credit for $600 to clear off her
balance called to ask what the item on her bill was.  The phone call
was fairly comical:

 Customer:  What does "Write off for Conv" mean?

 Me: We've forgiven your balance so that we don't have to carry it on our
records anymore.

 Customer: You mean I don't owe this balance anymore and I'm not past due?

 Me: That's right.

 Customer: Can I have a new card then?

And I thought I had heard everything!


 - Stan

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A businessman once ordered a new supply
of merchandise for his store from the wholesale outlet he did business
with. He got back a message from the wholesaler's credit department
saying, "We will not be able to fill your order until you pay for the
last order you received from us."

He promptly got back to them saying, "In that case, cancel the order.
I won't be able to wait that long for it to arrive."

So! Do have a happy and joyous holiday weekend. I extend my warmest
regards to everyone, even if you have not been mentioned here by
name recently ... you have not been forgotten. To those of you who
have chosen to support the Digest with a voluntary subscription each
year, my special thanks for what you have done, and a reminder that
the bills will still have to be paid in 1996.  Anyone remember the
old slogan from the National Safety Council about taking care with
driving and preventing accidents which went 'Death does not take a
holiday at Christmas ...'  Well, neither does Ameritech <grin> and
neither does the landlord here.

DO take care though, use prudence and caution over the next few days
in your travels and activities. I'll be back on Tuesday with a
few more issues of the Digest to bring the year to an end.    PAT]



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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #529
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Dec 27 19:11:27 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id TAA03625; Wed, 27 Dec 1995 19:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 19:11:27 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #530

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Dec 95 19:12:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 530

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Michael P. Deignan)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Mike Fox)
    ITA Dating Service IS a Scam: Channel 5 News, Atlanta (Shubu Mukherjee)
    Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Tom Watson)
    Re: Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cell Phone Clone Scheme (Tim Shoppa)
    Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? (Christoph F. Strnadl)
    Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? (Stephen Knight)
    Intel Christmas ('94) (Jody Kravitz)
    Last Laugh! New Movie For Holidays (Henry Baker)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 27 Dec 1995 01:23:06 -0500
Organization: Ideamation, Inc.


TELECOM Digest Editor responded to article <[e-mail].
mit.edu>, by Mike Stump <[e-mail]>:

> When you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve
> tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you
> thought it should have been free since you called via 800?

This isn't an exact analogy.

Would it be reasonable for me to call an airline's 800 number to
make reservations, in the course of the conversation determine that
their rates are more than I want to pay, and terminate the call,
only to find a charge on my telephone bill next month for a
"travel consultation fee"?

> You call Western Union on an 800 number to convey a message. You get
> billed on your telephone bill if you choose. You call any one of
> several long distance carriers via 800 to use their direct lines to
> place your call. Do you complain that because you dialed 800-CALL-ATT
> to convey a message or cause some action to occur that it should be
> 'free' to you since you dialed 800 and were told by PacBell there
> would be no charge for your call?

In both of these cases, you are making a call with the explicit
understanding that you are dialing a service and expect to pay for
that service. This is no different than when I call the 800 number
of my bank to check my balance and they charge me $1.00.

The same cannot be said of other "adult" services. These services
thrive on perpetuating the misunderstanding that 800 numbers are
not "free", but "toll free". If you watch USA or just about any other
cable station after 11pm, almost every commercial break has a
"Call Lonna, she's lonely -- 800-222-2222". Nowhere will you see a
disclaimer saying "$99 per second" -- or, if you do, it flashes by
so fast you'd need a VCR to capture the single-frame the disclaimer
appeared on.

> if WUTCO gets to accept calls on a toll
> free number, convey information between the caller and others, etc
> and charge the same to the telephone bill of the caller, *then so
> do we*. And you know what? They are right.

The main difference is WUTCO isn't in the business of defrauding
consumers, while the same cannot be said of these adult services.

Should I be allowed to set up an 800 number, 1-800-KOLLECT, and
put a 30-second message on it that says: "Sorry, you have dialed
the wrong number. You must be trying to call 1-800-COLLECT. Please
hang up and try again", and submit bills for a $100 "consultation"
fee to the telco for collection?

What of incorrectly dialed numbers? Should I attempt to find a very
popular company with an 800 number , and try to get my own 800 number
that is very close, such that people are mis-dialing the number and
getting me all the time? (You read about these cases all the time in
C.D.T.) Should I be allowed to "charge" for that call. If I charge
$100 per call, I can retire.


MD


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess we are going to get down here
to semantics and what constitutes fraud and what does not constitute
fraud. I quite agree with you that the adult services are thriving on
the misconceptions and general misunderstandings the public has about
'how 800 numbers work'. On 800 calls, the cost of cariage is always
charged to the called party as an inducement to get you to call in the
first place. What transpires *after that point, as your conversation
is in progress* is what you pay for. I agree with you many of the
adult services do not go out of their way to explain the charges involved,
and that if their charges were completely understood in advance, they
would get a lot less business than they do. Whether the method in which
they explain their fees amounts to fraud or not is something judges and
lawyers are paid to figure out. Whether or not Western Union, by virtue
of its long standing relationship with the telcos 'is not there to
commit fraud' while the newer style of information via phone providers
who have an identical relationship with telco where billing and
handling of calls are there solely for fraudulent reasons is something
else the courts can work on. To its credit, if you dispute the presence
of WUTCO charges on your phone bill, telco will remove those also and
force WUTCO to bill direct, just as they do the more recent breed. I
again will say I think the real problem arises when telco attempts to
bill for anything other than their own services.   PAT]

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

From: Mike Fox <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 95 13:29:43
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is
> being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to
> the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is
> concerned, it is reversed to the called party. In other words, yes
> indeed, Absolute Communications did pay for the carriage of your call
> in an effort to get you to do business with them. This is no different
> than any other 800 number you call; the person owning the number
> *does* want to hear from you and agrees to pay for the call. But when
> you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve
> tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you
> thought it should have been free since you called via 800?

IMO you are completely off the mark here.  When I call an 800 number
to reserve a plane ticket, I give them a credit card number, which is
explicitly giving them permission to bill me, and acknowledging that I
will be billed.  That's a lot different from calling an 800 number,
doing nothing explicit to acknowledge that you expect to be billed and
then getting a whopping phone bill a month later.

People expect 800 numbers to be free.  800 numbers are advertised as
free.  Of course you have to pay for things you purchase over 800 numbers,
but when you purchase things over 800 numbers, you give a credit card
number.  There is no deception, unlike calling these slimeball 900 services
hiding behind 800 numbers.

If you think it's reasonable to charge someone's phonebill for content
delivered over an 800 number without warning the person that they will
be billed, then I just have to wonder what's the point of having 900
numbers?  If 800 numbers can act just like 900 numbers and that's OK
with you, then let's just get rid of NPA 900 altogether and move all
the 900 numbers over to 800/888 and let the caller (and PBX owner!)
beware.  Because people are getting a false sense of security with
today's setup.  Of course the 800 industry would lose a lot of its
value and trust with the public, but by tolerating scams like this the
800 providers are already going down that road.  That being said, it
does seem to me like the original poster in this thread got his
jollies over the 800 number (he was on for nearly 11 minutes anyway,
according to his own post), so I guess he thought he was getting
something for nothing.  So he was a sucker in that sense.

But I once dialed a free 800 number to be connected to a well-known
free information line for the Virginia lottery.  I misdailed,
juxtaposing two digits and got connected to an Integretel-billed sex
line.  I hung up almost immediately (I had been dialing and checking
back to see if I got a busy signal because the lottery number is
usually busy, so it took me about 10 seconds to realize I had the
wrong number), but even though that was back in September, I still
haven't got my phone bill cleaned up and dealing with them has been.

well, most people on this digest are familiar with Integretel. Dialing
that number didn't just cost a charge for that call -- it "automatically"
enrolled me in their phone sex club, with a monthly charge.  I'm still
fighting to get it straightened out, even though I never called that
number again and never heard any of their "content."

That to my mind is the kind of thing that can kill the good reputation
of 800 service.  It wouldn't surprise me to find those slimeball
ambushes lurking behind common misdials of other well-known 800
numbers (like, say, 1-800-HTE-CARD).

900 services hiding behind 800 numbers is a serious problem and I
don't think you'll get many people to agree with you that this kind of
practice is anything short of (sadly) legal fraud.


Later,


Mike


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the adult/sex IP's out there *claim*
they give ample notification of their charges. They *claim* that if you
remain on the line you do so of your volition and with full knowledge
of the cost of the call, and your consent for billing. Much of this could
be resolved if the IPs would tape record the first fifteen or twenty
seconds of each phone call, during which time they would make a statement
similar to this:

"For billing purposes only, the first few seconds of this call is
being tape recorded.  Our records indicate you are calling from the
phone number xxx-xxx-xxxx. If this is correct; if you are of majority age
in the state from which you are calling, responsible for the payment
of the telephone bill for this number; agree to pay $xx per minute/call
for the conversation which follows, and consent to our tape recording
of this billing verification, please press the 'Y' key on your phone
now or speak the word 'yes' ... if any part of the above is not true
then please disconnect now at no charge." (Pause for about five seconds
to listen for keypress or verbal agreement). Automatically disconnect
or proceed, as appropriate. After hearing key press or verbal 'yes'
then system responds, "Thank you. Tape recording is turned off. You
may continue." (At that point caller is cut over to program in progress
or handed off to to the person they will speak with, etc.)

A large number -- probably several hundred -- authorizations could be
captured on a small reel of tape. The caller's phone number would be
indexed as to its position on the tape (ie. which reel, which segment
therein) and future disputes could be settled easily. When the caller
later goes complaining to his state commission or the telco, or the
Action Line column in his newspaper or this Digest or whatever, the
IP can produce the pertinent twenty or thirty second segment of tape
and say "here ... who is kidding who?  After all, it is the World's
Oldest Profession. Your complainer pays for other professional
services rendered doesn't he? Why does he feel this one should come
for free? Tell him to pay or get sued ..."   If the caller made any
false statements in the introductory greeting as to his age, his
right to control the use of the phone from which the call was made,
his willingness to pay for the services rendered or the information
provided or his later claim that he did not know he was being taped
at the time, then the onus of fraud falls on *him* rather than the
IP.

This is not to say a lot of the phone sex services are not scams; but
to emphasize that quite a few of their customers are con-artists also
who feel they can later act like the innocent victim, the poor victimized
consumer, etc. 'They did not know what they were calling; they are
being charged for calling a free number, etc ' ... even eleven minutes
into the transaction.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shubu Mukherjee)
Subject: ITA Dating Service IS a Scam: Channel 5 News, Atlanta
Date: 27 Dec 1995 16:52:37 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin


ITA Dating Service is a SCAM: beware!!

The Corporate Systems Security Manager at Turner Broadcasting System
Inc. informed me on Dec. 21 that WAGA Channel 5 News, Atlanta
(http://www.america.net/com/waga/) conducted an investigation in
response to my question on the internet about the ITA dating service.

Channel 5 reported that IT IS INDEED A SCAM!  Channel 5 told me that
this investigation was conducted by their reporter Mr. Randy Travis.
I haven't been able to obtain any more details.

If anyone from Atlanta has seen the Channel 5 evening news on Dec 20,
can you tell us what was exactly reported?

As far as my money goes, Ameritech has _now_ agreed to take the money
off our bill.  If ITA refuses to comply with Ameritech, they will have
to deal with us directly, not through Ameritech.


Shubu Mukherjee        Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
[e-mail]      http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 18:04:38 -0800
Organization: The 3DO Corporation


The TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> And remind me sometime to tell you about the very early days of
> Visa, back when it was known as BankAmericard. Ooooh, did they
> take some incredible hits before they finally learned how to
> administer their program. The fraud-hives took Visa/BankAmericard
> for millions of dollars during the first two years of operation.  PAT]

Yes, there have been a few incidents regarding Visa cards.  I was told
of one (this comes by a crediable path) where someone "acquired" a
whole tray of ready to mail/deliver cards.  The person who eventually
got them (in bulk) decided to be a little more forthcoming, and called
the fraud department at Visa, and ransomed them for about $10k for
2000 cards or so.  The Visa people agreed (as the story goes) because
the average fraud on the card would have been close to $1000 each (the
bills add up REAL quick) and they wanted to get the cards off of the
street quickly.  Meeting at the proverbal "dark alley" was arranged
and as they say: "promises made, gifts exchanged".

Mail fraud, is another story.  In Chicago, where it seems that postal
employees are subordinates of the mob, one of the carriers for a catalog
company was opening letters that contained $1 bills.  The company was
wondering about the rash of complaints.  Eventually they mounted a camera
to spy/catch the person responsible.

Everyone is not the most honest around.  Most are "fairly" honest.  When
was the last time you told a "burger-flipper counter-person" that the
change was wrong when it was in your favor!!  Life!


Tom Watson
[e-mail]         (Home: [e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You have both postal employees who are
dishonest, and you have people who impersonate postal employees. Let
me explain the latter; the former does not need much clarification.

One incident back about 1973 involved several 'trays' of Amoco Oil/
Diners Club cards which were being issued. Most of the credit card
processing was one at one location but 'new accounts' and the
embossing, reconciliation and mailing of new/renewed charge plates
was done from a somewhat more high security location in the building
next door. Now it had gotten bad at the post office ... how bad, you
ask? *So* bad that in a typical month hundreds of cards were being
filched by postal workers at (what they call) the 'Big House'; the
sorting and work rooms at the Main Post Office. Postal inspectors
constantly patrolled the work floor; workers on each shift were required
to strip down in a locker room on arrival, put their street clothes
in a locker and wear a baggy cloth sack like thing without any pockets
in it at work -- mostly, I assume to hide their nakedness -- and then
when they got off duty at midnight or eight in the morning they went
back to the locker room to get their street clothes, all under the
watchful eyes of the postal inspectors or a matron who looked after
the female employees. Every afternoon when postal employees picked
up the new batch of cards going out they had to count the number of
emvelopes they were given and sign for them. When they left the sorting
room and got upstairs to the dock to go out they were signed and
accounted for again. Still, Amoco would come up short a few hundred
cards every month and a few new fraud cases to go along. First
National Bank was operating their BankAmericard (now VISA) franchise
right out of the downtown main bank building at the same time, and
using the same post office, so they got hit pretty hard also.

The frosting on the cake though came one day when *imposters, dressed
like postal employees* showed up at Amoco/Diners to get the outgoing
mail for that day. They went up to the eighth floor, showed their
(stolen) postal worker ID cards at the window, got buzzed in and
picked up several large trays (hundreds of cards in each) of outgoing
mail and absconded with them. It was not unexpected though, since
apparently the postal inspectors had heard from one of their snitches
that a 'big hit' was planned for Amoco and were waiting for it to
happen. The postal inspectors got them as soon as they hit the dock
in the alley where their van was parked.

Between dishonest postal workers, thieves and fraud rings working
right in the credit card office itself and outsiders who tried to
jump on the bandwagon, Amoco decided to move out of town and go
someplace where they hoped a bit more honesty prevailed. So they
chose West Des Moines, Iowa in the hopes the farmer's wives and
daughters they recruited out there to handle the more 'sensitive'
aspects of their business had some smattering of a moral and ethical
code. First National took the hint and split also, moving their
credit card operation out to the (then) relatively rural and bucolic
countryside around Elgin, Illinois.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: Re: Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cell Phone Clone Scheme
Date: 27 Dec 1995 02:56:25 GMT
Organization: Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech


In article <[e-mail]>, Patrick A. Townson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> All were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy
> to clone cellular phones, and sell the cloned phones and equipment
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
> to do the same to other phones. In addition, Riddles is charged
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> with possession of equipment to clone phones, firearms, cloned
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> phones and cash to exchange for uncloned phones.

Would anyone know exactly what "equipment" one can be prosecuted for?
As of a few years ago, one necessary piece of equipment for cloning
phones was a PROM/EPROM programmer, and I have one of them.  Do I have
to fear federal agents storming my lab for it?  Or is the federal law
much more explicit about what "equipment to clone phones" is?


Tim. ([e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is all in the context, Tim. I've
heard of people who were employed as locksmiths getting arrested
for something or another and being charged in the process of
being in possession of 'burglar tools'.  That's the great thing
about the jury system in trials. Get a bunch of jurors who are
ignorant enough, and you can convince them of anything. You might
assume that if 'things' get traced back to you and there appears
a reasonable degree of evidence of your participation in a crime --
reasonable enough that a prosecutor will sign off on it and a judge
will issue a warrant -- that 'equipment' is going to be viewed with
suspicion, to say the least.  It is all in the context.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Christoph F. Strnadl)
Subject: Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 13:11:26 GMT
Organization: Philips C&P Austria/VAN Services


[e-mail] (HI Systems) wrote:

> 2.  What caller ID presentaion units can handle this?  It would seem
> that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get
> an acceptable modem signal.  Is that what happens?

Yes, basically you are right: The CPE would have to "listen" for the
call waiting tone and then decode the encoded CID information following
that. This is described in Bellcore's TR-NWT-000575 technical reference
"CLASS Feature: Calling Identity Delivery on Call Waiting".

I'll try to give a summary (to the best of my knowledge!)

* 1st party is engaged in a call (ie., CPE is in off-hook state)

* some 3rd party calls number of 1st party:

  An _Alerting Sequence_ is sent from the SPCS to the CPE consisting of
     - an audible Subscriber Alerting Signal (SAS), the Call Waiting Tone,
     - immediately appended to that a CPE Alerting Signal (CAS) which
       signals to the CPE that a Call Waiting Event has occured.

* the CPE now must signal to the SPCS whether it is able to receive
  the CID information. This is done by transmitting either a
     - DTMF D    (Type 2 CPE), or a
     - DTMF A    (Type 3 CPE)
  to the SPCS:

* Having received such a positive ACKnowledge the SPCS now starts to
  transmit the CID information (in the standard 1200 bps FSK way) to
  the CPE. During that transmission, which may last a maximum of
  1 second, the voice-path is muted.

* The CPE, then, displays the CID information on its screen.

> 3.  How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle
> this?  Buzzwords?  When will they be available?

The two buzzword to look for are:

  * Type 2 CPE supporting (amongst other things)
    ==========
    - CND   (Calling Number Delivery, in Bellcore speak)
    - CNAM  (Calling Name Delivery)
    - CIDCW (Calling Identity Delivery on Call Waiting).

  * Type 3 CPE fully support the Analog Display Services Interface (ADSI).
    ==========                   =======================================
    (see TR-NWT-001273)

   The ADSI provides a lot more than just CIDCW functionality. In effect,
   it is a standard which should provide so-called screen based features
   (in the sense of applications like home-bankning, running on a server
   system) for screen phones. On the other hand the off-line capabilities
   (via so-called ADSI service scripts resident on each CPE) enable the
   user to visually manage her calls (like CIDCW) in a convenient manner.

While I do not know about Type 2 CPEs I know at least two ADSI compliant
CPEs:

    Philips ScreenPhone P100   (Philips Home Services, Inc.)
    Nortel PowerTouch 3xx      (Nortel)


> 4.  When will the local telcos start offering this service?  "Soon" was
> all I could get.

Sorry on that one ;-)


Christoph F. Strnadl
Technical Manager/ScreenPhone Services
Philips C&P
Tel: [phone] FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Knight)
Subject: Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When?
Organization: Nortel
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 16:48:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Gebhardt, Matt
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> [e-mail] (HI Systems) writes...

>> Call Waiting. [cut]
>> 1.  How can this be done?  Does the "Beep" that lets you know another
>> call is coming in get replaced with a 1200bps unidirectional modem signal
>> like that used for normal "between first and second ring" Caller ID
>> signaling?

The "beep" is slightly different from the standard call-waiting (basically
putting the device into a "data-receive" mode), then the standard
caller-id mechanism is used to sent the information to the phone.

>> 2.  What caller ID presentaion units can handle this?  It would seem
>> that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get
>> an acceptable modem signal.  Is that what happens?

Standard caller-id devices will not support caller-id w/ call waiting.

>> 3.  How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle
>> this?  Buzzwords?  When will they be available?
>> 4.  When will the local telcos start offering this service?  "Soon" was
>> all I could get.

> Believe the feature being referred to is known as Spontaneous Call
> Waiting Identification (SCWID) and requires the use of Analog Display
> Services Interface (ADSI).

It seems to go by a number of different names and, currently, the
ADSI-capable phones seem to be the only devices that can support it.

> ADSI (TR-NWT-001273) could be used for both SCWID (TR-575) or
> Spontaneous Call Waiting ID with Disposition (DSCWID, TR-NWT-416),
> where when the call's presented to the already-on-a-call ADSI set,
> several options "pop up" on the ADSI set.  You could choose to answer
> the call, or route it to your vmail, or put it on hold, or put it to
> busy and drop.

> Believe that you'll find the ADSI protocol described in BellCore
> document TR-1273.

> In a DMS, there's a CPE Alert Signal (CAS) tone that's sent down from
> the switch via a 202 modem signal to (e.g.) NT's "PowerTouch 350"
> telephone set.

Essentially correct, minor correction:  the CAS tone signals the phone
that the 202 modem signal is coming.

> To borrow from NT customer product information:

> [[ Picture : 2113 in WINMAIL.DAT ]]

> In other words, you need to have either calling number display or
> calling name display (or both) for SCWID to work.

> [[ Picture : 2112 in WINMAIL.DAT ]]

> DSCWID then would allow you choices. You could answer the call, or
> "route" it to (eg) your vmail, to busy tone, to another number, or?

> With ADSI, will come downloadable, display-based services for ADSI
> compliant sets.  NT refers to this as Advanced Call Management Server
> (ACMS). Do not know if this is a generic name nor do I have the
> subsequent BellCore reference.  Regardless, the ADSI user would dial
> into the ACMS to receive a feature download that provides the soft
> keys and displays associated with that service. Hope this helps.

The "Advanced Call Management Server" is a Nortel product.

When a caller subscribes to a feature (such as call waiting), they dial
into the server which then downloads software onto their phone so that all
of the features they're currently subscribed to are available.  So, for
example, if a caller has subscribed to "3-way calling" and "caller id",
the ACMS will download software onto the phone that supports those
features.  If the caller then adds "call waiting" to their list of
features, they call the server again and the server will download software
that supports all three features.

> where when the call's presented to the already-on-a-call ADSI set,
> several options "pop up" on the ADSI set.  You could choose to answer
> the call, or route it to your vmail, or put it on hold, or put it to
> busy and drop.

What is described in this paragraph, however, does indeed require the ADSI.
As a matter of fact, things no longer are that straight forward. GR-416-CORE
now discerns not only different clases of CPEs (Type 1, 2 and 3), but also
different types of CWD types (1 to 5). Depending on the type of equipment
the customer has locally she may be able to subscribe to different types of
CWD services.

> Believe that you'll find the ADSI protocol described in BellCore
> document TR-1273.

I heavily recommend the *full* set of ADSI related documents (or
family requirements) FR-12. Bellcore has done some modifications on
some documents lately (see GR-416-CORE) so you need the latest set to
be up-to-date. The investment, however, pays off fairly quickly if you
are really going into the ADSI business.

> In a DMS, there's a CPE Alert Signal (CAS) tone that's sent down from
> the switch via a 202 modem signal to (e.g.) NT's "PowerTouch 350"
> telephone set.

To be picky: TR-NWT-000575 specifies an _Alerting Sequence_ consisting
of an audible
  * Subscriber Alerting Signal (SAS -- the Call Waiting Tone), and the
  * CPE Alerting Signal (CAS).

> With ADSI, will come downloadable, display-based services for ADSI
> compliant sets.  NT refers to this as Advanced Call Management Server
> (ACMS). Do not know if this is a generic name nor do I have the
> subsequent BellCore reference.  Regardless, the ADSI user would dial
> into the ACMS to receive a feature download that provides the soft
> keys and displays associated with that service. Hope this helps.

Bellcore speaks (in SR-3034) about

  * ADSI Script Management Server(s) (ASMS) which would correspond to the
    Nortel ACMS.
  * feature download services
  * (Telephony) Service Scripts.


Christoph F. Strnadl
Technical Manager/ScreenPhone Services
Philips C&P
Tel: [phone] FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 12:04:00 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jody Kravitz Xmas 95)
Subject: Intel Christmas ('94)


I found this a couple of nights ago while pruning some old files.  Its
a bit dated, but I still find it amusing.  I hope you do too.

Jody    ([e-mail])


 Subject: Intel's Night Before Christmas
 From: [e-mail] (Nabeel Robert Ibrahim)

Okay, so it's not of the same calibur as "How the Gingrich Stole
Congress"... but what do you expect?  I did this between studying for
finals ... I tried to make fun of everyone equally.


'Twas the night before Christmas,
And all over the 'Net,
All the posts about Intel,
Made everyone fret,

The whiners were vocal,
They wouldn't shut up,
Complaining about Intel's,
FDIV cover up,

The engineers were nestled,
All snug in their labs,
Worrying about Intel's,
Mistake in the fabs,

They made up excuses,
On how they're affected,
They called upon Intel,
And were promptly rejected,

And soon IBM jumped,
Right into the fray,
"We'll stop shipping Pentiums,
 As of later today."

But their statement was just,
More political lies,
Because they said the next day,
"We're still shipping those dies!"

But from where came this noise,
And vindictive clatter,
About a minor flaw,
That should not have mattered,

Well there was a math prof,
Doing work in V A,
He came to realize that,
Divs shouldn't happen this way,

So Prof. Nicely described,
The bug that he found,
It wasn't too long later,
That news got around,

Lots of people complained,
Without reason or rhyme,
Just because number five,
Equalled four point nine nine,

The media latched on,
And rumors were spread,
It took no time to proclaim,
That Intel was dead,

As I was reading more news,
A thought came to me,
Intel can't possibly die,
The have a monopoly,

So on Andy, on Craig,
On Gordon and Vin,
Make sure with P6,
This doesn't happen again,

As I logged off, I thought:
"This debate is absurd."
So I soon logged back in,
And uttered these words,

"There are too many issues,
 I refuse to take sides.
 Merry Christmas to all,
 And watch your divides."

 HO, HO, HO!!


*  Nabeel Ibrahim              | http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~ibrahim *
*  [e-mail]
*  Electrical Engineering

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Baker)
Subject: Last Laugh! New Movie For Holidays
Organization: nil organization
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 13:54:37 GMT


I understand there's a new movie out:  "It's a Wonderful Tariff"

At the end, Zuzu (the little child) says: "Every time a Baby Bell rings,
another lobbyist gets his wingtips!"


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #530
******************************


From [e-mail]  Wed Dec 27 21:55:24 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id VAA14518; Wed, 27 Dec 1995 21:55:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 21:55:24 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #531

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Dec 95 21:55:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 531

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CA 1+ Intralata Regulations (Bill Engel)
    NorTel Meridian Communications Adaptor Question (Derek Andrew)
    Employment Opportunity: Telecom Project Manager/LAN/WAN/ACD (Julie Love)
    Solid State Systems SR224 Information Needed ([e-mail])
    *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? (Bill Rubin)
    How Can I Test Phone Line Quality? (Bill Hensley)
    D3 Channel Bank Question (Raymon A. Bobbitt)
    New Canadian Telco Websites (Mark J. Cuccia)
    CT Local Competition Docket/Decision (Gerry Belanger)
    Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Clayton R. Nash)
    Re: 10-732 ANI Number (Joseph E. Norton)
    Re: Digital Global Roaming (Paul Boudreaux)
    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (D Tomrdle)
    Re: Caller ID Over AT&T (Steve Uhrig)
    Re: Caller ID Over AT&T (John Wilkerson)
    Re: Caller ID Over AT&T (Kevin R. Ray)
    Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Matthew D'Elia)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Engel Strategies Group, Inc. )
Subject: CA 1+ Intralata Regulations
Date: 27 Dec 1995 16:35:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Arizona has just implemented intralata competition.  Until April, 1996
 -- the "competition" requires dialing of carrier codes.  In April, we
will have true 1+ intralata competition that will no longer required
the codes.

Question:  While CA has intralata competition that requires carrier
codes (which means no "true" competition) - has the CA PUC mandated any
specific date by which competition must be 1+ (no codes required)?

Thanks for any help.


Bill Engel
Engel Strategies Group, Inc. * 11414 N. 69th Street * Scottsdale, AZ 85254
E-mail:  [e-mail]    Phone:  [phone]  Fax:  [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 19:36:52 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
Subject: NorTel Meridian Communications Adaptor Question
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada


There is a rather neat attachment for the M2616 type telephone
attached to a NorTel Meridian SL/1. The Meridian Communications
Adapter (MCA) attaches an rs232 port to the back of the phone and
allows simultaneous voice and data calls.

The neat part is that the MCA can also control your telephone, for
example, entering ATDP1234 will dial 1234 on your voice line. Also,
there is a transparent mode that you can enter whereby you can display
the raw signaling messages sent between the PBX and the MCA by
entering the ATTSP! command.

My problem is I cannot figure out how to interpret these raw signaling
messages. Is there anyone out there that has any information? NorTel
is totally unhelpful.

Any ideas?


Thanks,

[e-mail]

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

From: Julie Love <[e-mail]>
Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Project Manager/LAN/WAN/ACD
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 01:24:41 GMT


Position:  IT / TELECOM PROJECT MANAGER NEEDED
Organization:  Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Department:  Customer Operations
Type: Permanent/Contract
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Salary: commensurate with experience

Pacific Bell Mobile Services Customer Operations Implementation
Project seeking a highly skilled and experience contract individual to
support the IT/Telecom Manager by coordinating the work and tasks of
the subgroups within the IT/Telecom team, take management
responsibility during the absence of manager, maintain the project
plan, implement changes to the plan and report on the impact of these
changes on deliverables.

DESCRIPTION:

Produce IT/Telecom project and task plans within Customer Operations.
Maintain IT/Telecom element of the Project Plan, report project
progress and manage budget and expenditures.  Coordinate team
workflow. Produce impact assessments of changes to project
tasks,timetables and resource allocations. Manage vendor and technical
support contracts. Establish and maintain interfaces with other
project teams and departments. Perform resource planning and
management. Serve as Deputy Manager of IT/Telecom Team and represent
team at planning meetings as directed by Manager.

TECHNICAL SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE:

Project management methodologies and computer-based project management
applications (Microsoft Project preferred). IT and information
management strategies and architectures, information flow management
techniques and system design.  Structure of commercial contracts and
supplier management.  Database management systems and interfacing
(Oracle-based).  Design of data communications architectrues and
systems (Ethernet and structured cabling systems). Telecommunications
(WAN and LAN) network management. Telecommunications issues in support
of call centers and customer service operations (ACD, CTI, IVR). ACD
systems management and report structuring. PTO operations, procurement
of PTO services and definition of call streaming requirements. Mobile
communications architectures (GSM) and mobile networks management. PC
systems and applications.

EXPERIENCE PROFILE:

IT/IS project management and implementation. Implementation of mobile
services billing systems and integration with other business support
applications such as general ledger, banking communications and GSM
network management and call charging systems. ACD systems (CTI and IVR
preferred). Management of large project teams (20+ people). IT/IS
supplier contract management. Customer Service operations. Project
expenditure management. Operating with senior management.

If interested, EMAIL RESUME TO:


Julie Love
Pacific Bell Mobile Services Staffing Contractor
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (PhoneRoom)
Subject: Solid State Systems SR224 Info Needed
Date: 27 Dec 1995 02:39:18 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (PhoneRoom)


Does anyone know the current value of an SR224? I have two. One of
them seems to be configured for T1 the other looks like it is set up
for switched service. I would like to offer them to a dealer or
reseller but first need input on their approximate value.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 95 00:02:36 EST
From: Bill Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers?


NYNEX is currently running a TV ad showing "dad" calling to order
tickets for a "big show" at 9am when tickets go on sale, "but everyone
else called, too", so dad used the "busy signal fix, *66" and got a
call back when "they" were able to get thru for him and he was able to
get tickets.  End shot is everyone at the show, they're understandably
happy.

Now, when NYNEX came out with the *66 capability, I have to admit that
using it to get thru to Ticketmaster when popular concerts went on
sale was the main thing I thought of using it for, but I recall seeing
some fine print that it won't work with stuff like that, or maybe I
tried it and was told it couldn't be used for that since it was going
to a PBX-type system.  Has this changed, or is NYNEX taking
"technology license" to sell their service?  Now, of course, even if
you were able to get thru, the odds are still pretty good that
Ticketmaster's phone system will drop your call after you've been on
hold for a few minutes and before you actually speak to someone, as
they did to me three times last week, but that's another story.  But
if it will actually work in these situations, I might actually
consider using it!


Bill Rubin

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

From: Bill Hensley <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 11:57:26 -0800
Subject: How Can I Test Phone Line Quality?


I live in northwest Oklahoma City, and have two phone lines, one
for data and one for voice.  I use a USR Sportster 28.8 for connections
to an ISP, my office, and other online services here in the area.
I cannot seem to make a connection better than 19.2Kbps, and
frequently I'll lose carrier altogether.  An identical setup works
well from my office, except back to my house.  There is no audible
noise on the data line.  I have the most current modem firmware,
drivers, etc., and calls to Southwestern Bell have brought the
determination that the line is "fine".  I suspect that my phone line,
switch, or trunk is somewhere electrically dirty.

Is there some way to measure the quality of the phone line connected
to my house, preferably without having to spend several hundred
dollars?  It's not like this is killing me or anything, but I spent a
heck of a lot of bread to go 28.8 for better remote access and it
would be nice to be able to use it.  FWIW, I have *no* problems when
connecting to any 14.4 or less service.

Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.


Cheers,

Bill Hensley
TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Raymon A. Bobbitt)
Subject: D3 Channel Bank Question
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 04:52:40 GMT
Organization: RAMLink Internet Access Service


Does anyone know the difference between D3 and D4 framing in a channel
bank??

I have six D# units and was wondering what I can use them for.

Any suggestions?? (no boat anchor's please)  ;-)


Thanks,

Raymon A. Bobbitt      One Call Systems
Po Box 1091     Ashland, KY  41105-1091
V/F 606-329-9919   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:19:08 CST
From: Mark J Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Canadian Telco Websites


When websurfing recently, I came across websites for NewTel (Newfoundland)
and Telebec & Northern Telephone.

NewTel (Newfoundland) is at http://www.newcomm.net/ntc.  This hasn't
(yet) been `added' to Stentor's map and list as a link from their
webpages.

Telebec (PQ) webpages have some detail to a couple of their operating
telephone regions and other info. Please note, it is *all* in French.
http://www.telebec.qc.ca.  Much of this website is still under construction.

Northern Telephone (ON) has some good history from their webpage as
well as other general info.  http://www.nt.net/nortel/nortel.htm


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] (Gerry Belanger)
Subject: CT Local Competition Docket/Decision
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 13:31:42 EST


For those interested, the CT DPUC has put the local competition
docket and decision on the state webserver.

The documents appear to be in MS word for windows 6.0 form.

URL is http://www.state.ct.us/EXECU/DPUC/telcom.htm

zip and self-extracting zip is also there.


Gerry Belanger, Sr Microsystems Engineer <[e-mail],[e-mail]>
Cognitronics Corporation, 3 Corporate Dr, Danbury CT 06810
Main:[phone], Direct:[phone], Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clayton R. Nash)
Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 23:26:21 GMT
Organization: personal internet service


I haven't been able to confirm it, but the last fraud I encountered
appeared to have originated from someone obtaining PIN numbers from
the PBX or call accounting system (or printouts from the same).  Two
calls, made from a hotel room using a non-AT&T calling card resulted
in many calls about a week later in that same part of the country (San
Jose, CA).  Makes you wonder, since it was quite impossible for
someone to have looked over my shoulder.


[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your suggestion that it might have
happened via the PBX reminds me of the first time I heard of this
happening, somewhere around 30-35 years ago in the early 1960's.
According to the account in the {Chicago Tribune} at the time,
a switchboard operator at a rather elegant apartment hotel on the
north side of Chicago overheard a guest in the hotel as he passed
his telephone calling card number to the Illinois Bell long distance
operator. The hotel operator then used the card for numerous personal
calls over a two or three month period before being 'caught in the
act' by telephone company security guys at a payphone near the
hotel late one evening, in the process of making an international
call. The card had found its way onto the 'hot list' and the overseas
operator at White Plains, NY spotted it in taking a call. She stalled
the user at the payphone while claiming she was 'trying to get a
circuit available to London for the call ...'. In the meantime, telco
security was notified and the fraud user was greeted by a knock on
the door of the payphone booth. A quaint little story, with probably
no one at the time aware of how pervasive toll fraud would become in
the next couple generations.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph E. Norton)
Subject: Re: 10-732 ANI Number
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 01:07:57 GMT


> One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664.

Interestingly, I also tried this same 770 number with AT&T TeleTravel
Service.  The reply I got was: Boop 51362950018 Boop 8880001565

Also, the TeleTravel Platform informed me that I could leave a message
for this party by pressing 93.  This message only gets spoken when
there is no answer-supervision on the line, so guess you are not being
charged from home either.  Have to try it from work where we have
direct AT&T service.

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

From: Paul Boudreaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Global Roaming
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 06:36:20 -0600
Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc  (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400))
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Ian Nicholls wrote:

> [e-mail] (James Brister) writes:

>> Do I have any hope of use that phone is the USA?

> No.  I don't think GSM is used at all over there.  Some companies use a
> digital variant of the Analogue system, which doesn't help you.

Well, you might be able to use your SIM in the Washington DC area.  A
Sprint (and someone else) venture just launched PCS1900 service.
PCS1900 is basically GSM at 1900Mhz (there are some "americanization"
aspects such as equal access for long distance).  But, you will NOT be
able to use your phone from Australia.

>> Could anyone enlighten me as to potential problems?

> When you get back, you might have to pay an arm and a leg through the nose
> for approval to use a foreign phone in Australia.

That's kind of protectionist, isn't it?  I mean, all you should have
to do is pay any import duties and you should be done.  As far as
getting service with Telstra or OPTUS, you should be able to plug your
SIM (that is registered in a local network) into your phone ... and you
should be done.  However, I've heard that the voice encryption (A5
algorythm (sp?)) used in Europe was blocked in Australia.  And, that
a "substitute" encryption method was employed instead.  Anybody know
the details?

The GSM networks in Australia generally wouldn't know where the phone
was purchased (or manufactured).  Really, all they care about is
whether or not your IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity)
and IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) numbers are valid
in it's network.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: 27 Dec 1995 05:20:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert A.
Rosenberg) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
> edu (John R. Grout) wrote:

> 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly
>> bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for
>> subsequent calls.

> What back office cost? The only cost that I can see is if the person is

I think the issue is how the LEC charges ATT for billing.  Using USW
as an example, to have a separate billing page in the USW bill costs
ATT about $0.380 each month.  Each call placed on that page costs
about $0.025.  So for ATT to bill one call via the LEC costs $0.405
($0.380 + $0.0025), or $0.405 per call.  To bill ten calls costs ATT
$0.63 ($0.380 + (10 * $0.0025)) or $0.063 per call.  So if you are
already an ATT customer, the incremental cost to add one call record
to the LEC bill is small; if you are not, well, you can see why ATT
isn't very interested in (in most cases) losing money on single call
casual billing.


Hope this was useful,

Dale Tomrdle    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Uhrig)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Over AT&T
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 00:49:11 GMT
Organization: BrightNet


Scott Plichta <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I live in PA, and my parents live in Maryland.  They have AT&T
> selected as a long distance carrier.  Whenever they call me, my caller
> ID box is still showing "NO CID NBR". Of course, we all know that
> after Dec.1 this isn't supposed to happen, so I made it a point to try
> to find an answer.

There seems to be a misconception that because the FCC required
interlata LD carriers to pass through CID that you should always get
it.

The FCC's ruling only applies to interlata LD carriers. Local exchange
carriers do not come under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

(Snip)

> I then explain the FCC ruling and that I would like a satisfactory
> reason that AT&T won't pass the CID (maybe the switch isn't SS7 I
> suggest [knowing full well that it is]).  He then determines that he

SS7 stands for Signal System Seven. It is required to provide CID
outside of the local call processor. Many Digital offices are not
equipped with SS7. These offices are not capable of providing CID
outside of their operating area. The FCC ruling does not require that
SS7 be installed in every Class 5 office. If the office you received
the call from is a mechanical office, or a digital office that doesn't
have SS7 you will not get CID and the owner of the originating Class 5
office is not required to provide it. Local exchange carriers come
under the jurisdiction of the state PUCs.


Steve Uhrig    Chillicothe, Ohio  USA

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

From: [e-mail] (John Wilkerson)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Over AT&T
Date: 27 Dec 1995 09:37:18 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet


Scott Plichta ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I live in PA, and my parents live in Maryland.  They have AT&T
> selected as a long distance carrier.  Whenever they call me, my caller
> ID box is still showing "NO CID NBR". Of course, we all know that
> after Dec.1 this isn't supposed to happen, so I made it a point to try
> to find an answer.

     I live in Ohio. Calls from an adjacent area code came thru with
both name and number.

     My brother in Texas called recently. His number came over with the
name "Texas Call" showing up on the name display.  AT&T seems to be
working okay, as well as I can tell.


John L. Wilkerson Jr...    [e-mail]
                           [e-mail]
                           71140,[e-mail]
                           http://www.right.net/~johnw

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin R. Ray)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Over AT&T
Date: 26 Dec 1995 02:25:11 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services


I have used AT&T to make local calls to some people that I didn't want
to know who was calling in the past couple of days. I didn't want to
show up as "ANONYMOUS" (*67), so AT&T was my choice. :-)

Using 10288 does pass along the CID info.
Using 1-800-CALL-ATT does *NOT* pass along the CID info.
Using 0-NUMBER also does *NOT* pass along the CID info (which I would
               think would be an Ameritech problem.)

Almost a month later and they still don't have it right ... and trying
to talk to any of the big companies on this is almost useless.  I'm
still fighting Cellular One (Chicago) on all cell phones coming up
"ANONYMOUS" by default too.

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

From: Matthew S. D'Elia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State?
Date: 27 Dec 1995 23:03:25 GMT
Organization: jaguNET Access Services


[e-mail] wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

>> Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the
>> same state? I'm not trying to dial the AT&T operator ("00"). I've been
>> trying to dial the local operator in NV (specifically Contel, the LEC
>> for the Lake Tahoe area) from NJ, and so far the only way I've been
>> able to get connected is by calling Contel's business office, who put
>> me through.

> The reason I was trying to reach the local operator was to get rate
> information to find out if calling a certain exchange from a certain
> other exchange was a toll call.  Except for looking at a Nevada phone
> book, which I didn't have access to, I couldn't think of any other way
> to find that out.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are welcome, and this is just what
> Steve discussed in his message in this issue isn't it ... perhaps the
> thinking is you don't need that information since the only way you
> could possibly make such a call -- and thus be subject to the rates --
> would be if you were in the area in question. And of course in that
> case, you would be within easy reach of an operator who would be glad
> to stir the confusion up even further for you.   <g>     PAT]

   If a long distance company operator cannot reach a local operator,
then how do you have a long distance busy signal checked?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, as a matter of fact, many times
you don't. In all the years AT&T and the Bells were one organization
or system, things like this were not a problem. If you could not get
through on a call, you just dialed the operator who would 'verify' the
busy signal or other impediment on the line. She would do so by
calling the 'inward operator' in the community in question and say
something like this, "This is <name of city>, please assist in dialing
<number>, we get no ring/no answer". Or she would say "we have tried
it and only get a busy signal." The other end would generally try it
again at that point and get the same result, at which point she would
go off the line for a couple minutes and come back to report the
phone had been left off the hook or whatever else was wrong if she
could detirmine it. She would also put in a trouble report. Sometimes
the telephone man would come to your house and ask if you knew that
your phone was off-hook, or was it otherwise broken, etc. If it was
broken, they would fix it then and there.

Then came MCI and Sprint. Skimming the cream did not then (nor does it
now, but things are different now) include customer assistance in
getting a connection. If you asked the MCI/Sprint 'operator' to help
you get through on a call, their response was always, "to place that
call, you need to hang up, dial one oh two eight eight zero and the
number."   They would never say 'call AT&T's operator'; always 'dial
10288' as if AT&T was a bad word to say, and that the customer would
just go ahead and dial as instructed still assuming that MCI/Sprint
was 'saving him a lot of money' on his phone bill, just as they had
always advertised they would do. For a long time after divestiture,
AT&T continued to use the local Bell operators in many communities,
and they continued to assist in getting through on numbers which were
otherwise unreachable for whatever reason. I've not placed calls
like that in so long I really don't know what they do now.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #531
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 28 10:41:50 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id KAA15125; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:41:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:41:50 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #532

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Dec 95 10:42:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 532

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Scott Montague)
    Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Richard Kenshalo)
    Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Bryan Halvorson)
    Re: SMDR Data Available? (John N. Dreystadt)
    Re: SMDR Data Available? (Doug Smith)
    Telephone Dictation Handset Wanted (Rupa Schomaker)
    Re: Fax --> E-Mail (Doug Reuben)
    Re: Fax --> E-mail Plus Voice Mail Also? (Richard Shockey)
    Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Dave Keeny)
    Re: 10-732 ANI Number (Mike P. Storke)
    Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? (Hendrik Rood)
    Re: Time Limits on 800 Number Calls From Pay Phones (John R. Levine)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (John R. Levine)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Scott Montague)
Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 04:28:50 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Steve experienced this "challenge" when trying to recieve out-of-LATA
intra-LATA rates:

> This reminds me of a challenge I had a few years ago in trying to get
> a rate quote from Pacific Bell.  I was in Sacramento at the time, and
> needed to know if a call from a certain East Bay exchange to a
> certain San Francisco exchange was or was not a local (untimed) call.
> Both Sacramento and the bay area are served by Pacific Bell, but they
> are in different LATAs.

> So, I call the local Pacific Bell operator and ask my question.  Almost
> before I can finish my question, I am told in a somewhat condescending
> tone: "Sir, San Francisco is a long distance call from here.  You
> need to call your long distance operator."

Wow!  I find that amazing.  I just tried from up here in Bell Canada
territory (where operators will go to the ends of the earth to answer
your questions).  The operator initially said "there is no charge
between local calling areas" (which is expected, as there is no
metered rating in Bell territory).  I told her that they have metered
billing for local calls and she immediately understood, apologizing
that she didn't understand immediately.  That whole exchange took no
more than 15 seconds.  She immediately got to work and found that, to
her dismay, could only get an AT&T inward which had no clue how to ...
well, no clue in general.  She tried again ... no success.  She tried
to get the Directory Assistance for the area to transfer her, to no
avail.  She then apologized profusely, and even tried to defend the
American system when I negatively remarked about it.

    "Well, I'm sure they [the Americans] must like it
    [their telephone network] or else they wouldn't
    have it!" -- Bell Canada Operator

She then called DA for 415 and got the Business Office number for
Pacific Bell.  Before she offered to call it (and, BTW, absorb the
charges), I thanked her and told her she had been a great help, and
that I wouldn't want to trouble her any further.

To me, this is amazing.  It is SO easy to get rates within Canada, or
to talk to a local operator from sea to sea to sea, that this kind of
run around appears unnecessary.  For instance, if I want a rate
between two places in Northern Ontario the operator can give it to me
immediately.  Occasionally, the operator may have to go through Rate
and Route, which only takes about 15 seconds.  If I want a rate
between two places outside Bell territory (eg. British Columbia), the
operator will apologize that its not available and then call up the
appropriate operator (eg. BCTel) and get it.  I have tied up operators
for over 10 minutes, and they never get angry, sarcastic, condesending
or rude.  And, if the operator is exceptional, I will ask to speak to
the supervisor and give the operator due credit.  This usually
surprises the heck out of both the operator and the supervisor.

What is amazing, however, is that Bell Canada is cutting back on the
number of the operators (ie. you now get rings before its answered),
you get more "automated billing", but you still get the most friendly
customer service people of almost any business I know of, regardless
of whether they are operators, repair, business office, or special
services.  Hopefully, that will never change.


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.>>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Believe it or not, it used to be the
same way here in the USA up until several years ago. There was a
spirit of dedication and service which vanished here after divestiture
which apparently is the trade off we were required to pay in exchange
for competition, lots of enhanced services which some claim would
never have come about without competition, etc. Like others, I watch
eagerly as it all unfolds and falls into place: the telecommunications
infrastructure for 21st century America. I do like it, but the price
we are paying -- and I don't mean $$$ -- is enormous.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 02:47:31 -0900
Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps


> I have now heard of two ISPs in Bell Atlantic territory who got burned
> when getting a SLC96 installed to handle their large numbers of phone
> numbers.  Apparently the SLC96's are incapable of handling 28.8 kbps,
> and regularly result in 21 kbps and worse for users.

I have heard telecom device providers speaking of this being due to
robbed-bit signaling occuring over the T-1 feeding the SLCs.  This
doesn't make sense to me, as it would infer that B8ZS coding is also
required to achieve high analog data rates.  Robbed-bit signaling
would, using B8ZS coding, remove some of the usable bandwidth (one
bit every 6th and 12th frame).  But I have heard of no requirement to
use B8ZS line coding for high analog data rates, but only for 56 kbps
and 64 kbps DDS circuits.  But I can see that the higher quantization
error that results from 7-bit encoding versus 8-bit encoding may make
high analog data, with the complex modulation schemes, difficult to
achieve.

Does anyone have any experience with any special T-1 line coding
requirements (B8ZS) for V.34 28.8 kbps modems?


TIA,

Richard Kenshalo
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bryan Halvorson)
Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Electronics 101. Apple Valley, MN
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:35:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Bill Garfield
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> The issue with the SLC-96 and V.34 (28.8) modems is actually one more
> directly attributable to the use of D4 framing and AMI line coding
> than blaming the SLC itself.  If the telco will cooperate in setting
> the SLC up to use Extended Superframe and Binary 8-zero substitution
> (ESF/B8ZS) then you'll miraculously begin to see lots of 28,800 bps
> connections.  Alas, few telcos will be that cooperative ... :)

I had this same conversation earlier this week with a US West tech who
was out working on the SLC-5 they installed in our office for our modem
bank. We're getting mostly 24k connects with some 26.4k connects. We
asked about the line coding and the tech brought out his Tbird and
checked all the T1's. They all came up ESF/B8ZS.

My boss has heard that you can get 28.8 connections with this SLC if
it's set up right but doesn't know any details. US West is reasonably
willing to try different things to help us but we don't know what to try.

> It would help the situation if the telco can provide full "integration"
> of the SLC at the Central Office end (meaning the T1 channels of the
> SLC are switched digitally in the CO without breaking down to analog
> ahead of the switch).  Unfortunately this isn't possible if the CO
> itself is an analog machine.

This is one thing we haven't tried. Maybe I'll see if they can switch
the new bank we're just expanding into over to this.

> There is no cheap solution that I know of, short of moving the host
> modem POP across the street from the serving C.O. and provisioning with
> conventional 1FB analog business lines. -not Centrex!-

If we don't have full speed connections working thru the SLC by next
summer, which is when we figure we'll fill all the lines in the SLC and
need to expand it, we're seriously considering doing something like this.


Bryan Halvorson     [e-mail]
N0BUU             [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John N. Dreystadt)
Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available?
Date: 27 Dec 1995 23:40:06 GMT
Organization: Software Services


In article <[e-mail]>, cordones@spacelab.
net says:

> Jeff Keller ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> 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?

> Hi.  I have similar interests.  So far, I have looked at the format
> output for the AT&T Partner II PBX, but I also have noticed that PC
> Programs meant to work with the Partner work with other brands, such as
> Panasonic.  One probably just needs a flexible parser for the input
> coming from the SMDR port, although unless told otherwise, we probably
> can't assume that these inputs won't be a bit contradictory across brands.

> I would like to know if anyone has further info on the subject, whether
> that is books, videos, people, ftp sites, etc.

Sorry but my news service did not send through the original message so
I am guessing as to the intent. But I do have comments.

SMDR format is different between different switch vendors, different
lines for the same vendor, different versions of the software, and
sometimes there are options set in the switch. Good luck finding much
commonality. I have seen switches where one record had all the
information, sometimes multiple records, and the worst case, where
there could be followup records and there was no set delivery time
because of the internals of the PBX.

I believe that the vendors feel no competitive pressure to improve
their relations with the computers that attach to their systems. I
hope this is changing with TAPI and TSAPI.


John Dreystadt

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Smith)
Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 06:41:44 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Internet Services


> 1. Can I talk back to the SMDR port?  (most importantly, does it understand
> anything?)  I imagine that this capability varies with brand and

Not on my Toshiba Perception ex ...

> 2. If the answer to 1. is negative, what are my options for extending the
> capabilities of some "simple" PBX such as the AT&T Partner by connecting
> it to a PC.  For example, if I wished to have a system where a caller is
> identified with CID, looked up on a database, offered a voice prompt
> [for a PIN #], and if they match, give clearance to call.  Alas, if I

On the Toshiba, it only outputs SMDR data when the call is completed
or transferred so that it can contain the final time.  This makes it
impossible to do any intellegent call routing or database lookup at
the start of a call.  I know this is true with some other systems as
well.  I once heard of a company that put every caller on hold and
transferred them in order to capture the SMDR.


Doug Smith  *  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:37:52 PST
From: Rupa Schomaker <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Rupa Schomaker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Dictation Handset Wanted


I am searching for a telephone device (the whole unit) or just a
handset which looks and feels like a dictation unit.  Idealy it would
have the usual controls (rewind, fast forward, pause, etc) plus a full
touch tone pad (on the base would be fine).  The different controls
should be programmable to emit a DTMF tone (eg: hitting rewind would
generate the same tone as (say) pressing the number 1 on the keypad).

If you have such a device or know where I might find one please let me
know.  I can provide a summary to the list or to individuals that are
also interested in such a device.


Thank you in advance.

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Re: Fax --> E-Mail
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 03:30:51 EST


On Thu, 14 DEC 1995 02:15:18, Robert Speirs <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the
>> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail
>> addresses?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] To answer the
> reader's question, I think we should call on Doug Reuben. He is
> involved with a company doing just that, or perhaps it is in reverse
> with email out to faxes, etc. He has not contributed anything here in
> awhile now, so perhaps this will prompt him to write.   PAT]
  ^^^^^^

Indeed, and I apologize (if anyone's missed my voluminous posts :) ). We
have been busier than ever here, and we're finally at the stage where we
can higher full-time help to alleviate the workload on the principals.
Anyhow ...

To answer the poster's question, it depends on what you mean by
"receiving" faxes at their e-mail addresses.

We think there is a market, albeit a limited one, for a service which
allows callers to upload a fax to a given DID, 800, or generic "port"
number, and to then have the fax converted to a UUENCODED graphics
format (JPEG, etc) for transmission via e-mail. We have a number of
customers who use ONLY this service, but they tend to be technically
inclined and are willing to take the time to get the (generally)
public domain or shareware software to UUDECODE and view the graphics
files, or to set up Eudora, etc. A few customers also use our basic
fax to e-mail service as a "gateway" in the US in order to pass faxes
to an international site, where it is automatically converted to fax
and then sent out over the PSTN. This is a more specialized
application which we have seen a sizeable *initial* interest in, but
when the costs and maintenance of a local node, etc. are factored in,
only a few firms find it very cost effective (or they can do it "in
house" for less, etc.)

In light of the above, we developed our FaxUp WWW(sm) service, which
allows Interpage customers to receive, view, annotate, name, store,
fax, and e-mail their faxes from a "WWW Account" which we create on
our server.  The closest approximation I can think of right now is
that of laptop or PC-based fax software which allows owners to
receive, manage and send their faxes out "on demand", except that ours
is on the WWW and allows users to log on from any WWW browser
worldwide.

Our FaxUp WWW service has attracted a good deal of interest, because
(I think) instead of having the customer go out and get all the
software necessary to decode e-mail and then download it, it is all
done for them via Netscape, Mosaic, or whatever browser (customers can
even access their faxes via Lynx -- one of the text-only browsers --
but of course can not view the files online that way...) Customers who
need to receive faxes as e-mail may do so as part of the FaxUp WWW
service, although this is a seldom used feature.

Overall, I think the "neatest" part of Interpage's FaxUp WWW product
is that you can basically manage a good deal of your fax traffic
directly from the WWW, which we have found is especially attrative to
international customers who need to develop a US/Canada presence.
Typically, a user from outside the US/Canada can have senders here
upload to our server in the US. The customer abroad can be notified
that a new fax has arrived by e-mail (and/or pager), and log in via
the WWW to review their faxes. They can then print out the fax,
re-upload it to us (as a postscript file), view it and/or annotate it
from their WWW account, and re-transmit it to the customer in the US
without ever having to pay an international toll charge. Additionally,
they can store these faxes in order to uitilize the FaxUp WWW service
as a "fax-on-demand" server, or create new text or postscript faxes to
send out from our server at reduced rates.

So yes, I do think there is a good deal of potential for a company
offering a "fax to e-mail" gateway service. However, in my mind, it
*must* be implemented in a way that is universal *and* easy to access.

Our first product was universal (or as universal as e-mail gets :) ),
but no one wanted to take the time to download and view their faxes
unless there was a significant cost advantage to them and/or they were
very interested in the technology and simply "liked" the concept. I
*think* we are on the right track with the WWW-based fax mailbox, but
who knows?  Maybe it's just a fad ... it does seem, however, that this
is an untapped market, and that the more firms who get involved in
this the greater degree of public awareness of such a versatile
product will be, which will benefit all of us who offer it, Interpage
and others alike. (Either that or we'll go out of business ...:) )

Anyhow, just so this doesn't sound like a *complete* ad for Interpage,
I'll end now by saying that there are a number of other firms which
offer Internet-based fax services, one of which, "tpc.int", does it
for free to many areas (check Yahoo, etc. for others).

My next post will NOT be about Interpage! :)


      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, Info., and WWW/E-Mail Fax Svcs

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Shockey)
Subject: Re: Fax --> E-mail Plus Voice Mail Also?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 09:54:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom


[e-mail] (Robert A. Rosenberg) wrote:

>> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the
>> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail
>> addresses?

> Since the Fax Message format is standardized (otherwise Faxes would
> not work), it would seem that providing a service to accept incoming
> Faxes and then Email them as MIME attachments would be feasible.
> There would need to be a separate number for each user

Telephony grade Fax Boards can do this now.  The Fax Boards would
accept the DID signal from the CO and link to the E-Mail address and
ISP using a simple table. These boards are avaiable from vendors such
as GammaLink, PureData or Brooktrout.  Saved as G.3 .Tif and then MIME
attached and delivered by the ISP to the user.  Piece of Cake.

What is of interest as well is the delivery of voice mail messages in
the same manner. Convert the Voice Mail message to .WAV file MIME
attach and deliver.  Once that piece of the puzzle is in place you
have Universal Messaging -- Internet Delivered -- The Universal In-Box
needs a TIF viewer and a WAV Player to work.

Many of the major Voice Mail system developers are considering a
Microsoft Exchange Exchange Server based system for just these
purposes for corporate customers.

 From a software development point of view, this can be done with
current Mirrosoft Mail MAPI strategies for 95 and NT platforms. It is
a simple rules based routing technique. What has been lacking is
getting the voice message to the desktop as well. for home users there
are a number of new single channel Voice/FAX/DATA boards that could
(in theory) deliver this for the SOHO user as well.

The business model is the question.  Is this a service delevered by
the RBOC or a Value-Added to a Corporate Network.

My argument is that this is a Value-Added to a corporate communications
network and a potential service for ISP's to provide highly mobile
customers.

Make no mistake ... dozens of software companies and some major
messaging players are looking at this right now.  The first products
will roll out sometime in 1996.    The major worry I have is can the
Internet Service Providers handle the massive increase in Store and
Forward traffic. What would be needed is a 100 or 1000 fold increase
in disk drive space to accomidate the new data types on a regular
basis and can this be accomidated using the flat price business models
ISP's traditional use.


Richard Shockey         Developers of Fax on Demand Solutions
President               For Business, Media, Industry and
Nuntius Corporation     Government.
8045 Big Bend Blvd.
St. Louis, MO  63119      For a Demonstration Call our
Voice 314.968.1009        CommandFax Demonstration Line
FAX   [phone]        at 314.986.3461
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Keeny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum
Date: 28 Dec 1995 05:05:48 GMT
Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation


[e-mail] (PhoneRoom) wrote:

> Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to
> the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has
> negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join
> discussions in a more unbiased area.

> Please Email [e-mail]

Any book store of reasonable size will have books in their computing
section that list newsgroups and their areas of focus. There are also
a couple of WWW/FTP sites (at least) that maintain lists of active
newsgroups. I don't have the URLs handy, but if you use one of the
WWW search engines, Archie, etc., the sites should be easy to find.

By the way, since when do "negative feelings" about telemarketing
imply a bias?  I also have a distaste for telemarketing based on my
experience on *both* ends of the sales pitch.  That is not bias, it's
forming an opinion based on experience -- something we all do.  If
telemarketers identified themselves, asked if I'd like to hear about
their product, and took "No" for an answer, maybe I would soften up
some. But, that scenario is fantasy, which is one reason most people
would like their phone service to offer the equivalent of a "No
Soliciting" sign.  It would be nice (and totally impractical I'm sure)
to require telemarketers to have a unique exchange that could be
blocked by entering a *xx code.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike P. Storke)
Subject: Re: 10-732 ANI Number
Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:20:33 GMT
Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV


In article <[e-mail]>,
Joseph E. Norton <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664.

> Interestingly, I also tried this same 770 number with AT&T TeleTravel
> Service.  The reply I got was: Boop 51362950018 Boop 8880001565

> Also, the TeleTravel Platform informed me that I could leave a message
> for this party by pressing 93.  This message only gets spoken when
> there is no answer-supervision on the line, so guess you are not being
> charged from home either.  Have to try it from work where we have
> direct AT&T service.

  Now I've got a weird experience.  With [phone], I get:

A. With my own carrier (no 10xxx), a message saying to call customer service
   (I suppose Express-Tel's way of telling you a bad number).

B. With 10732 added, I get 70272182948 after the first beep, of which the last
   digit is not part of the phone #, and after the second beep, lots of zeros
   ending with a lone one.

  Now the weird part is this:  This is my cellular, and this number correctly
gave my ANI.  Now when I dial (800) MY-ANI-IS, I get [phone], correct
NPA and NXX, but incorrect extention number (should be 8294, remember?).  Now,
since this is AT&T Wireless now, is it because they'll give the correct ANI
to their own system and not to a competitor's (MCI, as I recall), or is
something else at work here?


*Mike P. Storke N7MSD                  Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134  *
*Inet: [e-mail]                 Reno, NV 89512-2712 *
*Amateur: None--the little !?#%@* around here won't let me have one!!     *
*Famous Sayings: "Pascal-The Handcuff of the Programmer; C is the savior!"*
*Preaching the Gosphel of Beavis & Butt-Head and exterminating Spongites  *

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

From: [e-mail] (Hendrik Rood)
Subject: Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 14:54:07 GMT
Organization: Elephantiasis


In article <[e-mail]>, Bill Rubin
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> NYNEX is currently running a TV ad showing "dad" calling to order
> tickets for a "big show" at 9am when tickets go on sale, "but everyone
> else called, too", so dad used the "busy signal fix, *66" and got a
> call back when "they" were able to get thru for him and he was able to
> get tickets.  End shot is everyone at the show, they're understandably
> happy.

This is the commercial description of the feature:

Call Completion at Busy Subscriber (CCBS, official ITU name in an
ISDN-environment). This is a feature that can only be provided when
the subscriber line you are calling is connected to the network via
SS#7 and the SCCP-protocol with Transaction Capability Application
Part (TCAP) on the stack. These protocols are public-switch standards.
This is typically not the case with a PABX connected to the telephone
network. I have not seen CCBS-standards crossing the User Network
Interface (DSS1 in ISDN) yet.  The feature does on the other side work
at Centrex-lines (if not disabled/blocked).

> Now, when NYNEX came out with the *66 capability, I have to admit that
> using it to get thru to Ticketmaster when popular concerts went on
> sale was the main thing I thought of using it for, but I recall seeing
> some fine print that it won't work with stuff like that, or maybe I
> tried it and was told it couldn't be used for that since it was going
> to a PBX-type system.

This is an answer you can expect considering the above written way CCBS
works in PSTN/ISDN.

> Has this changed, or is NYNEX taking "technology license" to sell
> their service?  Now, of course, even if you were able to get thru, the
> odds are still pretty good that Ticketmaster's phone system will drop
> your call after you've been on hold for a few minutes and before you
> actually speak to someone,

That is not the way the feature works. CCBS uses a transaction-
mechanism. When you dial a line and receive busy you punch *66. Then
your local (originating) exchange sends out a SS#7 message over the
TCAP/SCCP stack to the terminating exchange. This message puts your
number in a stack for the dialed line and enables a call-back
requested flag. This stack is typically maintained around 30 minutes.

After the telephone line at the terminating exchange has ended
conversation the switch first makes a lookup in the stack, sends back a
message to your phone line (over SS#7/SCCP/TCAP) that provokes ringing
and waits several seconds for your pick up. After you pick-up the
originating exchange restarts call setup to the originally dialed
number, were your call is than connected through.

> as they did to me three times last week, but that's another story.
> But if it will actually work in these situations, I might actually
> consider using it!

The answer on your original question:

"Does *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers?" is therefore maybe. It
depends of application of a PABX or Centrex. And also some ticketmaster
service owners might not like the 10 to 20 seconds idle-time between
release and acceptance of the next call, but that is merely a business
decision wheighting more user friendliness versus higher call-processing
capacity.


ir. Hendrik Rood
Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When this was first installed in Chicago
several years ago, there was a bug in the procedure which did not
eliminate the possibility of dialing your own number (getting a busy
signal) and then trying to call yourself back using *66. If you tried
this it appeared to work. After dialing your number, getting a busy
signal and dialing *66 the response back to you would be 'hang up and
we will keep trying to reach this number for thirty minutes ... you
will hear a special ring when it becomes available ... etc'.

Of course within a few seconds of hanging up, you would get that
special ring. Lifting the receiver would get you a couple seconds of
silence followed by the response, 'the number you asked us to keep
trying for you *did* become free, but in the meantime it has become
busy again.'  You'd hang up, and after a few seconds when the switch
passed information back and forth saying the line had become free
(naturally, since you had hung up again) once again the line would
have that special ring to let you know your call could be completed.
Of course picking up the receiver cause the line 'to become busy
again ...' as the announcement would advise you when it tried to
complete the call once it got you back on the line. This would go
on for the thirty minutes or so allowed until you decided to press
*86 and 'cancel your automatic callback request'. I can't get that
to happen here any longer.     PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 00:30 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Time Limits on 800 Number Calls From Pay Phones
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.


> I posted an inquiry a couple of months ago about this same occurence.
> I was in Little Italy/SoHo and used the new yelllow NYNEX calling card
> payphones, ...

The yellow phones aren't calling card phones, they're stored value card
phones.  Considering that the stored value cards are only usable at the
yellow phones, it makes some sense that they don't want other kinds of
calls tying up the phones.  What I don't understand is why they let you
call anything other than 911 without putting in the card first.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], Trumansburg NY
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 00:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.


> [ITA charged about $100 to a phone from which someone called their 800
> number]

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is
> being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to
> the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is
> concerned, it is reversed to the called party. .... But when
> you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve
> tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you
> thought it should have been free since you called via 800?

If they tried to charge the plane tickets to my phone bill, I'd sure
complain.  But, of course, they don't so that's a red herring.

I thought we argued this to death a year ago -- the issue is that it's
not reasonable to assume that someone who calls an 800 number is
authorized to charge anything whatsoever to the line he's calling
from.  It might be a PBX user, a COCOT, a dorm line, or any of a wide
range of other "courtesy" users.

Furthermore, the 900 pseudo-NPA exists specifically for services
charged back to the calling number, and the last time I checked the
FCC had rules that prohibit charges to an 800 caller without prior
written permission for the customer of record for the line.

Happy New Year, by the way, with hopes for many more.


John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 [phone]
[e-mail] "Space aliens are stealing American jobs."-Stanford econ prof


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And Happy New Year to you also. I would
like to see a few more years myself; maybe I will and maybe I won't.
You are correct that the FCC does require that written authorization,
however that is being disputed by many in the industry who claim that
it never was and still is not required of Western Union. And telco
refuses to budge where WUTCO is concerned as far as either discontinuing
their billing for them and/or requiring written authorization in advance.
Ditto, a couple other 'legitimate' services using 800 for calls and
billing to phone bills, albiet 'reasonable' rates, like fifty cents or
one dollar, etc are not securing written authorization in advance and
the adult content providers say that is discrimination. The FCC rules
do not address the *content* of the information or transaction taking
place, nor the fees involved. It is a sorry mess.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #532
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 28 14:14:04 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id OAA29090; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:14:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:14:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #533

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Dec 95 14:14:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 533

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (A Sherman)
    Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? (Ron Elkayam)
    Re: D3 Channel Bank Question (Edward Shuck)
    Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (A.E. Siegman)
    Re: CA 1+ Intralata Regulations (Steve J. Slavin)
    Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance (Ed Ellers)
    Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance ([e-mail])
    Re: Ten-Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland (David H. Close)
    AT&T 9100 Best Secure 900mz Cordless? (Dave Yost)
    x.25 Information Wanted (Iaen Cordell)
    Looking For Information on Nationwide Paging (Keith Connors)
    No Monthly Fee Cellular Service (Stan Schwartz)
    Standardization of Voicmail, Fax (Tom Crofford)
    MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment (John Vitiello)
    Price Reduced on Oslin Book "Story of Telecommunications" (James Haynes)
    Re: NYTel (NYNEX) Payphones Blocking Certain Numbers (Doug Reuben)
    Current Area Code Information Wanted (Brian Churchill)
    Re: Internet Voice and PSTN (Van Heffner)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: 28 Dec 1995 05:20:53 GMT
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert A.
Rosenberg) asks:

> What back office cost? The only cost that I can see is if the person is

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

> I think the issue is how the LEC charges ATT for billing.  Using USW
> as an example, to have a separate billing page in the USW bill costs
> ATT about $0.380 each month.  Each call placed on that page costs
> about $0.025.  So for ATT to bill one call via the LEC costs $0.405
> ($0.380 + $0.0025), or $0.405 per call.  To bill ten calls costs ATT
> $0.63 ($0.380 + (10 * $0.0025)) or $0.063 per call.  So if you are
> already an ATT customer, the incremental cost to add one call record
> to the LEC bill is small; if you are not, well, you can see why ATT
> isn't very interested in (in most cases) losing money on single call
> casual billing.

This is a very nice analysis, but LEC billing chargebacks are probably
just the tip of the iceburg.  Think about what it costs for a business
to keep track of a customer.  No matter whether the ultimate bill
rendering is direct mail or through the agency of another business you
have to do all this stuff (list is probably not all-inclusive):

a) Maintain an account record with balances, addresses, some demographics,
and account activity;

b) Run that account through the billing cycle;

c) Render a bill if activity > $0;

d) Process payment if payment > $0;

e) Track payment history;

f) Process name and address changes.

Those are the specific overheads associated with maintaining an
account.  Most of them accrue even if the activity is zero for a
billing period.  In addition any business has non specific overheads
that ultimately get allocated to all business activities.  Rent.  Cost
of core functions, like corporate management, R&D, etc, etc.

Although it is pretty dramatic to have over 40c billing cost for the
first call, which may be a one-minute call (and a loss), the real
numbers are probably even more dramatic.  I seem to recall from my
Bell Labs days talk that the account maintenance cost was measured in
dollars rather than cents.  (No, I don't remember the exact number,
and it was probably proprietary anyway.  This analysis is derivable
from common sense, not inside info).  I once joked that when the
competition slammed Aunt Sally who mostly received calls that they
were probably boosting our bottom line. I quickly received a lecture
on the strategic importance of market share and corporate image ...

Accounting pedantry aside, the tone of several contributions to this
thread indicates that even on the eve of divestiture's 12th anniversary
there are those who expect a large enough IXC to engage in the same
type of cross subsidies as before without the monopoly to sustain it.
Whether or not one liked the old way better, and that is certainly a
matter on which reasonable people can and do differ, those days are
long gone.  The rules have changed forever.  Expecting cross-subsidies
under the new rules is really asking to have it both ways.


Andy Sherman                101 Hudson St, Jersey City NJ, 34th flr
Vice President, Systems Administration    [phone]
Lehman Brothers Global Unix Support    [e-mail]
"The point of technology is to serve the business, not the other way around."


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This has long been the source of much
ambivilence for me -- a love/hate relationship. Would I do without the
many nice things in the modern system? No .... Was the old way clearly
better in many respects? Yes, absolutely.  And twelve years of it, as
of next week! Soon there will be people among us who remember little
or nothing of the 'Bell System'.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron(ell) Elkayam)
Subject: Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 09:22:38 GMT
Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468


On Tue, 26 Dec 95 00:02:36 EST, Bill Rubin ([e-mail]) posted:

> But if  it will actually work  in these situations, I might actually
> consider using it!

It's pointless for heavily-used busy numbers.  By the time you get the
ringing, and pick up the phone, the desired line is busy again (and
you'll be told to hang up and wait some more).  It's not as if it
reserves you the right to be the next caller (it doesn't).

You've got much higher chances getting in by pushing 'redial' or
trying to "operator emergency interrupt" from time to time.

It would only make sense to get that feature if the number you're
calling is actually on-hook for at least 30 seconds between calls ...


W/love,

Ron    Miami, FL


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The use of 'operator emergency interuppt'
is definitly NOT a recommended action. In many locations, declaring that
an emergency exists for any reason, including manipulation of the phone
network to get others off the line -- when in fact no emergency exists --
is a crime. Your phone book will tell you that much somewhere near the
front cover in the introductory pages. It will refer to the exact law
in your state, etc. Likewise, to refuse to give up your telephone conn-
ection when requested to do so in a bonafide emergency is a crime. What
is an 'emergency' and what isn't?  A judge will decide, if some party
affected by your actions decides to get problematic about it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Edward Shuck)
Subject: Re: D3 Channel Bank Question
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:46:24 GMT
Organization: visual traffic
Reply-To: [e-mail]


On Wed, 27 Dec 1995 04:52:40 GMT, [e-mail] (Raymon A.
Bobbitt) wrote:

> Does anyone know the difference between D3 and D4 framing in a channel
> bank??

> I have six D# units and was wondering what I can use them for.

I have a little experience with this.  Years ago I worked at TRW
Vidar.  The D3 will work against a D4 set to mode 3.  The D4 will
handle two D3s in this configuration.


ed

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

From: [e-mail] (A. E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:34:43 -0800
Organization: Stanford University


For those interested in this issue, I'd note that the latest version
of what I believe to be a realistic, fair, effective and economically
sensible proposal for regulating telemarketing so as to meet the needs
of individual consumers and the industry itself can be found on my Web
page, at

   http://www-ee.Stanford.edu/~siegman/telemarketing_proposal.html

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

From: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)
Subject: Re: CA 1+ Intralata Regulations
Date: 27 Dec 1995 23:46:30 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)


The CA PUC has some dates firmly cast in mush -- several dates have
been set as targets but not finalized yet. 65+ companies are trying to
get in; some (25+) were supposed to reach some agreement on issues
last spring, but came up with almost ZIP by way of consensus,
consensus hrowing the ball back in the lap of the CPUC.


Steve Slavin,
Sr. Regulatory Analyst San Ramon, CA 510-842-4757

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

From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance
Date: Wed, 27 DEC 95 13:39:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


WES LEATHEROCK <[e-mail]> writes:

> The X11 codes were also generally consistent, usually used
> in large cities and the 11... series of codes might be used in other
> places in the same state.

> It normally depended on what kind of hardware was used at
> the time the service codes were first established (in other words,
> the first dial hardware that went in in that place).  Then it would
> generally be followed throughout that area.

That's right.  The 11x series was popular in step-by-step areas since
it allowed these calls to be diverted from the first switch at one
point.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance
Date: 28 Dec 1995 06:33:22 GMT
Organization: Network Internet Services [phone]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In the 1950s, a telephone operator reminded me that the mnemonic for the
x11 codes was the number of letters in the associated word:

211 for LD
411 for INFO
611 for REPAIR
811 for BUSINESS

This was in New York Tel territory, NYC metro.

JBR


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You think this was deliberate, or just
coincidental?  I remember many years ago when there used to be several
major department stores lined up in a row on State Street in downtown
Chicago (yes, all the major chains used to be downtown including Sears,
Wards, the Boston Store and lots of others) and they all had phone
numbers in numerical order. Marshall Field (STAte-1000) was followed
a block away by Carson Pirie Scott (STAte-2000) next door to Weiboldt's
(STAte-3000) and a few doors further south Goldblatt's (STAte-4000)
and finally Sears (STAte-4600, eventually changing to WABash-4600 for
reasons forgotten). On the west side of State Street in the same three
or four block range were Wards (formerly the Fair Store) with STAte-1500
and the Boston Store (STAte-2500). Field's and Carson's are the only
two left, and only Field's has approximatly the same phone number as
back then: 312-781-1000. (Yes, I know STAte should be 782, and there
is one of those downtown also). They always said it was strictly a
coincidence.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David H. Close)
Subject: Re: Ten-Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland
Date: 28 Dec 1995 05:53:39 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


Carl Moore <[e-mail]> writes:
(quoting Shawn Donnan, Associated Press Writer)

> Ten-digit dialing, like it or not, is something that will be a reality
> nationwide in the future, according to the public service commission.

Nothing against ten-digit dialing, but ... why has no one proposed a
system to permit n-digit dialing, when n is any number from one to ten?
If you dial less than ten digits, end with #. The system would then
assume that the missing digits were identical to the calling phone,
and that the dialed digits were the last digits of the desired number.
Why should we be limited to a choice between seven and ten digits?


Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA
[e-mail], [phone]
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We can do this now to a limited extent
with number strings of variable length. For example, 0# times out
immediatly to an operator without waiting to see if additional digits
are going to follow such as 0-AC-number. When using a calling card to
call the number to which the card is assigned, likewise just the four
digit pin needs to be entered, and a # on the end will speed up the
processing. International dialing can be terminated with # also to
speed up dialing so the equipment does not have to sit and time-out.
I agree however that variable length numbers would be a nice idea
here. I will be '1' ... <g>. If they are concerned that the switches
are not able to handle numbers like that, then my suggestion would be
that when the # is entered as a 'carriage return' or end-of- dialing
indicator that the switch just default the difference between what was
given and eleven with a few zeros as filler.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Yost)
Subject: AT&T 9100 Best Secure 900mz Cordless?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 10:49:54 -0800
Organization: Dave Yost's house


I just bought one of these things for $160 at Price Club, and I think
the sound is grungy.  Sure there's no static; just the same consistent
gravely, distorted sound.

Is there a better product that is encrypted, as this one is?


Dave

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

From: [e-mail] (Iaen Cordell)
Subject: x.25 Information Wanted
Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:36:07 +1100
Organization: DIALix Services, Sydney, Australia.


Wishing everyone the best for the Christmas holiday.

I have just started work in the electronic message section of my
company.  and I was asked to setup an x.25 link. Can anyone help me
with information on x.25 setup and addressing? The only references to
this on the net are x.25 to x.400 gateways. This is helpful but not
what I am after at this point.

Many thanks in advance.

ic

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

From: [e-mail] (Keith Connors)
Subject: Looking For Information on Nationwide Paging
Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:07:56 GMT
Organization: ErieNet


Hello all and happy holidays!

I am trying to find a list of companies that provide nationwide paging.
If someone could please forward me a few names, I can contact them for
details.


Thanks,

Keith

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:11:25 EST
From: Stan.Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Monthly Fee Cellular


Alltel Mobile, the B-side carrier in the Charlotte, NC market, is
offering a no monthly fee contract for the light-usage customer.

Buy a phone from them (starting at $9.99), pay a $99.00 activation
fee, and then .75 a minute for local calls.  No airtime allowance, no
monthly fees.  For "emergency" only use (or even if you do a bit of
roaming in the Charlotte market), $8.00/month with .75/minute isn't
too bad.

Alltel also markets itself as "PCS: Personal Communications Solutions".
One wonders if they're intentionally trying to confuse customers into
thinking that they're getting PCS-capable phone service.


Stan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I doubt it, since most cellular phone
users -- indeed, most employees of cellular phone companies -- have
no idea what PCS is or how it works.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 23:44:58 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Tom Crofford)
Subject: Standardization of Voicmail, Fax


Does anyone out there know of any sort of standardization for
voicemail/auto attendant systems?  For example, most auto attendants
will let you dial an individual's extension, but every one works a
little differently.  Sometimes you just dial the extension number.
Other times you have to do a menu selection up front and then dial the
extension number.

I just wondered if the ITU or some other organization was working on
standardizing things like this.  If no one knows of such a
standardization effort maybe we need to do that via our newsgroup.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John Vitiello)
Subject: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment
Date: 28 Dec 1995 14:25:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom


A question was posed to my class in Regulatory Law and Telecommunications
Policy at grad school. I'm interested in anyone's opinion on the subject.

The question was:

Could the internet have developed if the Bell Sysyem had remained a
monopoly?

If so how?
If not why?

Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.


Thank you,

John Vitiello    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Internet was around long before
telco divestiture got underway. Even this Digest was around a couple
of years before. In the late 1970's and early 1980's the Internet
was becoming very robust. Obviously, it was nothing like today, but
even in 1983 when divestiture was barely underway, the Internet
had grown a lot over the three years prior. Would it have gotten as
far and grown as much as it has today without divestiture?  I
personally think it would have. It is quite fashionable in some
quarters to claim that everything good about telecommunications came
once AT&T lost its grip, and that everything evil and bad about
the old ways died the same day as Ma Bell, December 31, 1982. But
that is just not a realistic point of view.

Oh, but you said 'internet' with a lower-case /i/ instead of 'Internet'
with an upper-case /I/ didn't you ... and there is a difference!
They are two different things. Upper-case Internet consists of the
traditional 'domains' ie. .edu, .mil, .gov, .com and .org and it
was originally the system which interconnected universities and
the government/military research institutions, etc.  Lower-case
internet on the other hand is ... well, for lack of a better term,
the rest of you who have interconnected with the above over the years.

There was a time many years ago when Internet people via the Usenet
(the collection of newsgroups circulating on the internet) had very
big flame wars over whether or not *any* interconnection with non-
university sites should be allowed. I remember in 1986-87 the
battle on Usenet was about allowing Portal Communications (I think
they were the first IP anywhere) to send and receive the Usenet
news feed. It was thought that 'outsiders' from places like that
were likely to pollute the Usenet groups with nonsense and not
be of much value. An interesting history there at Portal ... they
started out sometime in the 1980's as a purely local BBS in the
San Jose, CA area, then they expanded by getting linked into the
PC Pursuit network operated by GTE/Telenet. (Remember them?) and
that network address on Telenet gave thousands of early BBS'ers
access to Portal BBS. Before long came their link to net news
and email.

Now, I guess Internet and internet are used interchangeably, but
they really shouldn't be. Likewise, GTE/Telenet was around from
the early 1970's when it mostly was used to interconnect the
computer systems of universities and large corporations. So to
answer your question, there is no doubt that divestiture has indeed
influenced the growth and development of the internet, but I do
not think the net's existence is soley dependent on divestiture.
I think we would have been around anyway, not as large perhaps.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (James H. Haynes)
Subject: Price Reduced on Oslin Book "Story of Telecommunications"
Date: 28 Dec 1995 06:24:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I got a flyer the other day from Mercer University Press, the
publisher of "The Story of Telecommunications" by George Oslin.  The
price has been reduced from $35 to $28.  Maybe this means they are
trying to get rid of the remaining stock.  I recommend the book highly
even though it is a mess.  The author is the former public relations
man for Western Union and he wrote it at the age of 93.  Lots and lots of
interesting stuff about telegraphy and telephony in history.  They ask
$3.75 P&H for first book, 75 cents each additional, and the address is
Mercer University Press, 6316 Peake Rd., Macon, GA 31210-3960.

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Re: NYTel (NYNEX) Payphones Blocking Certain Numbers
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 02:44:43 EST


On Dec 20, 1995 23:29:24 EST, [e-mail] (Peter Capek) wrote:

> I had a weird experience this morning.  I was at a train station and
> used a pay phone to call an 800 number stock price service.  The
> following happened four times: I was able to initiate the call, and to
> get a couple of quotes, but the first time I hit a touchtone key pad
> after about 90 seconds into the call, the call was disconnected and I
> got a dial tone.

Happens to me all the time from New York Telephone payphones in *New
York City*, especially in Manhattan. To access my voicemail, I need to
enter my 800#, and then press * and my password. This is fine -- most
of the "rigged" NYTel payphones allow this. BUT -- if there is a
caller on hold and I need to connect with them, I need to enter * +
PIN + *. This second "*", seemingly in close proximity to the first
"*", causes a lot of New York Telephone payphones in NYC to just hang
up on me, and I can not use many of the features of my voicemail and
pager because of this.

> What occurred to me is that NYNEX is limiting call duration because of
> the traditionally high usage of pay phones in train stations, when the
> call is an 800 call.  Does this seem plausible?

Or any one of their other inane arguments to restrict service -- it
"deters" crime, it makes beepers harder to use, etc.

This isn't the issue in my mind. I think that if it comes to the point
that I can complete a call to my voicemail with a greater degree of
success from a COCOT then from a Bell phone, there is something wrong.
At a time that NYTel is advertising a strong "caveat emptor" message
aimed directly against COCOTs, it is highly hypocritical to suggest
that callers beware on private COCOT phones when in fact New York Tel
is practicing the same slimey tactics. It also strikes me as odd and
potentially indicative of ulterior motives that this is only a
practice in some areas on NYC and not others, and certainly not
outside of NYC in the NYC Suburbs.

I've been increasingly fed up with this nonsense, but have not really
had much time to do anything about it. If anyone out there is
interested in contacting the NYS PUC and/or the FCC regarding this
issue, I'd be glad to provide supporting statements and personal
accounts of similar occurences. I'd even be willing to put a WWW page
up which will fax to the NYS PUC whenever a caller finds such a NYTel
phone and wishes to complain.


Doug
[e-mail]          Interpage NSI             (203) 499 - 5221
 *WWW to: http://interpage.net for info on our E-Mail to ANY Pager gateway*
 *Telnet to: interpage.net, login as "guest" for Interpage demo and info.*

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

From: Brian Churchill <[e-mail]>
Organization: Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:27:07 EST
Subject: Current Area Code Information Wanted


Greetings Pat,

Do you have any idea where on the Internet (or via other access) I
can obtain information about existing and anticipated splits of area
codes?

I have a switch manufacturer and a carrier who don't seem to be able
to get together long enough to update the area code routing table in
my switch ... so like the old adage, "if you want it done right, do
it yourself!!!".  I'm willing to do it, just not sure where to locate
current and receive notification of the area code information for
USA.


Brian C. Churchill
Director of Technology Services
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I would *love* to have all that
in the Telecom Archives. I have a lot of area code stuff now which
needs to be be massively updated. Carl Moore and David Leibold have
worked on this in the past, and I understand -- hope! -- they are
working on it now to have the latest possible information made
available soon, including a new interactive program which will
allow searching numerically for area codes as well as international
country/city codes. How about it Carl, David? Will this be ready
anytime soon?    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:36:23 -0800
From: [e-mail] (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS)
Subject: Re: Internet Voice and PSTN


> Has anyone out there come up with a good method of bridging between the
> PSTN and the internet voice world. I'd be interested in sharing info on
> this topic either via private e-mail or via this or other newsgroup
> postings.

There is a company in Hackensack, NJ that has introduced a service
that lets internet users interface with the public switched telephone
network via proprietary software. They charge about $.10 a minute for
access (not bad for an international call!). Unfortunately, the system
is running half-duplex (at the moment). More info can be found in the
December issue of DLD Digest, available at the below URL.


Van Hefner, Publisher
Discount Long Distance Digest
http://www.webcom.com/longdist/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #533
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 28 18:10:40 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id SAA17506; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:10:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:10:40 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #534

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Dec 95 18:10:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 534

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Christopher Ambler)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Shubu Mukherjee)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Tim Shoppa)
    Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Glenn Foote)
    Looking for Callback Switch Information (Gene Retske)
    Tools For Shopping Residential Long Distance Rates (Stuart Zimmerman)
    Anyone Know Who Unibridge is? (Steve Samler)
    811-xxxx in California (was Re: New York Suffolk County) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Telecom Questions (Carl Moore)
    Telephony Fraud (was Re: AT&T Card Fraud) (Mickey Ferguson)
    Novell Based Voice Mail ([e-mail])
    Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Eric Ewanco)
    Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Gary Breuckman)
    Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Joel B. Levin)
    Elegy For a Free Press (Joe Shea, The American Reporter)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Christopher Ambler)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 16:32:22 GMT
Organization: Punknet Internet Cooperative


Our Moderator Said...

> When the caller later goes complaining to his state commission or
> the telco, or the Action Line column in his newspaper or this Digest
> or whatever, the IP can produce the pertinent twenty or thirty second
> segment of tape and say "here ... who is kidding who?  After all, it
> is the World's Oldest Profession." ...

People are paying for 800 calls to farmers?!

(C) Copyright, 1995 Christopher Ambler, Director, Punknet Internet
Cooperative,  <http://www.punk.net/~chris> San Luis Obispo, California
Permission to redistribute electronically is granted for non-commercial use.
Fee for commercial redistribution is $100 per use.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, surely someone must have the
number 800-MOO-COWS. I wonder what they use it for?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shubu Mukherjee)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:01:29 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Digest
Editor noted in response to [e-mail] (John R Levine):

[ITA charged about $100 to a phone from which someone called their 800
number.]

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is
>> being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to
>> the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is
>> concerned, it is reversed to the called party. .... But when
>> you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve
>> tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you
>> thought it should have been free since you called via 800?

All this discussion about 800 numbers is great, but let me make one
thing clear about this ^#%@$@^@& ITA dating service.

First, ITA claims that we specifically called them to establish the
service, which is ___absolutely___ false.

Second, anyone can call them and ask them to connect the service to a
___any___ number.  They do ___not___ verify whether the phone number
is in anyway connected to the caller establishing the service.  This
has two implications.  First, anyone can play a prank on you.  Second
(and the more serious one), is that anyone below 18 years can access
the dating service, which supposedly is meant only for adults.

This is a clear indication that ITA could be a scam.  Of course,
Channel 5 News, Atlanta, confirmed it.  Several people have sent me
mail saying that they had faced a similar problem with ITA, but
fortunately all of them got their money back.


Shubu Mukherjee        Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
[e-mail]      http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you *did* call their number. You
said so yourself. By the time calculations you included in your
original message you were connected how long?  The thing is, although
you can say you are calling from whatever number you like, the thing
about ANI -- Automatic Number Identification -- on 800 calls is that
it does not lie, nor can it be blocked with *67. Generally those
people go by the ANI of the calling number; they do not ask the
customer to pass or recite his number.  I still agree with your basic
premise: they are slime, but let's not get too self-righteous here;
we know you called them and how long you were on the line, the only
question seems to be if you clearly understood what the cost would
be. Apparently you were decieved ... a lot of people have been. That
is how those outfits stay in business.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:00:15 GMT
Organization: Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech


In article <[e-mail]>, John R Levine
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I thought we argued this to death a year ago -- the issue is that it's
> not reasonable to assume that someone who calls an 800 number is
> authorized to charge anything whatsoever to the line he's calling
> from.  It might be a PBX user, a COCOT, a dorm line, or any of a wide
> range of other "courtesy" users.

I've given some of the suspicious looking 1-800 numbers a ring from a
PBX system that seems to be very well administered, and these calls
invariably result in a recorded message saying something to the effect
"This service cannot be accessed from the phone you are dialing from.
Please call <insert regular non-800 or non-900 nubmer here> to make
payment arrangements. <Click>"

Interestingly enough, I can't call the local Pizza Hut from this same
PBX, instead I have to find a "regular" phone line.  It sounds like
the call is never picked up at the other end.  Is this possibly
because valid Caller-ID information isn't going out?  I asked the
clerk at the local Pizza Hut this question and got nowhere ...


Tim ([e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone has seen to it where that
PBX is concerned the ANI and/or class of service message going
forth to the other end is quite explicit: 'do not mess with us at
this number'. Chances are the admin there not only got the PBX
listed with Billed Number Screening where the big three carriers
and local telcos are concerned, but also got the PBX and all
associated trunk lines, etc listed on the Integratel database and
any similar negative listings he could find out about ... which
is good where the IP is concerned also. Contrary to what some
people may think, the electronic houses of prostitution don't
want to waste their time month after month arguing with people
about their services either.

Any of those 'suspicious 800 numbers' you try to call from a pay
phone will get the same response: "go somewhere else to call us,
or call xxx-xxxx and tell us how you plan to pay for it."   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn Foote)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum
Date: 28 Dec 1995 14:04:12 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet


Dave Keeny ([e-mail]) wrote:

> [e-mail] (PhoneRoom) wrote:

>> Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to
>> the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has
>> negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join
>> discussions in a more unbiased area.

>> Please Email [e-mail]

> Any book store of reasonable size will have books in their computing
> section that ...

<snip much good info and comment> ...

> Soliciting" sign.  It would be nice (and totally impractical I'm sure)
> to require telemarketers to have a unique exchange that could be
> blocked by entering a *xx code.

Not to throw gas into a warm area, but ...

There are many VALID issues in the telemarketing areas that could benefit
from a calm rational discussion on this forum.

First, the general term Telemarketing (as *I* am using it here),
involves ANY marketing activity taking place by telephone.  The pizza
I just ordered falls into that catagory.  So does the client who's
system I helped design who is involved in the daily activity of
calling drug stores and and receiving orders for controlled substances
in a seven state area.  So does the client who only hires PhD's as
solicitors ... they sell aerospace technology and maintaince equipment
to end users worldwide.  This kind of "telemarketer" is what keeps
industry running today.  Now ...

The other type: Like it or not, these companies are here to stay.  If
you don't believe me do a little research on related stocks; read the
comments (public records) surrounding the last effort to control that
segment of the industry.  If anyone (you, me, anyone) thinks that they
are going to go away ... well, I've got some nice swamp land <g>.

Both types of companies have technological needs, concerns, and
questions.  If we (the readers here, the moderator, whoever) are
seriously interested in the TeleCommunications Industry, we should be
adult enough to deal with those elements which are less than
desireable without resorting any type of censorship or name calling.
If we want to defeat the (bad?)  telemarketer, we should be willing to
discuss the technology that will allow us to do so, because I don't
think that we are going to get any help from the government or the
phone companies.

By the way, if anyone has knowledge of web sites that discuss ways to
defeat these calls *I* think that this would be a good place to get
that word out.

In the meantime, let us duscuss the technology, and issues; not the
personalties.


**  Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gene Retske)
Subject: Looking For Callback Switch Information
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:08:26 GMT
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.


We are preparing a series of magazine articles and a comprehensive
guide on callback and international resale switching technology.

If you have not received a package from us, and want to be considered
for inclusion, please email or fax us at the location below, and we
will send you a package.


Thank You,

SOLVOX Systems
[e-mail]
Fax [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 17:39 EST
From: Stuart Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tools for Shopping Residential Long Distance Rates


Now there is a central web site listing long distance rates and plans
available from the major long distance carriers for residential
service.

Fone Saver, LLC is celebrating the Grand Opening of its Web Site which
lists information about residential long distance services.  Free hot
dogs and balloons for the kids while they last <grin>!

At this site, you can view the key rates and calling plans (interstate
and international) for the nation's four largest providers of
residential long distance.  Visit the site: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver

Feedback, corrections, and additions from the Digest's readers would be
appreciated.


Stuart Zimmerman   Fone Saver, LLC
"Helping Consumers Save on Long Distance"
[e-mail]   800-313-6631

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 15:50:11 EST
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anyone Know Who Unibridge is?


I understand that they are associated with PCS.  A marketing group of
some sort that is charged with promoting PCS.  Anyone have an address
or a phone?


Steve Samler
Editor, Communications
Individual, Inc.
617 273 6060 x323

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 07:16:13 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject:  811-xxxx in California (was Re: New York Suffolk County)


It was noted that 811-xxxx for the telephone company in California (I
don't know which tel.co., either PacBell or GTE?) translated to some
other number based on where you were calling from.  Those number
translations had to be made public for those who needed to call (from
their offices?) about their account from outside of that particular
service area.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 17:12:16 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Questions


I remembered 14049889664 as giving a busy signal when called via AT&T
without the leading 10732.  So I tried it again, and got the same
result after I had to substitute area code 770 for 404.

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

From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephony Fraud (was Re: AT&T Card Fraud)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:27:31 +0000
Organization: Stac


This reminds me of back when I was working in Santa Clara, CA.  We had
a whole bunch of stuff stolen from various places on site, and it all
went unsolved for several months.  One of the stolen items happened to
be a cellular phone (of which there really weren't all that many of
them back then!).  Our company had reported the phone stolen, so the
phone company indicated that on their records but DIDN'T deactivate
the phone.

The phone company watched the calls being made, and started to notice
a pattern, with one number in particular being called several times.
They then looked in their records, and working with the our internal
security officials, noticed that the last name was the same as an
employee of the external security company with which we had
contracted.  They took that to the police and got a search warrant of
the security officer's home and found many of the stolen items!  It
turns out that the security officer had been calling his brother to
brag about his "winnings".  Talk about stupid!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's an old trick which still works
well. If you want to catch mice, you leave a bit of food in the
mousetrap, right?  Back in the days (early 1980's) when access to
MCI and Sprint had to be done via local seven digit numbers followed
by 'access codes' (which got increasingly longer as the carriers tried
to shake the phreaks off their systems) one common technique of the
carriers' security departments was to deliberatly go on phreak BBS
lines and post a lot of bogus, worthless codes along with one or two
closely monitored good, active codes. Then they would sit back and
watch the fun as the phreaks took the bait and started using those
codes to make calls. Even AT&T security guys would call up the phreak
boards and post a few calling card numbers now and then just to watch
the excitement as the guys would try out the new codes to see how
they worked. Plenty of audit trails in place naturally, with all the
evidence nicely available for the US Attorney's office to review at
a later time.

And what carrier is it in California which seems to make most of its
profits *not* from the legal use of its system but via the fines and
punishment imposed on the *illegal* use of its authorization codes?  I
seem to remember John Higdon -- or it may have been someone else --
telling us about that bunch a few years ago.  They charged very
reasonable rates for lawful use of their network but had some tariff
in place calling for payment of thousands of dollars per call on calls
which were made 'without prior authorization'.  They then deliberatly
left things wide open so that even a brand new baby phreakling could
figure out how to get in. Once someone wandered in, the trap would
catch them and they would get some humongous, hellish bill for
thousands of dollars for the calls they made. Anyone with knowledge
of this care to repeat the story for our newer readers?    PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Eagle Consultants)
Subject: Novell Based Voice Mail
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:08:37 GMT
Organization: Interport Communications Corp.


I was looking to become an agent for a Novell based Voicemail
software.  I sent one of my employees for training and he left my
company.

Now I am stuck with three copies of the voice mail software.  I would
like to unload it with covering my cost: $3,000.

Anyone interested?

The software is great.  You can view your messages off the LAN, chose
the messages you wish to read, program you voicemail in Windows, set
your pager to beep you, forward your messages with email, use a text
to voice and voice to text reader etc.

Please send me an answer directly:


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Ewanco)
Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator'
Date: 28 Dec 1995 10:11:56 -0500
Organization: Xyplex Inc.


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

> I need a little help defining some equipment for an application.

> The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that
> will:

> a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or;

> b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is
> a  voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user-
> directed assistance.

I see a problem here.  Originating data modems of the modern sort will
not speak unless spoken to; they do not present their originating
carrier until they hear an answer carrier.  If they never hear an
answer carrier first, they will hang up and report a failure.  This is
in contrast with dumb faxes, which will sit there merrily chirping
even if there is nothing at the other end.

This means that in order to detect a V.34 (or below) carrier, you
first have to offer one, which, if it is a voice call, is going to
probably induce rapid connection termination. :-)


Eric Ewanco  [e-mail]
Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.
Littleton, Mass.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Breuckman)
Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator'
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:10:50 GMT


The problem is that ORIGINATING modems do not send any carrier -- so
you would have to direct all calls to a modem for a few seconds of
answer tone before you could tell if it was a modem calling or a voice
caller. Most voice callers would probably hang up on you if they were
not aware that this was to be expected.  The V.34 answer sequence is
quite a mess of tones and 'noise' - and if the caller is using a 2400
modem it won't respond for quite a distance into the sequence.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest
Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:05:06 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.


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

> My question is simple: in more than two decades of the Internet, why has
> pornography suddenly become a matter of overwhelming concern to
> legislators?

    [snip]

> As a fairly active participant on the Internet, I have yet to see any of
> this dreaded pornography. But then I have not gone looking for it, either.
> Makes me wonder about those who rail against it so hard.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is, quite simply, because of the
> large number of people who have just begun to discover the Internet.
> In the past, the use was so limited relative to the large number of
> people around; now with millions and millions of new users coming on
> board this was bound to happen. Was it me to made the analogy to
> CB radio a couple years ago?  I hate to say "I told you so,"  but
> I did tell you so.    PAT]

It's a pretty bad analogy, though.  If you turn on the CB radio you
hear tremendous noise.  On internet, you only get what you ask for (or
look for) plus-or-minus some occasional junk mail or some such.  John
just said that he has turned on his "Internet-CB" and not heard this
dreaded cacophony.  Neither have I.

The main problem seems to be that those who go looking for it can find
it.  Either those are people looking for something to raise an alarm
over, or those who actually want to see it.  The bluenoses can go jump
in a lake as far as I am concerned.  The fraction of the second group
who are under age is the only set of users for whom such alarms might
be justified, and home and parental control is the answer, not
government regulation.


/J


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right, but the more people
there are involved, the more bluenoses there will be. The reason you
do not hear the traditional cacophony is because the transmission
methods differ. On the radio, everyone spoke (or cursed, or heckled
or harassed) at the same time. For several years in the 1980's here,
the 11 meter (CB radio) band was constant heterodyne. Just squeals
and hisses and the occassional person a thousand miles away running
enough power that he came bleating out through your radio above all
the noise. From the 1960's when a relatively few number of people
were involved in CB -- most of whom were also amateur radio operators
with intelligence -- to the middle 1970's things were fine. Because
the airwaves were so clear we *could* talk all over the midwest using
two or three watts of power. It was incredible, it was the people's
answer to unlimited free speech. When I keyed that microphone I knew
I would be heard clearly all over the Chicago area.

Then between about 1975 and 1980 or so, *millions* of people bought CB
radios and got on the air. Most of these people had no interest
whatsoever in the gentlemen's agreements which had evolved over the
decade before. For instance, there were informal rules about using
upper or lower sideband on certain channels and AM transmissions on
other channels. There were informal rules about using certain channels
for motorists on the expressway, and certain channels for teenagers.
There were federally mandated rules on other aspects of CB.

      (does any of this sound familiar, anyone?)

Most had no idea how their radio operated and no interest in learning
about the technical aspects. All they knew was they could turn it on
and use it. They had no idea *how* it worked, or *why* it worked, or
*how and why* the simple agreements some of us obeyed came to be in
existence. All they knew was, they bought their equipment at Radio
Shack the day before and they were entitled to use it the same as
everyone else. So what if you did not want to hear them ... you would
respond, "I bought my radio at 'the Shack' also, and I don't want to
listen to you, and I was having a conversation on this channel first
so would you please go somewhere else to talk ..." Their answer would
be something inane like, "My radio has sideband on all forty channels
and I guess that means it is legal to talk on sideband here." Well
yes indeed it was legal, but we who had been around awhile had agree-
ments which went beyond legal and included courtesy.

       (does any of this sound familiar, anyone? Your computer
       receives six thousand newsgroups, and you bought your
       computer at Radio Shack so it must be legal for you to
       post on all six thousand news groups, right?)

The old-time CB'ers would get disgusted and debate these things over
and over ...'they ought to make the new guys pass a written test
before they get to take the radio out of the store ... they ought
to measure their IQ level and demand a minimum level of 85 before
letting them buy a radio ...' Guys worked to develop filters and
other ways of screening out the nonsense. The flame wars (yes,
we had flame wars on CB) went on and on for days. When people got
angry enough they would get in their car and go tracking down the
signal of their radio enemy. After some digging and investigation
they'd find out where the trouble-maker was broadcasting from.

       (any of this sound familiar at all, anyone?)

By 1980 CB here in Chicago and most major cities was just solid
heterodyne; thousands of people talking at once with the speaker
on the radio just hiss, static and noise. The old-timers who
knew how got more power to use; they rationalized it saying it
is 'the only way to cut through the mud out there tonight'. Of
course the racists, antisemitics, Bible preachers, and crackpot
fringe got through okay since they had been running high powered
radios all along. The Nazi people would go on the air and say
something perfectly awful about black people, and use at least
two thousand watts of effective radiated power to say it aimed at
the south side of Chicago. 'The brothers' would hear the message
as it blasted out of the speaker on their radio and their response
would be to turn their own linear amplifiers on and do a little
preaching of their own disrupting communications all over the
city for the rest of the night.

You may think the current Secret Service/FBI agents are pretty
agressive when they come to your home investigating computer crime.
Well let me tell you, the Federal Communications Commission had some
hard-nosed street investigators also ... not a bunch to bother with
formalities, they'd get a belly-full of the heterodyne and triangulate
in on the worst offenders and kick your door down walking right in.
Like cybercops today, the radiocops grabbed everything they could find
that slightly looked like radio equipment to use as 'evidence' against
you. If you ever got it back (only if the court ordered its return)
then it would always be all busted up. Everytime the radiocops had a
raid somewhere, the word would soon be out on the airwaves about it
and everyone else would know about it in a few hours. They would then
hide their illegal equipment in the event the radiocops came for them
next. To save themselves, the CB'ers would tattle on each other to the
radiocops: "have you checked out so-and-so yet?" ...

   (does any of this sound familiar at all, anyone?)

And I hate to disappoint Senator Exon and others, but vicarious
pedophelia did not start when Compuserve invented 'CB Simulator'
chat rooms back in 1981. The guys who are into that were doing it
on the radio back in the 1970's; chatting with young boys who had
just installed a new CB radio, and arranging to meet them to 'help
them with their new equipment' ... quite obviously the conversations
could not be as open as they are in private chat rooms, but there
were quite a few cases of kids going to meet older guys, etc. They
were vague about the meeting place; never any actual street address
was given out over the air, just 'on the corner of Oak and Polk at
ten' ... a newspaper columnist wrote in the {Chicago Tribune} around
1980 that 'intelligent child molestors know how to use their CB
radio to pick up kids' ... and to his way of thinking (and, I might
add, a few politicians at the time) this was a good reason why
the radios should be banned or highly regulated. Naturally the CB'ers
responded by going off on tangents about Free Speech and the First
Amendment and why can't parents be responsible for their kids and
since its legal to talk about it on the radio in Outer Slobovia what
happens if atmospheric conditions cause the signal to skip and I
hear it on my radio here thousands of miles away; how can the radiocops
punish me, etc ad nauseum.

Did you really think all those were new issues, unique to our present
medium? After awhile, people got tired and bored and quit using CB.
Give Usenet another year or two at most.      PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 11:23:36 -0500
From: Dave Farber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Elegy For a Free Press


Passed along to the Digest FYI:

EDITORIAL
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent
Hollywood, Calif.   12/21/95


ELEGY FOR A FREE PRESS
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent

We still find it hard to believe that our President will betray
the First Amendment and his duties to the Constitution of the United
States by signing into law the censorship legislation contained in the
larger telecommunications reform bill, but that now seems inevitable.

Frankly, for one reason or another, that will almost certainly
mean the death of The American Reporter, a brave, struggling, desperate
little journal that tried to make reporters owners of their destiny.

Most reporters are not very brave, though, perhaps preferring to
watch from the sidelines than to be in the trenches, and subscribers are
not sufficiently generous to keep us going.  Now that we have also taken
upon ourselves the task of challenging the Congress of the United States
and the President, our fate is probably sealed.

It is painful to contemplate spending the next two years in a Federal
prison for violating a law that violates the First Amendment, but it
is very possible that all the lawyers in Congress, and all the lawyers
that work for them, and all the lawyers that work for the lobbyists,
have devised a scheme that will not discomfit five Justices of the
United States Supreme Court.

In that event, the jail terms and fines associated with our challenge
to the legislation will surely prevent our further publication.  That
will be a small tragedy in most lives, though a great one in ours.  We
know how badly the world needs a free and independent press, and how
badly the corporate giants want a controlled, pliable press.  Congress
has given the latter their way.

It would be our observation that as long as they are paid every two
weeks, most journalists will go along, loudly protesting all the
while, but resisting the appeal to civil disobedience their own hearts
must make.  Few have distinguished themselves in this debate, and
those that have are still contributing to The American Reporter.

We will continue to publish at least long enough to produce the
article by Judge Steve Russell of Texas, that is to be defended in the
courts by attorney Randall Boe of Arent Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn.

We know it is difficult for most Americans to see the relationship
between a word they consider obscene and the right to be unquiet in our
speech.  To understand, they will have to realize that untrammeled speech
is a threat to those interests that hope to soon control the Internet.

In the pay-as-you-go Cyber Disneyland of our immediate future, the
Net's strong cables of self-created connections will become strands of
angel hair pasta and a fiber optic lure to the unwary.  Not only the
classic "seven dirty words" but words that recreate lovemaking or voice
the reality of human experience will be forbidden.

Indecency is not the world of slaughter and depredation found in
Bosnian war crimes or the gluttonous hoarding of public money from the
poor, nor the vast poverty of spirit our entertainment industry creates,
and not the ugly deaths of children shot down in the streets of New York,
Chicago and Los Angeles.

These are unoffensive, but the anger they arouse, the language of
uninhibited love and the celebration of freedom in which their expression
is contained, is now to be offensive and obscene.

We love our country more than we should, or would we not be so hurt to
see its blessings betrayed.  Of all of those, none is greater than the
right to speak and write freely, and none is more worth dying for.  We
have vowed to challenge the law that would diminish those rights, and
we will.  We expect that others will follow, at a safe distance.

To do less would be to avoid the responsibility of Americans to
defend with all our heart and might the tenets of our freedom and our
precious Bill of Rights.


                      The American Reporter
          Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter
                       All Rights Reserved

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #534
******************************


From [e-mail]  Thu Dec 28 21:49:52 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id VAA01005; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 21:49:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 21:49:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #535

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Dec 95 21:49:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 535

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Absolutely Amazing Free Catalog (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: 10-732 ANI Number (Phil Ritter)
    Re: Fax --> E-Mail (Richard Shockey)
    Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Jim Warner)
    "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Rob Hickey)
    Operator Interrupts (was: *66 Works on Ticketmaster) (Mark Brader)
    Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones? (Michael Peshkin)
    New Phone System (George Clute)
    Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Ed Ellers)
    Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Stan Schwartz)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 20:06:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Absolutely Amazing Free Catalog


The fellow I am going to talk about now reads the Digest, but he did
not ask for any special endorsement, nor has he sent any commercial
message to be run here. Still, I want to tell you about the catalog he
sends out from his company. I get them and they are extremely
interesting.

TELECOM PRODUCTS is the name of an interesting sixty page catalog
published about every two months by Mike Sandman. Billing himself as
"Chicago's Telecom Expert" -- which I have no doubt he is -- his
bi-monthly catalog is full of technical reports, short articles of
interest on telephony, and *lots* of illustrations and short blurbs
about things he sells from his shop, which is located in Roselle, IL.

The December/January issue of TELECOM PRODUCTS begins with "the
world's best toner and probe" on page one, along with a digit decoder,
a cable tester, tips about fixing RF on handsets and a 'rubber button
repair kit' and concludes sixty pages later after several interesting
short articles and a few hundred more items for sale with amplified
handsets, a low cost butt-set, and installation/repair tools featured
on the back page. Adapters, analyzers, music-on-hold adapters, caller-
id blockers, AC line monitors, a large stock of repair parts for all
sorts of AT&T equipment including Merlin and Comkey -- with pictures
of it all. It is really a very incredible catalog, and reminds me of
the catalog from the Johnson Company years ago with thousands of
items in it, each with an interesting commentary. The current issue
has a technical bulletin on 'message waiting lamps' and how they work
as well as a technical bulletin on dealing with RF in phone lines.

His merchandise all seems to be reasonably priced. Most of the prices
in his catalog appear to be average or better than average. I strongly
recommend getting a copy and checking it out.

Write [e-mail]     _or_

Mike Sandman
Chicago's Telecom Expert
804 Nerge Road
Roselle, IL 60172
Phone: [phone]

He accepts all major credit cards, checks, etc, and I would be very
surprised if after reviewing his catalog you don't wind up buying
something 'you always wanted' ... it is pretty hard to resist some
of the goodies I saw in there.

When I mentioned that this review would be in the Digest to him a
few minutes ago he was surprised and pleased. I think you will be
also.


PAT

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 14:10:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phil Ritter)
Subject: Re: 10-732 ANI Number


Mike P. Storke writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, Joseph E. Norton
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>> One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664.

>> Interestingly, I also tried this same 770 number with AT&T TeleTravel
>> Service.  The reply I got was: Boop 51362950018 Boop 8880001565

>> Also, the TeleTravel Platform informed me that I could leave a message
>> for this party by pressing 93.  This message only gets spoken when
>> there is no answer-supervision on the line, so guess you are not being
>> charged from home either.  Have to try it from work where we have
>> direct AT&T service.

> Now I've got a weird experience.  With [phone], I get:

> A. With my own carrier (no 10xxx), a message saying to call customer service
> (I suppose Express-Tel's way of telling you a bad number).

> B. With 10732 added, I get 70272182948 after the first beep, the last
> digit is not part of the phone #, and after the second beep, lots of zeros
> ending with a lone one.

> Now the weird part is this:  This is my cellular, and this number correctly
> gave my ANI.  Now when I dial (800) MY-ANI-IS, I get [phone], correct
> NPA and NXX, but incorrect extention number (should be 8294, remember?).Now,
> since this is AT&T Wireless now, is it because they'll give the correct ANI
> to their own system and not to a competitor's (MCI, as I recall), or is
> something else at work here?

Nothing wierd at work at all.  No corrolation to AT&T (the long
distance company) and AT&T Wireless' new relationship.  No particular
wierness related to Express-Tel either.

It has to do with is the way the cellular carriers connect to the
PSTN and with AT&T's "software defined network", as follows:

1.  1-800-MY-ANI-IS reads out a number that is not related to you mobile's
    directory number because most (not all, but most) cellular carriers
    deliver calls to 800 numbers to an end-office connection, without
    ANI (this, BTW, is called "Type-1 Wireless Interconnect").  The
    number that you heard read back is the billing telephone number of
    the end office where your carrier delivers calls to 800+.  [BTW -
    1-800-MY-ANI-IS is pin-code protected now - how are you still using
    it ;-)].

2.  The reason that 10-732-770-988-9664 works is that AT&T (the LD
    company, not the wireless company) uses the PIC 732 for their
    "software defined network", a kind-of wide-area centrex-like
    service where each customer group has a private dial plan and
    customers are put into customer groups based upon what their ANI
    is.  They also have a dial plan for unknown ANI's, which is how
    their 'TeleTravel' service is implemented.  The 770-988-xxxx office
    code is translated to a number that does not necessarily have
    anything to do with with the 770-988-xxxx in Smyrna, GA.  In fact,
    the unfortunate truth is that ATT/SDN was using the "770" NPA for
    services like "Teletravel" before the code split in Georgia (pity
    the poor soul in Smyrna with 770-988-6594).  The reason that they
    can properly read back your ANI is 'cause ANI is almost always
    passed from Cellular carriers to long distance carriers (otherwise,
    the LD carrier could not produce bills).

3.  The reason that Express-Tel does not handle calls to 770-988-9664
    is likely because they have not implemented the 404/770 split
    completely.  You should call their business office at the number in
    their message and complain (permissive for this split was supposed
    to end 12/1/95).


Phil Ritter    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Shockey)
Subject: Re: Fax --> E-Mail
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 00:23:35 GMT
Organization: Nuntius Corporation


Those of you interested in this FAX to E-Mail issue might be
interested in the following press release.  I suspect this is just the
first of many offerings that are similiar.


Send, Receive and Manage Faxes Over The Internet

   CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 19 , 1995--NetManage,
Inc., the leader in TCP/IP for Windows applications, and Internet
productivity software, released today the industry's first
Windows-based Fax Server that allows users to send and receive
facsimile documents directly from their Windows PC using state-of-the
art Internet technology.

   Chameleon Fax Server provides users with everything needed to send,
receive, route and manage their faxes over the Internet.  Chameleon
Fax Server is ideal for the office or corporate workgroups
standardizing on SMTP mail transport as part of their intranet
business solution.

   "Chameleon Fax Server dramatically increases user communication
options using core Internet technology.  Chameleon Fax Server easily
integrates into existing SMTP mail/messaging infrastructure and
expands the use of the corporate intranet," said Willie Tejada, vice
president of product marketing, NetManage.

Send, Receive and Manage Faxes Easily

   Chameleon Fax Server seamlessly integrates with NetManage's
Chameleon Desktop mail client and runs on Windows and Windows 95
platforms.  Chameleon Fax Server eliminates the need for fax machines
and allows users to send/receive, view and manage faxes over the
Internet.

   According to Mason Wright, network administrator for Korg USA
Inc., "NetManage's innovative new fax solution integrates nicely with
our corporate SMTP mail system, and provides an inexpensive, easy to
install and manage, and answers all of our PC desktop fax needs."

   The powerful combination of Chameleon Desktop's mail client and
the Chameleon Fax Server provides corporations with a complete fax
client and server solution.

   Chameleon Mail supports MAPI (Messaging Application Programming
Interface) and provide users with a point and click solution for
sending and receiving MS word or other MAPI-compliant application
files.  Chameleon Desktop includes the NEWTView application for
viewing fax documents.  Chameleon Fax Server's DID (Direct Inward
Dial) support allows users to automatically receive faxes in their
mailbox as a MIME (Multi-purpose Internet mail extension) attachment.
Thus, eliminating the task of retrieving faxes from a fax machine.

   To expedite the sending of faxes, users can store important fax
numbers in the Chameleon Mail Address Book or in the company's ECCO
phonebook.  Once the user sends a fax the data is stored in the Fax
Log by date, time, number dialed, size and length of document.
Additionally, inbound faxes are marked by subject and sender and can
be stored into folders by defining Chameleon Mail rules.

   Chameleon Fax Server provides fax administrators with tools for
defining authorized users, configuring fax cards and other customized
fax features.  Chameleon Fax Server's Coordinator application is
ideal for corporations requiring a centralized fax solution.  The
Coordinator allows fax administrators to view the first page of all
faxes and route it to designated recipients.

   This special viewing feature provides an extra security feature
for securing confidential documents.  Chameleon Fax Server supports
over 300 Fax cards including Class 1, 2, 2.0, CAS (PureData
SatisFAXion) or GPI (GammaLink fax) fax cards and allows
administrators to streamline product into the network quickly.

About Chameleon Mail

   Chameleon Mail is a feature rich mail system based on the
Internet-standard SMTP and is developed for corporate intranet users
and administrators.  It provides all the features and benefits of a
proprietary mail system while using industry-standard protocols --
negating the need for gateways -- while providing the advantages of
performance, interoperability and scalability.  Chameleon Mail
operates over any standard TCP/IP network.

Pricing and Availability

   Chameleon Fax Server is available immediately for US $299 for a
30 user license.

   Chameleon Mail is included in the Chameleon Desktop application
suite and is available in Windows and NT platforms.  Chameleon
Desktop is priced at $400 per single copy and includes over 50
desktop applications including host connectivity, file and printer
sharing, messaging, workgroup collaboration, desktop management and
Internet access.  A Windows 95 version will be available in Q1 1996.

About NetManage

   NetManage, Inc., the fastest growing public software company in
the United States, develops, markets and supports an integrated set
of applications, servers and development tools for Microsoft Windows,
Windows 95 and Windows NT.  NetManage's software facilitates the
communication, collaboration and sharing of information between
corporate workgroups using Internet technology.  The company's
award-winning products include Chameleon, Internet Chameleon and
ECCO.

   NetManage also develops terminal and printer emulation software
called Swift, which supports SNA and the migration from SNA to
TCP/IP-based networks.  NetManage is a public company, whose shares
are traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol NETM.  Its products
are sold world-wide by NetManage's direct sales force and authorized
channel partners.  Contact NetManage at http://www.netmanage.com or
408/973-7171.

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

Richard Shockey             Developers of Fax on Demand Systems
President                   For Business, Industry, Government
Nuntius Corporation                   and Media Markets.
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119             For a Demonstration Call:
Voice 314.968.1009 x110            314.968.3461
FAX   [phone]
Internet [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Warner)
Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps
Date: 28 Dec 1995 22:48:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


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

> Does anyone have any experience with any special T-1 line coding
> requirements (B8ZS) for V.34 28.8 kbps modems?

I'll jump in here even though my information is second hand.  The
University has an Ericcson MD110 PBX.  Incoming DID trunks are 28K ft
copper local loops.  The MD110 is a digital switch so any modems
attached to its ports get an "extra" trip through D/A and A/D
conversion.  This is similar to what you'd get with an analog SLC.
Our result is that V32 modulation works fine.  V32bis (14.4K) is
marginal to poor.  V34 is hopeless.

V.34 modems on direct CO copper circuits (same length) work fair to
good; about 80 percent 28.8K connections.

The MD110 is a distributed architecture switch.  It's line card
processors are connected to a group switch with AMI T1s (actually
E1s).  We've been told by Ericcson tech support that another customer
with similar modem performance to ours switched their internal T1s
from AMI to B8ZS and saw an improvement in modem performance.

This makes sense to me.  There are CSUs in the system.  It is THEIR
JOB to modify user data by inserting extra 1's to avoid violating the
AMI 1's density rules.  That modification sounds like noise to me.

The similarity I mentioned in my first paragraph does not extend
to robbed bits.  The MD110 does its hook supervision stuff completely
out of band.

In summary, tech support from our PBX vendor says that line coding
IS important for high speed modem performance.


jim warner     network engineer, UCSC

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

From: Rob Hickey <[e-mail]>
Subject: "PCS Faces Rough Road"
Date: 28 Dec 1995 21:57:05 GMT
Organization: ftn Internet


An interesting article appeared in the {Globe and Mail} (Canada) regarding
the future of PCS.  The author, Geoffrey Rowan, appears to cast doubt
on the viability of PCS providers; he maintains that cellular technology
will not be quickly missplaced for the following reasons:

1)  PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are
practically giving away cell phones;

2)  PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most
cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends;

3)  PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest
cell phones;

4)  PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles.

Mr. Rowan questions why the PCS industry would spend billions in
infrastructure to duplicate services that already exist.

Is there merit to these arguments, and do the same conditions apply in
the United States (given that millions have already been spent on
licenses)?


Thanks in advance,

Rob

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Operator Interrupts (was: *66 Works on Ticketmaster)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 21:18:46 GMT


> [*66 is] pointless for heavily-used busy numbers.  By the time you get
> the ringing, and pick up the phone, the desired line is busy again

> You've got much higher chances getting in by pushing 'redial' or
> trying to "operator emergency interrupt" from time to time.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The use of 'operator emergency interuppt'
> is definitly NOT a recommended action. In many locations, declaring that
> an emergency exists for any reason, including manipulation of the phone
> network to get others off the line -- when in fact no emergency exists --
> is a crime. ...]

In Bell Canada territory, operator interrupts do not require an emergency.
 On page 29 of the 1995 metro Toronto phone book:

    There is a charge of $2.00 to confirm a line is busy and a
    charge of $4.25 for the interruption.  If both are requested
    during the same call, the interruption charge will apply.
    These charges DO NOT apply when: the called line is not busy,
    the receiver of the called line is off the hook, the operator
    finds trouble on the line, the request comes from a hotel
    switchboard or if it is a call to which long distance charges
    apply.

Those charges are in Canadian dollars, and incidentally, are about
three times the amounts I remember being informed of a few years ago
when they were introduced.

Of course, this wouldn't help with reaching companies like Ticketmaster
 ... they'd just hang up on you.  At least, I assume they would.


Mark Brader, [e-mail], SoftQuad Inc., Toronto


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The point is, do not claim to have any
emergency condition. We get the same services here in Chicago you
mention in Toronto and I think the prices and terms are quite similar.
I don't think many people use the service.  PAT}

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Peshkin)
Subject: Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 16:40:58 -0600
Organization: Northwestern University


Is there a source for what they don't tell you about cellphones in the
users manual?  Like, how to read out and/or program the phone's id
number?  Every salesperson knows how to do this, so it can't be too
great a secret.

Why do I want to know?  Nothing unethical.  I'd like to use a spare
phone as an emergency phone in my other car, sharing a number.  (Of
course if both ever got turned on at the same time, they'd probably
disconnect my service, but I can avoid doing that.)  Also I'm just
curious what are all the things you can do that they don't tell you
about.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are various books you can
purchase with information and instructions on programming cellphones.
One example which comes to mind is Bishop. I forget the exact title
of their book but you would find it in some technical book stores.

Actually, you can *not* share a number between two phones as you
propose, or certainly not with your level of expertise. The reason
is both phones need to share the same ESN, or electronic serial
number, and that is the one thing which is difficult or usually
impossible to modify ... again, for most people. *If* you had an
easy to handle method of cloning the one phone with the ESN of the
other then what you propose would work as long as both phones were
not turned on at the same time. As you are set up now, even if you
knew how to program the spare phone with the number and other
specifications of the main phone, once you did so calls would still
fail to complete. Why?  Because the tower looks not only at the
phone number transmitted to it, but also the ESN, and if the two
do not match the carrier's records, then too bad for you. Naturally
your original phone would match the carrier's records as to ESN but
the other one would not. One call might slip past on the spare phone,
especially if you were roaming out of your 'home' area, but then by
the time you wanted to make a second call, the carrier would have
gotten word back from your home carrier that, 'hey ... there is an
ESN mismatch; this phone is not authorized ...'

Now there are a lot of things you can do to modify the parameters
in your phone *if you know the code to unlock the phone from the
keypad* and get into 'test' or 'local' mode. You can change the
phone number (a lot of good it will do, remember the ESN and phone
number must match on carrier records); you can change the carrier
id code for your 'home' service; you can often times change the way
the phone operates (ie. dial only from memory locations with
keyboard itself disabled; disallow toll by only allowing seven
digits; disallow any outgoing calls at all taking only incoming
calls, etc); you can change the generally worthless 'access level'
which none of the carriers ever use anyway, etc. It is strongly
recommended that before changing *anything*, you make copious notes
about the status of *everything* first so it can all be restored ...
otherwise we'll soon be seeing you at the cellphone programming and
repair shop here in Skokie on Church Street when you show up wimpering
and begging for someone to bail you out of the mess ...  <g> ...

Since most cellphones have a limit as to the number of times they can
be programmed, you'll soon find yourself locked out unless you learn
the 'short the battery to ground' technique or one of its variations
used by different cellphone manufacturers. Typically, a certain pin
on the battery or the back of the phone where the battery connects
has to be held low or grounded while the phone is turned on, and then
a special access code entered on the keyboard. This gets you into the
'deep programming' mode where you can do such things as convince the
phone to forget about the number of times it has previously been
programmed and let you start all over again. You can also do such
things as unmute the audio and manually select channels you wish to
monitor.

I suggest you might want to review Volume 2 issue 5 of {Private Line},
a magazine published bi-monthly by Tom Farley. The September/October,
1995 issue has a lengthy article by Damien Thorn on the subject of
'Cellular Test Mode Scanning'. It might very well discuss the model
of phones you are using; it certainly has plenty listed along with
the codes to get into programming mode on each. Send five dollars in
cash, check or money order to Tom Farley, 5150 Fair Oaks Blvd, #101-348,
Carmichael, CA 95608. That six digit number in the middle I guess is
because he goes through a remail or mail drop service, which I think
is a prudent thing to do under the circumstances. You can also email
him: [e-mail].

Remember: ESN and phone number as they appear in the carrier's records
have to match, else service will be denied. Generally, you cannot
change the ESN, and if you diddle with the phone number or carrier id
code too much, the ESN will get blacklisted. And remember, the cellphone
repair place is at 5115 Church Street in Skokie, where they will look
at you and snicker as they take the phone in a back room where you
cannot see what they are doing and reprogram it correctly. Two minutes
later they'll come back out, you'll hand over the money they tell you
to give them, and you will walk out with your phone properly humiliated.

So what's a Northwestern guy doing around here this week? Why not out
at the Rose Bowl with at least half the population of the campus and
Evanston?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (George Clute)
Subject: New Phone System Getting Installed
Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:10:25 GMT
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA


I'm about to start a new project and place a new Unix based network
into a 30 or 40 user configuration.  I'll be using the cat 5 wire and
would like to make some recommendations on changing their old
electro-mechanical phone system to something that will take them into
the next century.

I'm not much of a phone guy and need to get up to speed on the new
phone stuff.

Are there applications to integrate phones and Unix based phone
systems?

Who has the lastest and greatest in phone systems?


George Clute    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users
Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:02:15 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire]


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

> Like many people who read this Digest, I subscribe to a small carrier and
> only use AT&T for special occasions, so this change may impact me. I point
> this out because I don't want to sound sanctimonious when I say that most
> 10288 dialers are cream skimmers who are taking advantage of AT&T's regular
> customers.

> I don't like price increases either, but it is silly to pretend that AT&T
> has done something *wrong*. A free market in long distance has to include
> the right to raise prices and to give better prices to frequent customers.

Why?  Would you like it if you went in a store and tried to buy an
item with cash, and were charged a percentage extra because you didn't
have one of the store's credit cards?  That's what this amounts to.
Why can't AT&T simply compete on the basis of how well it treats *all*
customers?

> Most non-subscribers are infrequent customers who tend to use AT&T only for
> the difficult calls that other carriers don't do. From a business point of
> view, why shouldn't AT&T want to make this type of customer pay more? They
> provide minimum revenue and maximum headache.

Because it's the right thing to do, and because AT&T should be trying to
*attract* customers, not drive off all but a few.

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*!
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:00:04 -0500


In TELECOM Digest V15 #514, Eric Friedebach  wrote:

> I was making a flight connection at the Charlotte Douglas Intl.
> Airport in Charlotte, NC today when I noticed that about one in
> five of the BellSouth payphones in the terminal have a special
> coin box installed in them with a full color Olympic logo with
> the words *Official Sponsor of the 1996 U.S. Olympic Team*.
> Very colorful and unique!
> I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such
> promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are
> a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is). So the question
> is; what's going to happen to all those special coin boxes after
> the 1996 Games? Maybe some BellSouth employees will have a neat
> little bookend on their shelves in 1997 ...

Those coin boxes started to appear in the last few weeks, as the
Southern Bell art on the phones was changed to BellSouth.  I get the
feeling that you're right about the bookends.  About ten years ago,
when NYNEX switched its pay phones from ten cents to a quarter, I
happened to be using a phone in a bank of phones that was being
changed.  I asked the tech what he was going to do with the old
plastic inserts (that were of historical value only), and his answer
was, "You want em?".  He then plopped them down on the shelf of the
phone I was on, and a grateful me finished my call so he could convert
the phone that I was using.  Those cards are still around here
somewhere.


Stan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #535
******************************


From [e-mail]  Fri Dec 29 01:44:12 1995
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id BAA13492; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 01:44:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 01:44:12 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #536

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Dec 95 01:44:00 EST    Volume 15 : Issue 536

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SMDR Data Available? (Jose Cordones)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Shubu Mukherjee)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Dave Levenson)
    Suggestions For PC Voicemail Software? (Mickey Ferguson)
    Want to Buy: Old Telephone Set (Daniel Rosenberg)
    Re: D3 Channel Bank Question (Pat Martin)
    Re: MFJ vs. Internet Development (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Pat Martin)
    Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Pat Martin)
    Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? (D. Brent)
    The Day The Bell System Died (Lauren Weinstein/TD 1983 Reprint)

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:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     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] (Jose Cordones)
Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 20:31:18 -0500
Organization: spacelab.net Internet Access


Doug Smith ([e-mail]) wrote:
[clip]

>> 2. If the answer to 1. is negative, what are my options for extending the
>> capabilities of some "simple" PBX such as the AT&T Partner by connecting
>> it to a PC.  For example, if I wished to have a system where a caller is
>> identified with CID, looked up on a database, offered a voice prompt
>> [for a PIN #], and if they match, give clearance to call.  Alas, if I

> On the Toshiba, it only outputs SMDR data when the call is completed
> or transferred so that it can contain the final time.  This makes it
> impossible to do any intellegent call routing or database lookup at
> the start of a call.  I know this is true with some other systems as
> well.  I once heard of a company that put every caller on hold and
> transferred them in order to capture the SMDR.

Doug,

I did some RTFM'ing with the manual for the AT&T Partner II and like
you and others pointed out, it's pretty much obvious that SMDR data
varies across models, let alone vendor.  Bad Thing(tm).  For that
particular ailment, I am thinking of a configurable parser that
basically is specified its legal inputs by a language grammar.

As for the delivery time of the SMDR data, it is quite braindead, so
the information is dumped to you some time after the call is
completed.  Like I had suspected in my first posting, it seems I will
have to hack an interface compatible with a System phone.  Why, you
ask?  SMDR is really lousy for the parts where I would like to:

1. authenticate caller at beginning of transaction.
2. have more or less real time limits on the phone usage for each user,
and to boot, most users will be remote.

OTOH, System Stations are given CID info by the PBX (when properly
set-up, of course) if they are the ones that pick-up the call.  Let me
avoid confussion by defining that "system" refers to the computer,
System Station refers to sort of the super-user PBX extensions (exts.
10 and 11 on the Partner), interface refers to the device to be built.

The System Station/interface's ability to read CID info on inbound
calls takes care of reqirement 1.  I feel that I can safely make the
assumption that as long as SMDR doesn't spit out an entry for a given
call, the call is in progress.  So, that trick takes care of
reqirement 2.  Even if SMDR is "late" by a few seconds in giving me
the information at the end of a particular call, I should have a timer
on the system for that on-going transaction.  If, for example, the
time reaches the user's limit, it doesn't matter that SMDR hasn't spit
out the info, my timer says it is past due.  Finally, when SMDR does
print the info, I have the actual PBX time at which the call was
ended.  So, SDMR is good as a sanity-checker, but the actual
accounting needs to be done with some kind of interfacing that behaves
like a System Phone.  Other capabilities I'd need to add include
touch-tone detection, for PIN verification and perhaps manual entering
of "originating" telephone numbers on "Out of Area," etc. types of
inbound calls; Recorded-prompts (on some voice-EPROMS?) to play back,
etc. would be nice.

To recap: the user calls up the PBX, which is routing all the calls to
the station(s) controlled/signalled by the phone system; The system
CID's the user and looks up the PIN for that user.  The user is
prompted for PIN. If CID number and PIN number match a pair in the
database, access is granted.  User now has rights to a line.
Basically, the system is the one receiving the numnber to be dialed
from the user, so it needs to decode it.

Once decoded, it dials the number for the user on a second line and
joins them (possibly by CONFerencing them or by transfering the caller
to the same line as the callee.  Depends on the PBX.  Once they are
joined, the call is said to be in progress and the counters are
happily running and the system is guarding the user's allowed time
(limits are imposed, etc. so a long distance call cost database is
needed).

So far, I only know that I have quite some RTFM'ing ahead of me for
months to come.  It seems there's pretty much an IC for every use out
there, and if there's none, there's one very close to it.  So far I
have seen a book (title escapes me) with basic projects in Electronics
for Telephony, and a series of articles in Electronics-Now that
cleverly use some ICs.  It seems my recourse is to comb the IC Master
Manuals and find chips with capabilities "close" to my task, but this
is bound to be tedious and error-prone.  Does anyone have more direct
recommendations on books (from beginner to advanced) about Telephony
Projects, about the common Telephony electronic parts, etc.  Perhaps a
version of the IC Master Manual only with Telephony stuff?

As for TAPI, TSPI, etc.  I had read Intel's homepages and it was of no
help.  I now have checked Microsoft's TAPI page and they actually
bother to provide info.  From the Intel disinformation part, my
fingers itched to tell you "but I want the computer to control many
lines, not one ..." but I just found a paper (ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/
developr/TAPI/CLTSRV.ZIP) that claims "dispells the belief that TAPI
can't do third party call control and gives a suggestion on how to
impliment both the client and the server TAPI components."  The format
seems to be "Power Point Text[?]" and I can't read it, though :-/
Are there other any advanced books out on TAPI, even if from Microsoft
or Intel?  A friend tells me that Apple has a Telephony API, too, but
I don't know any more, at this time.  I'll be hunting.  Any comments?

I don't have the manual for the Partner II on me but I volunteer to
collate a file of SDMR formats as reported by other readers and by PBX
models/manuals I run across.  Any takers?  Just quote the page where
SDMR is described on your manual and I'll quote it directly on that
file.  Soon we should have a fairly decent SDMR file and it can be
made available over FTP.  So that we save bandwidth, mail your entries
to [e-mail].  Questions about the status of the file,
too.  You will be entirely credited as having submitted your entries.

It seems this is going to be a lot of fun, I'll keep you posted.


Jose Cordones <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Shubu Mukherjee)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 29 Dec 1995 01:35:33 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you *did* call their number.
> You said so yourself.

Never!  :-) Don't jump to conclusions.  Never ever did I say that any
where in my posts.  We called them ___after___ we received our bill.
Clear?

If you still doubt it, check my previous posts and show me where I
said so.

> we know you called them and how long you were on the line,

Aren't you being a bit judgmental?


Shubu Mukherjee        Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
[e-mail]      http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well okay ... let's let it pass for now
with my wishes to you for a Happy New Year.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 01:26:51 GMT


Our moderator writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the adult/sex IP's out there *claim*
> they give ample notification of their charges. They *claim* that if you
> remain on the line you do so of your volition and with full knowledge
> of the cost of the call, and your consent for billing.

The problem comes when the rightful owner of the billed telephone is
not the one on the line.  PBX-owners, payphone owners, and others who
make telephone service available to the public are in serious trouble
under Pat's rationalization.  If calling an 800 number can result in
charges to the calling party, then it is no longer safe to allow the
public to call 800 numbers.  How useful is an 800 number if it can
only be called from residence lines?


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you will find however that
most of these funny numbers actually are non-dialable from pay phones.
Whenever I find an 800 number of the kind we have been discussing,
I always try it from a payphone, and preferably a COCOT style payphone
just to see how smart the COCOT proprietor and the information provider
are. If the call goes through, I say fine ... because I think there
should be a plague on both their houses. But time and again, genuine
Bell payphones *never* complete those calls, even if it is an 800
number, because the information provider has access to a database
of phone numbers listed as being in coin service. Quite a few of
the COCOTS are listed that way as well, or else the COCOT owner has
deliberatly listed himself on the negative list at Integratel, etc.
So while your argument sounds good and makes sense, in real life the
800's 'which charge the caller' never can complete from anything but
a private residence. Remember the horoscope people about three years
ago we experimented with? They were the only ones I've ever seen who
did not have themselves covered where pay phones were concerned.  PAT]

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

From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Suggestions For PC Voicemail Software?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:11:42 +0000
Organization: Stac


I've got my brand-new Pentium-75 at home running Win95 (OK, no major
workhorse, but quite a step up from my old 386SX-25!).  I'd like to
find a nice program to handle my answering machine types of functions
at home.  Nothing too fancy, just something to use my modem to answer
the call and store it on my PC hard disk, and then I can retrieve my
messages either at my leisure from my desk, or maybe even retrieve
them remotely by entering some kind of access code.  Any suggestions?
Of course, price is also a consideration!  (Of COURSE!  <g>)

I'll summarize my responses if there is any interest (and I get any
good alternatives).

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel Rosenberg)
Subject: Want to Buy: Old Telephone Set
Date: 29 Dec 95 02:53:14 GMT
Organization: Stanford University


Hi folks --

    I'm looking for individuals or companies that sell old
telephone sets, since I got it into my head that something like
a genuine Western Electric 200 set (or near equivalent) would make
a great gift for my friends with flaky cordless phones.

    If you know of anyone willing to part with one or two of these
beasts, please email me, or phone at 908 464 5269. While I cannot pay
the prices quoted to me in New York City antique boutiques, I'm
willing to part with a reasonable amount for working equipment. By
mail is okay, but individuals or stores in or near Philadelphia, New
Jersey, New York, New England, or Salt Lake City (where I'll be for
the week of 31 Dec-6 Jan) would be preferred.


Thanks,

Daniel Rosenberg, KZSU Radio
http://kzsu.Stanford.EDU/~dmr/

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

From: [e-mail] (Pat Martin)
Subject: Re: D3 Channel Bank Question
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 04:13:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, edshuck@visual-traffic.
com (Edward Shuck) wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Dec 1995 04:52:40 GMT, [e-mail] (Raymon A.
> Bobbitt) wrote:

>> Does anyone know the difference between D3 and D4 framing in a channel
>> bank??

>> I have six D# units and was wondering what I can use them for.

> I have a little experience with this.  Years ago I worked at TRW
> Vidar.  The D3 will work against a D4 set to mode 3.  The D4 will
> handle two D3s in this configuration.

Yeah, correct me if I am wrong, but is not a D4 bank just a single
bank with two full D3 banks built in, often sharing timing and or some
of the CE?  Most of the old dumb banks are sold this way.

There was also the optional tranmission of T2 over copper which sent
both D3 signal down the same set of pairs, but I do not know if that
was D4.


Patrick L. Martin       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 20:29:50 -0800 (PST)


TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> Oh, but you said 'internet' with a lower-case /i/ instead of 'Internet'
> with an upper-case /I/ didn't you ... and there is a difference!
> They are two different things. Upper-case Internet consists of the
> traditional 'domains' ie. .edu, .mil, .gov, .com and .org and it
> was originally the system which interconnected universities and
> the government/military research institutions, etc.  Lower-case
> internet on the other hand is ... well, for lack of a better term,
> the rest of you who have interconnected with the above over the years.

Actually that's not quite right.  The "Internet" is what we are using
to communicate right now; an "internet" (with a lower case i) is *any*
two (or more) networks that are interconnected.  If there's a router,
then there's an internet.

But back to the original question: the Internet as we know it was in
existence long before divestiutre, but on a much smaller scale.  The
'Net originally came about when the Pentagon had a surplus to spend.
The military had (maybe has?) a special unit to dispose of 'unused'
cash so that congress can't get it back.  It's called the Advanced
Research Projects Agency, or ARPA.  The net that was developed was
called ARPANet.  Basically it linked research universities and military
bases.  The TCP and IP protocols were designed specifically for
ARPAnet, and in the early days IP was severly limited.  The routing
protocols used the Distributed Bellman Ford algorithm.  Although it is
simple to implement, it has some serious looping errors that can cause
throughput to drop to a miniscule fraction of the link's bandwidth.

Since ARPANet used leased lines and satellite links, I don't really
believe that divestiture had much to do with the explosion of the
internet. (As I understand it, rates for leased lines did not drop
nearly as much as consumer long distance prices.)  From a technological
standpoint, the physical communication channels haven't changed much at
all.  T1 and T3 lines are still the main backbones between ISPs.

I believe that the "real" cause of the Internet explosion is that the
price of modems and personal computers has dropped dramatically while
the speed and power has greatly increased.


Steve    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pat Martin)
Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 04:28:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Bryan Halvorson) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, Bill Garfield
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> The issue with the SLC-96 and V.34 (28.8) modems is actually one more
>> directly attributable to the use of D4 framing and AMI line coding
>> than blaming the SLC itself.  If the telco will cooperate in setting
>> the SLC up to use Extended Superframe and Binary 8-zero substitution
>> (ESF/B8ZS) then you'll miraculously begin to see lots of 28,800 bps
>> connections.
<snip>
>> It would help the situation if the telco can provide full "integration"
>> of the SLC at the Central Office end (meaning the T1 channels of the
>> SLC are switched digitally in the CO without breaking down to analog
>> ahead of the switch).  Unfortunately this isn't possible if the CO
>> itself is an analog machine.

B8zs and ESF really won't buy any quality improvement for voice
tranmission.  Voice codecs can be set so that an all zero code is
never generated thus ensuring bit density in T1 tranmission as there
is at least one bit set in each byte. This reduces the number of
availible byte codes by 1, from a possible 256 to a possible 255. The
impact on voice quality is virtually non-existant.

Standard T1 signalling does bit rob certain frames for signalling.
Though this does not occur on every frame I have heard of some quality
impact. B8ZS and ESF, however, have no impact on this. The only way to
get around this is to use some type of 'out of band' signalling like
ISDN or CC7.

If the SLC is configurable for out of band this might help (I know
little about SLC-96). I would suspect that the old problem of running
digital to the CO and then interfacing to the switch via analog is
most likely the culprit.  We T1 delivered CO trunks here in Houston
which go through that rigamarole.


Patrick L. Martin       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pat Martin)
Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 04:05:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Rob Hickey
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> An interesting article appeared in the {Globe and Mail} (Canada) regarding
> the future of PCS.  The author, Geoffrey Rowan, appears to cast doubt
> on the viability of PCS providers; he maintains that cellular technology
> will not be quickly missplaced for the following reasons:

> 1)  PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are
> practically giving away cell phones;

> 2)  PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most
> cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends;

> 3)  PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest
> cell phones;

> 4)  PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles.

> Mr. Rowan questions why the PCS industry would spend billions in
> infrastructure to duplicate services that already exist.

> Is there merit to these arguments, and do the same conditions apply in
> the United States (given that millions have already been spent on
> licenses)?

Add to that -

PCS providers will have to pay additional millions, or billions, to
move Private Microwave users out of the 1.9 ghz bands before they can
go on the air with their systems.

However -

PCS companies have lots and lots of money. The big boys like ATT,
Sprint, and all of the baby bells have bought in to PCS heavily. Most
of the PCS companies are partnerships of big boys like the
aforementioned.

PCS companies figure to drop the per minute prices an order of
magnitude and thus generate an order of magnitude of additional market
penetration. What if an average per minute price drop of 50% occurs?
What if that generates 10 times more customers?

ATT and some of the other big boys plan to market nation wide services
which use PCS in some areas and cellular in others. All with the same
telephone. No more roaming, anywhere in the country call in or out for
the standard per minute rate. I call you wherever you are, no extra
charge -- for you or me.

Some are hinting that the monthly cost of a PCS phone will eventually
average about the same as the monthly cost of a wired phone. What
about the market penetration then?

PCS phones will be able to work in moving vehicles. Propagation at 1.9
ghz will be more iffy than with 800 mhz, so the signal saturation will
have to be higher to ensure equivelant reliability. A properly
designed system can meet or exceed current Cellular reliability.

Finally -

One thing is certain, no one can really predict what the technological
world will look like in the next fifty or so years. I once scoffed at
the idea that we would pay to have TV delivered via cable, I won't
make that mistake again.


Patrick L. Martin       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (DBrent8971)
Subject: Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone?
Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:42:56 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (DBrent8971)


> What occurred to me is that NYNEX is limiting call duration because of
> the traditionally high usage of pay phones in train stations, when the
> call is an 800 call.  Does this seem plausible?

First, are you sure it was a NYNEX phone?  Some COCOTs limit the
number of digits you can dial.  This is a fraud protection issue to
prevent DDD calls from being billed to their phone.  If you were able
to obtain several quotes via DTMF inputs and then the pad went dead, I
assume you exceeded the limit.

NYNEX makes access $ from the IXC for every minute you spend on the
800 call, so they would have no reason to disconnect your call.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 00:30:52 EST
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Day The Bell System Died


As we approach the end of another year, we remember the divestiture of
the Bell System with mixed feelings. Now finishing the twelfth year of
post 'Ma Bell' attitudes, we've seen much discussin in the Digest over
the years of 'what might have been', 'what really happened', etc.

Long time -- in fact, charter -- subscriber/reader Lauren Weinstein
sent in a message in 1983 which has since become a traditional classic
here at the end of every year.

This message first appeared in TELECOM Digest in mid-July, 1983 when
divestiture was six months underway. Here it is again ...

   ** DO NOT use the addresses shown here to contact Lauren. They
      are all long since obsolete **

  12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001
  Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM>
  Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT
  Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT
  From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM>
  Subject: "The Day Bell System Died"
  Return-Path: <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM>
  Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
  Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21)
    id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue)
  To: TELECOM@ECLB

Greetings.  With the massive changes now taking place in the
telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly
endless news items and points of information regarding the various
effects now beginning to take place.  However, one important element
has been missing: a song!  Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from
the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own
light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunica-
tions.  This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are
meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner.  The song should be
sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie".  I call my
version "The Day Bell System Died"...

 --Lauren--

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

           *==================================*
           * Notice: This is a satirical work *
           *==================================*


                    "The Day Bell System Died"


              Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein

                      (To the tune of "American Pie")

             (With apologies to Don McLean)


  ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM
  UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren

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

Long, long, time ago,
I can still remember,
When the local calls were "free".
And I knew if I paid my bill,
And never wished them any ill,
That the phone company would let me be...

But Uncle Sam said he knew better,
Split 'em up, for all and ever!
We'll foster competition:
It's good capital-ism!

I can't remember if I cried,
When my phone bill first tripled in size.
But something touched me deep inside,
The day... Bell System... died.

And we were singing...

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

Is your office Step by Step,
Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet?
Everybody used to ask...
Oh, is TSPS coming soon?
IDDD will be a boon!
And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon...

The color phones are really neat,
And direct dialing can't be beat!
My area code is "low":
The prestige way to go!

Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime!
Well, I suppose it's about time.
I remember how the payphones chimed,
The day... Bell System... died.

And we were singing...

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

Back then we were all at one rate,
Phone installs didn't cause debate,
About who'd put which wire where...
Installers came right out to you,
No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo,
And 411 was free, seemed very fair!

But FCC wanted it seems,
To let others skim long-distance creams,
No matter 'bout the locals,
They're mostly all just yokels!

And so one day it came to pass,
That the great Bell System did collapse,
In rubble now, we all do mass,
The day... Bell System... died.

So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

I drove on out to Murray Hill,
To see Bell Labs, some time to kill,
But the sign there said the Labs were gone.
I went back to my old CO,
Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago,
But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn...

No relays pulsed,
No data crooned,
No MF tones did play their tunes,
There wasn't a word spoken,
All carrier paths were broken...

And so that's how it all occurred,
Microwave horns just nests for birds,
Everything became so absurd,
The day... Bell System... died.

So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

We were singing:

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?

<End>

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

[TELECOM Editor's Note: Ma Bell died December 31, 1982. Long live
Ma Bell! A little later today to finish out the present year a new
essay from George Gilder will be distributed and you'll receive my
increasingly frequent request for your annual voluntary donation
to help keep the Digest alive for another year unless you want to
see this Digest go the way of Ma Bell; and I do not mean I'll be
so wealthy and powerful and all-pervasive that I will be required
to divest myself ... <grin, or should that be a frown> ...

Then, over the holiday weekend a few more special mailings will
come out to you including the new 1996 Frequently Asked Questions
File (FAQ) for comp.dcom.telecom, an updated guide/index to the
Telecom Archives with a help file for its use, and an index to
the authors and subjects which appeared in the Digest during 1995.
Sometime early next week we'll start Volume 16 in this continuing
discussion on telecommunications and life in general.   PAT]

              HAPPY   NEW  YEAR  TO  ALL  !!
              =====   ===  ====  ==  ===  ==

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #536
******************************