Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 2:13:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #101 Message-ID: <8903220213.aa05628@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Mar 89 01:48:05 CST Volume 9 : Issue 101 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Philadelphia Inquirer on Caller ID (Scott) More CPID (David Lesher) Re: Calling Party ID (Roger E. Critchlow, Jr) Review of Bulletin Board System (Peresh Dave) [Moderator's Note: Scott very kindly passed along an editorial comment from last Sunday's {Philadelphia Inquirer} which discussed CNID. I thought it was an excellent item. Thanks for typing it all in, Scott! PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Philadelphia Inquirer on Caller ID Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 12:16:52 -0500 From: salex@grad1.cis.upenn.edu This is an article that appeared in Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer. I don't agree with the authors conclusions, but felt that he presented a more balanced view. Scott Caller ID could cut off obscene calls --- but then... by David R. Boldt, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday March 19, 1989 The whole thing seemed reasonably straightforward. The phone company--- Bell of Pennsylvania---has proposed to offer customers a new service that would enable them to know the phone number of the person calling them. This service, one of seven to be offered by the phone company under the collective name of "I.Q. Services," had a couple of advantages, the most obvious being that if the caller turned out to be obscene or the caller turned out to be harassing, there would be no need to helplessly ask plaintive questions like, "What kind of pervert are you?" Instead, you would have the s.o.b.'s phone number right there on the screen of this little box next to your phone. You could turn the number over to police, who could find out whose phone it was, or, if it was from a pay phone, where it was located, by using a "reverse directory." If the call didn't quite make it into a prosecutable form of harassment, the customer could call the creep back at 2 a.m. the next night and give him a little taste of his, or her, own medicine. Or, using another service that will be offered called "Call Block," calls from that number could simply be blocked. So this is a great new breakthrough in solving one of the more bothersome problems of the modern eras, right? Wrong, says the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is requesting that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission delay action on Bell's request pending further hearings. Caller ID, says the ACLU, "will result in widespread violation of personal privacy." So here you have it, summed up right in one neat little package, the reason why George Bush's campaign strategists knew that the ACLU was a "hot button" to press in the past campaign, why one writer in The New Republic could say that these days the ACLU had "about as much to do with civil liberties as... AT&T has to do with telegraphs." Now the ACLU had gone beyond defending the rights of the public to enjoy kiddie pornography in the privacy of their homes. This time it had completely slipped its tether and was seeking to secure the constitutional right {\it to complete an obscene phone call.} Columnist Mike Royko, along with a host of radio talk show hosts, was quickly on the case. "Through a strange twist of logic," Royko recently wrote, "the new service is being called an invasion of the privacy of those who make the phone calls... Maybe my logic is cockeyed, but it seems to me that the person whose phone rings has a first option on privacy and freedom from jerks." Royko argues that the new service is no different from having a peephole in one's front door to see who's there. (With Caller ID the number of the caller is displayed while the phone is ringing.) That all seemed to make a fairly cut-and-dried case of aggravating wretched excess of the part of the ACLU. So I called Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, to ask why he had gone out of his way to prove everyone's negative stereotype of his organization. At that point the plot began to thin. First of all, Steinhardt said, he hadn't gone out of his way to attack Caller ID; the phone company had asked him for his opinion. Secondly, there was a matter of law. Caller ID, as nearly as Steinhardt could see, was a direct violation of a new section of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Surveillance Act. The phone company says this isn't the case, and frankly it's probably best to let the two sides wrestle this out in court. Steinhardt actually has some more compelling arguments to make. First, he notes, there is the matter of people with unlisted phone numbers whose number would now suddenly become known to anyone they called who had Caller ID. Next there were a whole bunch of special cases in which someone might not want the person called to know his or her number. One example might be a doctor whose calls are screened by an answering service, and who doesn't want his patients to have the capacity to bother him at any hour of the day or night. And how about the case of a battered woman, who for some reason must get in touch with the man who is battering her, but who would just as soon not let him know where she is? Then what about the various "hot lines" whose callers need to count on confidentiality---numbers to call for information on AIDS, for example, or to report instances of child abuse? What's more says Steinhardt, he is certain that a major client of Caller ID will be companies who will record the numbers for future use. A person calling an applicance store to check the price on a refrigerator could find himself or herself getting a computer-generated call for every appliance sale that occurs in the area. There it was---the archetypal ultra-liberal bias---a belief that anything on which someone can make a profit is, ipso facto, {\it evil.} Come on, Barry, what about weighing the aggravation of getting a few commercial messages over your phone against the advantage of doing something about the 450,000 reported cases of telephone harassment that occur each year in the state of Pennsylvania? Steinhardt's answer is that another of the new services being offered by the phone company would thwart annoyance calls as effectively as Caller ID, with no threats to any innocent person's privacy. It's called "Call Trace." With Call Trace, the recipient of a an unwanted call can hang up, punch in a three-number code and the number of the caller will be printed out at the annoyance call department of the local telephone business office, which can pass it along to the police. Steinhardt concludes that Caller ID is another example of how "encroaching technology strips away our privacy layer by layer." Personally, if Caller ID is offered, I plan to get it, for several reasons. I'm not afraid to let people have my phone number. I get a lot of nut calls (a few of them from people who don't identify themselves). Finally, none of the problems that Steinhardt warns about appear to have become real problems during the market tests of Caller ID in New Jersey (not yet, anyway). Just the same, I think the questions Barry Steinhardt and the ACLU have raised were worth considering. And I'm even glad they raised them. {\it David R. Boldt is editor of the Inquirer Editorial Page.} ------------------------------ Subject: More CPID Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 22:10:23 EST From: David Lesher Reply-To: wb8foz@cucstud.UUCP (David Lesher,Guest) Organization: guest of Columbia Union College; Takoma Park, MD 20912 I do agree it looks like a quandry with the CPID issue. But I have a few thoughts... 1) Count on the BOCs soaking everybody involved for this {dis}service. They have been looking ever since 84 for anything and everything they can charge extra for. Have you priced a leased line recently? 2) With the US Post Office, you can have a private mail receipt address, UNLESS you solicit $$$$ from John Q. Public. Then, John Q can demand the street address of your boiler room. Why not require business class service to have ANI? Then I least I can trace that damm auto announce machine that called up all 30 trunks at work one night, one after another. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 11:08 EST From: rec@elf115 Subject: Re: Calling Party ID The pro's and con's on this issue are both arguing for privacy, one for the privacy of the callee, and one for the privacy of the caller. Telephone subscribers should be able to identify their callers before answering or even permitting a ring, and telephone subscribers should be able to identify themselves to the people they call if the callees require identification, but no one should be forced to identify his/herself against her/his will. The proposed CPID service does not identify the caller, it only provides the telephone number that originates the call. Telephone numbers are not secure identifications - they can be shared, stolen, borrowed, or wrong numbers altogether. The CPID service proposes to sell what little information the phone company already has as if it answered the need for validating identities over the phone. The very name "calling party identification" is fraudulent: as any student of detective movies knows, once you trace the call you have to send some cops down there to try to catch the caller. The phone number by itself cannot identify anyone. -- Roger E. Critchlow, Jr. -- nyit!elf115!rec@philabs.philips.com -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 15:11:08 EST From: Peresh Dave Subject: Review of Bulletin Board System Attention Telecommunication Fanatics Please accept my invitation to the a Telecommunication Oreinted Bulletin Board System, located in Flushing NewYork. Our main objective is to discuss about the various telephony related concepts, for example, ESS,DMS,COSMOS,Cellular,Mobile,Satelite Communications Fiber Optic,PBX,Centrexs,Phone Rates,Signalling Systems,World Wide Telephone Switching Systems,ISDN etc etc etc. We are trying to get as many knowledgeble users as we possibly can. Not only does our Bulletin Board Specialize in Telecommunication but also has a few conferences for Computer Security. We certainly have many experts on board who would be willing to discuss security related material. We have a UNIX conference were all the UNIX wizards get together. We has a special DEC User group. We also a conference for discussions on Viruses and how it can be written and prevented. Other conferences are as follows: Radio Hobbies>Hacking News>LockSmithing, Pyrotechnics>Telco Numbers>TAP>Books> Surveillance Systems>Pascal>Generic C> Suggestions>Mac>BBS Numberss>Phrack>Cable> .....and many other miscellenous Requirements: We dont have any requirements. Anyone is welcome. Access is given immediatly. We also allow Alias names if desired. We hope you will enjoy your stay. The Telecommunication [H.D.BBS] [A 2600 Magazine Bulletin Board System] Data: (718)358/9209 300/1200 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #101 *****************************   Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 23:50:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #102 Message-ID: <8903222350.aa10505@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Mar 89 23:30:51 CST Volume 9 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Disabled keypads (ulysses!smb@research.att.com) Re: Pay phones that disable the keypad (Jim Gottlieb) Re: International Calling party ID (Peter Desnoyers) Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Mike Trout) European Bulletin Boards (Richard Marks) VoiceMail Liberation (Hector Myerston) Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Rahul Dhesi) Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire! (John B. Nagle) European phones, itemised bills. (Julian Macassey) Re: Bell Plans To Avert Outage (Daniel Senie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ulysses!smb@research.att.com Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 10:05:51 EST Subject: Disabled keypads Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that some pay phones disabled the keypad as a side-effect. The intent was a polarity reversal on the line, as I recall; that in turn will have the effect of disabling the keypad on older phones. I don't think there's any attempt to keep you from further dialing (the COCOTs being a notable exception, of course). ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Pay phones that disable the keypad Date: 21 Mar 89 16:55:40 GMT Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article , prindle@NADC.ARPA (Frank Prindle) writes: > Naturally, you-guessed-it, the 800 call > went through, then the keypad went dead. The call could not be placed. My business partner has just reported that this behavior is standard practice on AT&T-operated COCOTS. When he called to complain, they explained that this was to prevent him from using other carriers. Well, isn't that nice. And so thanks to AT&T, he was unable to check his voice mail or make any other calls that require the caller to enter tones. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 [Moderator's Note: AT&T's voice-mail version of AT&T Mail has noted this problem in the instruction manual, and advises placing calls through the operator -- even though its an 800 number -- when calling their service. PT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Desnoyers Subject: Re: International Calling party ID Date: 21 Mar 89 17:21:28 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA >In article , jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John >B. Nagle) writes: >> >> ... What about international calls? Well, you can assume that no matter what happens, you're not going to get calling party id from a German phone unless both the calling party and the Bundepost agree that they don't mind telling you. They take their privacy quite seriously. Peter Desnoyers ------------------------------ From: Mike Trout Subject: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Date: 21 Mar 89 18:14:55 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY I recently had a discussion with a major electronics guru for a local television station. We were talking about microwave transmitters (radar speed guns, garage door openers, that sort of thing), when he made a dramatic statement that shocked me: he claimed that cellular phones were extremely hazardous and probably highly carcinogenic. This is completely outside my area of expertise, so I can only repeat what he said. He claimed that the frequency wavelengths used for cellular phone radio transmissions were just about equal to the diameter of the human brain cavity. This, he claimed, accelerated by the fact that the receiver is always held up against the human skull, sets up highly dangerous conditions within the human brain. He said that ten years or so from now we're going to see an explosive increase in brain tumors among cellular phone users. He also claimed that some cellular units were far more hazardous than others, but that ALL of them are carcinogenic. He said he won't even work on them, and wouldn't wish a cellular phone on his worst enemy. This guy is rather eccentric at times, but his knowledge of electronics is legendary. His co-workers seemed to share his opinions; one of their technicians was severely injured some years back by climbing on a transmission tower during a high-intensity transmission. Whether this guy knows anything about human physiology is another question. Is this nonsense, an urban myth, or is this actually a matter of risk? -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ From: Richard Marks Subject: European Bulletin Boards Date: 21 Mar 89 18:57:01 GMT Organization: Unisys Corp. Knowledge Systems Projects A friend of mine who runs a networking firm wants to let his European customers download files. This firm currently has a US bulletin board, when a customer has a problem, the support people usually tell the customer to dial up their BBS and download some code. They can of course have the European customer dial the US and download, but costs are high. Does anyone know of a commercial European BBS system to accomodate my friend's firm? (Surface mail is a poor solution because the time to get thru customs is one week minimum.) Idealy he would dial up every so often and upload new code. But he could also ship diskettes to Europe for the BBS people to post for him. Thanks, Richard Marks rmarks@KSP.unisys.COM or Robert Trout Device Network Associates 215-296-7420 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 11:14:04 PST From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: VoiceMail Liberation John Murray writes: >Too many of us already assume that everyone who calls us is using a >tone phone (and speaks English), so we make them use voicemail systems >for our convenience. We screen callers with machines which pretend >we're not at home, and talk about extra super-secret codes which our >friends have to enter to get through to us. An answering machine can >cause a foreign caller to be automatically charged for a 3-minute call >(perhaps $10 or more) from some locations. Gee John, thanks for raising my consciousness!!. Here I had foolishly and selfishly programmed my voicemail "for my own convenience". I have taken immediate action to reprogram my greeting in Urdu, Persian and Lithuanian. Since I am unable to handle all the world's languages, I will choose three "politically correct" languages every week from now on. ------- ------------------------------ From: Rahul Dhesi Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system Date: 21 Mar 89 17:13:54 GMT Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.uucp Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana In article OLE@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: >My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard. >...Put one in the special PhoneCard phones >and dial away *anywhere*. There is no minimum charge, and you can >talk until the "money" runs out (1 unit = 10p). This seems to be of dubious value. What is the difference between buying a phone card from a grocery store and then using it in a telephone, as opposed to just putting the money into the telephone directly? This just seems to add an extra step. The only advantage I see is that you can user paper money to buy the phone card, while telephones will only take coins. A little advance preparedness eliminates this advantage too, and you don't have to hunt for a place to buy the phone card before you use the telephone. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: !{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu ------------------------------ From: "John B. Nagle" Subject: Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire! Date: 21 Mar 89 17:42:05 GMT Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" Organization: Stanford University NO WAY can you make wires glow red with any power level normally applied to a phone line; not even with ringing power is there enough energy to make that happen. Somehow, power line voltage is getting into your phone wiring. This is serious and needs to be tracked down. It may be necessary to examine all relevant punch blocks with a voltmeter. If you have wiring maintenance from your telco, have them do it; if not, it's probably better to have a licenced electrician with telephone expertise do it. You have a major fire and electric shock hazard. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Reply-To: ucla-an!bongo!julian@seas.ucla.edu Subject: European phones, itemised bills. Date: 21 Mar 89 11:55:03 PST (Tue) Re just say no to caller ID. In article , gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > > 9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of > fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for > outgoing calls. There is just a clicker that increments based on > the distance and the time of day. At the end of the month, they > send a bill based on the number of clicks. Fascism alas has little to do with it. Ancient technology is the problem. Euro-phones are some decades behind the US, that is why they have ancient pulse counters in the CO to figure the bills. And boy is it hard to dispute the bills. But the good news is that British Telecom is introducing itemised billing and Touch-Tone is now available there - if you ask for it. The Hull telephone company (a small private telco in the UK does have itemised billing) Yours -- Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 [Moderator's Note: In the next issue of the Digest, number 103, we have another, very exhaustive rebuttal to David Gast's original message, "Just Say No To Caller ID", written by Mr. Higdon. PT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel Senie Subject: Re: Bell Plans To Avert Outage Date: 20 Mar 89 18:26:49 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA It's good to hear that Illinois Bell is setting up alternate routing and such, they still seem to not want to spend the money on sprinklers and Halon... Have they changed their position on this? -- Daniel Senie UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts Stratus Computer, Inc. ARPA: anvil!cloud9!dts@harvard.harvard.edu 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #102 *****************************   Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 0:40:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #103 Message-ID: <8903230040.aa11606@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:05:33 CST Volume 9 : Issue 103 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. (John Higdon) Calling Party ID of dubious value? (David E. Bernholdt) Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Roy A. Crabtree) Re: Calling Party ID (Gary Delong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. Date: 19 Mar 89 06:51:56 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > 1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order. Not true in California. The local telco can trace upon the assent of the subscriber who is being called. > 2) Certain organizations offer anonymous help or trouble phone numbers. > If they used Caller ID, would it not be fraud to say that all calls are > anonymous? Even if they do not use Caller ID, will people stop calling > them because they fear that their lines would be traced? Calls can now easily be traced. If it got out that help organization were indeed using Caller ID, they would lose their callers; hence it would be to their advantage to not use it. BTW, all 911 calls show the caller ID anyway. > 3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to > call her children from a shelter. Other examples like this exist. If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her? Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing? > 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares, > for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks [a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to get back at YOU, deleted] If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to them. > 6) If users have to identify themselves when calling, should return > addresses be required on all mail so that the receiving person can > determine who the mail is from before opening it? Frankly, it makes good sense to put return addresses on mail. Furthermore, any envelope in my mailbox without a return address on it is considered junk mail and is dicarded unopened. Besides, it's a little easier to determine the origin of a piece of mail, even sans return address than to assess the origin of a ringing telephone. > 7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering > machine. [Low-tech work-around--too silly to comment upon] > 8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well. What happens if > you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone > number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call? Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it was driving you crazy.... > 9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of > fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for > outgoing calls. There is just a clicker that increments based on > the distance and the time of day. At the end of the month, they > send a bill based on the number of clicks. And at the end of the month in Japan, they just deduct the amount from your bank account. It's a great little system. You have no idea why your bill is so high (when you even find out what it was), the phone company makes, nor can they make, any explanations, and you simply pay without question or lose your phone. It has nothing to do with memories of fascism, it's a matter of technology or lack thereof. > In addition to these legal and ethical questions, there are the economic > questions. Who should pay for this service? Everyone, whether it is > desired or not, or just the people who use it? Caller ID is a byproduct of equipment that would have been installed anyway. The newer signaling standards, along with digital switches (and adjuncts for older analog switches) will be implemented in an effort to bring DOWN the cost of telephone service. The equipment used to provide these services costs a lot less to operate than the old switching equipment it replaced. Actually, the cost of providing these enhanced services will be well below what will be charged to those that want them. It's like custom calling. Custom calling features are inherent in the current switching technology used by telcos. Enabling one or a group of features on a subscriber line costs the telco nothing, but it provides enhanced service and convenience for the subscriber and extra revenue for the telco and would theoretically keep the general cost of service lower than otherwise. > 1) Allowing Caller ID has required new hardware and software. Who > is going to pay for that? Will the monthly charges really pay for > all of the expense? See above. > 2) With Caller ID, there will be more unanswered phone calls. Who > will pay for these? (We all will with higher prices for completed > calls). Not significant. Unless a call attempt is actually blocking revenue generating calls due to underdesign of the network, there is no cost to the telco. > 3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a [discussion of signal calls, similar to bogus person to person and collect calls] It's already being done. If they used Caller ID for this purpose, it would be cheaper than the present methods of involving an operator. > 4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business > customers with branches on the East and West Coast. If it is cheaper > to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the > companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then > call back in the opposite direction. The business will make 2 calls > instead of one, but pay less than before. No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short business call. This is really reaching. > 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and > not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by > call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra > buttons to not get a service he does not want? Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't care. > Well, there is the Fifth Amendment which guarantees the right against > self-incrimination. Perhaps you would prefer living some place that > guarantees the right to self-incrimination. Try 1-900-4STALIN for more > information. What has the Fifth Amendment got to do with Caller ID? That constitutional guarantee refers to giving testimony that would tend to incriminate the person giving it. It has nothing to do with evidence that may be used against someone who is accused of committing a crime. If you break in to a store and steal merchandise and happen to leave your wallet behind, the police have every right to use that as evidence against you. If you make harrassment calls in violation of state and federal laws, the appropriate agencies have every right to use any appropriate technology to track you down. Or perhaps you would consider any clues left at the scene of the crime "self-incrimination". There are actually some minor valid reasons to have certain controls on Caller ID, but the voice of reason is sometimes hard to hear through the din of silliness. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Calling Party ID of dubious value? Date: 22 Mar 89 19:24:35 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project In article Erik@cup.portal.com writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 99, message 3 of 7 > >If you call me and your number is not displayed I won't >be answering the phone. I personally don't think anyone can really afford to take this attitude: Imagine your [husband|wife|son|daughter|whatever] tries to call you from the house of a friend who has CPID turned off. Do you choose you friends by whether or not they have CPID? Or what if the person calling you has been in an accident and is using the phone of someone near the accident, who may have CPID turned off. I think if I called AmEx and found them calling me by name I would be a bit disconcerted too, but then I make most such calls from my office, as, it would seem, do a fair portion of others. The moral here is that if you are calling anyone - business or personal - from a phone which is not your home phone, CPID becomes just about useless. Furthermore, even if you have CPID, I'm not sure how much good it does: Would you recognize the phone numbers of everyone who might have a "legitimate" reason to call you and not answer the others? CPID doesn't help you distinguish a "junk" call from a real call, so its not much good for screening you calls. About the only marginally useful thing it does is give you advance warning on who is calling from those (relatively few) numbers you do know. The people whose numbers *I* would recoginze are generally also the people who's voices I would recognize right away anyway! It just doesn't sound that wonderful to me. -- David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ From: mtdca!royc@att.att.com Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Date: 22 Mar 89 23:56:37 GMT Organization: AT&T My earlier posting had a typographical error in it; as bad as the scene of my divorce is, I do not want to inaccurately blind side someone who cannot talk back: In article , att!mtdca!royc@research.att.com writes: [elided] > Yah. Judges have been known to make somewhat less than sanguine decisions; > such as having a three year old travel 3.5 hours round trip for a two > hour visitation. (OH, I could go on). But they are also human, and > prone to all of the ailments involved. Getting the apporpriate [elided] The figure I wanted was 2.5 hours: from 96th Street in Manhattan to the Homdel region of NJ, plus return, by car. Minimum of 2.5 hours (maybe 2:15 if you push the speed limit). roy a. crabtree att!mtdca!royc 201-957-6033 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 15:17:55 EST From: Gary Delong Subject: Re: Calling Party ID In article , dgc@math.ucla.edu writes: > > Finally, on a closely related matter. A note to the moderator: It IS > POSSIBLE to discuss matters of this nature without ad hominum arguments, > such as your statements "A group calling itself the American 'Civil > Liberties' Union has also . . . " and "Next thing you know, the ACLU > and others will want to outlaw peepholes . . . ", etc. Your arguments, > asking about the rights of people who get "anonymous, harassing phone > calls in the middle of the night" are quite valid (though the proposal > above would answer them) and you weaken your case by your unnecesary and > uncalled-for comments. > I think I can see the moderator's point. It is interesting to note that the A**U always seems to be more concerned with the rights of the criminals than those of the victims. I too have often thought that 'Civil Liberties' didn't seem to fit their actions. Of course they do seem to shy away from cases where victims become the accused. I also find it interesting that the terms "ad hominum", "racist", "sexist", and "discrimination" seem most often used today by those who offer no arguments capable of standing on their own merits. PS: Is there a "conservative" verison of the ACLU? --- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 [Moderator's Note: I love it! But in fairness to the list, and the folks who read comp.dcom.telecom for telephone talk, followups to Mr. Delong's message should go direct to Mr. Delong or perhaps talk.politics.misc. *Not here*. The print media I've seen to date (Royko, Sun-Times, others) have taken the ACLU to task for its position on Caller ID. Lest Delong go completely unchallenged in his heresy however, in the next digest, number 104, a scathing attack on your moderator for his original posting. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #103 *****************************   Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 1:35:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #104 Message-ID: <8903230135.aa12724@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:56:26 CST Volume 9 : Issue 104 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Brian Cuthie) Cell Rates in New England (Douglass Scott Reuben) Re: Residential Hunting (Syd Weinstein) Re: Dimwit (The Root) Re: Cellular Service (Brian Cuthie) Yet Another Method For Handling ANI (Fred Blonder) If Your Phone Stayed Offhook In The Old Days (D. Pickett) [Moderator's Note: We have a huge backlog of mail. This is our third Digest in 24 hours. In his reply to my posting, Mr. Cuthie gets me confused with one of my competitors, the NYT. Read on...... PT] -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Date: 21 Mar 89 22:40:28 GMT Reply-To: brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046 In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me >sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are >somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making >phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is >calling us before we answer the phone. I *do* consider it to be an invasion of my privacy for many reasons. Example: You place an ad in the paper. I call about the ad. Do you then have the right to know who I am and where I am calling from. No, I think not. My call to you was a result of a solicitation to invade your privacy. Not for you to invade mine. >A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered >the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be) >illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give >testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their >victim(s). Learn something about the legal system. They are protecting this right because, while rediculous on it's face, their claim is technically correct. Allowing this seamingly reasonable violation of a fundamental right may constitute pecedent in some later issue, where the violation of a similar right would otherwise seem less reasonable. >Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes in >the front door of your home on the theory you have no right to know >ahead of time who has come to visit you. What of the rights of computer >system administrators harassed by phreaks? What of the rights of >people who get anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night? >Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than >the rest of us. No this is childish pantering. The service (mentioned incompletely here) usually includes a feature whereby a user may 'trap' the number of the most recent caller. This information is then available to the local authorities but *not* the user. Thus, the privacy of the calling party is preserved in all but those cases where the authorities become involved. This seems fair to me. If your calls constitute harassment then you will lose this privacy. >What truely makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by Is this *REALLY* necessary? C'om I mean you're supposed to be the moderator, no less. >this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge >-- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity That's ok, what he doesn't know about phones, you more than make up for in your lack of legal knowledge. >of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to >'tracing a call'. If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before >she puts through a call to me, are we to now assume she is in >violation of the law? The Call ID equipment is nothing more or less than No, because you, as the caller, have the option to not answer the question. That's all the ACLU is asking for to begin with. >an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what >is your call about?' Not if you can't decline. >So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea >they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me. Protect these rights now. You will need them someday. It is easy to be willing to throw away the rights of others (alleged criminals or not) but when you do so you are throwing away your own rights also. >Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed. I'll be suprised if this one is. -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umbc.edu [Moderator's Note: Suprised?? What do you think this is, the {New York Times}?? Unlike my competitor, not only do I print all the news that fits my (fill in the blank); I don't even charge fifty cents to read my daily heresies. Thank you for your input in the discussion. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:23:57.97 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Cell Rates in New England In Connecticut, we have Metro Mobile as well, and they do not bill for busys, no-answers, or calls which were terminated before completion. The same goes for the Wireline Carrier (Southern New England Tel), as well as for New England Tel in Rhode Island and Mass, and the non-wireline in Boston (Cellular One?) Metro One (non-wireline) in New York and Northern Jersey doesn't charge for incompletes, and neither does New York Tel/New Jersey Bell's "NYNEX-Bell Atlantic Partnership Service". (Since I am a non-wireline, I'm sure about Metro Mobile and Metro One, and the info about NYNEX/Jersey Bell/SNET was what I was told in Dec, although that COULD have changed.) All this talk about rates makes me interested in what sort of service people get. With Metro Mobile, I get coverage from New Bedford, Mass, down I-95 all the way to Greenwhich, CT (about 150 miles) and from Springfield/Pittsfield, Mass down to the Connecituct Shore. (110 miles?) Metro Mobile is also "DMXed" with Metro One in New York, so callers can reach me while I am in New York, WITHOUT a Roam port, simply by dialing my CT number. So effectively, my coverage is from Central New Jersey to just south of Boston, which to me is pretty impressive! One added bonus of the DMX agreement is that my Call-Forwarding works in the New York/New Jersey area also, which is very useful. (Metro One in New York and New Jersey advertises that a customer of their system can make an UNINTERRUPTED call from Wilmington, DE, to Hartford, CT (and probably Springfield, Mass)! That's one thing I'd like to have that Metro Mobile doesn't, as I keep getting cut off at the New York-Connecticut border.) Finally, I've heard from some of the staff and Metro Mobile that they are trying for a DMX agreement with Cell One (?) in Boston. Anyone hear about this? It would really be great if this took place! One number and no Roam ports from New Jersey to Maine! Happy motoring! -Doug DREUBEN%Eagle.Weslyn@Wesleyan.Bitnet DREUBEN@Eagle.Wesleyan.EDU ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Residential Hunting Date: 22 Mar 89 01:51:39 GMT Reply-To: Syd Weinstein Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 In article AI.CLIVE@mcc.com (Clive Dawson) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 100, message 1 of 7 >Does anybody have an experience with hunting tariffs in other parts >of the country which would help in this battle? I have had hunting, both on residence and business in several parts of the country. Bell of PA doesn't charge a recurring charge for hunting for residence or business. Note, hunting is only available in older exchanges if you have adjacent numbers, or on modern exchanges anywhere in the exchange. I have never been charged anywhere for hunting, other than a one time setup charge. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 {allegra,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: the root Subject: Re: Dimwit Date: 22 Mar 89 03:58:14 GMT Reply-To: bentson@grieg.cs.colostate.edu Organization: Computer Science Department, Colorado State University A local resident named Pat Kelly was receiving harassing phone calls. The caller didn't know that his intended victim had an unlisted number and that the Pat Kelly he was calling was a Lt. in the city's Police Dept. The caller was being held in the County Jail on other charges at the time. Needless to say he was caught. That's a dimwit. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular service Date: 21 Mar 89 21:53:55 GMT Reply-To: brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046 In article decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john @ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 85, message 3 of 7 >With all of the hoopla that PacTel Cellular is generating over its >installation of its "new digital equipment", some questions must be >... >PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that >charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is >answered or not. This means you are charged for busys, no answers, >... >Are there any other systems in the country that are this slimy? >John Higdon Actually, I was pretty sure that the Cellular One Service in the Baltimore/Washington are (my home area) was the only system that *did not* charge from the second you pressed the send key. Since the system here was the Motorola test and development system (and the first non-wireline system ever) I was sure they were the only ones lucky enough to get answer supervision. As it is, the BAMS (Bell Atlantic Mobil Systems) service is just as you described in this area. That is, you get charged for everytime you hit send. One interesting note, Cell One charges $0.10 per call as a "Land line access charge" whereas BAMS does not. Cell One claims thay are only passing this charge along from the phone company (Bell Atlantic). BAMS says they just don't charge it because they *are* the phone company. Sounds a little fishy to me... -brian -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umbc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 17:53:41 est From: Blonder Subject: Yet another opinion on how to handle ANI Reply-To: fred@dtix.UUCP (Blonder) Regarding the brouhaha over the privacy issuse of ANI: I suggest that, rather than displaying the caller's phone number, the system display a caller-selectable id. Perhaps the encoding scheme and display units could be expanded to include alphabetic text, and these ids would be used the same way as .signature files are. That way the caller could include whatever information they consider relevant, wherether it be their phone number, P.O. Box number, or shoe size, complete with a snappy quote. Most likely you would want to have a half-dozen or so to select from, with varying amounts of information, depending on who you were calling. (If you like to order merchandise from 800-numbers in late-night TV ads, you might be insane enough to include your credit card number.) When you call the local Pizza-by-phone joint, you might want to give your street address, but not your phone number. You could display your business number when calling from home, and vice-versa. The exact content of the messages would be up to the discretion of the person in whose name the phone is listed, with the only restriction being that the local phone comany wouldn't permit a message that is criminally fraudulent. Regarding the argument: "Suppose I miss an emergency call because it came from a 'strange' phone: Currently, if you are willing to declare an emergency you can have an operator cut in on a call-in-progress; why couldn't an operator put a call through with some appropriate status ("911"?) as the originating code, if the caller is willing to declare an emergency, and with the usual penalties for abusing this service? ----- Fred Blonder David Taylor Research Center (202) 227-1428 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 17:58 MST From: DPickett@pco-multics.hbi.honeywell.com Subject: If Your Phone Stayed Offhook In The Old Days It seems to me, in the old days, they put a reed in the contacts of your relay if the phone stayed offhook, and the reed was shaped such that a jiggle would dislodge it and allow you into the dialer again, if you pumped your switchhook. Or am I just dreaming it? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #104 *****************************   Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 2:33:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #105 Message-ID: <8903230233.aa13918@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Mar 89 01:47:50 CST Volume 9 : Issue 105 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Help please - acronyms and resources (Chip Rosenthal) TENCON `89 (IEEE REgion 10 Conference) (Kandaswamy) Name-Place / Rate & Route (Douglas Scott Rewuben) Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? (Anthony E. Siegman) Octothorpe - the subject which wouldn't die (Chip Rosenthal) Urban Legend: Grounded In Truth (Julian Mmacassey) Operator Assist Calling Card Calls (Douglas Scott Reuben) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: help please - acronyms and resources Date: 22 Mar 89 06:30:31 GMT Reply-To: chip@vector.uucp Organization: Dallas Semiconductor I would like to compile a list of acronyms and resources for TELECOM readers, and I solicit your help. For those who don't know me, I administer the gateway between [TELECOM Digest] and the USENET comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. I have received a few requests for this sort of list, and it does seem like a good idea. I wouldn't be surprised if Patrick has seen similar requests too. Anyway here is the plan: - resources Please take a moment to note any books or periodicals which you think TELECOM readers should be aware of. If you can, please include (as appropriate) title, author, publisher, cost, subscription info. Also, a few words on why the thing is so great (or useless) would help. - acronyms I do not plan on publishing a comprehensive list, but rather a glossary of the lingo thrown around in this digest/newsgroup. Descriptions should be very brief. I *really* need help on the resources part. My professional focus is in an extremely narrow part of telecommunications, so there is much out there I am not aware of. So, please, hit that reply key now and mail me your comments. Please send them to me rather than the entire list -- I will distribute the final version to everybody. Also, Internet folks can reach me as "chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US" if your mailer prefers that to "chip@vector.UUCP". USENET readers can't until the new uucp maps are published. -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | -------- watch this space -------- Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-5337 | - real domain address coming soon - ------------------------------ From: Kandaswamy Subject: TENCON `89 (IEEE REgion 10 Conference) Date: 22 Mar 89 14:47:53 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Under the auspices of IEEE, the session organizers invite submission of papers for a session on "Traffic Measurements and Switch Administration." This session will focus upon the role and importance of traffic measurements in switch administration. Some recommended areas of interest are listed below, but the authors are not limited to these topics. * Basic concepts in traffic measurement and their use * Developmental process/history for new traffic measurements (Delineation of every critical stage involved in the process of developing useful measurements) * Quantitative methods for analyzing traffic data Depending upon the number of qualified proposals, this session may be split into two sessions, with the first part focusing on concepts of traffic measurements and the second part focussing on analytical procedures that facilitate various decisions made by switch administrators. Prospective authors should submit two copies of an extended abstract (not exceeding 5 pages, double spaced) to the organizers by April 15, 1989. Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by May 15, 1989. Photo-ready copy of the complete paper (not exceeding 25 pages double-spaced) must be received by July 15,1989 for inclusion in the proceedings which will be published by the IEEE and distributed at the symposium. Session Organizers Dr.P.Patankar/Dr.S.Kandaswamy 5ESS OA&M Planning Department AT&T Bell Laboratories 200 Park Plaza Room 1Y-418 or Room 1F-412 Naperville, IL 60566-7050 Telephone Numbers Office: 312 416-7046 312-416-4867 FAX Number: 312-416-4833 Electronic Address: ihuxv!patankar ihlpa!kanda Good Luck! ------------------------------ Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:14:14.94 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Name-Place / Rate & Route A few Telecoms back (sorry, I deleted it so I have no ref. #), P. Townson (the moderator), mentioned that in order to get the name of the place where an exchange is located, the AT&T operator had to dial 815+181 (?) to get an operator who could provide the info. Not that I'm disputing this, (as they frequently do this), yet increasingly I find that when I ask for a "Name-Place" they don't seem to connect me with Rate & Route anymore, rather, they type the area code and exachange directly into their console, and in a few seconds get a name. They don't go off-line (I can hear them typing), and they don't talk to any Rate & Route operator. Not all operators do this - at times, they call Rate&Route, at other times, they seem to just type it in. Moreover,in some areas, like Connecticut, they seem to always have to call Rate & Route, while in other areas, like New England Tel or New York Tel territory, they seem to be able to get the place-name directly. Is this some new feature that operators have at their disposal, or are they contacting a Rate & Route operator and I just don't hear it? -Doug dreuben%eagle.weslyn@wesleyan.bitnet dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT P.S. If +181 is the number for R&R, then what is +141? I know +121 is for and "inward" op, but I was under the impression that 141 was R&R... Is +141 Directory Ast? If so, what is "Universal Rate & Route", which I was told is 800+141+1212? (I thought +181 was the number for a Toll-Station, which is what I used to call the Bishop Toll, at 619+058+181, for ring-downs and the like...) ------------------------------ From: "Anthony E. Siegman" Subject: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? Date: 23 Mar 89 02:10:22 GMT Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" Organization: Stanford University My residential phone number (415 area code) happens to spell a quite commercially interesting word. During the 15-plus years I've had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting to take it over, paying me something for giving it up. A recent one seems serious. Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number? Rumor has it that someone whose all-digit dialing number was "AMERICA" got [Moderator's note: And that is all I received. An attempt to send mail to the author also bounced. The rest of the mesage never did arrive. Perhaos the author will see this reference and mail me a complete message once again. The messate was badly mangled when it got here to Chicago. PT] ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Octothorpe - the subject which wouldn't die Date: 22 Mar 89 00:21:14 GMT Reply-To: chip@vector.uucp Organization: Dallas Semiconductor Going back to a subject we are all sick of... Happened to be thumbing through "Notes on the Network" when I stumbled across the following: [...] it is becoming important that the proper terminology be known and used when referring to them. The "#" and "*" should be called number sign and star, respectively. Use of the term asterisk for "*" and pound sign for "#" should not be used in documentation dealing with dialing procedures. The terms number sign and star have been agreed upon as international terminology. The term square for the "#" is also recognized internationally. So I guess the term "octothorpe" is only suitable for use in Trivial Pursuit questions. By the way...this book is a really good reference. The latest version, which unfortunately I do not have, is called "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Network - 1986". It's available from Bellcore as document TR-NPL-000275 for $150.00 (based on the 1988 Bellcore catalog). -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | -------- watch this space -------- Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-5337 | - real domain address coming soon - ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Reply-To: ucla-an!bongo!julian@seas.ucla.edu Subject: Urban Legend Date: 21 Mar 89 12:02:47 PST (Tue) In article , GUYDOSRM%SNYPLABA.BITNET@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes: > Can this possibly be true? (I don't know its source.) > > ****************************************************** > > > This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual > telephone service call he handled while living in England. (There follows the usual story, deleted here for brevity, of how dog is chained up, gets electric shock from phone ringing, urinates, sends ground to the phone line, etc....) This tale is waht is known today as "Urban Legend", such stories used to be called "Old Wives Tales". I have heard this story from telco people all over the world. Also it must be some years since grounded ringing was used in the UK and USA. But then this is an old story that has been around probably longer than I have. Can we finally lay it to rest with the microwaved poodle story? Yours -- Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:15:28.05 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Operator Assist Calling Card Calls Hello! A few days ago, I was making a calling card call from a rotary (Bell) payphone, and when I asked the operator for the lower rate since I couldn't Touch-Tone the calling card number in myself, she said she allready knew and was billing me at the lower rate. This makes me wonder: How do the operators (Bell and AT&T) know that it's a rotary phone? Does the equipment detect a rotary call and signal the operator? Or is there just a large database of payphones that tell the operator that it's a rotary? The reason I'm asking is that at a Touch-Tone phone they seem to know that I can dial it in myself, and ask me if there is any problem as they will have to charge me the higher rate if there isn't a problem. Thanks, -Doug DREUBEN%Eagle.Weslyn@Wesleyan.Bitnet DREUBEN@Eagle.Wesleyan.EDU ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #105 *****************************   Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 1:29:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #106 Message-ID: <8903240129.aa17796@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Mar 89 01:11:28 CST Volume 9 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Ron Natalie) Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Jonathan Haruni) British phone cards (Laura Halliday) Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (D. S. Wise) Pulse Dialing (Dr. T. Andrews) Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Ron Natalie) Highest German (FRG) court strikes down a telecom law (Werner Uhrig) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system Date: 23 Mar 89 15:32:48 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. The advantage to the phone cards is that you don't have to waddle around with a pocket full of coins on the off-chance that you might decide to make a public call today. You don't have to sit there and push them into the slot. We've got the same thing here at the University for the photocopiers in the library. If I go there and find an article that I want to copy, I just pop this card into the machine and it just debits the copies as I go. Several mass transit systems here have the same thing (Washington and San Francisco amongh others). Rather than having to carry change, or find an open token booth, you just zip the card into the turnstile. For the person who makes frequent use of these things, the cards are an incredible convenience over coins or tokens. For those who don't, you can always revert to the hard money (except on the subways where they force you to buy the card anyway). -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 11:10:19 EST From: Jonathan Haruni Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system Organization: University of Toronto In article dhesi@bsu-cs.uucp writes: >This [phonecards] seems to be of dubious value. >What is the difference between >buying a phone card from a grocery store and then using it in a >telephone, as opposed to just putting the money into the telephone >directly? This just seems to add an extra step. In Britain, you pay by time for even local calls, so you tend to go through alot of coins. And the coins are bigger and heavier as well. The phonecards save you the frustration of running out of coins during a call, the frustration of having your calls interrupted every minute by "more coins please" noises, and the frustration of sewing up holes in your pockets. >The only advantage I see is that you can user paper money to buy the >phone card, while telephones will only take coins. A little advance >preparedness eliminates this advantage too, and you don't have to hunt >for a place to buy the phone card before you use the telephone. The cards come in denominations ranging from the equivalent of $3 to about $100. So you buy one which you know will last you a reasonable amount of time. They are particularly useful for long distance calls, because you get the customer-dialled rate without feeding a continuous stream of coins into the phone. >-- >Rahul Dhesi UUCP: !{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi > ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu Jonathan Haruni decom@dgp.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 89 8:50 -0800 From: laura halliday Subject: British phone cards While in London a couple of years ago the locals told me that the rationale for phone cards (other than byuing a 20 pound phone card with paper money rather than coins) was that card phones have no money in them, and are thus much less likely to be vandalized. - Laura ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 89 04:00:47 GMT From: dswise@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system Organization: Indiana University CSCI, Bloomington I was introduced to the British Telecom debit card only recently, and I am surprised at the pollution that the system generates: depleted green cards littering the floors of call-boxes. 'Course, Telecom is not answerable to environmental interests. :-) Instead of purchasing new green cards all the time, why can't one go to one of a few secure coin-operated stations where one's depleted card can be recharged (or replaced if defective.) (Put them in post offices and the corner Boot's.) In order to use these machines you *must* return your old card. Viola: no litter. The Washington, DC, Metro has a system like this that recovers residual value from fare cards too depleted to buy any fare---but it recovers the cards in the process! Result is also reduction in litter. Incentive: Such machines might recharge to 100% of value for only 95% fee. Like deposits on beverage containers, except no human handling is required. I suspect that the 5% would be a good long-term investment. ------------------------------ Subject: Pulse Dialing Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 18:29:33 EST From: "Dr. T. Andrews" A year or three ago, the local phone co. switched from stepper relays to electronic switching. At the same time, they "cleverly" chhecked phone lines for equipment which could tone dial, and quietly added the $1/mo charge on such lines. One item so detected was a plain old telephone set (with pulse dial) at home. After I made the proper noises, the charges were removed. It might be interesting to know how these "tests" are done: do they just add the charge and hope no one notices? The "test" is that if you yell, then you don't get charged? This, of course, is not the interesting issue. The real issue here is that we have 4 modems which could tone dial if I wished. They can also pulse dial, and for $1/month (each) that is exactly what they do. How much is the phone co. having to invest in equipment to deal with pulses, and how much more does it cost them to have my modems tying up whatever device interprets phone numbers? Are they saving money because I have the modems pulse dial, or would they be better off paying me $1/month (each) to tone dial? ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Date: 23 Mar 89 15:24:45 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Carcinogenic? Not quite. There are serious problems that result from microwave exposure. The most widely known fo these is the increased risk of cataracts. There was quite a scare on this subject in the ham radio community, more so than in the cellular field, since hams were frequently using walkie talkies. When you hold the thing up to talk into it the antenna is sitting right there at your forehead. The frequencies and powers are approximately the same. Nothing conclusive was established about the effects of these relatively low power levels (3 watts for cellular, 1-5 watts for ham radios), but the ARRL (the largest association of ham radio operators in the US) suggests that you try to keep the antenna away from your head. Notice that this would only correspond to hand held portable cellular telephones. Most mobile units have the antennas (and for that matter the radio transmitter itself) mounted away from the car occupants. My personal opinion is that there is more of threat from people being inattentive to their driving while operating their telephones than there are from microwave radiation. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1989 16:55:15 CST From: Werner Uhrig Reply-To: Werner Uhrig Subject: Highest German (FRG) court strikes down a telecommunications law the following msg posted to the German-branch of USEnet might be of interest to this group as questions about legality and feasabi- lity of modem use in Europe crop up repeatedly. the law in question reads: Paragraph 15 section II of the law regulating telecommunication equipment: Person who install, change or use motifiable equipment in violation of the lending conditions will be punished with 2 years imprisonment or fines. the (overjoyed) author of the article informs us that the German Supreme Court has declared this law unconstitutional and null-and-void in a decision of June 22, 1988. He states that this has as a conse- quence that imported modems can no longer be confiscated (according to the guidelines of the Code of Criminal Procedures). the legislature has been called upon to pass a new law. However (the author believes that) because there exists such strong interest (and influence, presumably) of industry, users, and the European market-community against such a new prohibitive law, the author believes that there is reason for optimism (that no such prohibitive law will be passed). I've been away from Germany for a while now, but my estimate of German tele-buraucrats and their actions and motivations in the past do not have me share Joern's optimism. I hope I'm wrong ... Cheers, ---Werner Article 608 of dnet.general: Path: iraun1!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!joern From: joern@netmbx.UUCP (Joern Busch) Newsgroups: dnet.general Subject: BVG vs Gilb Keywords: dfue, Import-Modems, Endgeraetemonopol, dnet-general Message-ID: <2324@netmbx.UUCP> Date: 6 Mar 89 03:42:28 GMT Distribution: dnet Organization: netmbx Public Access Unix, Berlin, West Germany Lines: 22 Posted: Mon Mar 6 04:42:28 1989 Falls jemand die frohe Botschaft noch nicht vernommen hat: Paragraph 15 II a Fernmeldeanlagengesetz (mit Freiheitsstrafe von 2 Jahren oder Geldstrafe wird bestraft, "wer genehmigungspflichtige Fernmeldeanlagen unter Verletzung von Verleihungsbedingungen errichtet, aendert oder betreibt".) ist laut (erst jetzt veroeffentlichtem) Beschluss des zweiten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVG != Berliner Verkehrs... :-) ) vom 22.6.88 fuer verfassungswidrig und somit nichtig erklaert worden. Das heisst insbesondere auch, dass Import-Modems nicht mehr (nach den Vorschriften der Strafprozessordnung) beschlagtnahmt werden koennen. Der Gesetzgeber ist nun aufgerufen eine Neuregelung zu treffen. Da die Interressenslage (Industrie, Anwender, europ. Binnenmarkt) aber eindeutig gegen ein erneutes Verbot spricht duerfen wir optimistisch sein. Es gruesst Euch ein jubelnder Joern. [[ Definition: Gilb: 'Gilb' bezeichnet das gelb-werden (vergilben) von Papier, das einen hohen (oder auch niedrigen?) Holz-Anteil bezitzt. Die Bundespost (gelbe Fahrzeuge, Telefonzellen, Briefkaesten etc.) wird in Szene-Kreisen 'Gilb' genannt. -- Elmar ]] ============================================================================== ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #106 *****************************   Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 2:09:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #107 Message-ID: <8903240209.aa18421@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Mar 89 01:41:15 CST Volume 9 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson C.O.C.O.T.'S (B. Churchfield) The dreaded AOS:Just when you thought it was safe (Jerry Glomph Black) Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire! (Jonathan Haruni) CLID for 911 - who pays? (David E. Bernholdt) European Bulletin Boards (Doug Mosher) Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? (Jonathan Haruni) [Moderator's Note: What? Two digests in a row with no messages about Caller ID? Yah...I thought you deserve a break today. There are several more waiting in my inbox, but I thought they could wait awhile. There is probably very little more to say on the subject anyway. Tomorrow we will have another batch of them. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Mar 89 08:23:00 EST From: B CHURCHFIELD Subject: C.O.C.O.T.'S In the past couple of months I have seen a lot of people complaining about what a rip COCOTs are. I think maybe not every one knows what a COCOT is, especially based on some of the descriptions I have seen given. A COCOT is a Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone, I have seen some complaints of ATT operated COCOTs which to me sounds like a conflict of interest. Yesterday I couldn't spell COCOT, today I is one. When I purchased my phone I was told I needed to go through an AOS (alternate operator service) in order to get call supervision. Some people that I have talked to since say this is not so, but the point is it is the AOS that is overcharging on calls. In most states the AOSs are not regulated therefore that can charge what they want or at least what ever the traffic will bear. Most people get into COCOTs to make money but, other than AOS I don't think one can get rich. I went into this blindly based on articles I had read in trade publications, if anyone knows of any good reading on COCOTs I would appreciate the info . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 09:38:13 EST From: Jerry Glomph Black <@ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@ll-micro> Subject: The dreaded AOS:Just when you thought it was safe.... Reply-To: @ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@micro Organization: None discernable In my regular monthly New England Telephone bill, received yesterday, was a small nondescript insert entitled: "To our customers who use NE Tel coin phones to make long distance calls". I'm not gonna type it in, but in effect, it says, starting in April, the LD carrier pertaining to a given NE Tel payphone will not necessarily be AT&T. It will be determined by the owner of the premises where the phone is installed. Thus the last safe haven of COCOT/AOS haters has fallen. It really makes me barf, the lawyers win again. They note in the flyer that you can get any carrier you wish on a NE Tel payphone by dialing the appropriate 10XXX (10288 for ATT, 10777 for Sprint, etc.), but I'll bet 98% of the phone-using public never heard of the 10XXX codes for home, business, or coin-phone use. I would guess that the guano will hit the proverbial fan when the bills start arriving in a few months, with those lovely AOS rates! "Thank you for using BumStench Communications!" Oh, well, it takes your attention away from the CPID/ACLU cacophony! Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173 Phone (617) 981-4721 Fax (617) 862-9057 black@micro@VLSI.LL.MIT.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 11:18:41 EST From: Jonathan Haruni Subject: Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire! Organization: University of Toronto In article "John B. Nagle" writes: > NO WAY can you make wires glow red with any power level normally >applied to a phone line; not even with ringing power is there enough >energy to make that happen. Somehow, power line voltage is getting into... >[etc.] > John Nagle Any amount of power will make a thin enough wire glow red. And the tinsel-wrapped-around-nylon wires they're using in phone wires these days are about as thin as practically possible. However, it seems unlikely that the problem would be with too-thin wires. In all likeliness, you are right, and as you say, an electrician should look into it. (This problem was occuring at someone's workplace, right ?) Jon Haruni. ------------------------------ From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: CLID for 911 - who pays? Date: 23 Mar 89 23:11:05 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project I've noted many mentions in the discussions of calling line ID that 911 get the number anyway. Of course that's only true if the 911 equipment can handle CLID. Here in Alachua County, Florida, they've recently upgraded their 911 equipment so that it can handle CLID -- and every subscriber in the county gets an item like "E911 Upgrade" on their local service billing to pay for it (at $0.50/month). We're all familiar with the local BOC acting as a billing agent for the long-distance carriers and the like, but is there any limit to what (whom) a BOC can collect for? Just out of curiousity, does anyone know of other cases where the BOC is collecting "taxes" for a local government? -- David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 16:15:50 PST From: Doug Mosher Subject: European Bulletin Boards rmarks@ksp.unisys.com (Richard Marks) asks: >A friend of mine who runs a networking firm wants to let his European >customers download files...... >download some code. They can of course have the European customer dial >the US and download, but costs are high. >Does anyone know of a commercial European BBS system to accomodate my >friend's firm? (Surface mail is a poor solution because the time to >get thru customs is one week minimum.) France has the Mintel system, which is a super system that includes functions similar to telenet, tymnet, bulletin boards, Compuserve, and 976 calls, plus more! It also allows hundreds of entrepreneurs to offer sub-services of all sorts. If a specific contact is needed, write me because I have a friend who does Minitel services in France. ( ) ( Doug Mosher ) ( ...!ucbvax!cmsa!spgdcm ) ( 257 Evans, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, 415/642-5823 ) European Bulletin Boards ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 21:16:57 EST From: Jonathan Haruni Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? Organization: University of Toronto In article "Anthony E. Siegman" writes: >My residential phone number (415 area code) happens to spell a >quite commercially interesting word. During the 15-plus years I've >had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting >to take it over, paying me something for giving it up. A recent one >seems serious. >Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number? Rumor If you're selling your phone number for the money and for no other reason, (ie, I assume that you have not been eager for a career in phone number sales since the age of 12) then it is worth as much as the offering company is willing to pay. You'll have to figure it out yourself. How much money do they have ? How much more would your phone number get them ? How good a bargainer are you, and how good is the guy who is your contact with the company ? Expect to get ALOT of money if it is a phone order company with high profits and much competition. That would be the ideal situation. Jon. [Moderator's Note: The Dominos Pizza people are trying to grab up all the xxx-3030 and xxx-0030 combinations they can find around Chicago. Paying off with pizza coupons and some money, I understand. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #107 *****************************   Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 0:32:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #108 Message-ID: <8903250032.aa16381@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Mar 89 00:14:02 CST Volume 9 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson SNET Cellular Road Info Numbers (Douglas Scott Reuben) British PhoneCard question (Will Martin) Re: Operator Assist Calling Card Calls (Dave Levenson) Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Dave Levenson) Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Dave Horsfall) Customer Name and Address Service (Miguel Cruz) Re: Caller ID and crank calls (Douglas Scott Reuben) "Compromise" for calling party identification (John L. Shelton) 911 CLID (Steve Bellovin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24-MAR-1989 03:31:50.93 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: SNET Cellular Road Info Numbers I picked up this list of SNET Cellular special code numbers which an SNET customer can (supposedly) use to get specific traffic information. It was on a video-information booth in Norwalk, CT, operated by (you guessed it) SNET! Construction Delays and Route Info: *02 - Route CT-2 (Hartford to Norwhich) *07 - Route US-7 (Norwalk to Danburry (or New Milford?)) *08 - Route CT-8 (Bridgeport to Torrington (or Mass line?)) *09 - Route CT-9 (Middletown/Cromwell to Old Saybrook) *15 - Route CT-15(Meritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways, (Berlin T'Pke?)) *84 - Route I-84(NY State Line - Waterburry - Hartford - Mass Line) *91 - Route I-91(New Haven to Enfield) *95 - Route I-95(NY State Line - New Haven - RI State Line) *395- Route I-395(Old CT Turnpike Rt CT-52, New London - Mass Line) General Info: *JAM (526) - Up to the minute emergency reports and alternate routing routing considerations during the hours of 8:30AM to 4:30PM. *DOT (368) - Dial this number for a recording to report highway problems (potholes, etc.) [How do you report to a recording????] Anyhow, this is sponsored by the nice people at ConnDOT and SNET Cellular. I don't use SNET Cellular (Metro Mobile instead), so I've never tried these. Metro Mobile has one code, *22, which you dial to receive a recording from Shadow Traffic of all major traffic problems in the area you are in. (Metro Mobile is devided into 3 systems, so *22 in each one of the systems gives you local traffic for that general area, or so it seems.) -Doug DREUBEN%Eagle.Weslyn@Wesleyan.Bitnet DREUBEN@Eagle.Wesleyan.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 14:22:47 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: British PhoneCard question What happens when the PhoneCard you are using runs out of credit in the midst of a call? Are you given a "grace period" to let you pull out the old card (and drop it on the floor of the booth! :-) and stick in a new one? Or is your call summarily terminated? Could you continue by feeding in coins if you don't have another charged-up PhoneCard? Is this just magstripe encoding? I would think there would be a brisk trade in underground magstripe card writers and illicitly-credited PhoneCards if that is the case. Or is this a special, non-standard magstripe encoding or format, so that magstripe equipment on the surplus or commercial market won't write or read it? Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Operator Assist Calling Card Calls Date: 25 Mar 89 02:42:59 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: > A few days ago, I was making a calling card call from a rotary (Bell) > payphone, and when I asked the operator for the lower rate since I > couldn't Touch-Tone the calling card number in myself, she said she > allready knew and was billing me at the lower rate. > > This makes me wonder: How do the operators (Bell and AT&T) know that > it's a rotary phone? ... The CCIS database has information provided by the local operating company indicating which directory numbers are supposed to have touch tone service. While the information is not entirely up-to-date, the intent is that if you dial a 0+ call from a rotary phone, your call should be routed directly to the operator. If the same call is dialed from a line which is on record as having touch tone service, you'll get the MCCS Logo (Bong!) tone first. This same database is supposed to indicate the existence of a calling-card for every authorized user, to provide card-number validation. It also contains the translation of 800 numbers into their POTS equivalent numbers for routing toll-free calls. It indicates which numbers are coin telephones (which are invalid destinations for collect calls). -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Date: 25 Mar 89 02:29:10 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) writes: >...he claimed that cellular phones were extremely > hazardous and probably highly carcinogenic. > He claimed that the frequency wavelengths used for cellular phone radio > transmissions were just about equal to the diameter of the human brain cavity > This, he claimed, accelerated by the fact that the receiver is always held up > against the human skull, sets up highly dangerous conditions within the human > brain... I certainly hope, if this be true, that the broadcast industry immediately shuts down all UHF TV transmitters. They, also, operate in the 800 MHz band where Cellular Telephony hangs out. They may not be as close to the user's skull as a telephone handset (isn't the RF section usually installed in the vehicle's trunk?) but they output hundreds of thousands of watts of RF power, while the typical mobile phone only uses a few watts. -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Date: 23 Mar 89 03:21:05 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article , desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes: | | Anyway, I think there are reasons that a law-abiding citizen might | occasionally want to be able to call anonymously, although I can't | think of one off the bat. A slightly contrived, but nonetheless valid example: You've just unwittingly witnessed a crime, a murder perhaps. They are MOST interested in eliminating you, and they probably have a mole in the police department. The result? Concrete shoes for you, m'boy... The trouble with being a law-abiding citizen is that not everyone else is. And a LOT of people just "don't want to get involved", but will come forward upon a guarantee of anonymity. A regular event in Australia is Project Noah, where you are invited to ring a special number if you have any information whatsoever, no matter how vacuous, on drug deals. It has resulted in successful prosecutions, but naturally some of the callers may not wish to identify themselves. Heck, some of them could be the drug-dealer's competition :-) Another example (which I certainly admit to doing): I want information on a competitor's product, so I play dumb and ring them up, asking them. Or I invite myself to their product seminars. I don't really want them to recognise my number (if Australia had caller ID, which we don't), yet it's not illegal. I'm not impersonating anyone after all, I'm just not volunteering my affiliations. In short, there are many legitimate reasons why a caller should not have to identify him/herself. You should have the right to refuse such calls, but those organisations that expect them will no doubt be tolerant. -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave Self-regulation is no regulation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 03:43:42 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Customer Name and Address Service Roger Critchow writes: "The phone number by itself cannot identify anyone" That is, of course, unless you live in Illinois or several other states which provide public CN/A (Customer Name and Address) services, much like a reverse directory bureau. If I live in Chicago and someone calls my line with CPID, I can know who they are in a matter of minutes by dialing 769-9600 (I think that's right.. it's something like that). And, at any rate, the telephone number identifies someone insofar as it doesn't identify anyone else; being unique, there is always a way to find it out. The wife-beater who gets a call from his wife-in-hiding can narrow her location down by the area code and prefix, then look through the phone book for a few likely establishments (shelters, etc.) and pin her down pretty quickly. MC [Moderator's Note: The number for CNA in Chicago is 312-796-9600. Locally it is a fifty cent call. They cover all of area code 312, and will give you the name and address of listed numbers, or nothing if the number is non-pub. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 23-MAR-1989 05:20:38.10 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: re: Caller ID and crank calls I've been reading the postings about Caller ID, and find that the main argument FOR implementing caller ID and/or not having caller ID blocking is to prevent crank calls. Now while I think caller ID may stop SOME annoying calls, it will not in any way affect the majority of them. The phone company itself (SNET, NYTel, N.E. Tel, etc.) states in their literature that most crank calls are made by people who know you, and generally they did not just pick your number out of the book. Crank callers usually call for a reason, thus may not be very readily deterred, and may even be MORE motivated to call if discovered. Hence, once a crank caller discovers that you have caller ID (either you tell them or the Telco contacts the crank and asks them to stop or whatever they do) they will move to another phone. Thus, while being discovered may make some crank callers hesitate from calling back again, I am afraid many will simply go to a payphone, put in a dime (or whatever) and call you from there. And if you block that specific payphone, well, there are plenty of other coin phones around. Of course a crank caller can also call collect from another LATA (this happend a few times to me, but I was never billed for it even though people at my number accepted the call - I guess the operator realized it was a crank call). Or, as was mentioned previously, the caller could use a non-Bell Calling Card (Sprint, MCI, etc) and make the call that way (although that will, with some effort, give the crank caller away if someone pursued it far enough). Hence, the only way to prevent annoying calls that I know of is to get an unlisted number. Having Caller ID may be cute for a while, and may deter some annoying solicitation calls, etc., but as a practical way to get rid of crank calls, very doubtful. Anyhow, that's my opinion... -Doug DREUBEN%Eagle.Weslyn@Wesleyan.Bitnet DREUBEN@Eagle.Wesleyan.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 09:12:32 PST From: "John L. Shelton" Subject: "Compromise" for calling party identification May I suggest a compromise patterned after the post office: The phone company should ALWAYS (where possible) send the area code and exchange with every call. This is comparable to a postmark, and can provide some meaningful information to the receiver of the call. The calling party could then optionally send or block the transmission of the unique four digits identifying the call. This corresponds, more or less, to a full return address. =John= ------------------------------ From: smb@arpa.att.com Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 16:53:19 EST Subject: 911 CLID In fact, when 911 was deployed in New York City a number of years ago, CLID was *not* installed on the 911 lines, precisely because of concerns about privacy. It had nothing to do with cost. That may have changed; I was out of the area for a number of years, and couldn't track that sort of issue closely. --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #108 *****************************   Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 1:00:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #109 Message-ID: <8903250100.aa16876@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Mar 89 00:46:34 CST Volume 9 : Issue 109 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Caller ID (David Ofsevit) Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. (A. R. White) Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. (Mike Trout) [Moderator's Note: At this point, I believe the discussion on CPID has become more a political one than one related to telecom issues; and as such better suited for one of the talk.groups or private mail. Unless there is something significant to add of a technical nature to the subject, maybe it could be closed to further messages. I *still* have a few backlogged, which will be used tomorrow. Please, no more replies. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Ofsevit Date: 23 Mar 89 16:14 Subject: re: Caller ID In response to some of John Higdon's statements in Telecom 9:103: > If the husband [of a battered wife in a shelter] had an IQ of more than 50, > he would assume that his wife went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to > bust in to do harm to her? Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent > that sort of thing? He might assume that his wife went to a shelter, but he might not know which shelter. Yes, he just might try to break in and do violence. Even if the shelter provided effective protection, it would not provide protection if the wife wished to leave; knowing where the wife was, the husband could effectively (not necessarily physically, but certainly psychologically) imprison her in the shelter. > > 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares, > > for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks > [a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to > get back at YOU, deleted] > > If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more > expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to > them. More power to them? Is the almighty buck more important than people's rights? RISKS is not hypothetical; almost every day it describes real-world cases of how people can be harmed by mindless dependence on automation. > > 8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well. What happens if > > you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone > > number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call? > > Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you > might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it > was driving you crazy.... I can hardly wait for the lawsuits to begin: "I lost a lot of money on that deal! Why didn't you call me?" "I did call you. I was at a pay phone, and you wouldn't answer." "Oh yeah, sorry..." "SORRY MY $#&%@#$!!! You'll hear from my lawyer!" > > 4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business > > customers with branches on the East and West Coast. If it is cheaper > > to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the > > companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then > > call back in the opposite direction. The business will make 2 calls > > instead of one, but pay less than before. > > No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short > business call. This is really reaching. This is not "reaching." This is real-world economics. Companies could program their switchboards to make this happen automatically. > > 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and > > not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by > > call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra > > buttons to not get a service he does not want? > > Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from > getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this > society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to > preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't > care. You can protect everybody's privacy at no cost at all--don't implement Caller ID! ----- And in response to Gary Delong: > I think I can see the moderator's point. It is interesting to note > that the A**U always seems to be more concerned with the rights of > the criminals than those of the victims. I too have often thought > that 'Civil Liberties' didn't seem to fit their actions. > > Of course they do seem to shy away from cases where victims become > the accused. > ... > PS: Is there a "conservative" verison of the ACLU? The ACLU has stood up for such fine liberal types as the Skokie Nazis and Oliver North. The ACLU believes in the Bill of Rights, even for those like Ollie and the Nazis who don't believe in it. The ACLU believes that as you begin to tear down individual rights, you set the stage for knocking over many other rights. ----- David Ofsevit Digital Equipment Corporation (which, I hope, does not know, care, or associate with my opinions) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 17:19:59 PST From: nomdenet@venera.isi.edu In vol. 9 no. 102 John Higdon In article , gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) > writes: > > > 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and > > not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by > > call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra > > buttons to not get a service he does not want? > > Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from > getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this > society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to > preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't > care. 1) An advertiser pays for a 30-second spot during "LA Law", which I tape on my VCR; by the argument above advertisers should be allowed to curtail provision of VCRs' fast-forward keys because my use of the FF key to skip over commercials deprives advertisers of services they paid for. Poppycock. 2) Europeans in general, and Scandinavians in particular, go to greater lengths to protect the individual's privacy. "It costs governments and corporations a little extra and takes them a little more effort to preserve privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't care." 3) In the 1988 SF novel "David's Sling"[1] the author, Marc Stiegler, presents a taxonomy of decisions and decision making: "... three broad classes of decisions, and three broad methods of decision making: Engineering decisions, political decisions, and unresolvable decisions. Engineering decisions were made by finding the correct, or best, answer. ... Political decisions were made by building an answer of consensus. ... Because political decision systems could generate decisions in more situations than engineering decision systems, political systems typically gained preeminence over engineering. For the most part, this arrangement worked well -- except that too often, the politicians made political decisions in situations where engineering applied ... The key question was, how do you decide whether to use engineering or politics to decide?" In this framework it seems to me that all questions concerning calling- party ID and privacy are political. I don't believe any engineer can say there is any "best" answer. Assuming SS#7 or equivalent from end to end, the caller's number is always available; bits are reserved in a packet for that number, or bits go down a subscriber line to the display unit between the first and second rings; and a program in some # ESS decides what to stuff in those bits. Clearly there's a cost to implementing a packet-based protocol and its communication infrastructure, as well as to providing new subscriber-line interface cards; just as clearly at this hardware and protocol level there's no cost associated with the bits' values. At the ESS-program level I would expect the (software) engineering judgement to be that there's virtually no cost differential between always passing on the caller's number and checking whether the caller wants his/her number kept private, either as the norm or for this call only. I believe the program logic of this section of ESS code should be determined by our society as a whole: What do we want, what consensus can we reach? Mr. Higdon's opinion and mine differ. His position can be inferred from the excerpt above. I vote to protect and maximize both the caller's and callee's privacy, and to have the telephone system do so as a default when possible. I'll pay for Calling-Line ID and accept any reconnection to another exchange, but I also want the supplementary service of Calling-Line ID Restriction mentioned by Fred Goldstein in Vol. 9 no. 93. AT NO CHARGE and without requiring any prefatory dialling if I so choose. I also want the ability to choose to reject calls whose originating number has been withheld. A. R. White USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina Del Rey, California 90292-6695 (213) 822-1511, x162 (213) 823-6714 facsimile ARPA: nomdenet @ ISI.edu [1] David's Sling, by Marc Stiegler; 1988; Baen Books, distributed by Simon & Schuster; New York. ISBN 0-671-65369-5 ------------------------------ From: Mike Trout Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. Date: 24 Mar 89 16:34:35 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john @ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes: > In article , gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) > writes: > > 3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to > > call her children from a shelter. Other examples like this exist. > If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife > went to a shelter. Even if his IQ is 150 or more, in his highly-charged emotional state his behavior will probably exhibit the intelligence of a sea slug. People don't act rationally when they're in an irrational situation. There have been some recent nasty incidents involving college professors and high-level corporate executives attacking their wives and children when they discovered they were in shelters. > Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her? > Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing? One of my best friends worked in a shelter for many years, and this is a SERIOUS problem. It is not at all unusual for husbands to somehow track down the shelter's location and show up at the front door with guns, axes, knives, clubs, etc. The local police are VERY familiar with the shelter's location as they spend a lot of time there arresting husbands who are trying to smash down the door and get at their wives. There are normally one or two injuries or deaths per year when husbands successfully get at their wives inside or right outside the shelter. And this is a shelter in a small city in a medium-sized urban area with a well below-average crime rate. At any given moment, several enraged husbands are cruising the city streets trying to find the shelter so that they can attack their wives and children. I shudder to think of the problems caller ID will present for shelters. I suppose they can initiate a policy of "NO outgoing calls to your husband," but the wives are just as upset as the husbands and they won't act rationally either. Often the irate husband will scream at them over the phone "what's the shelter's address?", and the wife, trained by years of unthinking subservience, will blurt out the address before she realizes the awful thing she has done. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #109 *****************************   Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 13:24:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special Edition: Vote! Message-ID: <8903251324.aa25878@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Mar 89 12:42:27 CST Special Edition: Vote! Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Important Vote Re: Moderator Guidelines (TELECOM Moderator) The Ballot: Call For Votes - Moderator Guidelines (Karl Denninger) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 12:25:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Important Vote Re: Moderator Guidelines My apologies for shifting from the normal subject, but a proposal has been made in news.groups that is critical to the future of moderated newsgroups. I am sending this as a special mailing so that you can file it in a more appropriate place than your archives for telecom. In <3163@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, Karl Denninger has posted a proposal for a vote with the subject line: "CALL FOR VOTES - MODERATOR GUIDELINES (was: rec.humor.funny)". He is asking for people to vote on some basic changes in the requirements of moderators and how they deal with the outside world. Specifically, he says: >The question being voted upon is: >o Should a moderator collect the majority or all his or her material > from the Usenet, whether from net-email, postings which are redirected by > the news software, or by culling from other newsgroups be restricted from: > 1) Compilation copyrighting that collection, effectively permitting > the restriction of it's distribution. (ie: does a moderator > have claim to the material that is reposted in the group by > that person). > 2) Selling, whether in print or electronically by gateway with > commercial services, the collection obtained through the Usenet > for personal or commercial profit or renumeration. >If you vote YES to this proposal, you are asking moderators who are >currently violating this proposed standard to cease and desist from doing >so. This proposal would affect TELECOM Digest, as about half of what appears in the Digest is from submissions by readers of USENET's comp.dcom.telecom group. Thus, the outcome of this proposal affects the relationship between USENET and TELECOM Digest (as well as all other moderated groups/lists which are distributed to some extent on USENET). Although I do not copyright and/or sell messages from readers at this time, the Digest would be subject to the rules, like all other moderated groups. I'm encouraging all readers of comp.dcom.telecom/TELECOM Digest to vote on the proposal. I recommend a "YES" vote, but I want everyone to make up their own minds on the matter. I have said a lot more on this in news.groups. It was necessary to post this message in the various moderated groups in order that readers of those groups who do not usually read news.groups would be aware of the controversy and the significant changes which could potentially occur in some groups. To date, over the past eight years, the moderators of TELECOM Digest, first Jon Solomon and now myself, have seen no need to formally copyright the material we post on a day to day basis submitted by readers. We have thought it unethical to re-publish your submissions in a non-Usenet/Internet media at a potential profit to ourselves. The vote being conducted now, if it fails to pass, would permit moderators of groups to disseminate submissions by thier readers as they desired, short of an explicit denial of that permission by the writer. By voting YES on the ballot, you are instructing the moderator to not do these things. For more information, please see the ongoing discussion in news.groups under the title 'Expansion of r.h.f. to other networks'. In the next message, a ballot is printed for you. PLEASE follow the instructions of the ballot EXACTLY as given. You must REPLY (not followup) to the address given in the ballot message. You must insert the word YES or NO in the header of your reply. Do not follow up or reply to TELECOM Digest or comp.dcom.telecom, as this is purely an administrative matter of USENET and discussion on it is being held in the appropriate forum. Do not copy replies to my attention; no messages on the subject will be printed (for the time being at least) in the Digest. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator ------------------------------ From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Date: 24 Mar 89 18:10:55 GMT Date-Received: 25 Mar 89 00:16:07 GMT Subject: CALL FOR VOTES - MODERATOR GUIDELINES (was: rec.humor.funny) Message-ID: <3163@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Organization: None Path: nucsrl!accuvax.nwu.edu!shadooby!mailrus!ames!ucsd!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.humor.d Reply-To: vote@ddsw1.UUCP (Voting booth) Followup-to: news.groups Keywords: VOTE, Rec.humor.funny, Brad Templeton, Gateways Lines: 156 Fri Mar 24 12:07:36 CST 1989 CALL FOR VOTES REGARDING MODERATOR'S GUIDELINES PLEASE READ IN ENTIRETY FOR VOTING INSTRUCTIONS AND "THE QUESTION" NOTE: This posting is being made to news.groups and rec.humor.d by myself. Brad Templeton has been asked to repost this article verbatim in rec.humor.funny as well; I have sent it to him via electronic mail. The two week discussion period on rec.humor.funny has expired, and it is now time for a call for votes. As was pointed out during the discussion period, this vote is not really about rec.humor.funny or Brad Templeton. It is about the policies and procedures that the net wishes to permit and sanction in moderation of newsgroups. Since the discussion period is for the purpose of "refining the question" that is to be asked for the vote, I have modified the question that is to be put to a vote to some degree. The question being voted upon is: o Should a moderator collect the majority or all his or her material from the Usenet, whether from net-email, postings which are redirected by the news software, or by culling from other newsgroups be restricted from: 1) Compilation copyrighting that collection, effectively permitting the restriction of it's distribution. (ie: does a moderator have claim to the material that is reposted in the group by that person). 2) Selling, whether in print or electronically by gateway with commercial services, the collection obtained through the Usenet for personal or commercial profit or renumeration. Some of the arguments which have been put forth on each side during the discussion period have been: PRO-proposal (ie: proposed YES voters): . Moderators are not the owner of a newsgroup or any other aspect of the namespace. Moderators are in effect a "trustee" of the group appointed by the network at large. . Moderators derive the ability to compile their material from the collective resources and goodwill of the network. Most sites view the Usenet as a non-commercial network, and thus may feel "exploited" if commercial use or resale is permitted. . Newsgroups flow over the Internet, and by some points of view commercial exploitation of material that passes through the Internet may jeopardize the continued existance of those links for the purpose of feeding Usenet news. Note that this issue has NOT been decided at this point; NSF is currently evaluating their position with regards to the Internet and commercial use. It is _prohibited_ to send commercial material over Arpanet links. . Moderators, while they may be within their legal rights to claim a compilation copyright (this is untested in court) should not claim such a copyright on ethical grounds, as it violates the "free spirit of Usenet". ANTI-Proposal (ie: proposed NO voters): . Moderators own the namespace and the compilation of the contents in a newsgroup, due to the effort put in when weeding through submissions and reposting material. . Moderators have the sole right to restrict the distribution of the material in the moderated newsgroup. Specifically, only the moderator has the right to gateway material to other commercial networks, restrict or permit the distribution on Usenet if desired, and reproduce the material in print for any purpose. . Moderators have the right to be compensated monetarily for the material that appears in their newsgroups by virtue of moderating that group, notwithstanding the fact that most or all of the material is not originated by the moderator and was carried to that moderator over links that are funded by third parties (ie: Usenet sites via email). If you vote YES to this proposal, you are asking moderators who are currently violating this proposed standard to cease and desist from doing so. Should a moderator refuse to comply with the requests of the network as stated in this proposal, he/she would then be replaced by another moderator (assuming someone else can be found who is willing to moderate the group), or the backbone will be petitioned to globally "rmgroup" the group in question. If you vote NO to this proposal, you are explicitly sanctioning moderators profit-making activities and restrictive capabilities over the compilations in moderated groups that are distributed through the medium known as "Usenet". Please note that this proposed restriction or sanction is to be applied equally to all moderators who compile material submitted in whole or primarialy through channels known as "Usenet" or "email" hosted on Usenet machines. This standard would not be applied to moderators who solicit material from other sources, such as Chuq's "rec.mag.otherrealms", as Chuq's material (from my understanding) is taken from sources other than the Usenet. It would also not apply to individual sites who resell access or feed services, as that is a free and competitive market (ie: anyone who doesn't like the price can simply find another feed/access point, and providers who don't like their downstream sites and/or users reselling are free to take action or not as they deem appropriate). If the vote should pass, we will petition Brad Templeton (who is the moderator currently operating outside these guidelines) to cease working outside these parameters. Should the vote fail, the network will have spoken. Moderators should then feel free to operate in any manner they feel warranted, including selling material to commercial networks, compiling compilations in print and selling those, or selling electronic compilations. In addition, the "Compilation Copyright" that Brad is claiming will be officially sanctioned by the network, with all of it's possible implications for future change in the Usenet and it's topology. TO VOTE (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY TO INSURE YOUR BALLOT IS NOT SPOILED!): REPLY to this posting. EDIT the subject header of the posting, such that exactly ONE of the words "YES" or "NO" (choose your case, upper, lower, or mixed) is contained in the subject line. Then submit your email vote to: vote@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Internet mailer sites) or !ddsw1!vote ("dumb mailer" sites) Replies to this posting are being redirected to this mailbox. Only one ballot per user will be counted. Spoiled ballots and duplicates will, in most cases, be discarded silently. Ballots containing neither or both of the keywords in the subject line, ballots sent to improper addresses, or ballots posted will be considered spoiled and discarded. Weekly summaries of the persons who have voted (but NOT interim results) will be posted to news.groups as the voting progresses. At the close of voting the results will be sorted, examined for duplicates, tallied and presented to the network for consideration. This vote is being run through automated software. You may include comments in your ballot if you wish, but it is doubtful that a human will read them during the voting process. Only the "Subject:" line will be examined to determine a ballot's vote. The vote will commence on 3-24-1989, and run until 4-23-1989. The postmark present on _reception_ at ddsw1.MCS.COM will be considered the date of receipt. Votes cast after the voting period expires will be bounced. Those who wish to confirm the results may request a copy of the vote stream as received. Send email to karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM for details on how to obtain a copy. We will archive it here for a minimum of two months after completion of the voting. We'll see everyone at the polls. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special Edition *****************************   Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 8:07:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #110 Message-ID: <8903270807.aa29783@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> { TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Mar 89 07:45:57 CST Volume 9 : Issue 110 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Connected Line ID (A worse idea) (David Gast) Cellular Radio Hazards (Robert Horvitz) California PUC pulls plug on egregious AOS gougers (Geoff Goodfellow) Pac*Bell, AT&T in cahoots? (Jeff Woolsey) Re: Urban Legend (Danny Wilson) Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? (Anthony E. Siegma) [Moderator's Note: I am still getting in messages pro and con on Caller ID. When I have time in the next day or two, I will put these together in a file somewhere where they can be read as desired. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 01:56:10 PST From: David Gast Subject: Connected Line ID (A worse idea) In a recent issue of the digest "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" writes: > Subject: Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) writes: > (BTW, the CCITT but not ANSI is working on Connected Line ID, > which tells you where you call was actually answered, if forwarded.) This idea is a complete invasion of privacy. The only exception would be if the called party requests that the calling party obtain it. I think that most people on both sides of the Calling Line ID controversy will agree that Connected Line ID is a bad idea. Everyone probably agrees that we have the right to answer the phone anywhere we damn well please without having the calling party know where we are unless we explicitly choose to provide that information. Giving our location to a random caller seems like a major invasion of privacy to me. For example, a would be burgler calls your home, you have set call forwarding, and now the burgler knows that you are not at home. Very convenient for him. /* Sarcasm mode on */ If Connected Line ID is a good idea, why not take Connected Line ID, one step further? Why not identify the room in your house where you are? Then the calling party could begin ``Mrs. Jones, I am sorry to bother you while you are in the john, but I have an exciting new product that ..." Why not identify who you are? (The phone could match your finger print on the handle with a national data base maintained and sold by the phone company to anyone who wants to buy it.) /* Sarcasm mode off */ Unfortunately, that is the direction we are going. We somehow believe that if it is technologically feasible, then we should do it. Does anyone see any reasonable need for this Connected Line ID? (Except where the callee specifically wants the caller to know where he is calling.) To get the definitive answer to this problem, however, we will have to wait and see what the world's authority on telecom policy, Mike Royko, has to say. :-) David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu, {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast Note: Mr Goldstein did not endorse the idea. He reported on it from his role as a member of the ANSI subcommittee on CLID and CLIR. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 89 22:13:18 PST From: Robert Horvitz Subject: Cellular Radio Hazards Mike Trout asks if there is any truth to the assertion that "cellular phones [are] extremely hazardous and probably highly carcinogenic." I am not a scientist, but research on the bio-effects of radio-frequency emissions is something I follow closely. In general, if you want the lastest news, pointers to new published evidence of bio-effects (beneficial or harmful), announcements of regulatory action, and pro/con debates among experts, consult MICROWAVE NEWS, edited/published by Dr. Louis Slesin (6 bimonthly issues for $250 in the US, $285 to Canada & elsewhere; order from P.O. Box 1799, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163; phone 212-517-2800). My only connection to this publication is as an avid reader for 7 years. (BTW, the title is misleading: it doesn't just cover the microwave part of the spectrum. Increasingly, attention is focussing on the magnetic fields surrounding powerlines and video display terminals as a health issue.) To make a long, unfinished story short, there's no definite evidence yet that radio emissions from cellular phones cause cancer, but there is reason to fear that over the long term there COULD be harmful effects of SOME sort. Different parts of the human body resonant at different electromagnetic frequencies. When radio waves pass through the body, some of the energy is absorbed - very little, usually, since we are highly "transparent" to the waves. In theory, the more closely resonant a body is with the radio waves, the more energy is transferred to the body. The human head and neck are pretty close to resonance with the frequencies emitted by cellular phones. ("Hots-spots" in the body for radio absorption are generally the narrowings - ankles, neck - and places with sharp angles - armpits, groin.) If the cellular transmitter and antenna are in the headset, and you hold it right against your skull, your brain is probably going to absorb quite a bit of RF energy - probably more than the safety limits set by organizations like ANSI. But most cellular phones DON'T have the transmitter and antenna in the headset. The little pig-tail on the roof or window is the radiator. Depending how far away it is, and how much shielding is provided by the car roof, frame and seat, your exposure will be less. (Because the interior of a car is a complex reflective cavity for radio waves, there may be invisible "hot-spots" where energy of specific frequencies is concentrated. It's hard to generalize about particular ambient fields. Direct measurement is the best way to determine the field strength at specific points.) Beyond that, little is yet known about the bio-effects of radio waves that are below the threshold where living tissue is measurably heated by energy absorption. What your source was probably picking up on was a finding that living DNA can absorb enough energy from pulsed microwaves to fracture. Dr. Bill Guy (University of Washington) demonstrated in 1985 that rats exposed to pulsed microwaves had a significant number of tumors induced in their endocrine systems. Other researchers have confirmed this, and still others have found pulsed microwaves can cause mutations (chromosome damage) in chick and rat embryos. But it is a very long reach from pulsed microwaves to frequency-modulated UHF radio waves - that's what cellular emits - and from rats to humans - the resonant frequencies and absorption/dissipation rates are different. Intuition suggests that pulsing may be more stressful on tissue than FM, and the longer wavelengths of VHF mean less resonance with the tiny structures in membranes and cells. To complicate things further, bio-effects have only been found in certain COMBINATIONS of power-density, frequency and duration. Unlike exposure to toxic chemicals, say, exposure to a more intense radio field might actually be LESS harmful than a less intense field of the same frequency. Same goes for the duration of exposure: it may be that intermittent exposure is more - or less! - harmful than continuous exposure. We just don't know. We live in a sea of man-made radio energy containing all sorts of frequencies and modulations that we can't see or feel, and we know very little about the long-term effects. For that reason, it's a shame - willful negligence? - that the Environmental Protection Agency disbanded its radio effects laboratory (thank you Ronald Reagan!) and gave up trying to set safety standards for human exposure (thank you Gramm-Rudman-Hollings!). I wouldn't hold a walkie-talkie up to my head - or wear a rubber-ducky antenna on my headband, as some hams do - until we understand more about the effects. As for cellular, there's much more certain harm being caused to your privacy (as others have noted, cellular systems BROADCAST your words over very large areas), and also to your wallet. For those reasons alone you're better off stopping to use a pay-phone. ------------------------------ Subject: California PUC pulls plug on egregious AOS gougers. Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 19:58:43 PST From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow According to a story in Friday's San Francisco Examiner, Business Section, the Public Utilities Commission directed TPC (Pacific Bell) to disconnect 54 privately owned pay phones in its first enforcement action against "price gouging by some operator services". "Privately owned pay phones can charge no more than 10 cents above Pacific Bell and AT&T rates for local calls or calls in California". The 54 privately owned pay phones belonged to 12 owners, and their charges were found to be at least 90% higher than the authorized rates, and sometimes were up to three times as high. All owners had been warned of the overcharging in November. Under the PUC orders, Pacific Bell has sent letters to the owners notifying them that their plug will be pulled in seven days. The article also mentioned the FCC last month imposed some restrictions on five AOS firms accused of egregious gouging that require the companies "to identify themselves to each caller and disclose rates if computers asked." ------------------------------ From: Jeff Woolsey Subject: Pac*Bell, AT&T in cahoots? Date: 26 Mar 89 00:57:41 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Woolsey Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation I walked up to a genuine Pacific*Bell coin phone in 408-738 this afternoon. It had a placard on it that proclaimed that 10XXX calls could be placed from the phone, and that AT&T was the long distance carrier for that phone. I found out that they weren't kidding: I dialed 10333-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording saying that I had reached the AT&T long distance network. I dialed 10222-1-700-555-4141 and got the same announcement. Evidently the CO routes any 10XXX-1-NXX-NXX-XXXX call to AT&T for coin collection (unless XXX is not a valid carrier). Seems mighty strange to me since the days of free calls via this method are long gone, and most such calls got an operator of some kind at the carrier of your choice, exactly like 10XXX-0-NXX-NXX-XXXX calls. It seems you can't trust ANYBODY these days. -- -- Qualify nearly everything. Jeff Woolsey woolsey@nsc.NSC.COM -or- woolsey@umn-cs.cs.umn.EDU ------------------------------ From: Danny Wilson Subject: Re: Urban Legend Date: 27 Mar 89 02:56:49 GMT Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd., Edmonton, Alta. In article , ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian@seas. ucla.edu (julian macassey) writes: > In article , GUYDOSRM%SNYPLABA.BITNET @CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes: > (There follows the usual story, deleted here for brevity, of how dog is > chained up, gets electric shock from phone ringing, urinates, sends ground > to the phone line, etc....) > This tale is waht is known today as "Urban Legend", such stories used to > be called "Old Wives Tales". I have heard this story from telco people all > over the world. For what its worth, these urban legends have been studied for some time now by the academic community. I heard a radio interview with an author that searched the origins of such stories. Although I can't remember that authors name, a while back another newsgroup furnished the following reference to urban legends: "The Vanishing Hitchhiker" by Brunvand Although I would really like to read this book, I haven't actually gone out and bought it yet. Has anyone read it? Danny Wilson danny@idacom.uucp IDACOM Electronics Edmonton, Alberta C A N A D A ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 15:59:49 PST From: "Anthony E. Siegman" Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? Organization: Stanford University My residential phone number (415 area code) happens to spell a quite commercially interesting word. During the 15-plus years I've had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting to take it over, paying me something for giving it up. A recent one seems serious. Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number? Rumor has it that someone whose all-digit dialing number was "AMERICA" got $1000 for turning over this number during the Centennial". My "commercially interesting" number, by the way, is 326-6669 = ECONOMY. Wasn't certain whether I wanted to publish it or not. Sorry for the mailer foulups -- not certain if it's the system here, my novice skills (just learning rn and Unix), or what. A. E. Siegman siegman@sierra.stanford.edu [Moderator's Note: This is a repeat of the message which was lost in transit a couple days ago. The author saw my request and resent it to us. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #110 *****************************   Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 1:57:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #111 Message-ID: <8903280157.aa28722@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Mar 89 01:34:14 CST Volume 9 : Issue 111 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Caller*ID(tm) and Repeat*Call(tm) in New Jersey (Mark Robert Smith) Shady operations (John Higdon) CompuServe adds monthly user fee (Bruce Nelson) How Much Is A Phone Number Worth? (Scott Statton) Perfect solution to caller privacy (Rahul Dhesi) Alternative to CPID (smv@apollo.com) Announcements (TELECOM Moderator) [Moderator's Note: The Vote discussed in the special issue of the Digest over the weekend has been CANCELLED. *DO NOT* send votes! See final message in this issue for details. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 22:01:25 EST From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Caller*ID(tm) and Repeat*Call(tm) in New Jersey I've just returned from Spring Break, and my dorm number has finally had Caller*ID and Repeat*Call turned on. I picked up the Caller ID box from my PO Box here, and here are a few first impressions: Repeat*Call works well. I have used it both for local calls and intra-LATA long distance calls. One feature that is not documented is that when you get the Repeat Call signal that the line is free (two short, one long), the Caller ID box displays the number that you are attempting to call. This is useful because you can have several Repeat Calls running at the same time. My only complaint (other than the large one below) is that the confirmation tape you hear upon activating Repeat Call is very worn and of poor quality. Repeat Call is activated by dialing *66 after the busy signal. All current Repeat Calls will be disabled by dialing *86 (you can't disable one, you have to disable all). Caller ID works well also. After purchasing the 9-volt battery the box requires (that was never mentioned before...), I hooked it up. After the wrangling with NJ Bell (see below), it finally worked. The number appears quite quickly, almost immediately after the first ring ends. It only displays the last seven digits, but then I haven't gotten a call from out of state yet. I haven't seen it yet, but according to the documentation, it displays three question marks: _ _ _ _| _| _| | | | when the number does not support Caller ID. When a call comes in, the unit displays a NEW in the top right corner, and the number, preceded by an L (it looks like it was supposed to show L for long distance, and nothing for local, but that info was replaced by a page-size sticker in the docs). After 30 seconds, whether the phone was answered or not, the number disappears and is replaced by the word CALL. The box has three buttons, Remove, Time of Call, and Review. To review the calls (it stores up to 20, and then bounces the least recent), you hit the review button, and the most recent call will be displayed, then the next most recent... When you hit Time of Day, you see DATE in the mid-upper left, the 2 digit day on the left, the 2 digit hour (1-12) on the right, and AM or PM to the right of the hour. This time/date comes over the line with the number, not from the box. If the same number calls back, the upper right will show REPEATED CALL for that number, and the Time/Date will be for the most recent call from that number. To delete a number, you hit the Remove button twice, and the digits of the number disappear one at a time from the right to left (a "dissolve"). There is also a low battery indicator BATT on the far left. Under the gray square surrounding the LCD screen, there are two buttons in the bottom right and left corners that are not marked, which when pressed simultaneously will reset the unit and clear the numbers. If there are no calls in memory when Review is pressed, nine's are shown. The unit is 6" long, 4 3/4" wide, and slopes from 2.5" tall in the back to 2" tall in the front. The phone cord plugs in the back, and there is a barrel socket (like those used for DC adaptors) that is marked unused in the manual, and unmarked on the unit. I had to call NJ Bell repair today to get the service turned on (3/27). The person who I called to establish the service said that the service would be turned on on 3/20. I was locked out of the dorm for Break last week, so I was not around on 3/20. I called the Business Office to see if the service was actually on, as reccommended in the Caller ID box manual, and the person said that it showed completed on 3/20. I then called the Manufacturer of the box, and they said that they had been having trouble with NJ Bell saying that the service was on when it wasn't. The service call was placed around noon, and the service was on when I returned at 8pm tonight. When I called the Business Office, I asked for a credit for the time that the service was not really on, and the rep told me that I asked to have the service turned on on 3/20, and that I should have checked then to see if it worked. I said that I was TOLD when the service would start, with no choice in the matter, and that I was locked out of my dorm last week and couldn't check on 3/20. She said that she didn't want to argue and credited me for the week that the service was supposedly on but really wasn't. Is this some kind of extra money-making plot, or just ineptitude on the part of NJ Bell? This is my first report. If anything exciting develops, I'll let you know. Please feel free to direct questions about the rudiments of the service to me, at an address shown below: Mark ---- Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance, RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063 that you do not miss what is right under your nose." New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith (OK, Bob?) msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu Copyright 1989, Mark Smith. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Shady operations Date: 27 Mar 89 06:19:50 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team A few weeks ago I brought up some of the slimy practices of PacTel Cellular in Los Angeles. Here is what has got to be the flip side of those practices. Here in the Bay Area we have to cellular providers: GTE Mobilnet (wireline) and Cellular One (non-wireline), which is owned in part by Pacific Telesis, the holding company for PacTel and Pacific Bell. GTE Mobilnet is the larger of the two systems with over 90 cell sites compared to Cellular One with only 60. Cellular One has a great arrangement with Pacific Bell. No matter where you are in the Bay Area, if you call any Cellular One mobile prefix you are charged only as a local call. This even works from utility-provided pay phones: any call to a Cellular One mobile phone is twenty cents. On the other hand, if you try to call a GTE mobile prefix you get a recording that says, "There are long distance charges associated with this call. Please redial your call, preceded by the digit '1'." You get this recording even if you are calling a GTE mobile prefix that shows in the directory as being local to the telephone you are using. I have yet to find a Pacific Bell pay phone anywhere in the Bay Area that does not do this. When you follow instructions and dial the '1', you get a reorder. This is to be expected in 408 since a '1' is not used for long distance. If you precede the number with '0', you get the Pacific Bell ka-bong where you can enter your calling card (and be charged ????). If you call the Pacific Bell operator, your call will be placed and twenty cents will be collected. I used to think this was an honest programming error in a particular central office until 1) I reported it four times and nothing was done, and 2) I found out that it is widespread. Another thing is that this recording that you hear is heard under no other circumstances. If you actually dial a long distance call you get asked for money. If you are in 415 and forget to dial a '1', you are simply told that you must dial a '1' and there is no mention of "long distance *charges*". Do you suppose little things like this might nudge potential cellular customers over to Cellular One? From non-coin phones, things seem to work properly. I'm not quite sure where to start my campaign, but it seems that a call to GTE Mobilnet might be in order. I'm sure they will be interested to know how the operating company is thwarting their business. The next call will be to the Pacific Bell pay phone division, and that will be followed by a strong letter to the CPUC. Any other suggestions? -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ From: Bruce Nelson Subject: CompuServe adds monthly user fee Date: 27 Mar 89 20:14:50 GMT Reply-To: Bruce Nelson Organization: Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY CompuServe just announced that they will begin charging a $1.50 per month user fee over and above whatever usage is charged. The fee will be waived during the first three months of a new account. They will, however, make some services free - like looking up your charges, looking up access numbers, etc. I thought you all would like to know. Bruce D. Nelson | UUCP: ...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!hawkeye!nelson Eastman Kodak Company | Voice: 716-726-7890 901 Elmgrove Road | Company Mail: Dept 5177 Distributed Systems Service Rochester, NY 14653-5219 | Standard disclaimers apply ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 00:12:16 EST From: statton@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: How Much Is A Phone Number Worth? In a TELECOM Digets #110, Anthony Siegman (siegman@sierra.stanford.edu), asks the value of his residential phone number. My employer recently bought NXX-1000 for $1,500. This is being used as the FG-A number for a long-distance reseller, where easily memorized numbers are important to have. (We're also getting NXX-9595 wherever possible throughout the rest of the state, to make memorizing the numbers easier.) Scott Statton -- N1GAK ... aka scott@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Rahul Dhesi Subject: Perfect solution to caller privacy Date: 24 Mar 89 20:24:52 GMT Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.uucp Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana I just discovered the perfect solution to the caller privacy issue. Suppose you make a telephone call and the callee is automatically refusing calls unless the caller is willing to identify himself. You hear a tone and a voice that says: "*Blip* *Bleep* *Blurp* This call cannot be completed as dialed unless you enable caller identification. You can do this by flashing the switchook once, or by dialing *7 on your touch tone telephone, *NOW*." There is now a five-second wait. If you enable caller id as instructed, your call goes through immediately and you don't even have to redial. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: !{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 19:58:29 EST From: smv@apollo.com Subject: Alternative to CPID As several contributors have pointed out, CPID isn't really going to do the average person much good. The problem of finding catching obscene callers is better solved by a code that reports the last/current callers number to the nuisance bureau. The problem of finding who hung up before you got to the phone is better solved by a "call back the last caller" code. Proponents of CPID say that it would allow them to screen incoming calls. Various contributors have also noted that this is a bad idea since relatives calling from pay phones, or other types of emergency calls would be missed. (Anyone who can remember all their friends' phone numbers has either a superb memory, or few enough friends that they should welcome calls from strangers. :-) Rather than provide us all with CPID, what the phone company should do is give us a way of posting "no solicitations" on our line. Then require junk callers to dial with a prefix that would bounce the call if we've chosen that option. Solicitation calls that get through should be reported to the nuisance bureau. If we played our cards right, we could probably get the junk callers pay for the service of not completing calls to people who don't want to receive them. The junk callers would presumably save money in the long run. On the other hand, I'd be willing to pay a small fee to know I won't receive junk calls. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 1:32:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Announcements Over the weekend, you were mailed a special edition of the Digest suggesting that you participate in a Usenet vote on the subject of 'Guidelines For Usenet Moderators'. The topic was of some controversy in news.groups, and the passage of the proposed vote would have affected the relationship of all moderators of news groups/lists. The person who proposed the vote, and set up the apparatus for the vote decided, for reasons not known to me, to cancel the voting. The address set up to accept the votes was removed, and all mail sent after sometime late Saturday was refused, and returned to the sender. My first knowledge of this came when I was reading news.groups earlier this evening. My second notice came when a couple readers here reported that their mail had bounced. Apparently you should NOT submit a vote. I apologize for the confusion, but at the time the vote was announced I did think it was important to let everyone know. On another issue: mail regarding caller ID is still coming in. I know at one time I said we would use it all, but I never really expected to get quite the volume. As the days go on, the responses become more rancorous and hateful. Yes, I started the discussion, but at the same time I did devote not one, but several issues to printing replies, from every possible angle, and expressing every possible opinion. If I keep on running those messages, we would have digest after digest of them; none of them saying anything new, and many of them simply stirring up more hate and discontent than exists already. In today's issue, we at least have a message from someone who is actually using it, describing how it works, and I have printed a couple of FINAL replies from the several received in recent days. Let's *please* move on to different topics. Any further messages on Caller ID should preferably be from persons who have subscribed or who have technical commentaries about the offering. Thank you! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #111 *****************************   Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 2:37:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #112 Message-ID: <8903280237.aa29028@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Mar 89 02:09:27 CST Volume 9 : Issue 112 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson The Strange Territory That Will Be Area 708 (David Tamkin) Directory Assistance by Modem? (Frank G Kienast) Yes! Directory Assistance Records via Modem (Daniel Senie) Telcos Charging For Handling Nasty Callers (Ron Natalie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 10:47 CST From: David Tamkin Subject: The Strange Territory That Will Be Area 708 [Moderator's Note: This is a letter I received from David Tamkin, a fellow Chicagoan. We were discussing other things, and got into a discussion about the odd-ball prefixes here which straddle the city/suburban boundary lines. I asked David where they would be placed: 708 or 312. Here is his reply. PT] Patrick: I already knew about those numbers. I'd spoken to a live operator on one of them, who admitted, when I brought up the mess in the Newcastle CO, that it wouldn't really be possible to make it through without changing any phone numbers. (Had IBT not gotten sloppy they could have.) The following twelve prefixes are, per the recording, to "be served by both area code 312 and area code 708:" 200 340 411 555 611 796 911 950 958 959 970 976 These thirty-seven prefixes are invalid. I imagine that 414 and 219 (which match area codes in the LATA) and 217, 309, 312, 618, 708, and 805 (matching area codes in Illinois) will remain invalid: 203 211 212 217 219 270 290 300 309 311 312 313 319 320 370 400 414 415 494 500 511 600 610 616 618 700 708 710 711 800 809 811 813 815 900 912 999 494 I'll get back to below. All the dedicated mobile prefixes I knew of are, per the recording, to remain in 312. So are the dedicated FX prefixes such as BRoadway 3, BIshop 2, and 569. The ten prefixes serving the city from suburban CO's: 229 380 399 58(LUdlow)6 589 62(NAtional)5 693 694 714 992 will remain in 312. The prefixes serving the suburbs from city CO's [well, only one city CO, now that 494 has been dissolved: 45(GLadstone)7, 64(NIles)7, and 86(UNderhill)7] will be switched to 708, meaning that 708 will cover three discontiguous geographical areas. UNderhill 7 has always been listed in the Chicago directories (and the Jefferson Park local) and handled from the same city business office as Chicago's parts of the Newcastle CO district, so that will likely change when it goes into area code 708: Harwood Heights listings will appear in the River Grove local and Near West Suburban regional books instead and be served from the west suburban business office. (The other two holes in the city are no problem: one is a small plot of land with no phones, belonging to the state and condemned for highway purposes. The other is filled by Mt. Greenwood Cemetery, where mail is addressed "Blue Island, Illinois" but which has a city phone number.) Unincorporated Norwood Park Township will be a mess. If it had been up to me, I'd have kept Elmwood Park, Harwood Heights, Norridge, and River Grove in 312 so that 708 could be in one piece and there would be only one boundary line, but it wasn't up to me. UNPT is laid out like this: Sections 1 and 12 have 867 prefixes, section 11 has 457 prefixes, and section 2 has a mosaic of suburban Park Ridge prefixes (692, 698, 823, 825, and maybe a 696 or two, but no 318's or 518's) and Chicago-service Park Ridge prefixes (380, 399, 693, and 714). You see, up until 1976 Centel treated it as suburbia and assigned suburban prefixes, charged at suburban rates; then, since it had been surrounded by Chicago for fifteen years, they started assigning Chicago numbers charged at Chicago rates but didn't make anyone who was already there change numbers. If the rest of UNPT were to have stayed in 312, Centel could have gone on as they have and eventually the remaining suburban phone numbers would have been replaced with Chicago numbers as people sold their homes or changed their numbers, but since the IBT parts of UNPT are going to 708 it's a whole new story. IBT was cleaning up its act in the Newcastle area but just assigned a 775- prefix to a new store in Harwood Heights (Cosmetic Center in Holiday Plaza). I wish I had a way to the ear of someone who'll listen. Do you think that a discontiguous NPA is a bad idea? I know I do, and I'm sure that people in Harwood Heights, Norridge, and UNPT have a lot more telephone conversations with Chicago locations than they do with locations in suburbs that are outside the perimeter of the city. Heck, that's probably true of Elmwood Park as well, if not also River Grove! Now, about what you were saying regarding the Cicero-Chicago border: I'm not sure if you were talking about 24(BIshop)2 or 494. Each is a separate story. BIshop 2 is a dedicated Foreign Exchange prefix, used solely to provide city numbers to west suburban businesses. Until 1987 it was located in the Cicero CO, but then it was moved to Chicago-Austin. However, it is part of the Chicago-Lafayette exchange and Chicago Zone 6 for when a call is charged by exchanges or zones (such as calls from coin phones or from Centel service) rather than by CO's. It will remain in 312. 494 was in the Chicago-Lawndale CO. It was part of the Cicero exchange. I couldn't figure out where it served, and every number I tried dialing on that prefix got an intercept that the number was not in service or that the number had been disconnected with no further information available. The recorded service for the area code change says 494 is an invalid prefix now; if I try to dial 494-XXXX, the call is intercepted after only three digits. It's been dissolved. And I think IBT are once again out of their minds. 494 was the only suburban prefix that was within an A call of Lake Shore, Illinois Dearborn, or Superior (Franklin, Wabash, and the Canals are in the A zone from the Cicero CO's three exchanges and ten prefixes; Lakeview is in the A zone from Oak Park, Evanston, and Skokie). They could have offered lower rates for a 708-494- number to downtown locations than for any other 708 prefix and accordingly had much more of such traffic in Remote Call Forwarding from business customers who won't pop for full-fledged Foreign Exchange service, but they blew it by having it dissolved. If I were in charge of this, I'd be aggressively promoting the 494 prefix for Remote Call Forwarding, telling downtown businesses that they don't have to make their suburban customers feel alienated by needing to dial eleven digits. David ------------------------------ From: Frank G Kienast Subject: Directory Assistance by Modem? Date: 28 Mar 89 02:02:07 GMT I am curious as to why the phone companies do not offer directory assistance by modem. Seems like it would cut down on the cost of providing this service, especially when the directory assistance operator punches your request into a computer anyway. I realize that many people who call directory assistance may not even know what a modem is, but wouldn't it be worthwhile even if only a relatively small percentage of people used it? What would be even better would be a single modem number that would provide directory assistance for any city in the US. This would save time, in that you would only have to make one call to get all the numbers you need. I wonder why some private information company hasn't thought of this. Seems to me that people would be willing to pay for a service like this. Or are there major legal, etc. problems that would be encountered? In real life: Frank Kienast Well: well!fgk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU CIS: 73327,3073 V-mail: 804-980-3733 [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has tariffed this service, known locally as 'Directory Express' for about three years. They sell Directory Assistance by the hour rather than by the call. The last I heard, they only had about four or five customers using it: a couple of collection agencies and credit services. They call via modem and get the same data base DA uses. PT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel Senie Subject: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem Date: 24 Mar 89 05:46:35 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA Several people have made the argument that CPID does not reveal the caller's name or other such information and therefore does not really provide information which would violate privacy. I beg to differ: A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single disc. While this information would not necessarily be indexed by phone number, building such an index is not difficult. So, a person or company with CPID interfaced to a PC or minicomputer could display the caller's name and address while the phone is still ringing. Dan ================================= Personally I wish NET would just get around to providing touch-tone in this town! All of these services are just a pip dream in this area. NYNEX doesn't seem to feel that it is important to provide advanced services outside the cities. -- Daniel Senie UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts Stratus Computer, Inc. ARPA: anvil!cloud9!dts@harvard.harvard.edu 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686 ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Telcos Charging For Handling Nasty Callers Date: 23 Mar 89 15:15:46 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. > 1) Count on the BOCs soaking everybody involved for this {dis}service. They > have been looking ever since 84 for anything and everything they can charge > extra for. Have you priced a leased line recently? Well certainly some features of the NJ Bell Class service are a bit annoying. One of which is the additional charge for reporting to the police the identity the source of obscene or harrassing phone calls. They used to do this for free (although it wasn't just a matter of pushing touchtone keys as it is now). I'm not sure of your leased line statement. The rates for a 3002 dedicated circuit are still cheaper than leaving a line dialed up if you're a business and hence have message unit service. -Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #112 *****************************   Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 0:50:37 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #113 Message-ID: <8903290050.aa26068@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Mar 89 00:42:45 CST Volume 9 : Issue 113 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Cellular prefixes in Chicagoland (John R. Covert) 0+NPA+7D refused?! (Carl Moore) Re: Some notes on the UK phone system (Piet van Oostrum) COCOTs as an investment (Marc T. Kaufman) 900 service providers--who? (John Boteler) Re: Directory Assistance by Modem? (John Murray) Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem (Ben Sharpe) Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem (Nicholas J. Simicich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Covert" Date: 28 Mar 89 05:25 Subject: Cellular prefixes in Chicagoland >All the dedicated mobile prefixes I knew of are, per the recording, to >remain in 312. How about 550 (Ameritech) and 659 (Southwestern Bell/Cellular One)? As far as I can tell, these are dedicated -- in fact they are the "main" prefixes for each company, containing the Chicago roamer access numbers. Yet I would expect both of them to move, since they are currently listed outside the city. This will put both "Chicago" roamer numbers in 708. It seems that 867 is the only exception to the rule that if the "name place" for the prefix is "Chicago" it stays in 312, otherwise it moves to 708. This makes one suspicious about 867 -- will its "name place" change along with its NPA? /john ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 9:52:28 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 0+NPA+7D refused?! Last night, I went to a Diamond State pay phone on 302-366-9xxx (Newark, Del.) and tried to place a 0+ call to a Va. suburb of DC on 703-893 prefix. It turns out I would have to dial 10288+0+703-893-xxxx to get AT&T routing. My attempt to use 0+703-893-xxxx got a recording "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" as did my attempt to use areacode 202 instead of 703. Mind you, this is not a COCOT. ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system Date: 28 Mar 89 11:09:34 GMT Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht, Holland In article , dhesi@bsu-cs (Rahul Dhesi) writes: `In article OLE@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: `>My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard. `>...Put one in the special PhoneCard phones `>and dial away *anywhere*. There is no minimum charge, and you can `>talk until the "money" runs out (1 unit = 10p). `This seems to be of dubious value. What is the difference between `buying a phone card from a grocery store and then using it in a `telephone, as opposed to just putting the money into the telephone `directly? This just seems to add an extra step. It makes sense if you dial an international call. With coins you will not do much more than pushing coins. Moreover, the British pay phones have the terrible habit of disabling the voice channel momentarily while you insert a coin (maybe they have better ones now?). I think the major advantage is for the phone company. They don't have to collect the coins and there is no chance of theft of the money from the phone. -- Piet van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands Telephone: +31-30-531806. piet@cs.ruu.nl (mcvax!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet) ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: COCOTs as an investment Date: 28 Mar 89 16:29:04 GMT Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" Organization: Stanford University A boiler-room investment group called to offer my wife a sure-fire investment, with 35% annual return -- GUARANTEED! ...in the form of secured corporate notes in U.S. Fiber-Line, who are supposed to be in the AOS and COCOT business. ---I knew a guy once, who was so ticked off that a door-to-door salesman sold him a set of encyclopedias, that he went to work for the company and sold encyclopedias himself until he had recouped his losses.--- If you can't lick 'em, join 'em? Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Subject: 900 service providers--who? Date: Mon Mar 27 14:42:26 1989 From: John Boteler Organization: Bote Communications, McLean VA HELP!!! I'm lost in telecom.hell!!! It is truly amazing that some carriers are still in business after the rigamarole I just went through with AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Allnet, et al. All I wanted to know was whether or not they currently provide 900-xxx-xxxx service. Part of the problem was that I don't know what name to call this service, which does present some problems when the people I called don't know either! After describing what I wanted in detail, then they checked to find out if they offered the service. Five to eight departmental transfers/phone calls later, the answer was: they don't know! Do you? I have already retrieved the list posted to this newsgroup listing three letter codes translating to 900 service providers. However, I do not have any contact information for many of them. I need, and would appreciate greatly, a list delineating: 1. The carrier's 900 offering name (so I can ask for it intelligently) 2. The carrier's phone number 3. Any additional info (rates, service quality, etc) At this point, the query time spent per carrier has become prohibitive; that is why I am counting on the renowned expertise of this forum for guidance. Of course, thank you in advance! email to: Bote uunet!cyclops!csense!bote {mimsy,sundc}!{prometheus,hqda-ai}!media!cyclops!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: John Murray Subject: Re: Directory Assistance by Modem? Date: 28 Mar 89 21:41:22 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA In article , well!fgk@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Frank G Kienast) writes: > I am curious as to why the phone companies do not offer directory assistance > by modem. Isn't this what the French Minitel system was initially established for? - J. Murray, Amdahl Corp. ------------------------------ From: ben sharpe Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem Date: 28 Mar 89 17:43:14 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article dts@cloud9.stratus.com (Daniel Senie) writes: > A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on > CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single > disc. So what happened? I would be very interested in finding out any information about Yellow or White pages on CD. *** Generald Disclaimer *** "My employer is not responsible for what I have to say." If you can't say something nice... say something surrealistic. -- Zippy ** Please put my name in the subject ** as my mailbox is a group account on AppleLink. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 23:29:45 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem Reply-To: njs@scifi.UUCP (Nicholas J. Simicich) In article dts@cloud9.stratus.com (Daniel Senie) writes: (.....) >A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on >CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single >disc. While this information would not necessarily be indexed by phone number, >building such an index is not difficult. >So, a person or company with CPID interfaced to a PC or minicomputer could >display the caller's name and address while the phone is still ringing. (.....) Yep. I've seen it running at a Long Island communication show last year. It allowed you to do lookups by region and name, or by phone number. It would probably take a ring or two to do a lookup. Licensing policies didn't allow you to make wholesale copies of the directory, or use it as a basis for sales calls. The AT+T people claimed that they had put "ringers" (as it were) into the database, and that if they found a correlation between cold calls arriving at those numbers and people who were getting this service, they would cut off subscriptions. They weren't telling you the format of the database, although figuring it out and using it on a LAN as a server didn't violate their license, according to the person I talked to, as long as you didn't copy data from the database wholesale. They also claimed that someone had done it. You got a new CD-ROM every month, as an update. I seem to remember a number of around $10,000/year for the service, plus the setup (AT class machine and CD ROM drive, supplied by NYNEX). As NYNEX sold it, this was for a single station. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #113 *****************************   Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 1:15:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #114 Message-ID: <8903290115.aa26305@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Mar 89 00:56:36 CST Volume 9 : Issue 114 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson USTS Class Action Lawsuit (TELECOM Moderator) The real use of caller ID services (John B. Nagle) Re: Possible Cancer Risk From Cellular Phones? (Richard Snider) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 0:34:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO CERTAIN CURRENT AND FORMER CUSTOMERS OF UNITED STATES TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS ITT COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.) By order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT: A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of certain former and current customers against United States Transmission Systems, Inc., now known as ITT Communications Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'USTS'. The Court has preliminarily approved a settlement of this lawsuit. YOU ARE URGED TO READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS AND WILL BE BINDING ON YOU IN THE FUTURE. I. NOTICE OF A PENDING CLASS ACTION A. Description of the Lawsuit Plaintiffs have sued USTS, alleging that USTS charged customers for certain unanswered phone calls, holding time, busy signals, and central office recorded messages, hereinafter referred to as 'unanswered calls', without adequately disclosing such charges to their customers or the public. Plaintiffs seek to present their own claims for charges for unanswered calls, as well as the claims of other current and former USTS customers for similar charges. USTS denies the violations alleged by plaintiffs, and contends that at all times, USTS has charged its subscribers fairly and properly and has disclosed fully and fairly the basis for its long distance charges. USTS has agreed to settle plaintiff's suit solely to avoid the expense, inconvenience and disruption of further litigation. This notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court of the merits of this litigation or of the Settlement Agreement. The Complaint, the Settlement Agreement and other pleadings in this case may be inspected during normal business hours at the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226. B. The Settlement Class Plaintiffs and USTS have entered into a Settlement Agreement, which has been preliminarily approved by the Court. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed, for purposes of settlement only, that this suit has been brought on behalf of the following class of persons similarly situated to Plaintiffs, hereinafter known as 'the Class': All persons and entities that subscribed to and utilitzed the long distance telephone service of USTS or its predecessor ITT Corporate Communication Services, Inc., referred to collectively hereinafter as 'USTS', at any time during the period January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1985. C. How to Remain a Class Member If you were a subscriber to and utilized USTS' long distance service at any time during this period, you are a member of the Class. You need do nothing to remain a member of the Class and participate in the benefits this settlement will provide. If you remain in the Class, you will be bound by the results of the settlement and/or the lawsuit. D. How to Exclude Yourself From the Class You are not required to be a member of the Class. Should you decide that you do not want to me a member of the Class, you must send an Exclusion Notice that states your name, your current address, and your desire to be excluded from the Class to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at the address given at the end of this Notice, postmarked no later than April 20, 1989. If you choose to be excluded from the Class, you may not participate in the settlement. You will not, however, be bound by any judgment dismissing this action and you will be free to pursue on your own behalf any legal rights you may have. II. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT The Settlement Agreeent requires USTS to provide to Class members up to 750,000 minutes of long distance telephone credits having a maximum value, at 30 cents per minute, of $225,000, hereinafter known as the "Settlement Credits", and cash refunds up to a maximum of $50,000. These benefits are available to Class membes who file a proof of claim in a timely manner as described in Section III below. Class members may choose one benefit from the following options: A. A *standardized credit* toward USTS long distance telephone service of $1.50 for each year from 1979 through 1985 in which the Class member (i) was a USTS customer, and (ii) claims that s/he was charged by USTS for unanswered calls; or B. A *standardized cash refund* of 90 cents for each year from 1979 through 1985 in which the Class member was (i) was a USTS customer and (ii) claims that s/he was charged by USTS for unanswered calls; or, C. An *itemized credit* toward USTS long distance service of 30 cents for each minute of unanswered calls for which the Class member was charged during the Class period (January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1985) and for which the Class member has not been previously reimbursed or credited; or, D. An *itemized cash refund* of 30 cents for each minute of unanswered calls for which the Class member charged during the Class period (January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1985) and for which the Class member has not been previously reimbursed or credited. To obtain an *itemized* credit or cash refund, the Class member must itemize and attest to each unanswered call for for which a refund or credit is claimed. If the total credits claimed by Class members exceed 750,000 credit minutes, each Class member claiming Settlement Credits will receive his/her/its pro rata share of the total Settlement Credits available. Class members need not be current USTS customers to claim the standardized and itemized credits. USTS will automatically open an account for any Class member who requests credits and executes an authorization to open such an account. If a Class member incurs a local telephone company service charge in connection with the opening of a USTS account, USTS will issue a credit to the Class member's account for the full amount of such service charge upon receipt of the local telephone company's bill for the service charge. USTS is not responsible for any other service charge that a local telephone company may impose for ordering, using or terminating USTS service. The Settlement Agreement requires USTS to pay the costs of giving this Notice (up to a maximum of $120,000) and of administering the settlement described above. The Settlement Agreement further provides that upon final approval of the settlement, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims of plaintiffs and members of the Class that have been or might have been asserted in this action and that relate to USTS' billing practices and disclosure practices for unanswered calls. Counsel for the Class have investigated the facts and circumstances regarding the claims against USTS and their defenses. In view of those circumstances, counsel for the Class have concluded that this Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. III. HOW TO FILE A CLAIM To receive Settlement Credits or a Cash Refund, you must first obtain a Proof of Claim Notice; then provide all the information requested and return it to the Clerk of the Court postmarked no later than June 30, 1989. To obtain claim forms: To file completed claim form: USTS Class Action Claim Administrator Clerk of the United States Court ITT Communication Services, Inc. ATTN: USTS Settlement 100 Plaza Drive 231 W. Lafayette Blvd. Room 740 Secaucus, NJ 07096 Detroit, MI 48226 If you have any further questions about this Notice, or the filing of Proof of Claim, *write* to the USTS Action Claim Administrator at the above address. If you have any questions about this lawsuit or your participation therein as a member of the Class, *write* to lead counsel for plaintiffs -- Sachnoff Weaver & Rubenstein, Ltd. ATTN: USTS Settlement 30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60606 Always consult your own attorney for legal advice and questions which concern you about your rights in any class action matter. DO NOT telephone the Court. DO NOT telephone the attornies for plaintiff. DO NOT telephone the Claims Administrator; any office of USTS or any of its employees. DO NOT telephone any Telephone Company asking for information on this matter. Only *written correspondence filed in a timely manner will be considered by the Court.* ------------------------------ From: "John B. Nagle" Subject: The real use of caller ID services Date: 28 Mar 89 19:07:15 GMT Organization: Stanford University "Forbes" for April 3 contains an article, "Relationship marketing", which indicates what caller ID services are really for. A combination of home-shopping TV shows, automatic caller ID, telco-provided billing, and relational databases promises to be the biggest thing in marketing since computer-targeted direct mail. Some of the people and organizations involved: Merv Griffin (interactive game show in the works) MGM/UA ("Hotline": "I'm Jim Peck, and this is HOTLINE. To play our game, just pick up your phone and call the 900 number flashing on the TV ncreen. Answer today's questions and you could become an instant winner... Vanna, tell the folks about our terrific prizes...") Capital Cities/ABC (900 numbers used to improve ratings) General Foods RJR/Nabisco ("New, detailed databases that will track buying habits") Ronald Katz (inventor of mag-stripe credit cards, online credit verification, and and head of First Data Resources Interactive Technologies. "By the end of this year, [our] system will be able to take up to 300,000 calls an hour". Enough for something plugged on the Cosby Show.) United Airlines (Mileage Plus customer service) Telecredit, Inc. (bought Katz's first company) American Express (owns part of Katz's new company) Telesphere (an AOS?) AT&T, MCI, Sprint (the usual suspects) John Nagle ------------------------------ From: xrtll!rsnider@nexus.yorku.ca Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 13:00:29 EST Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Reply-To: rsnider@xrtll.UUCP (Richard Snider) Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries In article miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) writes: >I recently had a discussion with a major electronics guru for a local >television station. We were talking about microwave transmitters (radar >speed guns, garage door openers, that sort of thing), when he made a dramatic >statement that shocked me: he claimed that cellular phones were extremely >hazardous and probably highly carcinogenic. >He claimed that the frequency wavelengths used for cellular phone radio >transmissions were just about equal to the diameter of the human brain cavity. >This, he claimed, accelerated by the fact that the receiver is always held up >against the human skull, sets up highly dangerous conditions within the human >brain. (Stuff deleted) >His co-workers seemed to share his >opinions; one of their technicians was severely injured some years back by >climbing on a transmission tower during a high-intensity transmission. >Is this nonsense, an urban myth, or is this actually a matter of risk? Getting out my handy dandy $2 calculator, I plug in the speed of light and divide it by the frequency emmited by cellular phones (Approx 800- 900 Mhz) and get the wavelegth of about 30 to 38 cm (about a foot). Now assuming that we set up some kind of reflector to set up standing waves we get about 6 inches. How close this is to the size of the brain cavity is unknown to me, but what I do know is that the bone in the skull is NOT a very good reflector of Electromagnetic waves in that part of the spectrum. If it was, then microwave ovens would have a difficult time cooking meats with bones in them since everything within 1/2 wavelength of the bones would be un-cooked. I have taken a few liberties here with my example as far as the frequency of microwaves compared to UHF waves, but for this example I think it is close enough. Now, as for getting injured by climbing a transmission tower. Well, personally I would never get too close to a light source being powered in the 70,000 watt (or greater) range and the same goes for Electromagnetic Transmission equipment. Most cellular phones operate in the 4-20 watt range, the low end being the very portable hand-held units. As for being frightened of Cellular Phones. Not me. Richard Snider ======================================================================== Where: ..uunet!mnetor!yunexus!xrtll!rsnider Also: rsnider@xrtll.UUCP "Hey ! Whats with all the blue lines on the RGB Monitor ???" "Ummm.....Looks like.....well....Ethernet!" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #114 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 0:39:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #115 Message-ID: <8903300039.aa02647@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:22:37 CST Volume 9 : Issue 115 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Bob Toxen) Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? (Rob Warnock) Re: Cellular Radio Hazards (John Higdon) Cellular Power (John R. Covert) How Big Can A Local Dialing Area Be? (Wayne Folta) Yes! Directory Assistance Via Modem (Brian D. Cuthie) Re: 911 CLID (Joel M. Snyder) Telecomm Distributors List Wanted (Steve Diamond) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Toxen Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Date: 30 Mar 89 00:58:47 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA Cellular phones DON'T cause cancer! In order for electromagnetic radiation to cause cancer and almost all other problems to the human body it must be of a high enough energy (frequency) to ionize one's atoms. This is what is meant by the term "ionizing radiation", which you might have heard. The minimum frequency is that of ultraviolet. These, X-rays, and Gamma rays are the cancer danger. Even these are not a significant risk to the average person. The main danger from lower frequencies is if the intensity is so high that the heating from the absorbed radiation is excessive. This is the cooking effect of a microwave oven. Another danger is induced electric currents in older unshielded heart pacemakers since it takes only minute currents flowing directly through the heart for problems. The public cannot get close enough to radio towers to be at risk without ignoring signs, climbing fences, and trespassing. I have been within 600 feet of television antennas without harm without harm without harm :^) Regarding the quoted "expert" claiming danger from them, many people have irrational fears and being an technical expert does not protect someone (from the fear.) People who are afraid to fly airplanes even though airlines are 100 times safer per mile per person than automobiles and even "small" planes are as safe as automobiles are an example. Nikola Tesla, who invented radio and worked within a few dozen feet of equipment producing millions of volts of electricity, was deathly afraid of germs even though the chances of his being electrocuted were far higher. (He died of old age.) [To avoid flames, Marconi did NOT invent radio but he did infringe on Tesla's patents as determined by the U. S. Supreme Court. References available on request.] -- Bob Toxen {ucbvax!harvard,cloud9!es}!anvil!cavu!bob Stratus Computer, Marlboro, MA ------------------------------ From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Date: 30 Mar 89 04:07:58 GMT Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA In article Ron Natalie writes: +--------------- | of these relatively low power levels (3 watts for cellular, 1-5 watts for ham +--------------- Note that all of the portable (handheld) cellulars I have seen are 600 mw max. [It's the transportables (luggables) that are 3 watts.] Is this to keep down the human exposure? ...or just to keep down battery drain? ;-} Also note that unlike ham and police radios, with handheld cellular the antenna tends to be held not in front of your face but off to the back/side of your head. [Given 1/R^2, a *lot* farther from your eyes...] Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Radio Hazards Date: 29 Mar 89 20:35:09 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , rh@well.uucp (Robert Horvitz) writes: > As for cellular, there's much more certain harm being > caused to your privacy (as others have noted, cellular systems BROADCAST > your words over very large areas), and also to your wallet. For those > reasons alone you're better off stopping to use a pay-phone. Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately we now live in the era of COCOTs (or COPTs, as Pacific Bell refers to them), and it is quite literally cheaper in many cases to use a cellular telephone. Putting the inconvenience of trying to locate a pay phone aside, I know that I can always send DTMF to my voice mail with my handheld. Also, I know that long distance will be reasonably priced, that my party and I can hear each other, that I can call anywhere from Napa to Monterey for the same 45 cent charge. I'm afraid, sir, that pay phones are cellular's greatest selling tool. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ From: "John R. Covert" Date: 29 Mar 89 08:01 Subject: Cellular Power >Most cellular phones operate in the 4-20 watt range, the low end being the >very portable hand-held units. The maximum allowable power for cellular in the U.S. and Canada is 3 watts. Hand-held portables are not permitted to radiate more than 600 milliwatts. /john ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 89 18:28:32 GMT From: folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Reply-To: folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Wayne Folta) Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, gs Since childhood, I have been amazed at the size of our local dialing area. Being in the Washington DC suburbs, I (roughly) calculate that I can make a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area. If you count DC as a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC). But is this really a very large area? How large might a local call area be in LA or NY? Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people? (It would be interesting to hear about maximal sizes in terms of: area, number of people, and number of exchanges.) Wayne Folta (folta@tove.umd.edu 128.8.128.42) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 09:51:39 EST From: brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem Reply-To: brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046 In article dts@cloud9.stratus.com (Daniel Senie) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 112, message 3 of 4 >Several people have made the argument that CPID does not reveal the caller's >name or other such information and therefore does not really provide >information which would violate privacy. I beg to differ: >A year or two ago NYNEX announced plans to distribute the white pages on >CD-ROM. They claimed to get all NYNEX market telephone listings on a single >disc. While this information would not necessarily be indexed by phone number, >building such an index is not difficult. [other stuff deleted] Actually, US-WEST has already done this for the 14 mid west states that are in their territory. I personally played with this at FOSE (Federal Office Systems Expo) last month. They can key on *any* field quite rapidly. They were showing me how easy it was to find someone, then, if they've moved for instance, find the people who lived next door to them! The salesmen at the booth suggested that you would then call the neighbors to find a forwarding address. I know this info is available through other means, but this was truely scary. *ANYONE* who has $14,500/year can purchase the service which includes the software and a CD per month update. I have to wonder if your name, etc., would be provided on the disc if you have requested that it not be sold as part of a mailing list. It's amazing to me how much the Telco here sells names and numbers. I have a friend who is a dentist and he can get the names and addresses of all those people who have gotten service recently so as to attract people new to the area as clients. YECH! -brian -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umbc.edu ------------------------------ From: jms <@arizona.edu (jms@mis.arizona.edu):jms@mis.arizona.edu> Subject: Re: 911 CLID Date: 29 Mar 89 19:00:59 GMT Reply-To: jms <@arizona.edu (Joel M. Snyder):jms@mis.arizona.edu> Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't Well, in Tucson, they neither charged us $.50 a month or told us, but 911 got CLID---if you call 911 and hang up before they answer, they call you right back and ask if everything is OK. jms ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 10:22:07 PST From: Steve Diamond Subject: Telecomm Distributors List Wanted Patrick-- Please excuse the message if I've sent it to the wrong person, but do you maintain a list of telecomm product distributors, or can you direct me to someone who might? Thanks in advance. Steve Diamond Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mountain View, CA 94043 415-336-4190 [Moderator's Note: Will someone please supply Mr. Diamond with the list he is requesting, if such is available. I got this in the mail but have no answer for him. Post your source for the list here if you have one; others may be interested. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #115 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 1:07:46 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #116 Message-ID: <8903300107.aa02979@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:47:47 CST Volume 9 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Payphone Booths as Confessionals (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) (Ron Heiby) Leased Line Costs Versus Dial Up (Brian D. Cuthrie) CPID Privacy Considerations (Joe Konstan) Re: ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments (Courtney Brown) [Moderator's Note: Yes, I know I said no more caller ID messages; but the ones printed today were dispatched before the authors saw the message saying the topic was wearing thin. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 0:01:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Payphone Booths as Confessionals Confession, they say, is good for the soul. It is also good for your financial bottom line, if you market the concept of using the phone to make confession to the world, while other callers pay to listen to you 'spill your guts', as the introduction to the outbound version of "I Confess" describes the messages being played out. Patrick Kane, president of Telephone Entertainment, Inc. conceived the idea of using the phone to make confessions while profiting from those folks who want to hear the lurid thoughts of others. He set up his service in New York City and allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- anyone and everyone to call in at no charge. A soothing woman's voice, described in some of his advertising as 'Priestess' urges, "I want to hear about what you have done; about your secret thoughts, and the things that have been done to you..." And the caller is then given a minute to let it all hang out, no names required or desired. The profit for Kane comes in playing back the confessions to callers to his 800/900 incoming lines. He uses both types of lines. The 900 number is local to the New York City 212/718/914 metro area, where the going rate is $1.50 for the first minute, and 50 cents for each additional confession, or minute of listening time. From outside the New York City area, confessions can be monitored in many cities by dialing 1-800-999-6666. On the 800 lines, callers must use a touch tone phone to enter their VISA/MC number, and they are billed 99 cents per confession/minute. Kane's advertising has been cute, regardless of what you might think about the nature of his business venture otherwise. Maybe its just that New York Telephone has no sense of humor. A recent full-page ad in the papers described the service in some detail, but inadvertently or otherwise gave the impression that New York Telephone was sponsoring the activity. The advertisement showed a man kneeling in a pay phone booth, with the caption, "I Confess". The name of Kane's company, Telephone Entertainment Company, was not shown anywhere in the message, but the picture clearly showed a payphone with a 'New York Telephone' insignia on it. Incensed phone company officials cut his outgoing phone lines off the same day, and they are still muttering about suing Kane. A statement issued by New York Telephone last week said, "Anyone reading this ad would think that New York Telephone sanctions and provides this activity. We do not sponsor such activities or provide a service for our customers to make confessions. We will do everything possible to protect our customers from advertising which even suggests that we offer such services or activities." "The people making those confessions are sick. The confessions are mostly unbelievable. They are lewd and crude. You cannot advertise such a service and claim that it is an activity of the New York Telephone Company." Mr. Kane is meeting with phone company officials to negotiate the restoration of his outgoing phone lines. For whatever reason, the telco did not cut service to his incoming lines, and the nice lady is still cooing and telling the fellows she is there to listen to them....but until his outgoing service is restored, there is no one to eavesdrop on the confessions, which are simply building up in the reserve of messages waiting for playback to the curiosity seekers. Kane said he would revise his ads to eliminate references to New York Telephone in the future, or payphone booths and the resulting implication. But he said in an interview, "Frankly, I am not too impressed with their complaint. I find their behavior questionable at best." "Anyway," said Kane, "what are they griping about? My deal with them was they *get a forty percent cut of the revenue*; why are they acting so hypocritical?" Very good question, Mr. Kane. Very good question. Theodore Vail would turn over in his grave if he saw what had become of Ma Bell's children in the past few years since the old lady was sent to her reward and final rest. I must confess though, some of the confessions I heard did give me a good belly laugh. Some were ridiculous, and some were tragically believable and real. You don't use Caller ID on the incoming line, do you? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Re: Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) Date: 28 Mar 89 23:42:58 GMT Reply-To: Ron Heiby Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL I've been trying to stay out of this whole thing, but can't any longer. Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388 (goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com) writes: [much interesting things about CLID/CLIR] > There's also > provision for a User-Provided Number as well as the Network-Provided > Number. If I infer correctly, "User-Provided Number" would let me ID as a different number than that from which I was *really* calling. If so, this would be perfect for my situation. I have two phone numbers in my home. Line A is an unlisted number and the one my wife and I use "all the time" for placing calls and for receiving calls from friends and relatives. Line B is a listed number that rings in my "office" downstairs. During the day, an answering machine picks up. At night, my computer picks up. (It's not a BBS, BTW.) When we are asked to put our phone number on checks or (of all things) credit card slips, we put the Line B number on. Likewise, any sales people, contests, etc. I see the default mode for Line B as "send normal ID" and the default mode for Line A as "ID as Line B". Basically, I care little whether some sales type has the Line B number, as my answering machine allows me to screen calls there. Plus, anyone I really want to talk with knows the real Line A number, anyway. > BTW, there are reasons why you definitely might want a business to > know your number. [example] It's fairly obvious that this approach would satisfy such needs. I believe I saw one message whose author believed that just having someone's phone number would not get you name/address information. This (of course) is wrong. "Reverse" directories have been around for quite a while. I *am* concerned about the potential others have stated for combining the ID information with various demographic or history information. Getting back to basics, it seems to me that the ID feature is being touted as being of use to private citizens to allow them to know who is calling them. It is also clear to me that the greatest potential for abuse of the feature comes from individuals calling businesses who may make "undesired" use of the ID information. The simplest way to avoid this whole potential for abuse is to not make caller ID available to business lines. Residence customers could still get the ID, but when they call a business, they have their privacy. (Of course, it might all be a scam and the *real* reason for all this *is* to provide better service to business customers.) There is still potential for abuse by people with "residence" service, but this can easily be handled by the options that Fred outlines. One that hasn't been mentioned (as far as I know) involves unlisted phone numbers. Right now, if I pick up a phone (maybe my own, in my own home) and call the operator and ask to be told the phone number from which I'm calling, I will be told that the information cannot be given out. This is to protect the owner of the line from someone (repair person (e.g. appliance), baby-sitter, etc) from being able to find out my unlisted phone number from the operator. It's important to some people to be able to prevent someone from being able to pick up the phone and easily determine its number (like by calling a friend and having friend read off the ID). Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that large areas of the country, served by old switches are not likely to be *able* to report an ID. Can we assume that all "no ID" calls are not from such areas? If I call XX, it should be my choice whether to ID or not. When XX's phone rings, it should be his choice whether to answer or not. Whether XX chooses to use my choice as part of the basis for his is his business. Either or both of us my have important reasons for choosing as we do. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.chi.il.us Moderator: comp.newprod "Life is indeed an inexplicable sequence of imponderable surprises." ------------------------------ From: brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) Subject: Leased Line Costs Versus Dial Up Line Date: 29 Mar 89 15:49:02 GMT Reply-To: brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046 In article ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: [other stuff deleted] >I'm not sure of your leased line statement. The rates for a 3002 dedicated >circuit are still cheaper than leaving a line dialed up if you're a business >and hence have message unit service. > >-Ron This depends entirely on whether the local telco has untimed business service. In the Balto/Wash area, business service is untimed. Therefore it is usually cheaper to leave a line dialed up than to pay the 3002 rate. -brian -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umbc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 89 11:18:12 -0800 From: Joe Konstan Subject: CPID Privacy Considerations It seems that a common critique of CPID is that emergency calls will be missed (coming from an unfamiliar number) and that people call from different numbers at different times. It seems that there is an easy solution to this: Give anyone who requests it a calling card with a (real or faked) phone number and PIN (current calling cards could be used). Anyone who wishes to identify themselves as the calling party could dial a prefix, their number and PIN, and then the number they wish to call (this could be handled automatically for calling card calls, so that friend's houses and pay phone numbers would not get sent by default). Now, when I get a call, I may not know what PHONE I am being called from, but I have an identifier of the PERSON calling or the phone called from, as selected by the caller. The shelter problem, and the emergency call problem are solved this way. An additional hitch might be that using the PIN of the called phone would override the request for CPID, so calling me (123-456-7890) and giving my PIN would get you through whether or not I requested CPID before accepting a call. The only problems remaining could be solved by allowing both default and one-time override of sending the CPID. Joe Konstan konstan@postgres.berkeley.ede ------------------------------ From: Courtney Brown Subject: Re: ANI (what else?) and Mike Royko's comments Date: 27 Mar 89 14:34:00 GMT Organization: United Parallel Lines Inc. In article , optilink!cramer@ames.arc.nasa. gov (Clayton Cramer) writes: > In article Cosell) writes: > >> Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune, Monday, March 13, 1989 > >> > >> > >> "For obvious reasons, my home phone number is unlisted. But a guy once > > How do you they know which unlisted phone number belongs to which > person? It's just the same as a random phone call, if you don't know > who is at that number. > Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer I pay the phone company good money to remain unlisted, simply because I want to make the choice as to who gets my phone number -- essentially who I allow to call me. When I call to request a service, or merchandise, I have to identify my self. ANI reveals more information than I would like without giving me a choice. If the Telco insists of making ANI standard, will they cancel the charges for an unlisted number, or will they charge an additional fee so that my number does not show up via ANI. I think the latter. It seems to be something similar to (gasp!) extortion... How much is your privacy really worth to you. -- -CAB- _____/ _ || _\___ lNYCl_ ______ __|) Standard disclaimer. == (0) (0) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #116 *****************************   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 1:25:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #117 Message-ID: <8903310125.aa09219@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Mar 89 01:09:37 CST Volume 9 : Issue 117 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: British PhoneCard question (Peter Thurston) Re: British PhoneCard question (Bruce Oberg) Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Ron Natalie) Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Dave Levenson) Re: Possible Cancer Risk From Cellular Phones (Brian G. Cuthie) Re: Cellular Radio Hazards (Rob Warnock) Re: 900 service providers--who? (Ron Natalie) Re: 0+NPA+7D refused?! (Ron Natalie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 11:53:31 +0100 From: pwt1%ukc.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Subject: Re: British PhoneCard question In article decom@dgp.toronto.edu writes: >In Britain, you pay by time for even local calls, so you tend to go >through alot of coins. And the coins are bigger and heavier as well. >The phonecards save you the frustration of running out of coins during >a call, the frustration of having your calls interrupted every minute >by "more coins please" noises, and the frustration of sewing up holes in >your pockets. Almost all new BT coin-op phones are of the modern type that allow one to accumulate a credit prior to and at any time time during a call thus no longer are you prompted for coins every minute (as did the older Pay-On-Answer types). These phones take most British coins, including 50p and One Pound coins, useful for long and international calls. Incidently, BT has recently introduced a direct dial calling card service available from most payphones and any touch tone compatable phone. >The cards come in denominations ranging from the equivalent of $3 to about >$100. So you buy one which you know will last you a reasonable amount >of time. They are particularly useful for long distance calls, because >you get the customer-dialled rate without feeding a continuous stream of >coins into the phone. The phone cards are not magnetic but rely on infra-red holograms printed on the card. There is one hologram per unit and they are destroyed as the units are consummed. There is no way a card can be recharged or prevented from being erased (people have tried, painting the card with nail varnish being one method used .. doesn't work). Mercury Communications have a range of payphones in railway stations etc which take standard credit cards and their own version of the pre-payed card. Their card does not seem to use holograms or magnetic stripes. It stores credits as pounds and pence and can resolve values exactly. Anyone know how this card works? Britain is the world's largest user of holographic phonecards, but Japan is by far the largest user of any type odf phone card, which are in their case standard magnetic. I read that in japan they are used as currency, so much so that the government there is investigating phone cards effect on the economy! Peter Thurston ------------------------------ From: Bruce Oberg Subject: Re: British PhoneCard question Date: 30 Mar 89 16:53:39 GMT Reply-To: Bruce Oberg Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle The British Telecom PhoneCard is an interesting little gizmo. You buy one for X pounds and the card is then "worth" X/10 ten pence pieces. You insert it in a special PhoneCard phone and ten pence pieces are "removed" from the card during your call. A display on the phone keeps you informed of how much "money" is left. When you hang up, the card is released by the phone. As with other british phones, if you run out of money, your talk path is disconnected then and there until you insert more. Unfortunately, most PhoneCard phones do not accept coins (and usually don't have lines waiting for them at the train station); you have to insert a new card when yours runs out. The way "money" is kept track of on the card is *not* through a magstripe. Special markings on the front of the card specify how much the card was originally worth, and while you're using it, tiny tick marks are made in the upper right corner of the front of the card. I've always wondered how easy counterfeighting the cards would be; I've never heard of anyone getting caught doing so. Usually, ten pence lasts a couple of minutes on the phone. One time I used my card to call back to the U.S. and it was real fun to watch the ten pence pieces click down about one every five seconds. bruce oberg ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? Date: 30 Mar 89 15:59:01 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I wouldn't come down too heavily on the BOC's for the Enhanced 911 surcharge. The phone company and the local Public Utilities companies participate in a very complicated dance about what they can and can not charge for and how much. It's not a free market. Since they are forced to hold some services as an artificially low rate, they have to make up for it on other things like charging for touch tones and other "software" options in modern phone switches. -Ron ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? Date: 31 Mar 89 04:23:38 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) writes: > ... Just out of curiousity, does > anyone know of other cases where the BOC is collecting "taxes" for a > local government? No, but I know a local government who is collecting money for the telephone company: In New Jersey, telephones have been exempt from the 6% state sales tax for as many years as telephones have been for sale retail. Now, all of a sudden, the exemption is ended. If you buy a telephone (or a key system, a PBX, or whatever) you now pay sales tax, just as you do for anything else that isn't food or clothing... The state is using the additional revenue to pay for state-wide implementation of 911 service, by New Jersey Bell and the several "independent" telephone companies in the state. I even had to pay sales tax when I bought my Caller*Id display unit! -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 10:22:22 EST From: brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Date: 30 Mar 89 15:17:16 GMT Reply-To: brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046 In article rsnider@xrtll.UUCP (Richard Snider) writes: [stuff deleted] >Transmission equipment. Most cellular phones operate in the 4-20 watt >range, the low end being the very portable hand-held units. > >As for being frightened of Cellular Phones. Not me. > > Richard Snider Make that .6 watt for handhelds and 3.0 watts for most mobiles and luggables. -brian -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umbc.edu ------------------------------ From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Cellular Radio Hazards Date: 31 Mar 89 05:41:24 GMT Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA In article (John Higdon) writes: +--------------- | > For those reasons alone you're better off stopping to use a pay-phone. | Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately we now live in the era of | COCOTs (or COPTs, as Pacific Bell refers to them), and it is quite | literally cheaper in many cases to use a cellular telephone... +--------------- And your call might even go through! This morning I hit the situation head on: I was at a breakfast meeting at Coco's in Sunnyvale, when I wanted to call a later appointment to tell him the meeting was going to run over and I'd be late. Being new to cellular, and still somewhat cautious about costs, I dutifully went towards the payphones in the back. Uh, oh, COCOTs! Well, trying the first phone gave me my party, but then the channel was only 1/2 open: I could hear them but they couldn't hear me! I tried the other phone, but it kept spitting back my coin and saying my number was "invalid" and I had to dial again. So I went back to my table and picked up the handheld... The relief from frustration was *worth* the extra 20 cents! Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 <=== *Not* the mobile! ;-} USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: 900 service providers--who? Date: 30 Mar 89 16:10:42 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. ATT offers the service under the name of Dial-it 900. I just called up and asked, and they sent me a brochure. I believe other companies are now making it availble. There is also the local equivelent (976, 540..) that is sold by the local operating companies. ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: 0+NPA+7D refused?! Date: 30 Mar 89 16:14:13 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Did you read the instructions on the phone? I tripped accross this and spent a few minutes before I looked carefully at the phone. It's becoming scarcer and scarcer but there are still areas where operating company pay phones are not set up for direct dialing of long distance calls. You have to go through the operator. -Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #117 *****************************   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 2:50:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #118 Message-ID: <8903310250.aa10566@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Mar 89 01:59:38 CST Volume 9 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Already Stung by Caller ID (David Tamkin) Phone Numbers For Chatting (Peter van Eijk) Re: Alternative to CPID (Ron Natalie) Re: Selling an Interesting Phone Number? (Roger Preisendefer) Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals (Rob Warnock) Telephony directory (Barry C. Nelson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Already Stung by Caller ID Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 11:31:56 CST I live in the small corner of the city of Chicago not served by Illinois Bell. Our telco here (Central Telephone of Illinois) retains IBT for directory assistance and operator services. If I want to know where a prefix not listed in the directory's information pages is located, the IBT operator I get by dialing 0 tells me to call IBT's service office for business customers. Centel can provide some of the information but not all; IBT can provide the rest (but sometimes not the part Centel can give me). Accordingly I did that on Tuesday to find out what areas some new prefixes serve. The service representative at Illinois Bell started demanding my name and my telephone number, and I said, "Nevermind! This is information that should be in the phone book coming out this summer, or maybe last year or two years ago since your list there is so far out of date, and your office has procedures to treat me like a criminal for asking! I want to have an idea of how much a call will cost before I place it, and you put me through this grilling!" I hung up and dialed IBT's headquarters to complain. Someone in the General Manager's office told me that *because I was calling from a Centel prefix* it could be that the representatives there are under instructions to find out what is going on. So, they have Caller ID, and I'm supposed to *know* that they will treat me accordingly; they have Caller ID, but they ask for my phone number to see if I'll lie (not to see if I'm calling from my own number, as I'll explain); they have Caller ID, and they use it to predetermine how to treat the caller. Yes, anyone dialing from a Centel phone gets the third-degree; does anyone calling from a Chicago-Lawndale prefix get greeted in Spanish? Does anyone calling from a Chicago-Kedzie or Chicago-Stewart prefix get greeted in jive? Does someone calling from a Chicago-Merrimac prefix hear "Hail Mary, mother of God! This is Illinois Bell, how may we help you?" on the presumption that the caller must be Roman Catholic? Because I was dialing from a Centel phone, the representative treated me with suspicion. Of course, everyone there *knows* that no one *ever* calls from a phone other than his or her own and no one *ever* calls on behalf of someone else (like an employer who hires the caller to do that very thing). No, the number from which the call is placed tells all. You can't fool a service representative of Illinois Bell. Friggin' incredible. Next time I want to reach them I'll perform a feat they believe impossible: I'll cross the street I live on and enter Illinois Bell's territory, where I'll call from a pay phone. Yes, they'll ID it as such, but maybe I'll get someone with enough brainpower to understand my protest that I don't spend my entire life at a single outdoor pay phone. On the other hand, this is one more reason I'm glad to have Centel instead of IBT. The service representatives there have always been aware that people might be away from their own telephones when they call or when they are to be called back. David W. Tamkin Post Office Box 567542 Norridge, Illinois 60656-7542 dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us Jolnet Public Access Unix GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN ...!killer!jolnet!dattier Orland Park, Illinois CIS: 73720,1570 /\/\/\/\/\/\/ [Moderator's Note: What about Chicago-Rogers Park? "Oy Vey! This is Illinois Bell!" And what about Chicago-Lakeview and Chicago-Edgewater? Would those calls be automatically routed to one of those nice Young Men who work as service reps under the assumption that they are of the same pursuasion as the gentleman caller? Oh, I am getting in the mood for April Fool's Day! PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 12:32:51 -0200 From: infpve@utrcu1 (Peter van Eijk) Subject: Phone numbers for chatting? Reply-To: infpve@utrcu1.UUCP (Peter van Eijk) Organization: Utwente, Enschede Who can give me information on telephone numbers around the world that offer a sort of `chat' service? Here in the Netherlands we have a so-called `Babbel Box' also called `party-line' (i think its different from what the Americans call a party line), dialled through e.g. 06-32033010 (?). This number is extra priced, 50cts a minute (approx 0.25$). When you call it you enter a conversation with approximately 10 other people who did the same. There are a number of numbers like this, operated 24 hours a day (the conversation gets a little special after midnight....). I believe that in the US this would be something like a 1-900 number. I'm interested in the names, telephone numbers and charges around the world. It is out of curiosity, we have a toy computerized version of it and i would like to document my presentation of it. Side remarks: These pay numbers account for 5% of total telephone charges here, i read in a news paper. Not surprising since there have been stories of people getting addicted to it.. -- Peter van Eijk University of Twente Dept Informatica / IPS P.O. Box 217; 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands +31-53-893789 mcvax!utrcu1!infpve My organisation is so paranoid that I don't even know if these opinions are mine. ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Alternative to CPID Date: 30 Mar 89 16:04:05 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. CLID is a gimmick, it is another of the services that they can offer, and will try to have another billable item. It's right in there in the package with what I call "residential centrex" where they provide all sorts of silly items like the ability to use multiple different numbers in your house as an intercom. Not many people would consider installing a different telephone line in each room to do this (I guess I might, but I can guarantee that I'm the only one in the municipal area to have 10 residence lines). -Ron [Moderator's Note: I have 'Starline' on the phones in my home. Room-to-room intercom; putting calls on hold on one line, picking up elsewhere on another line; answer any incoming call from any other line; transfer incoming or outgoing call not only within my premise but off-premises; more. I think it's a great feature for $5.50 per line/month. I have two numbers. PT] ------------------------------ From: rwp@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Phone Number? Date: Thu, 30-Mar-89 19:03:11 PST The last four digits of my phone number used to spell EXEC. One day, someone from Executive something-or-other called me and offered to buy my phone number for $100. I asked him to also pay for the conversion of my number to a new number, making it a total of $126.50. He promptly sent me a check for this amount. Roger Preisendefer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 0:53:41 CST From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: +--------------- | Confession, they say, is good for the soul. It's also good for your financial | bottom line, if you market the concept of using the phone to make confession | to the world, while other callers pay to listen to you 'spill your guts', | as the introduction to the outbound version of "I Confess" describes... +--------------- Shades of John Brunner's novel "Shockwave Rider"! But Brunner's "Hearing Aid" service ("the ten 9's") was *free*, and no one else but the operator on the other end would *ever* know what you had said. (*sigh*) That was fiction; "Confess" is ugly reality... Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 11:57:25 EST From: "Barry C. Nelson" Subject: Telephony directory Telephony Magazine puts out the Annual Directory and Buyers Guide. My old copy has over 700 pages, including advertisements. Telephony Publishing Corporation (312) 922-2435 55 E.Jackson Blvd. Chicago, Illinois 60604 It includes: Classified Products and Services (270 pages from Absorbers to Wrenches), Manufacturers and Suppliers, CPE Services and Suppliers, Independent Telco Operating Companies by State, AT&T, Bell COmpanies, Special Carriers, etc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #118 *****************************   Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 2:55:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #119 Message-ID: <8904010255.aa27003@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Apr 89 01:47:20 CST Volume 9 : Issue 119 Today's Heresies: Head Bozo: Patrick Townson An April Fool's Joke (Head Bozo) 976-EVIL: A Wrong Number, Indeed (Charles Manson, WWTD&N Film Critic) [I am pleased to announce that effective with this issue, TELECOM Digest has merged with the Weekly World News, to bring you the most comprehensive and enlightened reporting possible. From now on, you will be able to read the Weekly World Telecom Digest and News while waiting in a long line at your supermarket for the one remaining pay phone in town still defaulting to AT&T, without having to actually buy a copy. Each issue of the WWTD&N will feature stories about peculiar people in far away lands and the long distance carrier they have chosen. Our advice column, "Dear Scabby" will provide hints on telephone etiquette, and the proper way to courteously greet a crackpot anonymous caller at 3 AM whose caller ID shows up as question marks on your readout. I am sure you will love the all!new!improved! WWTD&N. New heresies daily! PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 1:14:26 CST From: Head Bozo Subject: An April Fool's Joke Today is the big day. We are celebrating April Fool's Day this year with one final thumbing of our noses at the public and its use of pay phones to make long distance calls. Starting today, persons using pay phones to make long distance calls will pay up to 250 percent more for the same call than they did on Friday. Instead of some standardization in the public interest, we have decided the public can be damned, and each business with a pay phone on its premises will be allowed to pick and choose from about fifty long distance companies which have started in the last few years. The people who will be affected the most, of course, are people without private phone service; people who cannot afford to have a phone in thier home for whatever reason; people who live in single room residence hotels who use the pay phone in the lobby; people who need to make a personal long distance call during work hours who are honest enough to use the pay phone in the company lunchroom, etc. They will all be getting burned, badly, in this latest caper in the continuing saga of why America is so much better off with AT&T bashed to pieces. I mean, how could *anyone* question the wise, and wonderful decision to bust up AT&T? Federal judges don't have axes to grind, do they? A judge wouldn't let his own personal animosity interfere with making a decision which has cost us the finest phone network in the world would he? Of course not.....of course not. As a result of the latest outgrowth of the judge's wisdom, from now on anyone who needs an operator to place a long distance call, such as a person-to-person, collect, or credit card call gets it stuck to him royally. By the very nature of coin operated phones, all calls are at least semi-operator assisted, if just in the coin collection process. David Wagenhauser, staff attorney for the Washington-based public interest group Telecommunications Reasearch and Action Center said in an interview, "This is probably the worst nightmare for consumers we have ever seen. The public will suffer greatly from the abuses perpetrated by many of the long distance carriers, and their choice of operator services." Wagenhouser pointed out that other long distance companies often fraudulently impersonate AT&T; and have their operators claim to be AT&T operators when they are not. He noted that the regulations allowing this latest travesty did not carry any requirements for the convenience and protection of the public. Starting today, your telephone credit card may or may not be accepted at public telephones. It will depend upon the decision by the 'default' carrier assigned to that phone if they wish to accept them or not. They may choose to accept your phone card without telling you that they are not affiliated with AT&T, and bill you at outrageous rates. Starting today, the only way you will be able to absolutely insure getting the quality service of AT&T at the regulated prices AT&T charges is to dial an extra five digits on the front of *every* long distance call: 10288. But as Wagenhauser pointed out, even that does not assure that you will actually reach AT&T: The default long distance carrier is under no obligation at all to allow connections to 10288, AT&T's long distance network. The carrier may choose to simply reject calls via 10288, or worse yet, take the calls and *claim* to be AT&T while charging a mint for their service. Or, they may choose to allow you to use AT&T if you pay an extra 'connection charge' for the call. One group of people who will be in for a real suprise are the folks who accept collect calls from children away at school or in the military. The big April Fool's joke on them will occur the first time they get a long distance bill from Bozo's Alternate Operator Service with out of sight charges for that half hour call on Sunday afternoon which used to cost three or four dollars. Wagenhauser and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) introduced a bill in Congress last month to force the FCC to regulate long distance carriers who offer operator services more closely. But this would all be a moot point if you- know-who had given any unbiased and logical thought to the consequences of his ruling. At least some of the damage is being undone with the proposed bill in Congress, and the efforts by David Wagenhauser's group and {Consumer Action}, A San Fransisco based consumer protection service which last month also convinced the FCC to raise cain with five operators working on the west coast. And I still find it puzzling why so many people, [TELECOM Digest] readers included, are making such stinks about the pay phone mess, when the same people were so busy singing hosannahs to the judge back in 1983-84-85. You wanted divestiture; you got divestiture. You wanted AT&T ripped apart, you got it ripped apart. Why can't you see that the logical conclusion to your desires four or five years ago is the deterioration of quality and the increasingly uneasy-to-use attributes of the public telephone network in America today? Why are you so suprised at how difficult it has become at times to make a simple long distance call? Why are you so suprised at the increased costs in local service? I am convinced that had the American public known as much about telephones and telephone service five years as they know today, divestiture would *never* have been permitted to occur. The American people would have been so angry, so stirred up, that even a judge in an ivy tower peering down on the peasants from time to time would have taken notice of the commotions. And people are angry: The FCC is receiving about 2000 letters a month from Americans asking what in the hell has happened to the phone service. Even 'dial-a-porn' did not bring as many letters and phone calls into the offices of the Commission. But as one or two [TELECOM Digest] readers have pointed out, '....people can buy cellular phones, and start using those instead...' sure they can. Can't you just picture the several thousand residents of public housing in Chicago abandoning the pay phone at the corner cut-rate liquor store in lieu of their new cellular phones? Can't you just picture Mr. and Mrs. Jones out shopping and using their luggable to call the babysitter? Sure you can. Maxwell Smart used the phone in his shoe to call his office, but for most folks on the run, the pay phone at the airport or train depot, or the phone at the corner convenience mart is where they stop. And boy, have *they* got a suprise coming, starting today. I really wonder if the choice of April Fool's Day to start this latest fraud on the American public was just a coincidence, or deliberatly chosen as part of the disaster known as divestiture. As the late Jim Jordan's wife, Mollie used to say, "tain't funny, McGee!" Head Bozo, Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 1:45:12 CST From: Charles Manson, TELECOM Digest Film and Art Critic Subject: 976-EVIL: A Wrong Number, Indeed Speaking of disasters, the latest horror movie to hit the screen has to take the cake. 976-EVIL has to be one of the dumbest movies I have ever seen. Of all the 'Friday The Thirteenth' type trash I have seen, this latest entry would run circles around the rest. For some fans of occult horror, the fact that Robert Englund directed this crock would be enough to raise their interest in going to see it. Englund plays Freddie Krueger -- the poor, misunderstood victim of society in the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series. By virtue of his ability to deliver cackling wisecracks from beneath layers of latex, he has aquired a sizeable following. In this corner though, the Englund credit did not suggest possibilities nearly as juicy as did "Sandy Dennis as Aunt Lucy". By joining those faded actresses who have subjected themselves to gruesome ends in the horror genre, Dennis finally gets rewarded for all of her irritating performances elsewhere. I am reminded of Betsy Palmer getting her head whacked off in 'Friday the Thirteenth'. When it comes time to dispatch Dennis, Englund does nasty things to her, but nothing as creative as in the Freddie films. This movie is named for the phone-in 'horrorscope' through which some small town, bored youngsters in California get marked by the devil, or at least one of his field reps. Like many of these flicks, 976-EVIL is completely incoherent. The only thing Englund seems to have learned from his Freddie films is to suggest a sequel at the end. That's not something anyone should have to worry about here. The star of the show is Aunt Lucy's strange, demented teenage son. He has problems. Played by Stephen Geoffreys, he takes on evil powers, and starts getting even with all the people who have mistreated him. What an original idea for a plot, huh? They include his cool biker cousin Pat O'Bryan; his cousin's spider-fearing girlfriend Lezlie Dean, and the bullies who usually beat him up in bathroom at school almost daily. Like Freddy Krueger, this kid is quick with the nasty, voice-processed quip. In place of Freddy's razor glove, this chap has lethal green fingernails. Like I told you, he has problems. I was left with two pressing questions, which I present to the reader: If you have your hand cut off at the wrist, are you in any position to quietly contemplate the meaning of life? And if your house is turned into a gaping hellhole, wouldn't you -- not to mention your neighbors -- bat an eyelash or two? It has gotten to the point in these movies where surprise is one lonely emotion. 976-EVIL was released by CineTel Films. The running time is 92 minutes, if you can sit through it all without dying from boredom. The ratings people give it an "R", and the movie review editor at this austere Digest gives it one star, out of some generosity and goodwill toward Ms. Dennis. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #119 *****************************   Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 1:38:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #120 Message-ID: <8904030138.aa16318@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Apr 89 01:09:44 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 120 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Reach Out And Tap Someone (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Caller ID and crank calls (Mark Robert Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 1:05:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Reach Out And Tap Someone Two former employees of Cincinnati Bell, who were fired by the company for 'good cause' according to Cincinnati Bell Chairman Dwight Hibbard are claiming they installed more than 1200 illegal wiretaps over a 12 year period from 1972 - 1984 at the request of their supervisors at the telco and the local police. Among the alleged targets of the snooping were past and present members of Congress, federal judges, scores of the city's most prominent politicians, business executives, lawyers and media personalities. Leonard Gates and Robert Draise say they even wiretapped the hotel room where President Gerald Ford stayed during two visits to Cincinnati; and this part of their story, at least, has been verified by the now retired security chief at the hotel. As more details come out each day, people in Cincinnati are getting a rare look at a Police Department that apparently spied on itself, and at a grand jury probe that has prompted one former FBI official to suggest that the Justice Department seems more interested in discrediting the accusers than in seeking the truth. Cincinnati Bell executives says Gates and Draise are just trying to 'get even' with the company for firing them. But disclosures thus far seem to indicate there is at least some truth in what the two men are saying about the company they used to work for. According to Gates and Draise, they were just employees following the orders given to them by their superiors at Cincinnati Bell. But Dwight Hibbard, Chairman of the Board of Cincinnati Bell has called them both liars, and said their only motive is to make trouble for the company. Cincinnati Bell responded to allegations that the company had specifically participated in illegal wiretapping by filing a libel suit against Gates and Draise. The two men responded by filing a countersuit against the telco. In addition to their suit, four of the people who were allegedly spied on have filed a class action suit against the telco. In the latest development, Cincinnati Bell has gone public with (according to them) just recently discovered sordid details about an extramarital affair by Gates. A federal grand jury in Cincinnati is now trying to straighten out the tangled web of charges and countercharges, but so far no indictments have been returned. Almost daily, Gates and Draise tell further details about their exploits, including taps they claim they placed on phones at the Cincinnati Stock Exchange and the General Electric aircraft engine plant in suburban Evendale. According to Draise, he began doing these 'special assignments' in 1972, when he was approached by a Cincinnati police officer from that city's clandestine intelligence unit. The police officer wanted him to tap the lines of black militants and suspected drug dealers, Draise said. The police officer assured him the wiretapping would be legal, and that top executives at the phone company had approved. Draise agreed, and suggested recruiting Gates, a co-worker to help out. Soon, the two were setting several wiretaps each week at the request of the Intelligence Unit of the Cincinnati Police Department. But by around 1975, the direction and scope of the operation changed, say the men. The wiretap requests no longer came from the police; instead they came from James West and Peter Gabor, supervisors in the Security Department at Cincinnati Bell, who claimed *they were getting the orders from their superiors*. And the targets of the spying were no longer criminal elements; instead, Draise and Gates say they were asked to tap the lines of politicians, business executives and even the phone of the Chief of Police himself, and the personal phone lines of some telephone company employees as well. Draise said he "began to have doubts about the whole thing in 1979" when he was told to tap the private phone of a newspaper columnist in town. "I told them I wasn't going to do it anymore," he said in an interview last week. Gates kept on doing these things until 1984, and he says he got cold feet late that year when 'the word came down through the grapevine' that he was to tap the phone lines connected to the computers at General Electric's Evendale plant. He backed out then, and said to leave him out of it in the future, and he claims there were hints of retaliation directed at him at that time; threats to 'tell what we know about you...'. When Dwight Hibbard was contacted at his office at Cincinnati Bell and asked to comment on the allegations of his former employees, he responded that they were both liars. "The phone company would not do things like that," said Hibbard, "and those two are both getting sued because they say we do." Hibbard has refused to answer more specific questions asked by the local press and government investigators. In fact, Draise was fired in 1979, shortly after he claims he told his superiors he would no longer place wiretaps on lines. Shortly after he quit handling the 'special assignments' given to him he was arrested, and charged with a misdemeanor in connection with one wiretap -- which Draise says he set for a friend who wanted to spy on his ex-girlfriend. Cincinnati Bell claims they had nothing to do with his arrest and conviction on that charge; but they 'were forced to fire him' after he pleaded guilty. Gates was fired in 1986 for insubordination. He claims Cincinnati Bell was retaliating against him for taking the side of two employees who were suing the company for sexual harassment; but his firing was upheld in court. The story first started breaking when Gates and Draise went to see a reporter at [Mt. Washington Press], a small weekly newspaper in the Cincinnati suburban area. The paper printed the allegations by the men, and angry responses started coming in almost immediately. At first, police denied the existence of the Intelligence Unit, let alone that such an organization would use operatives at Cincinnati Bell to spy on people. Later, when called before the federal grand jury, and warned against lying, five retired police officers, including the former chief, took the Fifth Amendment. Finally last month, the five issued a statement through their attorney, admitting to 12 illegal wiretaps from 1972 - 1974, and implicated unnamed operatives at Cincinnati Bell as their contacts to set the taps. With the ice broken, and the formalities out of the way, others began coming forward with similar stories. Howard Lucas, the former Director of Security for Stouffer's Hotel in Cincinnati recalled a 1975 incident in which he stopped Gates, West and several undercover police officers from going into the hotel's phone room about a month before the visit by President Ford. The phone room was kept locked, and employees working there were buzzed in by someone already inside, recalled Lucas. In addition to the switchboards, the room contained the wire distribution frames from which phone pairs ran throughout the hotel. Lucas refused to let the police officers go inside without a search warrant; and they never did return with one. But Lucas said two days later he was tipped off by one of the operators to look in one of the closets there. Lucas said he found a voice activated tape recorder and 'a couple of coils they used to make the tap'. He said he told the Police Department and Cincinnati Bell about his findings, but ".....I could not get anyone to claim it, so I just yanked it all out and threw it in the dumpster...." Executives at General Electric were prompted to meet with Draise and Gates recently to learn the extent of the wiretapping that had been done at the plant. According to Draise, GE attorney David Kindleberger expressed astonishment when told the extent of the spying; and he linked it to the apparent loss of proprietary information to Pratt & Whitney, a competing manufacturer of aircraft engines. Now all of a sudden, Kindleberger is clamming up. I wonder who got to him? He admits meeting with Draize, but says he never discussed Pratt & Whitney or any competitive situation with Draise. But an attorney who sat in on the meeting supports Draise's version. After an initial flurry of press releases denying all allegations of illegal wiretapping, Cincinnati Bell has become very quiet, and is now unwilling to discuss the matter at all except to tell anyone who asks that "Draise and Gates are a couple of liars who want to get even with us..." And now, the telco suddenly has discovered information about Gates' personal life. Well TELECOM Digest readers, *you* be the judge and decide who is telling the truth. Would a telephone company cooperate with a police intelligence unit and do these things? Could telco employees pull those things off for that many years and their superiors not be aware of it? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: re: Caller ID and crank calls Date: 29 Mar 89 19:41:31 GMT Organization: M. R. Smith Consulting, New Brunswick, NJ Well, it would seem to me that being able to give the crank's number to the police, and having it on your machine is a fairly good deterrent. It's not easy to get a number onto your Caller*ID machine without them actualy calling you, and I'm sure the police would consider it convincing evidence. Here at Rutgers, a Hispanic activist got a long series of racist calls form a few freshmen. She followed up on it with the police, they traced the calls with the aid of NJ Bell, and now the frosh are facing a $5000 fine and 90 days per call. I'd say it's a useful deterrent. How many cranks are gonna call you long distance or from a pay phone? Mark -- Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance, RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063 that you do not miss what is right under your nose." New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith (OK, Bob?) msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #120 *****************************   Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 2:03:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #121 Message-ID: <8904030203.aa16822@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Apr 89 01:41:55 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Cellular Phones and Big Brother (Richard Snider) How to use Caller*Id? (Dave Levenson) Response Time Statistics (Denise Holz) Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals (Ken Stox) Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Paul Fuqua) Reply To Moderator: Divestiture NOT A Mistake (Steve Elias) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: xrtll!rsnider@nexus.yorku.ca Subject: Cellular Phones and Big Brother Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 14:56:57 EST Reply-To: rsnider@xrtll.UUCP Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries, Toronto, Canada Yesterday I sat in my office and had a nice chat with a friend of mine who called my from his truck while driving through Toronto. We talked for about 10 minutes and I noticed that handoff happened about 4 times. In this 10 minutes he could not have driven more than 10 km. This seems to imply to me that the cell areas are about 4 km apart. Afterward I thought about this and relized that the cellular service providers here have a VERY good idea of where you are with your phone. There seems to be a potential here for the police department to locate stolen vehicles with cellular phones in them by simply having the service providers tell them where they are. As well, the phones will respond if polled so there does not have to be a conversation in progress in order to do this. With some fiddling about with the computers, I am sure that the cellular network could easily report location within .5 km since each transmitter maintains a record (or samples) of signal strength relative to other nearby transmitters to decide when to handoff. Unfortunately I believe that if the general public was made aware of how well their location was known if they owned a cellular phone there would be rage and panic, not to mention there is not a thing that can be done about it. I seem to remember that somewhere in the states a company offered a service to find your stolen car. You get this transmitter installed in your car and some police car has a directional receiver that they use to follow your car around if it has been stolen. It never caught on because everyone thought this made people too easy to find even if the car is not stolen. So how many people out there just decided to turn off their cellular phone when they are not using it or expecting calls ? After all, you ARE being watched...... Richard Snider Where: ..uunet!mnetor!yunexus!xrtll!rsnider Also: rsnider@xrtll.UUCP "Hey ! Whats with all the blue lines on the RGB Monitor ???" "Ummm.....Looks like.....well....Ethernet!" ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: How to use Caller*Id? Date: 1 Apr 89 04:21:21 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Our business here in Warren Township, New Jersey, has a phone number which is not equal to the number of the Racketball Court a few miles away. But once or twice a week, someone reaches us while trying to call the racketball place. We have had Caller*Id in operation for a week, and we have now discovered that all of the racketball calls we got this week came from the same number (in nearby Somerville, according to the prefix). The next time we get a call from that number, we'll assume the caller doesn't want to talk to us. A question for the net: what should we do with him? Answer as if we were the racketball place and give him the reservation he'll probably request for the court? Answer as if we were the racketball place and refuse his request? Tell him, for the umpteenth time, that we are not the racketball court? Call the racketball place on the other line, and conference him in? We could then eavesdrop and perhaps obtain the caller's name! Any other suggestions for fun? -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: rutgers!usdtsg.dayton.ncr.com!dholz@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Response Time Statistics Date: 30 Mar 89 21:15:51 GMT Reply-To: Organization: USDPG/ISS Dayton, Ohio This semester I'm working on a project involving the application of human factors engineering in industry. Has anyone seen any research showing actual user response times in large, distributed networks? Please respond to me personally through email or phone, Thanks in advance 8-). Denise Holz email dholz@usdtsg.Dayton.NCR.COM 4555 Irelan St. Dayton, Ohio 45440 Telephone 513-445-3447 (8-5) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Payphone Booths as Confessionals From: ihlpb!stox@att.uucp Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 12:30:20 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator): > Patrick Kane, president of Telephone Entertainment, Inc. conceived the idea > of using the phone to make confessions while profiting from those > folks who want to hear the lurid thoughts of others. He set up his service > in New York City and allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- anyone and everyone > to call in at no charge. A soothing woman's voice, described in some of > his advertising as 'Priestess' urges, "I want to hear about what you have > done; about your secret thoughts, and the things that have been done to > you..." And the caller is then given a minute to let it all hang out, no > names required or desired. Yow !!! Shades of THX1138. A great George Lucas flick, if you haven't seen it. Ken Stox ihlpb!stox ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 12:46:43 CST From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Date: Wednesday, March 29, 1989 12:28pm (CST) From: folta at tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? But is this really a very large area? How large might a local call area be in LA or NY? Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people? (It would be interesting to hear about maximal sizes in terms of: area, number of people, and number of exchanges.) The local calling area in Dallas includes the city itself, plus most of the first two rings of suburbs and DFW airport. That's a rough square 25 or 30 miles on a side, so 600 to 900 square miles. Between 1 and 2 million people, more than 300 exchanges. Also, it's all "free" -- there's no measured local service here, except for a couple of economy and business plans that charge per-call. Southwestern Bell keeps trying to institute time-and-distance charging for local calls (ie, message units), but the PUC keeps shooting them down. Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Apr 89 21:03:26 EDT From: Steve Elias Subject: Divestiture was not a mistake The current state of COCOTS and the recent rulings regarding default long distance carriers for pay phones can surely cause one to despair. With regard to pay phones and AOS, divestiture *is* a joke. I think it is mistaken to blame divestiture for these problems. If our pal Judge Hoo-Haa and his cronies had the public's best interest in mind, we might see a few reasonable laws. Allowing crappy AOS companies to charge exorbitant prices without telling the dialer is stupid. There has to be some recourse against these thieves. I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! sincerely 10333, steve elias (eli@spdcc.com) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #121 *****************************   Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 1:19:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #122 Message-ID: <8904040119.aa23049@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Apr 89 00:55:26 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 122 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Caller*ID betrays a crank caller (Mark Robert Smith) Customer Name and Address Service (Mark Brader) Cancer from cell phones (Bradley W. Smith) Make/break ratios (Linc Madison) Wanted: APPLE-2 software for DEAF-TTY connections. (A. Dalrymple) "You'll find some changes here." (Chet Edelman) Re: British phone cards (Peter Kendell) [Moderator's Note: Mark Robert Smith (first item, below) tells of catching an obscene caller in the act with his Caller ID equipment. His report brings back memories of 1967, when a buddy of mine working for IBT caught one of the lowlifes. I will post it in the next issue of the Digest. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 16:34:26 EDT From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Caller*ID betrays a crank caller The other night, I got a call at 3am, that I wasn't expecting. So, I let the phone ring twice, and poof, the number 560-0846 appears on my CallerID box. I didn't recognize the number, but I answered anyway. The person on the other end proceeded to say any number of obscene things. I interrupted, saying: "Did you know that your phone number is 560-08[click]". He hung up before I could finish. So, I called him back. Caller - "Hello?" Me - " Why did you just call me?" Caller - silence Me - "I know your phone number, it's 560-0846, and if you ever call back here again, I'm going to report you to the police." Caller - "All right [click]" His "All right" was very sheepish-sounding. I next called the operator, to see if she could do a reverse-directory listing check. She passed me to her supervisor, who told me that she couldn't, and I should call either the police, or the business office on Monday. I told her the story, and heard a room full of people laughing in the background, hysterically. She said, "I wish I could have seen his face when you called back...." So, I called the business office on Monday. They refused to do a reverse directory lookup, because that information is private. The best I could have done, is pay $1 to do a Call*Trace, after which I would have to contact the police and press charges, before I could find out who it was. Does anyone out there know of another way to do a reverse lookup? Mark ---- Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance, RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063 that you do not miss what is right under your nose." New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith (OK, Bob?) msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu [Moderator's Note: Try the Haines Criss Cross Directory; available in the Business/Technology or similar reference department in many public libraries. Sometimes if you call the library on the phone and ask for the reference department the librarian will do the look up and give it to you; other times they say you have to come in the library and do it yourself. PT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Customer Name and Address Service Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 00:53:29 EDT > Illinois or several other states ... > provide public CN/A (Customer Name and Address) services, much > like a reverse directory bureau. In the early 1960's when I lived in Edmonton, Alberta, a form of reverse directory was included right in the public directory, as "Pink Pages". Where the white pages might say Brader S L 12219 51st St ........... 477-7474 the pink ones would just have 7474 Brader as an entry under the heading 477; thus they were much shorter than the white pages. I was too young in those days to think of investigating whether the pink pages listings included all phone numbers or only some classes thereof, and I have no idea when they stopped doing that. By the way, that was my actual phone number. Best one I've ever had, though for most of the time we had it, it was still GRanite 7-7474. My present one has a pretty nice pattern, too: 488-6366. Unfortunately, the number 488-6636 belongs to a business. -- Mark Brader "It can be amusing, even if painful, to watch the SoftQuad Inc., Toronto ethnocentrism of those who are convinced their utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com local standards are universal." -- Tom Chapin ------------------------------ Subject: Cancer from cell phones ... Date: 3 Apr 89 13:03:56 EST (Mon) From: gmeeca!sb@tis.llnl.gov The recent comments produce concern -- ionizing radiation is clearly NOT the only to get cancer -- there is much concern about low frequency radiation (previously thought to be safe), such as 60 Hz. There are several studies out that show that people living in the area (not underneath, not sitting on the wire) of high voltage lines have significantly increased chances of cancer (and I forget which type). For infants, it is clearly stated that even the minor field generated by electric blankets can induce cancer. Having been in the EMC arena for a while, the topic of cancer is under very heavy scrutiny in the 500W arena/60 Hz arena, to which we are cur- ently exposing people in relatively large quantities, as this is the std power used to drive large magnetic (Helmholz coils). As a safety prec- aution, we do require our people to be with the vehicle while it is sub- jected to this EMR (as it is on a dynamometer). We also require a minimum of a yearly physical exam done by the company to catch any areas of difficulty that could arise. It is important to understand, that while this field will seriously deflect a CRT beam at several feet, it is nothing when compared to the field produced by a hand held razor. As this applies to Cellphones (including those with internal mount ant- ennas), there is most likely a very small finite probability that the radiation will produce odd side effects in adults. This probability is also vastly increased for infants (namely those under 2 years old). THIS DOESN'T MEAN DON'T USE CELLPHONES! Dosage is the key factor -- no human being is exposed to hours of cellphone communication on end -- expense, drop-outs, safety, and cauliflower ear prohibit such exposure. Using an electric blanket, a child gets 8 hours plus per day exposure. Using our coils - technicians get 2 min/day of whole body exposure and using an electric razor a persons exposure is less than three minutes per day. In the future, there is going to be a significant amount of discussion about radiation limitations in the low frequency and low power areas of operation. These concerns have been troubling the EMC types for quite a while. Bradley W. Smith (313) 685-5265 @ GMPG lll-tis!gmeeca!sb umix!clip!hse001!sb Disclaimer: In consideration of the legal ramifications of the above statements, consider the aforementioned statements to be my personal opinions and non-indicative of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Apr 89 23:40:37 PST From: e118 student Subject: Make/break ratios The make/break ratios in the US and UK are different, but the ratio isn't terribly critical (at least in US). I discovered some years ago that I can dial by clicking the switchhook rapidly. One time I even dialed 9-1-214-233-2768 successfully by this method. Obviously my fingers weren't carefully figuring out whether I was using a 39/61 ratio or 33/67, so I suspect there is a high tolerance in the system for slop. --Linc Madison = e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu Disclaimers: I speak my own mind. The telephone number listed above no longer belongs to anyone I know, but please don't call it. ------------------------------ From: Sirald@cup.portal.com Subject: [WANTED]: APPLE-2 software for DEAF-TTY connections. Date: Mon, 3-Apr-89 08:22:02 PDT I'm looking for APPLE-2 software or a BASIC program that will connect me to a DEAF-TTY. DTTY uses the BAUDOT character set (5-bit data words). APPLE-2 uses the ASCII character set (8-bit data words). I need a interface be- tween the 45.5 baud rate that BAUDOT requires and the 300/ 1200 baud rate that I'm set-up with. I realize that the "APPLE-CAT" modem accomplishes this between h/w and s/w, but I'm trying to make due with what I have. If anyone out there can aim me towards the software for this (share/freeware?) or actually could port something simple over into BASIC or ASM/HEX, that would be most ap- preciated. If you don't happen to have even the foggiest of what I am speaking about, but could steer me towards other re- sources, THAT is also most appreciated. Please try to reach me at the following addresses; upon failure to reach me, please post back here. In advance, thank you for your time and effort. You may be the one to bring friends and family closer together - please give it a go. Cordially, A. DALRYMPLE sirald@cup.portal.com sun!portal!cup.portal.com!sirald ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 12:49:36 EDT From: Chet Edelman x3425 Subject: ``You'll find some changes here.'' Hiya Pat, I couldn't remember you had already run this, so I am sending it just to make sure. What follows is the verbatim text of an advertisement in The Boston Globe, Monday April 3, 1989, page 6; =========================================== ``You'll find some changes here.'' Recently, a change was made in your long distance pay phone calling. In the past, when you used our pay phones to call outside your New England Telephone calling area*, the call was carried by AT&T. This is not necessarily true anymore. Now when you dial ``0'' plus the number for specially billed calls like collect and Calling Card, the call will be handled by the long distance company chosen by the property owner. The long distance company will be identified on each pay phone's instruction card. If you prefer, you can use a different long distance company by dialing that company's special access code. We hope you've found this small change handy. *In Maine (207), New Hampshire (603), Vermont (802), and Rhode Island (401), the New England Telephone Calling Area is the entire state. In Massachusetts, there are two New England Telephone Calling Areas: Western Massachusetts (413) and Eastern Massachusetts (617/508). New England Telephone A NYNEX Company Chet Edelman "Here am I" Interleaf Inc. coe@ileaf.com 10 Canal Park {sun!sunne,mit-eddie}!ileaf!io!hineni!coe Cambridge Ma 02141 (coe@hub.umb.edu, EDELMAN@UMBSKY.BITNET) (617)577-9813x3425 ------------------------------ From: Peter Kendell Subject: Re: British phone cards Date: 3 Apr 89 14:32:28 GMT Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB. From article , by halliday@cc.ubc.ca (laura halliday): } While in London a couple of years ago the locals told me } that the rationale for phone cards (other than byuing a } 20 pound phone card with paper money rather than coins) } was that card phones have no money in them, and are thus } much less likely to be vandalized. } } - Laura Plus, BT just *love* collecting your money from you before you make your call. Think of all that extra cash it gives them. Plus you might lose the card. Plus, a card telephone doesn't show you your money draining away the way a cash one does so you are likely to spend more. Do I carry a card? Yes, because money phones are disappearing fast and the time I *really* need a phone will be the time there's only a card phone nearby. But I don't like it. -- | Peter Kendell | | ...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #122 *****************************   Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 2:33:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #123 Message-ID: <8904040233.aa24731@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Apr 89 02:17:28 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Obscene Caller Brought To Justice (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (John Higdon) Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Linc Madison) Re: How to use Caller*Id? (Will Martin) Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 2:09:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Obscene Caller Brought To Justice The year was 1967. I was living in Hyde Park, one of the south side neighborhoods in Chicago. A fellow living in my building worked for Illinois Bell as a techician in the frames at the Chicago-Wabash central office downtown. Now this was long before ESS, of course, and in fact at the time, Wabash was an ancient step by step office; one of the first converted to dial from manual service in the early 1940's. Woody worked the 4-12 midnight shift on Saturday and Sunday, and had just a single clerk working with him; a woman who answered the calls to '611' repair service among other things. You would have to know something about the area to fully appreciate the story, but here goes anyway. The section of downtown Chicago where that CO is located is on the southern edge of the financial section. It is *dead* on Saturday evenings; no one is left in any of the offices to call Repair Service at that time on the weekend; at least not back then. So as often as not, the woman clerk taking 611 calls would sit there for several minutes at a time doing nothing. There was one fellow though, who *always* called at exactly 6:00 PM on Saturday, and would begin talking dirty to the woman who answered the repair line. I assume this chap was probably alone in his office, getting ready to go home for the night, and liked to get his jollies by talking dirty on the phone. He apparently assumed calls to 611 could not be traced; or at least he knew it was a free call and would cost him nothing for a couple minutes of thrills the way he liked to get them. You could set your watch by this guy. Every Saturday night; always at 6 PM; always to the same woman answering 611 calls; always two or three minutes of nasty talk while he was on the other end doing whatever it is that guys do while they are making calls of this sort. Woody the central office tech and the repair service lady always used to laugh about it. Around five minutes to six every Saturday night Woody would tell the woman, "oh, look at the time; its about time for your boyfriend to call..." One night Woody was feeling energetic, and he said to the clerk, let's catch that silly old fool tonight. The woman asked how, and Woody explained, thusly -- "You've got no calls now; when it lights up you know it will be him. No one else ever calls Repair at this time of the evening from downtown on Saturday night. "What I want you to do is this: when he calls, make your voice sound like a *recorded message*, and all I want you to say is 'Repair Service has a new number. To call Repair Service, please hang up and dial 230'..." In those days at least, '230' was a special test number which terminated on the test board. Woody had a special treat in mind for their gentleman caller that evening. Sure enough, within a minute or two, 611 gets a call. The woman answers and carefully recites, "This is a recorded message. Repair Service has a new telephone number. To reach Repair Service, please hang up and dial 230. Dial 230 to reach Repair Service. There is no charge for this call; this is a recorded message from Chicago-Wabash" (click). Sure enough, maybe ten seconds later, 230 lights up on the test board. "Get over here! Hurry up and answer this guy. I'll be on the line." Woody plugged in his headset in the test board, and the clerk plugged in the spare jack. Plugging in the cord, she answered, "Repair Service, how may I help you?" Sure enough, our boy was there, and his mouth started running right away. Woody got a big grin on his face, and he hit a couple keys on the test board and immediatly spoke up. "You son of a bitch! This time we caught you! I have wanted to nail you for the last six weeks, and this time we got you." Well, the chap immediatly hung up his phone, and Woody said he started ringing him back. From the test board, he could hold up the line as long as he wanted by keeping a shoe on the line, and he said to the clerk we will just play games as long as he wants to play games. Woody said he must have rang the guy's phone for 30 minutes trying to get him to pick up. "First I would give him a real long ring, like thirty seconds. Then a couple of short ding-dings. Then a couple long ones again. Finally after 30 minutes or so, the guy picked up, all the innocent bystander." "Hello?" "Say you! What's your name and your phone number?" "I'm not going to tell you." "Oh yeah? We'll see about that!" Woody says this banter went on for a few minutes, and finally the poor mousy fellow, by this point almost in tears, told him the number he was calling from. (Woody) "Well, I'm not so sure I can believe you. Tell you what I am going to do. It's time for my dinner break. I am going over to Walgreens and get a sandwich and some coffee. I'll be back in about an hour. Until I get back, I'll just leave your line the way it is; and when I get done with my dinner, I'll just take a walk into the frames and find out for myself who you are. You can go ahead and hang up if you want; I've got you locked down on the test board so I can find you later on." Woody says when he got back from dinner, he went in the frames and was able to verify that the caller had given the correct number. Checking their records, they found the name on the phone, and the address. I asked him what happened at that point. He said on Monday morning they told the Business Office. I asked what the Business Office did about it, and he said, "not very much! They slapped his wrist, and told him not to make that kind of phone call any more or they would cut his service off. It solved our problem anyway. We never heard from him on the Repair Desk again." That was 1967, and Woody had been with Illinois Bell about twenty years at that point in time. A few years later, he read in [Telephony Magazine] about some small rural telco out in Arizona that was going bankrupt. He retired from Bell, took the several thousand dollars he had in his pension fund account and bought into the rural telco. He moved to Arizona and became a part owner of his own telco, instead of working for Ma Bell any longer. The last I heard from him, about fifteen years ago, he loved it there, and said he would never return to Bell. No gripes with them; just that he liked being his own boss for a change. History books about the telephone industry say the first complaint of an obscene phone call was recorded by the manager of the New Haven exchange in February, 1881. The record does not indicate *what* the caller had to say, but it does report the callee was quite disturbed by the '...filthy language that strange man said to me on the phone....'. And the beat goes on. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother Date: 4 Apr 89 03:49:20 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , xrtll!rsnider@nexus.yorku.ca writes: > So how many people out there just decided to turn off their cellular > phone when they are not using it or expecting calls ? > After all, you ARE being watched...... Frankly, I do turn off my handheld when I am not using it or expecting calls, but that's only to preserve the battery. I really don't care if the cellular system "knows" where I am; I'm not hiding. Now if my boss could tell that I wasn't calling from downtown San Francisco but instead calling from the Napa wine country, that would be a different matter. I suspect, however, that this information will not be available on a casual basis. If you stop to think about it, *they* certainly know where you are when you use your home or office phone, don't they. And I understand that the cellular phone is still the communications medium of choice among LA's finest drug dealers:-) -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Apr 89 23:56:18 PST From: e118 student Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? Organization: U.C. Berkeley In article David Bernholdt writes: > >... -- and every subscriber in the county gets an item like "E911 >Upgrade" on their local service billing to pay for it (at $0.50/month). > >... Just out of curiousity, does anyone know of other cases where the >BOC is collecting "taxes" for a local government? Here in Berkeley, California, we have several "taxes" and taxes that the BOC collects. We have a state excise tax on all telephone charges except out-of-state toll calls. We also have a *municipal* excise tax applied to the same charges. We also have a 0.5% tax applied specifi- cally to pay for enhanced 911 service. We also have a tax applied to pay for TDD's (Telephone Devices for the Deaf). When I was living in San Jose, California, the mayor (Tom McEnery) had a *bright* idea -- why not apply the municipal phone tax on *all* calls, including interstate? Regrettably, he talked to his legal staff *after* telling the press. By the way, the total of all taxes I pay on in-state charges is about 11%, including the 3% federal. --Linc Madison = e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 15:20:26 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Re: How to use Caller*Id? There are several possible explanations for the repeated mistaken calls to your phone from the same calling number always wanting the racketball court. (I suppose I am assuming that the caller is not intending to harass you, and that it is as much of an annoyance to him to get the wrong destination repeatedly as it is to you to get the wrong-number calls. Maybe I'm wrong in trying to look for the reasonable interpretation, though -- in that case, my advice would be to take revenge...:-) Possible causes: 1) Defective phone at the caller's site. Does the intended number differ from yours by some regular error, such as having "3"'s where your number has "2"s? If so, the phone the caller is using may be intermittently broken, so that pressing or dialling "3" generates a "2" instead. Maybe it generates the wrong number if the touch is light, and when he tries again after reaching you, he presses buttons more firmly, or dials more slowly, and gets the right number then. 2) Position of the phone and the caller at their site. Right now, for example, the phone by my desk is sitting on an equipment cabinet at above my seated eye-level. I often hit incorrect buttons because of the angle at which I am viewing the face of the phone. If the phone being called from is on the wall in dim light, say, the caller may just not be seeing it well enough to hit it right. 3) Handicap of the caller -- maybe he has bad vision, or hand spasms, or some other reason that he hits incorrect numbers in a consistent fashion, so that he gets your number repeatedly instead of the desired one. (Admittedly far-fetched if he is athletic enough to be calling for a racketball court.) 4) Mysterious gremlins in the phone-switching circuits. Some similar-sounding things have been in Telecom in the past, so it isn't impossible that the caller is dialling the correct number, yet some percentage of the time, and only on the linkage from his line or CO to the racketball-court's number, your phone gets rung instead. 5) Bad posted information -- maybe this is a public place, like another sports-oriented site, and they have a chart on the wall with your number shown by the name of the racketball court. A simple explanation, but, after all, human stupidity can take infinite forms! :-) Is it always the same individual calling? If so, that sort of rules out 5 but makes 1 thru 4 more likely. Does he seem honestly puzzled as to why he reaches you instead of the court? That would indicate a hardware bug. If he is apologetic or defensive, maybe that indicates personal or known handicap problems. Have you tried calling the number back? You might be able to guess something from how it is answered, if it is a home or business... Just some things that came to mind as I read your posting... Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Date: 4 Apr 89 04:04:49 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Steve Elias) writes: > I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize > long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display > or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the > free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't > be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a quasi-emergency device. The one you end up in front of is the one you end up with. If it rips you off, that's too bad. Even in places where you might conceivably shop around, such as an airport, one outfit has the "concession" and there is no choice. An alternative (other than declaring COCOTs a "public utility" item, to be handled only by the utility) would be to require *all* pay phones to give a choice of all carriers that are on an equal-access basis in the area with complete instructions on how to select. Pacific Bell has had phones like this in airports for years. By limiting the selection to equal-access, you would eliminate the scummy AOS people. As it is right now, if it isn't obviously a Pac*Bell payphone, I don't even slow down. If the call is *really* necessary, I pick up the handheld. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #123 *****************************   Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 2:56:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #124 Message-ID: <8904050256.aa02795@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Apr 89 02:41:38 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Push to Centrex (John Higdon) Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Paul Anderson) How To Use Caller*ID (Erik Dufek) Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (Dave Levenson) Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Leslie Mikesell) Re: An April Fool's Joke (Roy A. Crabtree) Gremlins in the network (Bob Langford) [Moderator's Note: Just one issue of the Digest today. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: push to Centrex Date: 4 Apr 89 07:49:13 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In California, Pacific Bell is doing a saturation campaign to sell Centrex services to business. They push the reliablility of the service ("the equipment is in our office, and we monitor it 24 hours a day") and the fact that it can grow with your company. I think I have found a major flaw with centrex (other than the obvious ones). In my home there are nine lines in Commstar II, Pac*Bell's "small" centrex service for business and residence. The easiest way to retrieve calls from my Watson is by calling it. Normally, I pick up any phone, dial "#20" (the intercom code for the Watson) and get my messages. This morning in the Bay Area there was a small earthquake. I thought no more about it until it was time to check my Watson. Picked up the phone and, you guessed it, no dial tone. The CO was overloaded from all the dummies calling Aunt Millie to see if she felt the 'quake. So now here's the scenerio: There is an earthquake. Things fall off shelves, shelves fall over, people are screaming. And XYZ Corporation has now lost all of its internal communications because they made the "right" choice and bought Centrex. At least if you own your own switch, while you may not be able to make outgoing calls (CO trunks dead), you can call up to the third floor to make sure everyone is OK. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ From: Paul Anderson Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Date: 5 Apr 89 00:49:32 GMT Reply-To: Paul Anderson Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., a Dun & Bradstreet Company In article pf@islington-terrace.csc.ti.com (Paul Fuqua) writes: > Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? >The local calling area in Dallas includes the city itself, plus most of >the first two rings of suburbs and DFW airport. That's a rough square >25 or 30 miles on a side, so 600 to 900 square miles. Between 1 and 2 >million people, more than 300 exchanges. Hmmm. In this light, I think that the Atlanta calling region -may- be larger geographically (and I will take a stab at a population for that region to be around 4 million people). The Atlanta local calling area extends from about 20 miles on one side of the 'perimeter' to 20 miles out on the other side. The I285 ('perimeter') is conservatively 20 miles across. This yields a diameter of 60 miles or ~ 2826 sq miles. Now, while you are all coughing, I have made calls this distance regularly and drive to these locations to do business! I searched the phone book for a listing of the exchanges and was unable to find anything. There are, however, 400 private residence listings per page in the phone book for all 2004 pages of it yielding a total of 801,600 residence listings. If the average household headcount of 4 per holds, then this bears out an estimate of about 4 million people in the metro area. The business section averages 350 listings per page for 700 pages for a total of 245,000 *listed* lines. The real number is at least probably double that, but more likely triple that, so lets say business lines account for 600,000 more. That yields a total of 1.4 million lines. This results in 495 lines per sq mile. Big area, but not real dense like in New York City. Paul -- Paul Anderson gatech!stiatl!pda (404) 841-4000 X isn't just an adventure, X is a way of life... ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 4 17:34:20 1989 From: erik@netcom.UUCP (16) Subject: Re: How to use Caller*Id? Organization: NetCom Unix, San Jose CA In article , westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) says: > Our business here in Warren Township, New Jersey, has a phone number > which is not equal to the number of the Racketball Court a few miles > away. But once or twice a week, someone reaches us while trying to > call the racketball place. We have had Caller*Id in operation for a > week, and we have now discovered that all of the racketball calls we > got this week came from the same number (in nearby Somerville, > according to the prefix). The next time we get a call from that > number, we'll assume the caller doesn't want to talk to us. A > question for the net: what should we do with him? > Answer as if we were the racketball place and give him the > reservation he'll probably request for the court? > Tell him, for the umpteenth time, that we are not the racketball court? I'd use this fix for all your wrong calls. Tell them that you are closed for business today because the phone company is redoing the phones. Tell them to write down the new phone number since it will be changed tomorrow. Then proceed to very carefully give them the new number. Remind them to change all their speed calling to the new number. I suspect that your caller has the wrong number stored somewhere. Explain that the new number will be very similar to the old number and they should be careful when copying it or programming it into their phone. I suspect this will help lower the wrong numbers. Of course if you are real viscous you could give them the number to the local pizza palace or the phone company's business office. Erik Dufek ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother Date: 4 Apr 89 22:05:38 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , xrtll!rsnider@nexus.yorku.ca writes: > Yesterday I sat in my office and had a nice chat with a friend of mine > who called my from his truck while driving through Toronto... > Afterward I thought about this and relized that the cellular service > providers here have a VERY good idea of where you are with your phone. > There seems to be a potential here for the police department to locate > stolen vehicles with cellular phones in them by simply having the > service providers tell them where they are. As well, the phones will > respond if polled so there does not have to be a conversation in progress > in order to do this. A few years ago, a friend had a cellular mobile phone stolen from her car. She called the local service provider to ask them to try to locate the vehicle. (She worked at Bell Laboratories, and was involved in the development of the software that makes Cellular Telephony work.) They refused to do any kind of tracing, and suggested that their equipment did not make the information available. They did offer to turn off the service (by causing their switch to reject calls to/from the mobile number). The stolen equipment turned up on my friend's door step one morning a few weeks later! -- Dave Levenson /-----------------------------\ Westmark, Inc. | If you can't give me your | Warren, NJ USA | Phone number, don't call! | {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave \-----------------------------/ ------------------------------ From: Leslie Mikesell Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Date: 4 Apr 89 22:31:17 GMT Reply-To: Leslie Mikesell Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix In article eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Steve Elias) writes: >I think it is mistaken to blame divestiture for these problems. [...] >I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize >long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display >or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the >free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't >be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! The solution is actually much simpler than voice equipment. The services should be required to connect through the lowest priced LD service unless otherwise directed (by dialing the access code) by the caller. Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest rate. Then they could only gouge you for local services. Les Mikesell ------------------------------ From: "Roy A. Crabtree" Subject: Re: An April Fool's Joke Date: 4 Apr 89 16:56:09 GMT Organization: AT&T In article , Head@uunet.uu.net writes: > Today is the big day. We are celebrating April Fool's Day this year [elided] > And people are angry: The FCC is receiving about 2000 letters a month from > Americans asking what in the hell has happened to the phone service. Even [elided] > for most folks on the run, the pay phone at the airport or train > depot, or the phone at the corner convenience mart is where they stop. > And boy, have *they* got a suprise coming, starting today. I really wonder [elided] > As the late Jim Jordan's wife, Mollie used to say, "tain't funny, McGee!" [elided] > Patrick Townson it's just starting ... because the 3-5 year period we just went through is the lead time needed to flow through a new regulatory policy and begin networ wide implmentation. Wait until the AOSs and the COCOTs and other ilk really get rolling. POTS is dying, folks; and the co$t i$ going up ... As bad as some areas of AT&T practise and service have been (& having lived on the inside for much of my career, I can attest to it), you really do not know what you will miss until it is gone: - IN Mexico they _will_ their telephones; new connects take 7-10 years in some areas. - In France up to 1 in 3 local calls go astray. Competition is fine, but why throw out the baby with the bath water? roy a. crabtree att!mtdca!royc 201-957-6033 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 12:24 EST From: LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu Subject: Gremlins in the network A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and played back her answering machine, and got this: (those tones that come with intercept recordings) "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call again later." Is this a new service? The switch notifies people when high utilization occurs? Was her recorder trying to make calls to its friends? The message (and especially the tones) sounded real, or I would be more inclined to expect a joke (it was April 1st.....). Any guesses? ...Bob Langford, Medical College of Virginia... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #124 *****************************   Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 0:05:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #125 Message-ID: <8904060005.aa09144@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Apr 89 00:01:51 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Centrex (Michael Barnes) Centrex (Will Martin) Phones and Earthquakes (was push to Centrex) (Hector Myerston) Re: How to use Caller*Id? (Carl Moore) ISDN Prototyping Phone in Radio-Electronics (Kurt A. Geisel) Cordless phone that works within 10 miles (Tsz-Mei Ko) Re: Telecomm Distributors List Wanted (Joe Kittel) Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (John B. Nagle) Re: Gremlins in the network (Paul Anderson) Phone fraud (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Apr 1989 06:10-PDT Subject: Centrex From: 410 BMW/SCX--KI Sawyer AFB MI No flames please, but for the sake of this poor ignorant person, (me personally, no reflection on the rest of my office) I would like to see definitions of Centrex. I have heard many and am curious what the net has to say . Now's the chance for some real interesting stuff. Please send me *your* definition of Centrex. Thanks, Michael ***************************************************************** Michael Barnes * The nice thing about policies OldNet: SAC.2001CS-XP@E.ISI.EDU * and standards, is that there NewNet: S2001CS_XP@SACEMNET.ARPA * are so many to choose from. HamNet: WA7SKG * If you don't find any you BellNet: 906-346-2578 * like, simply wait for next AV Net: 472-2578 * years models! SnailNet: 2001CS/XP * K.I. SAWYER AFB,MI * ***************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: The ideas, comments, remarks, replies, insinuations, innuendos, flatuations, and any other conceivable or inconceivable outputs presented here, real, imagined, or implied, simply do not exist. The names are real, the stories have been changed due to simple boredom. **************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 9:08:35 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Centrex The main fault I find with Centrex, in an operational, user-interface sense, is the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer calls and get another line. If I call a number and get a busy signal, and want to hang up and try again or try a different number, even if I press the button down deliberately and hold it down for what seems to me to be a loo-oo-oong time, I STILL get the beep-beep-beep that tells me the first call is on hold and I am now connected to a second line. That should only happen with a single SHORT flash of the switchhook; any measurable length of time of holding down the switchhook should be a hangup. I find it a terrible user interface to force me to delay as long as it wants me to to get a real hangup. I would think that one of the touchtone buttons, like # or *, could be sensed during a call to perform the action that is now controlled by the switchhook. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 09:01:31 PDT From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: Phones and Earthquakes (was push to Centrex) John Higdon writes about how to avoid post-earthquake dial tone delays if one has a PBX voice Centrex. John, think about it. The blockage and/or dial-tone delay are not caused by the equipment but by an abnormally large number of user going off-hook. What makes you think that PBX users will act any differently? (You even suggest calling the Third Floor to check!). Even the best "Non-Blocking" [ :-) ] PBXs cannot support everyone going off-hook simultaneously without service delay. In big shakers many "calls" are caused by cheap light weight sets falling off hook. In this area (SF Bay) the radio stations advice everyone to stay off the phone and, in the next second, ask everybody to call THEM with the same tiresome "Gee, I'm OK but I really felt it..." reports. In between calls they (the radio stations) gang-dial USGS, Berkeley Seismology Lab etc to ask inane questions. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 8:45:32 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: How to use Caller*Id? Is that caller dialing the number for the racketball place or is it stored? I had a case several years ago in my office, which uses a Centrex or similar setup, where callers from outside who were trying to reach an extension of the form 6abc got 66ab instead; this came to my attention because I was in an area where many extensions started with a double 6. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 19:24:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: ISDN Prototyping Phone in Radio-Electronics The May 1989 issue of Radio-Electronic starts a multi-part article on building an ISDN prototyping phone. It is a special interface board which connects to a standard Telenova PBX station. It provides a complete TE1 interface, based on the AM79C30A chip, which can be made ISDN-ready if you have a hookup available. In case you don't, a standard analog phone interface is built in (with DTMF and call-progress monitoring), allowing you to connect to an existing twisted pair and emulate ISDN functions. Apparently, you will be able to customize the software (the Telenova's 8085 w/ 64K) to do your own ISDN experiments, as well have a fully-functional TE1, but the software details won't be revealed until a later issue. All in all, it looks pretty promising for all you hacker ("good" sense of the word, I THINK...) types. - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, BIX : kgeisel briefed, debriefed, or numbered!" - The Prisoner ------------------------------ From: "t.m.ko" Subject: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles Date: 5 Apr 89 14:21:35 GMT Reply-To: "t.m.ko" Organization: AT&T, Middletown, NJ I am looking for a cordless phone that would work even if the handset is away from the base for up to 10 miles. Is there such a product? I need to use it in some rural area where cellular service is unavailable. All recommendations and comments are appreciated. ****************************************************************************** Tsz-Mei Ko ARPA: bentley!tmk@att.ARPA AT&T Bell Labs UUCP: tmk@bentley.UUCP LC 3N-P08 184 Liberty Corner Road {att-ih,decwrl,amdahl,linus}!ihnp4!bentley!tmk Warren, NJ 07060-0908 ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: Joe Kittel Subject: Re: Telecomm Distributors List Wanted Date: 4 Apr 89 18:07:36 GMT Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO > Please excuse the message if I've sent it to the wrong person, > but do you maintain a list of telecomm product distributors, > or can you direct me to someone who might? > > Thanks in advance. > > Steve Diamond > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > Mountain View, CA 94043 > 415-336-4190 Steve, Not sure what's meant by "telecom product distributors" but this MAY BE what you're looking for: 1989 Telephone Industry Directory (3rd edition) Phillips Publishing 7811 Montrose Road Potomac, Maryland 20854 (301) 340-2100; customer service (800) 722-9120 Happy to help our friends at Sun ... Regards, Joe Kittel Hewlett-Packard - NSS - Telecom Industry Mktg Ph: (303) 229-2560 UXmail: [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!joe-k P.S. Feel free to call ... ------------------------------ From: "John B. Nagle" Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother Date: 5 Apr 89 16:26:03 GMT Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" Organization: Stanford University It's not all clear that the ECPA prohibits listening to the cellular control channel. There might be some potential for a business that monitors all traffic on the cellular control channel in an area and reduces the data. Not only could you locate stolen phones, but you could develop targeted marketing information concerning heavy cellular phone users. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Paul Anderson Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network Date: 5 Apr 89 18:38:57 GMT Reply-To: Paul Anderson Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., a Dun & Bradstreet Company In article LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu writes: >A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and >played back her answering machine, and got this: > (those tones that come with intercept recordings) > "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call > again later." I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta once every other day for a week and a half now... Can anyone take any guesses as to what is happening? paul -- Paul Anderson gatech!stiatl!pda (404) 841-4000 X isn't just an adventure, X is a way of life... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 23:20:04 EDT From: Shakil Waiz Ahmed Subject: Phone fraud I would like to thank all those of you who responded to my request for possible phone fraud techniques at Yale. The information you all provided was extremely valuable and really helped us build our case. We managed to corner Yale Communications on a quite a lot of issues. The Executive Committee hearing was today, and it not only voted that they could not prove my friend to be guilty, but also that she was totally innocent of all charges. My friend who was totally ignorant of all technical issues wholeheartedly thanks all of you. -- Shakil Ahmed =============================================================================== Dept. of Computer Science ARPA : ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu PO Box 2158, Yale Station BITNET: ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet New Haven, CT 06520 UUCP : {ucbvax,decvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed =============================================================================== ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #125 *****************************   Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 1:35:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #126 Message-ID: <8904060135.aa11897@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Apr 89 01:18:40 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Clayton Cramer) Demon Dialer Info (William G. Martin) Who is responsible for COCOTS? (Marvin Sirbu) Repeated wrong number (was Uses of Caller ID) (David Tamkin) Question on phone system made by TIE Communications (Jeff Kitson) Local Area Sizes (David Gast) FCC's AOS Order (TELECOM Moderator) 976-WAKE - up Service in California (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Date: 5 Apr 89 17:57:44 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article , decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john @ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes: > In article , eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > (Steve Elias) writes: > > I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize > > long distance service. If the pay phones were required to display > > or speak the rates being applied, the problem would be solved by the > > free market. The voice equipment necessary for such a task shouldn't > > be too much -- especially for companies which charge megabucks per minute! > > I agree the choice may not be monopolization by one company, but our > regulators must understand that free market principles do not apply to > pay phones. You cannot shop from phone to phone to find the best deal > or even find one that will work. By its very nature, a pay phone is a > quasi-emergency device. The one you end up in front of is the one you If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an issue. Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an ambulance after a traffic accident? > end up with. If it rips you off, that's too bad. Even in places where If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service) that's quite different from "outrageous pricing". > John Higdon My own experiences with COCOTs are mixed. I recently tried to make a phone call from two different COCOTs, both owned by the same company, and as I got closer to the destination caller, the toll charges they requested went UP. However, it wouldn't actually accept my coins to pay the toll charge, so I was able to make the call. At least it gave me my money back. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Abandon all hopes of utopia -- there are people involved. Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 14:05:58 MDT From: "William G. Martin" Subject: Demon Dialer Info This showed up on the Info-CPM list and it looks to be of interest to Telecom, so I'm forwarding a copy: --------------- Return-Path: Received: from LL.ARPA by WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL with TCP; Wed, 29 Mar 89 10:05:58 MST Date: Tue 29 Mar 1989 12:07:14 EDT From: Subject: Redialing Phones To: INFO-CPM@SIMTEL20.ARPA Local addressee: SAGE Message-ID: Martin Olivera asked about phones that automatically redial a busy number. One of the most famous of these is the Demon Dialer from Zoom Telephonics in Boston. It does much more than redial; it is a complete phone enhancement system. It is installed in series with the incoming phone line and thus gives its capabilities to all telephones in the house or office. It serves as a repertory dialer (allows numbers to be associated with abbreviated strings, such as #MOM to call home), it will rapidly retry a busy number, and it will at intervals retry a number that does not answer. One factor you should consider is whether the telephone has busy TONE detection. I have what is otherwise a very nice telephone, the AP2002 that you see in the DAK catalogs. It is the best speakerphone I have ever heard, has a full typewriter keyboard, stores hundreds of numbers under alpha codes, and will automatically redial a busy number. However, it only knows a number is busy by inferring that from its not answering after some thirty seconds. The smart modems, of course, can detect the busy tone and disconnect immediately. Listening to the busy signal for thirty seconds every minute can get rather annoying. It would also be nice if the phone would supply a local ring signal to alert you when the call does go through. The Zoom Demon Dialer may have these features, but I am not sure. Here is the address and phone number of Zoom as I got it from the phone book: Zoom Telephonics 617-423-1072 (general) 207 South Street 617-423-1076 (tech support) Boston, MA They are coming out in the next several months with an even more spectacular product. It will be a complete telephone subsystem that can be controlled from your personal computer. Demon dialing is only a small part of its capabilities. It can handle two incoming central- office lines and four local lines, which might be connected to voice telephones, modems, fax machines, and so on. It does its own touch-tone decoding and voice synthesis. Here is a scenario. A call comes in on line one. A synthesized message asks you to press key 1 for the fax, 2 for the modem, 3 for voice. Suppose you ask for the modem. It can then request that you key in a password before it will connect you to the modem. Or, wherever caller identification service is available from the phone company, it will check the phone number of the CALLING party and act accordingly. This is where your personal computer comes in. There are many interesting possibilities here! I have no connection with Zoom except as someone fascinated by their products. Though I always yearned for a demon dialer, I never did buy one. However, this new gadget, I suspect, will be beyond my powers to resist! -- Jay Sage ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 15:24:57 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Who is responsible for COCOTS? You don't need divestiture to have a problem with COCOTS. You don't even need facilities based competition. All you need are: 1) Authorization of resale of long distance, with no price regualtion for resale carriers. 2) Authorization to property owners that they may choose the AOS operator of their choice, and receive whatever kickback that operator wants to give them. Given these two propositions, both of which are strictly within the domain of the FCC, you can create all the problems we have seen with AOS. The solution therefore, is also within the domain of the FCC. Either a) eliminate resale. This of course would eliminate Telenet, Tymnet, Compuserve and all other value added network providers. b) compel the property owner to contract with only the lowest cost service provider (likely to lead to low level of service quality.) c) limit the level of kickbacks to property owners, thereby reducing (partially) the incentive for high AOS prices; or d) put price caps on what AOS operators can charge. e) mandate that all carriers be reachable from every payphone and educate customers to choose the lowest cost carrier. f) do nothing. I vote for d). Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University internet: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet: ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Repeated wrong number (was Uses of Caller ID) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 22:50:36 CDT In Digest volume 9, issue 123, Will Martin wrote in response to the previous submission about someone who repeatedly calls a Digest subscriber's business, expecting to reach the phone number of a racquetball court: | There are several possible explanations for the repeated mistaken calls | to your phone from the same calling number always wanting the racketball | court. | Possible causes: | 1) [caller has defective telephone] | 2) [caller has poor view of dial or keypad] | 3) [caller has visual or motor difficulties] | 4) [telco has a problem] | 5) [caller keeps rereading public posting with wrong number on it] There are a couple other possibilites that come to mind: 6) The caller keeps rereading a handwritten note with what he thinks is the racquetball court's number and swears every time that this is the piece of paper with the *right* number on it (why he doesn't throw it out so that only the right one is around, I don't know). 7) The caller has an incorrect number preprogrammed into a Speed Dial code or into an autodialing key on the phone. Someone else programmed the numbers and marked this one "Racquetball Court" but the caller is too nontechie to grasp that the friend goofed. 8) The caller programmed a Speed Dial code or an autodial key himself with the Raceptball Court's number (so he thought), but did it wrong and keeps making the same mistake when he tries to reprogram it. 9) The caller keeps forgetting to reprogram the Speed Dial code or the autodial key but thinking he fixed it already and then tries it again. David W. Tamkin Post Office Box 567542 Norridge, Illinois 60656-7542 dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us Jolnet Public Access Unix GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN ...!killer!jolnet!dattier Orland Park, Illinois CIS: 73720,1570 Anyone on Jolnet who agrees with me is welcome to speak up on his or her own. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 09:22:29 PDT From: Jeff Kitson Subject: Question on phone system made by TIE Communications My company has a key service unit, model CK III, made by TIE Communications. We're moving into a new building and we want to run both the phone and RS232 lines through the same 25-pair cable into offices. My question is if anyone out there has a similar setup and has successfully or unsuccessfully done this? A *technical* person from TIE said that he has heard of some place that had trouble when some *computer cables where run in parallel with the phones*, but he didn't know anything more specific. He said I should do some tests myself. Thanks in advance, Jeff --------- Jeff Kitson jeff@kestrel.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 17:16:40 PDT From: David Gast Subject: Local Area Sizes In article pf@islington-terrace.csc.ti.com (Paul Fuqua) writes: > Subject: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? I think we went over this subject a few months ago. Unfortunately, it is not a very interesting question in itself. In theory, a local calling area could be all of a state, all of the country, or all of the world. One would just need the ``right'' tariff. A much more interesting question is what is the cheapest phone service. This question is also much more difficult to define because the cheapest phone service depends on the calling pattern of the individual subscriber, which clearly varies with the subscriber. The point is: There is an implicit if not explicit assumption that a large calling area is equated with lower cost. (Why else would it be an advantage instead of just a question for trivial pursuits?) This assumption is not necessarily true. It is only likely to be true if the individual subscriber makes a lot of calls to the outlying area of the local calling area. If GTE offered me a local calling area twice the size for $2 more per month, I would not take it because I do not make $2 worth of toll calls to the expanded area per month. Other people would probably would take it. In fact, I might even trade in some of my local calling area in exchange for a lower base rate. (Depends, of course, exactly what areas they want to take away. The ``Valley'', for example, is a local call me for me, but I never call there because I ``like for sure can't totally understand any rad, bitchin' thing'' they say. :-) ) David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 1:08:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: FCC's AOS Order Blake Farenthold very kindly sent me a complete copy of the recent order entered by the FCC regarding the AOS companies, and the changes ordered in their operations. The trouble is it is a *huge* file, by Digest standards. 33,000+ bytes of text. The typical Digest is 10-13,000 bytes. The Digest software requires that each Digest be less than 15,000 bytes. This is due to the way some mailers handle messages, etc. Larger Digests (especially when you mail a huge number at a time, as I do) causes the mailers to complain and mess things up. So -- I am going to send out a copy of the FCC Order to the list (and comp.dcom.telecom) over the weekend in a *three part mailing* of about 12,000 bytes each. Typically, mail to the Digest is slower on weekends, and we usually have only one or two Digests anyway. When you get the three parts, which will be 'special editions', you can cut out the headers and paste all the actual text back together again, and have a complete copy for your own reference library. Watch for them Saturday or Sunday, spaced about an hour apart in the mail. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 1:17:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: 976 WAKE - up Service in California You don't have to be a hotel guest to get a wake-up call anymore. People in California can now dial a service called '976-WAKE' and arrange a telephonic alarm clock/reminder service for the next day. From one of several area codes in California, the caller dials 976-WAKE, then follows the instructions given, entering his own telephone number on the touchtone pad, and the time for the wakeup call, etc. The system is programmed so that only California area codes can be called; and no calls can ordered for numbers such as xxx-555-xxxx, etc. The charge is $2 for each wakeup/reminder call. You do not have to be in California to hear how it works; just dial 213-976-WAKE. From outside of California all you will pay is around 25 cents if you call at night, but don't expect to be able to get a wakeup call, because it won't work without a California area code entered. Is this God's way of telling people they have too much money? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #126 *****************************   Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 3:21:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #127 Message-ID: <8904070321.aa26741@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Apr 89 03:10:32 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Daemon Dialer (Scott D. Green) Re: Demon Dialer (Ken Levitt) Re: Gremlins in the network (Nigel Whitfield}) Re: Gremlins in the network (Ken Frantzen) I need to dial in from Houston to the internet (Brian Jay Gould) Re: push to Centrex (Linc Madison) Re: Centrex (Marvin Sirbu) Modem pool (John Amason) Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Robert C. White Jr.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 14:40 EST From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Daemon Dialer I've been using the Daemon in my office for many years now. I think I picked it up at Radio Schlock. I dedicated it to one the lines on my old ATT leased key system. We had to play with the jumpers a little bit, but it has been working faithfully ever since - even with my replacement key system, an Eagle. (I feared that the all-electronic Eagle would be too "smart" for the Daemon.) The auto-redial feature is truly the best, but you can't really appreciate it unless you've got a speakerphone or a headset. After reaching a busy, hangup and dial *3. It will keep trying, for the first minute or so constantly, then every 30 seconds for ever :). Once it detects ringing, it kicks in the "normal" volume. It sometimes gets confused if it takes a l-o-n-n-n-g time to hit the ring, since that's what it's trying to find. It will also auto-redial for no answers as well as busys. BTW, if you don't have speaker or headset, dial *2 and once it decides that the call has connected the handset will emit a fairly loud BEEP BEEP BEEP to alert you. Flash the switchhook to complete the connection. (Note: it would be fairly uncomfortable to have the alert go off in your ear - this should only be used if you're going to lay the handset down.) As was mentioned earlier, you install the Daemon on your line, and, assuming you're wired in series, it will be available on all extensions of that number. Programming is easy: # S (for Store) # (2-7 character code) # AC+number #. If you try to use an existing code, it beeps and kicks you off. To delete: # D (for Delete) #. A confirmation tone lets you know if you're successful. And to dial, # (code) #. A big drawback: YOU must keep track of all your codes and associated numbers. Sort of like BOC's speedcalling. On the other hand, if you get totally snafu-ed, there is a Clear All command so you can start over. If the phone goes off-hook for more than 3-4 seconds without a #, the Daemon disengages, allowing other use of the # (octothorpe?). Anyway, without dragging on much longer, I am very pleased that Zoom is still in business and that the Daemon is still available. Radio Schlock dropped, and I didn't see it advertised for a long time. Not even in DAK. Or JS&A. Scott Green U. of PA (no, of course I'm not connected with Zoom.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Apr 89 14:15:55 EDT From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Demon Dialer >...phones that automatically redial a busy >number. One of the most famous of these is the Demon Dialer from Zoom >Telephonics in Boston. It does much more than redial; it is a complete >phone enhancement system. It is installed in series with the incoming >phone line and thus gives its capabilities to all telephones in the >house or office. > >One factor you should consider is whether the telephone has busy TONE >detection. > >It would also be nice if the phone would supply a local ring signal to >alert you when the call does go through. The Zoom Demon Dialer may have >these features, but I am not sure. I have had a Demon Dialer for many years and installed several a a company. The DD does detect the difference between busy and no answer in most but not all cases. One problem in using the demon dialer, is that you must leave the phone off the hook while it is doing redials. When it gets through, it places a VERY loud beep on the line and you must hit the switch hook to connect. If you happen to have the phone by your ear when the dialer beeps, the sound is painful and might even cause damage to your ear. While DD is in retry mode, it will accept incomming calls between trys, but it will not allow you to make a different outgoing call. DD will work for all lines on one phone (I have never tried this) or all phones on one line. If you have 2 lines thatn you need 2 Deamon Dialers and have to remember to update the second one every time you update the first one. It will hold up to about 170 numbers depending on the size of the numbers, but if you forget what you have programmed you are out of luck. Your only option would be to clear the entire memory and start over from scratch. It has power fail protection without a battery (a large capacitor that holds memory for a long time). I use it all the time, but when I installed it in an office, I found that the non-technical office staff found it too complex and ended up not using it. I once had to call for tech support and was pleased with the service that I received. I have one telephone that sometimes causes the DD to misdial. I suspect that the tone freqency is slightly off and that the DD is less tolerant of this than the phone company. I look forward to any new products that Zoom may produce. Two lines would be much better, 3 would be great. I hope that any computer interface will support calling party ID and that I could default the system to modem routing on one of my incomming lines because most of my modem callers are unattended machines which could not deal with having to send extra tones to select a modem. Ken Levitt -- Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 22:53:56 BST From: Mad Nige Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network Here in the UK we used to have a similar problem, where we would come home and find that the local (system-X) exchange had left messages on our answering machine saying "You have dialled incorrectly. Please replace the handset and try again." Eventually we worked out that this happened if someone dialled and waited for just enough rings that the machine would pick up the line and then hung up. The exchange would think that we had picked up the line and then after nothing was dialled issued the message. Nigel Whitfield. ------------------------------ From: Ken Frantzen Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network Date: 6 Apr 89 23:36:26 GMT Reply-To: Ken Frantzen Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois In article Paul Anderson writes: >>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and >>played back her answering machine, and got this: >> (those tones that come with intercept recordings) >> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call >> again later." A guess what may be happening. Somebody with a 3-way calling feature calls you. The switch hook is flashed (instead of hanging up). This activates the 3-way calling. Another number is dialed - plus another flash. Your machine is now bridged on the call that gets the no circuit announcement. You now record the announcement. I'd think you'd eventually get a recording of a live conversation if this happens several times. ------------------------------ From: Brian Jay Gould Subject: I need to dial in from Houston to the internet Date: 7 Apr 89 04:59:56 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. I have a user in Houston who needs to access the internet. He has an account in New Jersey, but he really can't afford the long distance call. Anyone at U of H or Rice out there? Please e-mail reply to me directly. Thanks 8-) -- - Brian Jay Gould :: INTERNET gould@pilot.njin.net BITNET gould@jvncc - - UUCP rutgers!njin!gould Telephone (201) 329-9616 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------s ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 23:59:00 PST From: e118 student Subject: Re: push to Centrex Organization: U.C. Berkeley EECS CAD Group >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 124, message 1 of 7 > >In California, Pacific Bell is doing a saturation campaign to sell >Centrex services to business.... >-- >John Higdon >john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john Bizarre cross-posting, I admit.... I live in a student housing co-op. Recently, after some prodding by Pacific*Bell and much prodding by the president of our organization, our house had Centrex installed. While most of the disinformation seems to have come from our prez, there are still complaints I have with regard to Pacific Bell's end of things. (1) We were told that the $5 or so per month *included* FCC access charges; not so (not Pac Bell's fault, near as I can tell) (2) We are classed as "dorm Centrex," which is basically residential service. We pay the residential rate for FCC access. However, we do not even have the *option* of unlimited local calling. Why???? It really annoys me, just on principle, that I have to ponder the fact that my modem connection to this computer is costing me $0.004/minute. Not a cost of consequence by any means, but an annoyance anyway. (3) We can't get calling cards on our accounts, even though toll calls are billed to the individual rooms. I can see why giving us cards with our real phone numbers +4 would be messy for billing, but I don't see why they can't issue fictitious-number cards tied to the toll accounts. (4) Pac Bell seems to be terminally confused about the whole idea of dorm Centrex. I'm the house manager and therefore in charge of the system for the house. The house wound up making an overpayment to one of the room accounts. Pacific Bell refuses to refund the overpayment because "your name isn't shown as house manager." Bullshit. There is no other name that could POSSIBLY show as "house manager." Under the setup we have, I'm supposed to be authorized to handle this kind of stuff. But no-o-o-o-o. I can't penetrate the wall of unhelpfulness. I called the special number they have for house managers only to speak to someone allegedly knowledgeable about the system. No response. (5) They've been everything short of helpful in dealing with room changes at semester time. For once, a real and meaningful disclaimer: the opinions expressed above are my own and not necessarily reflective of my house, my co-op organization, or any other individual, not to mention the university. The purported facts related above I believe to be true. -- Linc Madison = e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 09:27:21 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Centrex Will's problem is not with Centrex, it is with his telephone! There are a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button: press it and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of time for call waiting or 3-way calling. ------------------------------ From: "jma:jma" Subject: Modem pool Date: 6 Apr 89 04:10:43 GMT I am in the process of selecting hardware to implement a communications server. The server will be a Unix based platform connected to a LAN and will have a model pool attached to allow employees to dial-in. To improve security, it has been decided that a callback should be required before system access will be granted. I have been investigating the use of the Microcom HDMS system which appears to have a reasonable callback strategy; however, we have had poor results with the AX/9624c connecting to non-Microcom modems, if the unit is configured for MNP class 6 communications ( required for 9600 bps operations). Does anyone know how to configure this modem to communicate with other brands of modems and to properly fall back to 2400 bps or 1200 bps when necessary? Does anyone know of an alternate solution for a modem pool w/callback support? I have grown fond of the Telebit modem but its callback directory permits only a limited number of entries. So maybe, a separate callback unit would be the best solution. I would appreciate any suggestions - even commercials. Thanks, John -- John Amason e-mail: uunet!jma!jma Landmark Graphics Corp. phone: (713) 579-4749 333 Cypress Run, Suite 100 Houston, Texas 77094 ------------------------------ From: "Robert C. White Jr." Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Date: 6 Apr 89 21:40:15 GMT Organization: National University, San Diego in article , les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) says: > Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest > rate. This is only true if the machine knows how long you are going to talk, and by teh time that datum is regestered it's to late to do anything about it. Rob. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #127 *****************************   Date: Sat, 8 Apr 89 21:03:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #128 Message-ID: <8904082103.aa22731@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Apr 89 20:07:08 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson FBI/Bell Wiretapping Network? (Robert Horvitz) ISDN Calling Number Identification Services (Marvin Sirbu) Caller ID (Ed Wells) Correction to submission on area code 708 (David Tamkin) A note on MCI (Will Martin) Re: Make/break ratios (Patt Haring) [Moderator's Note: I reported the Cincinnati Bell wiretap scandal here in the Digest about a week ago ("Reach Out and Tap Someone"), and today a second report on this matter is being presented by Robert Horvitz, as the first article in this issue of the Digest. I suspect we will be hearing more about the matter before all the dirty laundry has been aired out and washed. A little later tonight you will be receiving a three part 'special edition' of the Digest which will contain the complete text of the decision of the Federal Communications Commission regarding the AOS situation. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 23:46:00 PST From: Robert Horvitz Subject: FBI/Bell Wiretapping Network? rh: The following article (slightly abridged) appears in the April 1st edition of the "W5YI Report," a radio-electronics newsletter for ham radio operators ($23/year for 24 issues to US addresses from: The W5YI Report, P.O. Box 565101, Dallas, Texas 75356-5101). This was NOT an April Fool's issue: ========================= Bob Draise/WB8QCF was an employee of Cincinnati Bell Telephone between 1966 and 1979. He, and others, are involved in a wiretapping scandal of monumental proportions. They say they have installed more than 1,000 wiretaps on the phones of judges, law enforcement officers, lawyers, television personalities, newspaper columnists, labor unions, defense contractors, major corporations (such as Proctor & Gamble and General Electric), politicians (even ex-President Gerald Ford) at the request of Cincinnati police and Cincinnati Bell security supervisors who said the taps were for the police. They were told that many of the taps were for the FBI. Another [radio] amateur, Vincent Clark/KB4MIT, a technician for South-Central Bell from 1972 to 1981, said he placed illegal wiretaps similar to those done by Bob Draise on orders from his supervisors - and on request from local policemen in Louisville, Kentucky... I asked Bob how he got started in the illegal wiretap business. He said a friend called and asked him to come down to meet with the Cincinnati police. An intelligence sergeant asked Bob about wiretapping some Black Muslims. He also told Bob that Cincinnati Bell security had approved the wiretap - and that it was for the FBI. The sergeant pointed to his Masonic ring which Bob also wore - in other words, he was telling the truth under the Masonic oath - something that Bob put a lot of stock in. Most of the people first wiretapped were drug or criminal related. Later on, however, it go out of hand - and the FBI wanted taps on prominent citizens. "We started doing people who had money. How this information was used, I couldn't tell you." The January 29th "Newsday" said Draise had told investigators that among the taps he rigged from 1972 to 1979 were several on lines used by Wren Business Communications, a Bell competitor. It seems that when Wren had arranged an appointment with a potential customer, they found that Bell had just been there without being called. Wren's president is a ham [radio operator], David Stoner/K8LMB. I telephoned Dave... "As far as I am concerned, the initial focus for all of this began with the FBI. The FBI apparently set up a structure throughout the United States using apparently the security chiefs of the different Bell companies... They say that there have been other cases in the United States like ours in Cincinnati but they have been localized without the realization of an overall pattern being implicated." "The things that ties this all together is if you go way back in history to the Hoover period at the FBI, he apparently got together with the AT&T security people. There is an organization that I guess exists to this day with regular meetings of the security people of the different Bell companies. This meant that the FBI would be able to target a group of 20 or 30 people that represented the security points for all of the Bell and AT&T connections in the United States. I believe the key to all of this goes back to Hoover. The FBI worked through that group who then created the activity at the local level as a result of central planning." "I believe that in spite of the fact that many people have indicated that this is an early 70's problem - that there is no disruption to that work to this day. I am pretty much convinced that it is continuing... It looks like a large surveillance effort that Cincinnati was just a part of." "The federal prosecutor Kathleen Brinkman is in a no-win situation... If she successfully prosecutes this case she is going to bring trouble down upon her own Justice Department. She can't successfully prosecute the case." About $200 million in lawsuits have already been filed against Cincinnati Bell and the Police Department. Several members of the police department have taken the Fifth Amendment before the grand jury rather than answer questions about their roles in the wiretapping scheme. Bob Draise/WB8QCF has filed a suit against Cincinnati Bell for $78 for malicious prosecution and slander in response to a suit filed by Cincinnati Bell against Bob for defamation... Right after they filed the suit, several policemen came forward and admitted to doing illegal wireptaps with them. The Cincinnati police said they stopped this is 1974 - although another policeman reportedly said they actually stopped the wiretapping in 1986. Now the CBS-TV program "60 Minutes" is interested in the Cincinnati goings-on and has sent in a team of investigative reporters. Ed Bradley from "60 Minutes" has already interviewed Bob Draise/WB8QCF and it is expected that sometime during April, you will see a "60 Minutes" report on spying by the FBI. We also understand that CNN, Ted Turner's Cable News Network, is also working up a "Bugging of America" expose. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 14:29:37 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: ISDN Calling Number Identification Services Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000860, "ISDN Calling Number Identification Services" can be purchased for $46 from: Bellcore Customer Service 60 New England Ave Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196 (201) 699-5800 "This Technical Reference contain's Bellcore's view of generic requirements for support of ISDN Calling Number Identification (I-CNIS). The I-CNIS feature extends the concepts of Calling Number Delivery and Calling Number Delivery Blocking to ISDN lines. I-CNIS also allows the customer to specify which Directory Number (DN) should be used for each outgoing call and provides network screening to ensure that the specified DN is valid. I-CNIS handles calling number processing for both circuit-mode and packet-mode ISDN calls and provides four component features: Number Provision, Number Screening, Number Privacy, and Number Delivery. Material on Privacy Change by the calling party and Privacy Override by the called party is also included." ------------------------------ From: Ed Wells Subject: Caller ID Date: 7 Apr 89 08:34:57 GMT Organization: Wells Computer Systems Corp., Levittown, Pa. 19058 How does the caller ID work (technically)? Is it a DTMF code before the phone rings? Some other kind of digital code? What ESS switch does this feature start on? -- ========================================================================= Edward E. Wells Jr., President Voice: (215)-943-6061 Wells Computer Systems Corp., Box 343, Levittown, Pa. 19058 {dsinc,francis,hotps,lgnp1,mdi386,pebco}!wells!edw ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Correction to submission on area code 708 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 0:36:23 CDT In the letter from me that the moderator included in Digest volume 9, #112, I typoed on the list of prefixes I expected to remain unused in both area codes 312 and 708. The list should have read, "219, 312, 414, 708, and 815 because part or all of the area codes bearing those same digits are in the LATA that will include 312 and 708; and 217, 309, and 618 because there are area codes in Illinois named by those same numerals." Because that started out as a letter to someone who lives in the same region and knows much of what was in it, some things in it were phrased less than fully; plus I typoed "805" for "815" (805 is an area code in California and a prefix already in use in 312) and put it in the wrong part of the list (after the semicolon, with 217, 309, and 618). Anyone who wants further explanation of some of the geographical references in it is welcome to write to me. David W. Tamkin Post Office Box 567542 Norridge, Illinois 60656-7542 dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us Jolnet Public Access Unix GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN ...!killer!jolnet!dattier Orland Park, Illinois CIS: 73720,1570 PS: This would have been submitted a lot sooner if the first mailing hadn't taken four days to bounce. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 13:02:07 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: A note on MCI An item from the Federal Bytes column on page 38 of Federal Computer Week, March 20, 1989: NO SHOES "The cobbler's children are alive and apparently well at MCI Communications Corp. A call to its 19th St. headquarters in Washington, DC last week produced one of these messages: "All operators are busy, but if you'll stay on the line..." The message was followed by a long silence. A live operator finally appeared, rang the public relations department as requested, and another recorded message and long delay ensued. Well, it is the long-distance company, after all, and we were calling locally." ***End of item*** Speaks for itself, I guess... :-) ------------------------------ From: Patt Haring Subject: Re: Make/break ratios Date: 8 Apr 89 13:57:08 GMT Reply-To: Patt Haring Organization: City College Of New York In article e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu (e118 student) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 122, message 4 of 7 >The make/break ratios in the US and UK are different, but the ratio >isn't terribly critical (at least in US). I discovered some years ago >that I can dial by clicking the switchhook rapidly. One time I even >dialed 9-1-214-233-2768 successfully by this method. Obviously my My parents put a lock on our telephone (old-fashioned dial; not touch-tone) to keep ** ME ** from using the phone after school when my father nearly had a coronary after opening the monthly phone bill. Well, that didn't stop me - I just used the switch hook same technique as described above! Poor dad, still couldn't figure out why the phone bill was so high ;-) P.S. Office maintenance personnel use locked telephones in exactly the same way; if your office phone is busy at 11 PM when you're trying to dial in then you can count on one of the cleaning people using your phone to call Santo Domingo, Honduras or Mexico :-) I had to pick up some documents in my office late one night before proceeding to the printer to read galleys and when I opened my boss' locked office door -- there she was -- with one of his tub chairs rolled over to the telephone table by the sofa : her feet were up on the table while she smoked her cigarette and talked long distance on ** HIS ** phone to her relatives in Santo Domingo. We had been having some trouble figuring out who was calling Santo Domingo at that late hour (the phone had a lock on it) since we had no clients in that country B-) -- Patt Haring rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth patth@ccnysci.BITNET ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #128 *****************************   Date: Sat, 8 Apr 89 21:52:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #129 Message-ID: <8904082152.aa23255@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Apr 89 21:26:36 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 976-WAKE (Kenneth R. Jongsma) Re: 976-WAKE (Martin Minow) Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (K.Blatter) Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Brent Laminack) Re: Selling An Interesting Telephone Number (Steve Pozgaj) Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother (Brent Laminack) Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem (Steve Cisler) Re: Centrex (Miguel Cruz) Re: Centrex (Dave Levenson) Re: Gremlins in the network (Dave Kucharczyk) Re: Gremlins in the network (David M. Kurtiak) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: 976-WAKE Date: Fri, 7-Apr-89 09:37:02 PDT Regarding the 976-WAKE service in California... I just returned from a trip to Melbourne, Austrailia. While perusing the local phone book, among other items, I noticed that TelCom Australia has been offering this service for about 85 cents a call. Calls can be one time only or on a standing order basis... ------------------------------ From: Repent! Godot is coming soon! Repent! Date: 7 Apr 89 09:12 Subject: re: 976-WAKE It's nice that Americans (or is that Californians) now have access to such advanced telephone services as an automatic alarm clock, even if the $2 charge is a bit steep. I had exactly that service in Sweden twenty years ago for about $0.15 per call. Of course, my total phone bill was about $2.00 per month, including unlimited local service. Martin Minow minow%thundr.dec@decwrl.dec.com ------------------------------ From: "K.BLATTER" Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Date: 6 Apr 89 16:48:23 GMT Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA In article , folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: > a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area. If you count DC as > a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC). > But is this really a very large area? How large might a local call area be > in LA or NY? Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might > there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes > thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people? To my knowledge, the largest (in terms of square miles) local dialing area in the United States is the Big Island of Hawaii in, of course, Hawaii. It is roughly 4900 square miles in size. Both New York City (212) and Los Angeles (213) are "full". This is the reason that new area codes have been spawned off of them. These areas have the most numbers assigned to them. (Also, Chicago (312) is probably in the running. As I mentioned earlier, the Big Island in Hawaii has the largest geographical area 4900 square miles. Kevin L. Blatter AT&T - Bell Labs Disclaimer -- These estimates are my own and have nothing whatsoever to do with my employer. ------------------------------ From: Brent Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Date: 6 Apr 89 17:55:43 GMT Reply-To: Brent Organization: In Touch Ministries, Atlanta, GA I am told that the Atlanta, GA area is the largest local-call area in the US. From end to end it's an approximate circle, with a radius of about 50 miles. A few years ago, Southern Bell tried to introduce metered service, billing by the distance of the call. The hue and cry was great. It was promptly shelved. brent laminack (gatech!itm!brent) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 08:23:54 EDT From: steve (Steve Pozgaj) Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number? Reply-To: steve@dmntor.UUCP (Steve Pozgaj) Organization: Digital Media Networks Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada A. E. Siegman siegman@sierra.stanford.edu asks: > Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number? Rumor > has it that someone whose all-digit dialing number was "AMERICA" got > $1000 for turning over this number during the Centennial". I only know of one published sale. It was the Hyatt hotel chain. They bought 1-800-243-2546 (CHECKIN) from Hank and Marie Oscar, of Oscarvision Systems, for $40,000 + $5,000 in credit towards hotel stays. A heck of a lot better than a few pizza coupons:-) ------------------------------ From: Brent Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother Date: 6 Apr 89 17:43:56 GMT Reply-To: Brent Organization: In Touch Ministries, Atlanta, GA Indeed Big Brother is watching. I discussed cellular fraud with a tech person who works with a cellular provider. When they detect a fradulent user (he claimed they could detect such a person the first time they used the phone), they put their number on a "fraudlent" list and included the geographic area (cell) where they were. Then I guess they look for patterns. brent laminack (gatech!itm!brent) ------------------------------ From: Steve Cisler Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem Date: 8 Apr 89 16:44:54 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. At the end of March there was some discussion of white page listings on CD-ROM. US West and Nynex have done this. Both were in attendance at the recent Microsoft CD-ROM conference in Anaheim, California. Nynex had a hospitality suite and their product was being shown on the exhibit floor. Silver Platter announced a competing product 'at a fraction of the cost' of Nynex's disc which runs around $10,000. I was very impressed with the speed and the scope of the product. It was broken in two geographical areas: New England and New York (perhaps just the metro area rather than the whole state). It allowed you to look by name, address, phone number, zip code (I think), and by 'neighbors'. So many credit agencies call libraries to ask for 'nearbys' --people who live near the subject of the call--that this was an important feature for the RBOCs clients. Considering the amount of work that libraries do for the telcos--extended 411 service: they will look up addresses if they have the time--each RBOC ought to make these available free of charge to the reference desks of many libraries. Most will find the price way too high. The RBOCs also want to have a common interface to their discs, and maybe even one search engine. Given the compeititve nature, it may not happen. But it would be to their advantage if it did. Steve Cisler ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 21:00:12 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Centrex Re: Will Martin - "...the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer..." At one office, I'm on Centrex, and we have phones from Comdial with a TAP button. When you press the switchhook (no matter for how long), the phone stays on-hook for exactly the time Centrex needs to know you want to hang up. When you push TAP, it does a flash. Maybe you could find a phone that functions similarly; it makes Centrex's transfer feature pretty painless. Miguel Cruz ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Centrex Date: 7 Apr 89 13:43:07 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: > The main fault I find with Centrex, in an operational, user-interface sense, >is the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer calls and get another >line. > I would think that one of the touchtone buttons, like # or *, could be > sensed during a call to perform the action that is now controlled by the > switchhook. There are two reasons why touchtones are not recognized during conversation. One is economic: tone-detectors are more expensive then talking-links in the central office. If one had to be dedicated to every conversation, and not (as they are now) only when dialing is in progress, the central office would cost more. The other reason has to do with the present state-or-the-art in discriminating between voice and touchtone. If you listen to a conversation with a touch tone detector, you'll detect a number of apparent touch-tones in ordinary speech. Even more if there is background noise consisting of music at either end of the conversation. In most of the world outside North America, PBX switches use a "grounding button" where we tend to use a hook-flash to get the switch's attention. The switchhook always means disconnect. The momentary ground on one side of the loop begins the "consultation call/conference call/transfer call" sequence. While this is good for PBX use, central office services (including centrex) would probably be less reliable using this method, as outside plant ground faults would play havoc with the switching machine. -- Dave Levenson /-----------------------------\ Westmark, Inc. | If you can't give me your | Warren, NJ USA | Phone number, don't call! | {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave \-----------------------------/ ------------------------------ From: Dave Kucharczyk Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network Date: 7 Apr 89 15:32:29 GMT Reply-To: Dave Kucharczyk Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA In article Paul Anderson writes: >In article LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu writes: >>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and >>played back her answering machine, and got this: >> (those tones that come with intercept recordings) >> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call >> again later." >I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta >once every other day for a week and a half now... Can anyone take any >guesses as to what is happening? yes, someone with three way calling is having a good laugh now, at your expense. just wait till you start getting 'the call you have made requires a twenty five cent deposit'. dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 15:38:27 EDT From: "David M. Kurtiak" Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network >In article LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu writes: >>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and >>played back her answering machine, and got this: >> (those tones that come with intercept recordings) >> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call >> again later." > >I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta >once every other day for a week and a half now... Can anyone take any >guesses as to what is happening? > >paul I occasionally have had this strange phenomenon happen to me, and couldn't explain it until one day I was right there when it happened. It appears that an incoming call rang the phone once. The answering machine picked up, but the caller immediately hung up at the same time (maybe a wrong number?). The answering machine (being a real el-cheapo economy model), didn't detect that the 'call' was disconnected. It went on playing the outgoing message to the dial tone now being sent by the telco. Dial tone timed out, while the answering machine is now listening for a message to be left, resulting in the telephone company recording seeming to have called me! ------- David M. Kurtiak Internet: dmkdmk@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet: DMKDMK@ECSVAX.BITNET UUCP: dmkdmk@ecsvax.UUCP {rutgers,gatech}!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk "What do you expect? The truth or the story? Take the story, it's always more interesting." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #129 *****************************   Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:55:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I Message-ID: <8904090155.aa26928@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Apr 89 01:46:44 CDT Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Introduction: FCC/AOS Regs (TELECOM Moderator) FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 1 of 3 (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:45:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Introduction: FCC/AOS Regs This three part special edition of [TELECOM Digest] brings you a complete transcription of the recent ruling by the Federal Communications Commission regarding Alternate Operator Services. I am grateful to Blake Farenthold for taking the time to prepare this and send it to the Digest. Parts 1 and 2 contain the text of the ruling by the Commission. Part 3 is the footnotes, referred to in the first two parts with the carot ^ symbol followed by a number, as in ^17. Because of software and mailer constraints pertaining to the mailing of Digests, it was necessary to break this special report into three parts. [TELECOM Digest] readers will receive three 'special editions' during the morning hours on Sunday. Readers of comp.dcom.telecom will see four messages in total; this introduction and the three messages which follow. This report is being sent as 'special edition' to the [TELECOM Digest] mailing list so that it can be archived separately as desired, without causing the digest serial numbers to be out of order in the process. After you have received all three parts, if you wish to keep this file for further reference, please take the three parts and combine in your editor and paste them all together again, minus the header at the top of each. Again, thanks go to Blake Farenthold for his research on this and his diligence in submitting the whole thing. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 16:15:37 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: FCC's AOS order With all the recent discussion in the digest about COCOTS and bum deals, I figured 'yall might be interested in what the FCC has had to say about the issue. Reprinted below is a copy of the FCC's AOS order. ____ cut here ___ Before The FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) DA 89-237 TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH AND ) ACTION CENTER AND CONSUMER ACTION ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) ) CENTRAL CORPORATION ) File No. E-88-104 INTERNATIONAL TELECHARGE, INC.; ) File No. E-88-105 NATIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICES, INC.; ) File No. E-88-106 PAYLINE SYSTEMS, INC.; AND ) File No. E-88-107 TELESPHERE NETWORK, INC. ) File No. E-88-108 Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ---------------------------- Adopted February 24, 1989; Released February 27, 1989 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. We have before us a formal complaint filed by Telecommunications Research and Action Center ("TRAC") and Consumer Action ("CA") (together "TRAC/CA"), two not-for-profit consumer advocacy groups, against the above- named providers of alternative operator services (AOS). ^1 The complainants request that the Commission find the defendant AOS companies to be dominant carriers, revoke any operating authority under which the Defendants are operating, order them to cease and desist from offering service, and find that the rates and practices of the defendants are unjust and unreasonable in violation of Section 201(b) of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is granted in part and denied in part. II. BACKGROUND 2. This complaint grows out of the activities of a new segment of the partially deregulated telecommunications industry, the "alternative operator services", or "AOS" providers' industry. ^2 Indeed, Commission policy encourages the entry of new competitors in interstate and international service markets. This open entry policy provides competitive prices and stimulates the introduction of innovative new service and consumer options. Generally, AOS companies lease long distance lines from interexchange carriers and combine that transport element with their own operator services. The AOS companies then enter into agreements with client companies, called "call aggregators", who typically are hotels, motels, hospitals, universities, airports, and other businesses and organizations that have telephones available to transient users. Under these agreements, the call aggregator's customers are automatically connected to the AOS provider when they make certain operator assisted long distance calls. ^3 In the case of such agreements, the telephones on the call aggregator's premises are said to be "presubscribed" to the particular AOS company. 3. An AOS company's operator services are generally associated with "O+" calls, _e.g._, collect, third-party billed, and credit card calls (including calls made with telephone company calling cards and major credit cards). ^4 For the services they provide, each AOS company charges its own rates, which in addition to a return on investment are allegedly designed to recover the costs of leasing the underlying long-distance transport, plus their own costs of providing the operator assistance. Local exchange carriers ("LECs") generally bill customers and collect payments for AOS companies in accordance with contracts between the AOS provider and the LEC or, in some instances, under intrastate rate schedules. Calls billed to a telephone company calling card will often appear on the user's monthly telephone bill. Calls billed to a bank or consumer credit card (e.g. MasterCard, Visa, etc.) appear on that credit card bill rather than on a monthly telephone bill. 4. In the aftermath of the AT&T divestiture and the ongoing changes in regulation of the telecommunications industry, consumers have understandably experienced a certain amount of confusion as the traditional ways of obtaining and using telephone service have given way to the sudden appearance of new options and alternatives in an increasingly competitive environment. So too has the advent of AOS brought with it its share of confusion and complaints. The Commission has received a large number of informal complaints involving AOS carriers, many of which involve the defendant companies. In many cases, consumers claim they were not adequately informed by the call aggregator or the AOS provider that their call would be handled by an AOS company or what charges would be incurred. In other instances, consumers complain that they were unaware of the existence of numerous AOS companies as opposed to traditional service providers. Since each AOS company charges its own individual rates, even when the caller uses another telephone company's calling card, and because of the rate variations that may result from technical anomalies such as "call splashing", ^5 some consumers have expressed surprise and confusion over their bills. Along with complaints about rate levels and improper billing, other informal complaints have arisen from the practice of "call blocking". ^6 In short, call blocking and splashing, coupled with the fact that many AOS companies charge rates higher than AT&T, have led to consumer dissatisfaction with some of the AOS providers and, in turn, to complaints such as the instant one. III. CONTENTIONS 5. The complainants, relying principally on the Commission's orders in the _Competitive Carrier_ proceeding ^7 argue that the defendant AOS companies fit the Commission's definition of a firm with market power and therefore should be regulated as dominant carriers. As dominant carriers, complainants contend, the defendants are providing services without the requisite authorization pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 214 ^8 and should be ordered immediately to cease and desist from providing such service. Complainants advance two arguments in support of their claim of market power. First, complainants cite what they perceive as the inability of market forces to constrain AOS rates and practices. They argue that because of a lack of factual information end-users are unable to make market decisions as to which carrier to use in certain circumstances and thus the defendants are able to charge prices above those of their underlying carrier, _e.g._, AT&T, MCI and US Sprint, without losing market share in these circumstances. Second, the complainants allege that the ability of the AOS providers and their call aggregators to control the facilities where calls are routed (_i.e._, the PBX equipment on the call aggregators' premises) and engage in call blocking clearly establishes that the defendants possess market power. Citing the Commission's _First Competitive Carrier Order_, the complainants contend that the exercise of control by the defendants over these bottleneck facilities is _prima facie_ evidence of their market power. ^9 6. As a separate but related matter, the complainants assert that the rates charged by defendants are exhorbitant [sic] and therefore unjust and unreasonable in violation of Section 201 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 201. ^10 Complainants contend, in effect, that the Commission established a standard in _Competitive Carrier_ which provides that the underlying carriers' rates operate as a "just and reasonable" ceiling on the resellers' rates and that a reseller may not price its services above the underlying carrier. ^11 Complainants argue that since the rates charged by the defendants are in excess of those charged by AT&T, they must be found to be unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of Section 201. 7. An adjunct of complainants' market power contention is the claim that call splashing and call blocking are unreasonable practices. They contend that because AOS providers typically fail to identify themselves or notify consumers that they will pay rates higher than AT&T's, the effect of these practices is to leave uninformed or captive consumers ^12 with no practical alternative but to pay the higher rates. The Complainants argue that such practices are contrary to the public interest and provide adequate grounds to revoke the operating authority of the defendants. 8. The arguments advanced by the various defendants in response to the complainants' allegations are for the most part identical in their essentials. Therefore we will summarize the arguments as if they were part of the same pleading. Insofar as individual defendants set forth unique arguments, they are treated individually. The central thrust of the defendants' collective response is that: 1. they are not dominant carriers, since none of them possess market power over any bottleneck facility; ^13 2. no case has been made that their rates are unjust or un- reasonable ^14 and 3. they either do not engage in the practices that are alleged to be unlawful, or in those limited instances in which they do, such practices are not unjust or unreasonable. ^15 Moreover, the companies affirmatively assert that their presence in the marketplace is pro-competitive and that they now provide or are developing and will soon provide innovative services that AT&T does not provide, such as the use of bank credit cards, multilingual operators, voice messaging and voice mail. ^16 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - I *****************************   Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 2:31:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - II Message-ID: <8904090231.aa27643@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Apr 89 01:58:05 CDT Special: FCC/AOS Regs - II Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 2 of 3 (Blake Farenthold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:27:54 CDT From: Blake Farenthold Subject: FCC's AOS Order (Part 2 of 3) IV. DISCUSSION 9. As an initial matter, we note that the defendant companies are resellers as defined in _Competitive Carrier_ ^17 and as such, are classified as non-dominant carriers under our current regulatory scheme. Our decision to classify resellers as non-dominant was based on our finding that given the low barrier of entry into the resale industry, resale carriers faced more actual and potential competition than any other part of the telecommunications industry. ^18 The policies adopted in _Competitive Carrier_ are intended to enable resellers and other non-dominant carriers to respond to the demands of a competitive marketplace without unnecessary regulatory constraints. We deny the complaint to the extent that it requests that we depart from the conclusions and policies established in _Competitive Carrier_. The instant complaint, insofar as it seeks the reclassification of certain types of resellers, is a request for modification of the Commission's rules as developed in the _Competitive Carrier Orders_. We cannot, of course, modify our rules in the context of this complaint proceeding. In any event, consistent with the policies set forth in Competitive Carrier, we are satisfied that our complaint process and the remedial actions set forth herein fully redress the complainants' grievances. 10. We turn next to the issue of alleged unjust and unreasonable rates. The complainants have relied solely on the assertion that the defendants' rates are in excess of rates charged by AT&T, the assumed underlying carrier. ^19 Complainants have cited no Commission authority to support their implicit proposition that a carrier's rates can be found "unjust and unreasonable" solely on the basis that they exceed the rates of some other carrier. The quantity and quality of services vary among carriers as do their underlying cost structures, all of which could support significant differences in rate levels. Based on the record, we find no facts or arguments which would be legally sufficient to sustain a finding that the defendants' rates are unjust and unreasonable within the contemplation of Section 201 of the Act. ^20 11. Finally, we address the complainants' allegations of unjust and unreasonable practices on the part of the defendants in their provision of AOS services. Part of the rationale underlying the Commission's decision in _Competitive Carrier_ to relieve resellers and other non-dominant carriers from unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory constraints was the recognition that competitive forces in the marketplace would ensure compliance with the Communications Act. ^21 The Commission found that, in general, carriers with little or no market power were incapable of charging rates or engaging in practices which contravene the "just and reasonable" requirements of the Act. ^22 In relieving non-dominant carriers from tariff filing requirements, the Commission acknowledged that Title II of the Act serves as a primary means to ensure that consumers are provided access to necessary information and to ensure that the Act's objective of just and reasonable rates and practices were met. ^23 The Commission emphasized, however, that in the event marketplace forces prove to be inadequate, remedial actions as may be necessary to protect the public may be taken. ^24 12. Therefore, in addressing complainants' allegations regarding the defendants' practices, we place particular importance on those statements in the record which describe the nature and level of consumer information that the respective defendant companies have provided to their caller/customers. We are also aware of the volume of informal complaints the Bureau has received that confirm the existence of many of the problems that are at issue here. ^25 We are particularly concerned with the current practices of some of the defendant AOS companies regarding consumer disclosure, call blocking and call splashing. These practices distort and impede the operation of a fully competitive operator services industry. After consideration of the arguments and evidence advanced by the parties to this proceeding, we are persuaded that the practice of call blocking, coupled with a failure to provide adequate consumer information, is unjust and unreasonable in violation of Section 201(b) of the Act. We recognize that some of the defendant AOS companies deny engaging in such practices ^26 and find the record unclear with respect to specific practices of each company. Nevertheless, we will require that to the extent that the defendant AOS companies engage in the practices we find unreasonable herein, they must adopt certain revised procedures with respect to consumer notice and call blocking. Moreover, compliance by any other operator service providers with the requirements set forth below will constitute an absolute defense to complaints based on the allegations addressed in this Order. 13. In order to carry out the policies of the Commission's _Competitive Carrier_ decisions and to eliminate the unreasonable practices identified above, we order three specific forms of relief. First, the defendant AOS companies must provide consumer information to their customers in the form of tent cards, phone stickers, or some other form of printed documentation that can be placed on, or in close proximity to, all presubscribed phones. These materials shall set forth the company's identity (name, address and a customer service number for receipt of further information) as well as information to the effect the company's rates will be quoted on customer request. Contracts with call aggregators must contain provisions requiring aggregators to display these materials on, or in close proximity to, all presubscribed telephones. In addition, the defendants must amend existing contracts with call aggregators to reflect this requirement. The defendants will bear primary responsibility for the implementation of the above-specified form of notice, and must make reasonable efforts to assure such implementation within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Order. 14. Second, we note that at least one of the defendants did not specify the degree to which it engages in "call branding". ^27 We find, however, that even the best examples of call branding practiced by the defendants ^28 convey insufficient information as to the company's identity, rates, practices, and range of services. This gap in consumer information thwarts effective consumer choice and creates the opportunity for any AOS company to charge excessive rates. For this reason, we find it an unlawful practice for operator services providers not to identify the company before a call is connected, including a sufficient delay period to permit a caller to hang up and/or advise the operator to transfer the call to the customer's preferred carrier. We order this procedure to be implemented by the defendants immediately with the effective date of this Order. 15. While the defendant companies, with one exception, ^29 deny that they block calls, it is clear from the information available to us that call blocking in fact occurs. ^30 Frequently, contracts between an AOS provider and its customer provide or permit call blocking by the customer. We find that call blocking of telephones presubscribed to the defendant AOS providers or other carriers is an unlawful practice. Accordingly, we order the defendants to discontinue this practice immediately. The defendants must amend their contracts with call aggregators to prohibit call blocking by the call aggregator within thirty days of the effective date of this Order. ^31 16. Call splashing, the process of indirectly routing a call when a caller requests that the call be handled by a different carrier, often results in charges that are different than expected because the call has not been properly rated. Since the transferred call is often billed from a point other than its originating location, the consumer will often receive a bill which appears to be incorrect, either as to the rate charged for the call, or the location called from, or both. ^32 While the actual levels of call splashing may vary among the five defendants, we are concerned that its effects be minimized. One possible method of addressing this problem is identified by Payline in its answer to the complaint. According to Payline, it attempts to absorb any charges itself which result from call splashing. ^33 Even Payline admits, however, that it has not been able to successfully address this problem in many instances. ^34 17. The problem of call splashing reflects the technological characteristics of the network for which a solution can best be found through the cooperation of service providers including the Bell Operating Companies and AT&T on an industry-wide basis. Because we are concerned that this practice may have an adverse economic impact on consumers, we are requiring the defendant AOS companies to bring this matter before the Carrier Liaison Committee of the Exchange Carrier Standards Association. We understand that both hardware and software problems may need to be addressed in any ultimate resolution of this matter and we require the defendants to provide a progress report within sixty days. The defendants are required to eliminate immediately any call splashing that is within their technical capability to accomplish with their current networks. ^35 The Bureau's Enforcement Division will closely monitor progress towards a resolution of this networking problem. ^36 V. CONCLUSION 18. In sum, we find in this order that the practices identified in the paragraphs above, namely, paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 constitute unreasonable practices in violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act. To remedy these problems, we identify two mechanisms which will assure that consumers are properly protected--the identification of the primary carrier and related information on or in the vicinity of the telephone and a specific identification of the company by the service provider on line prior to connecting a call. Further, we order the defendants to give rate information on request to consumers and declare the call blocking practices identified in the complaint to be unlawful. Finally, we have put a mechanism in place for dealing with the industry-wide technical problem of call splashing. Implementation of the remedies identified herein by any other carrier, including AT&T, constitute a defense against similar complaints. 19. These remedies, taken collectively, should assure that sufficient information and options will be made available to consumers in order to facilitate informed decisionmaking. The consumer should be the key determinant of which companies in the operator services industry thrive and which companies do not succeed. If the consumer concludes that some or all of these companies provide services that they want, the industry will expand and be financially sound. The steps taken in this Order will permit those consumer choices to be made soundly and rationally. 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 154(j), 201(b) and 208, and pursuant to authority delegated in Section 0.291 of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. section 0.291, that the "Complaint and Petition to Revoke Authority to Operate," filed by Telecommunications Research and Action Center and Consumer Action on July 26, 1988, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the "Petition to Intervene" filed on behalf of the State of Connecticut Office of Consumer Action IS GRANTED. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the policies and procedures set forth and adopted herein shall become effective thirty (30) days from the release of this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION /S/ Gerald Brock Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - II *****************************   Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 3:05:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III Message-ID: <8904090305.aa28192@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Apr 89 02:12:49 CDT Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson FCC / AOS Regulations: Part 3 of 3 (Blake Farenthold) [Moderator's Note: This concludes the special three part mailing. You should have received two prior sections, each dated about 30 minutes apart from me Sunday morning. Now take the three parts in your editor; cut out this additional header information, and paste the three parts together and save them out for reference/reading at your leisure. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 1:29:17 CDT From: Blake Farenthold Subject: FCC's AOS Order - Footnotes (Part 3 of 3) Footnotes: 1. The defendants referred to herein are as follows: Central Corporation ("Central"); International Telecharge, Inc. ("ITI"); National Telephone Services, Inc. ("NTS"); Payline Systems, Inc. ("Payline"); and Telesphere Network, Inc. ("Telesphere"). In addition to defendants' answers, other pleadings filed in this matter include: a Motion to Respond in Consolidated Manner and Clarify Pleading Schedule, a Motion to File Late Pleading Schedule, a Motion to File Late Pleading, a Reply to Answers to Complaint and Petition to Revoke Authority to Operate, a Motion to File Corrected Copy, and a Corrected Copy of the Reply to Answers to Complaint and Petition to Revoke Authority to Operate filed by TRAC/CA; an Opposition to TRAC/CA's Motion to Reply in Consolidated Manner and Clarify Pleading Schedule, and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Telesphere. TRAC/CA's Motions were granted on September 13, 1988. _Order_, DA 88-1432. Finally, the State of Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel filed a Petition to Intervene on August 31, 1988 for the purpose of monitoring the proceeding. We grant the motion. 2. As the AOS industry has grown, some participants have objected to the term "alternative" since it implies, they argue, that their companies are defined only in the context of being an alternative to AT&T. In response, they have urged the substitution of the acronym "OSP" (for "operator service provider") for AOS. While noting the concerns of those members of the industry who prefer the term "OSP" industry, the more prevalent AOS acronym will be used in this proceeding. 3. AOS providers may also provide operator services for other interexchange carriers under contract. 4. While the complaints only address "O+" calls, the issues and remedies are equally applicable to "1+" calls, which include calls from coin operated telephones which are paid in cash, so-called "sent paid" telephone calls. 5. Call splashing occurs when a caller requests a transfer from an AOS company operator to his preferred interexchange carrier. Since the call is handed off to the preferred carrier in the city where the AOS company's operations center and switch are located, the point from which the call will be billed will often be different from the caller's originating location, and the call may be billed at a rate different than the caller may have anticipated. 6. Call blocking refers to the process of screening the calls dialed from the presubscribed telephone for certain predetermined numbers, and preventing or "blocking" the completion of calls which would allow the caller to reach a long distance telephone company different from the AOS company. 7. _Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorization_: _Notice of Inquiry and P roposed Rulemaking_, 77 FCC2d 308 (1979) ("_Notice_"); _First Report and Order_, 85 FCC2d 1 (1980) ("First Competitive Carrier Order"); _Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking_, 84 FCC2d 445 (1981) ("_Further Notice_"); _Second Report and Order_, 91 FCC2d 59 (1982) ("_Second Competitive Carrier Report_"), _recon. denied_, 93 FCC2d 59 (1983); _Fourth Report and Order_, 95 FCC2d 55 (1983) ("_Fourth Competitive Carrier Order_"); _Fifth Report and Order, 98 FCC2d 119 (1984) ("_Fifth Competitive Carrier Order_"); _Sixth Report and Order_, 99 FCC2d 1020 _vacated and remanded sub nom._, MCI v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186 (D.C.Cir.1985). 8. Section 214 provides in pertinent part: No carrier shall undertake the construction of a new line or of an extension of any line, or shall acquire or operate any line, or extension thereof, or shall engage in transmission over or by means of such additional or extended line, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or oper- ation, or construction and operation, of such additional or extended line. 9. _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 21. 10. Section 201(b) provides that: All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communications service shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful. 11. _Complaint_ at para. 15. 12. The Complainants maintain that any suggestion that the informed consumer can find another telephone is not feasible. The Complainants state that it is virtually impossible for many consumers (hospitalized patients, college students in a dorm where all telephones are presubscribed to the AOS service, etc.) to gain access to a non- presubscribed telephone. Complaint at para. 22. 13. _See_, _e.g._, ITT Answer at 16-17, Appendix A at pp. 20-21; Payline Answer at 13; Telesphere Answer at 14; NTS Answer at 16. 14. _See_, _e.g._, Central Answer at 5; Telesphere Answer at 5-6; ITT Answer at 7, 19; Payline Answer at 15. 15. NTS Answer at 11-12; Payline Answer at 17-19; ITT Answer at 20-21; Central Answer at 4-5. 16. Central makes the additional claim that it is a carrier described in Section 2(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 152(b), and as such, is not subject to the Commission's Section 208 complaint procedures. No support is provided for their claim that they are a 2(b)(2) carrier and we find it to be without merit. 17. The _Second Competitive Order_ defines resellers as those carriers which do not own any transmission facilities but obtain basic communications services from underlying carriers for resale purposes. 91 FCC2d at 70. 18. _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 29. 19. We note that complainants have not placed any specific information into the record regarding the identification of underlying carriers, but have assumed in most cases that it is AT&T. 20. Contrary to complainants' contention, the Commission did not establish a standard in the _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ which requires that resellers price their services at a level no higher than the underlying carrier's rates. Rather, the Commission noted that the underlying carrier's rates, which are constrained by Sections 201-205 of the Act, would effectively discipline a reseller's rates because, if "a reseller were to set its price above the rates of the underlying carrier or competing carriers, its customers would be expected to migrate to these other services." _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ at 69. We find that the basis of the "AOS problem" is not their rates per se, but the practices involving lack of notice and blocking that restrict a customer's ability to "migrate to these other services [of competing carriers]", as we contemplated in the Competitive Carrier proceeding. It is these restrictive practices that we proscribe in this Order. 21. _First Competitive Carrier Order_ at 20. 22. _Id_. 23. _Second Competitive Carrier Order_ at 70-71. Section 203(a) of the Act requires common carriers, with limited exceptions, "to file and keep open for public inspection" schedules showing all charges for interstate and foreign wire or radio communications. 24. _Id_. at 70. 25. The Bureau's Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch has received approximately two thousand complaints and inquiries regarding AOS rates and practices since January 1988. 26. _See_, _e.g._, Central Answer at 5; ITI Answer at 5. 27. _See_ Central Answer at 5. Branding is the process or procedure used by a carrier, in this case the AOS provider, to identify itself to every person who uses its service. 28. See _e.g._, Payline Answer at 22; Telesphere Answer at 18. 29. _See_, NTS Answer at 20. 30. _See_, _e.g._, Telesphere's Answer at 14, where Telesphere states that Telesphere "does not control the handling of calls by call aggregators" and NTS' Answer at 16, where NTS states that "it does not block calls that reach its network" and that it "does not request or require call aggregators that are its customers to block calls made to other carriers and divert them to NTS." 31. We note that some companies claim to use call blocking to prevent fraudulent use of the network. Companies who wish to argue that such blocking should be permitted are free to seek a waiver of the "no blocking" requirement accompanied by the requisite showing that such a waiver is warranted. Absent the grant of such a waiver, companies may not engage in blocking. 32. See, NTS Answer at 18. 33. Payline Answer at 17-19. 34. Payline Answer at 19. 35. We note that NTS filed with the Commission a petition seeking a Commission declaration that AT&T be required to establish through rates for transferred calls and a division of charges as a solution to call splashing. _See_ "Petition for Order to Require AT&T to Establish a Through Rate and Reasonable Division of Charges," File No. ENF-89-02, filed November 15, 1988. We are in no way prejudging our review of the positions set forth in that proceeding. 36. Many of the problems associated with call splashing may be eliminated when call blocking ceases, since customers will be able to dial their carrier of choice directly. ================================= [Moderator's Note: All the thanks for this effort belong to Blake, who can be contacted at the addresses below if you wish to drop a note of thanks to his attention. PT] ty!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | CIS: 70070,521 | Source: TCX023 P.O. Box 17442 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD | GEnie: BLAKE San Antonio, TX 78217 | BBS: 512/829-1027 | Delphi: BLAKE ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: FCC/AOS Regs - III *****************************   Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 0:56:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #130 Message-ID: <8904100056.aa18047@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 Apr 89 00:41:47 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 130 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Telenet Announces New PCP Terms (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Gremlins in the network (Daniel Senie) Re: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles (Irving Wolfe) Gremlins in the network (Francis J. Haynes) Centrex (A. M. Boardman) Help please - acronyms and resources [SECOND REQUEST] (Chip Rosenthal) Re: Demon Dialer (John E Van Deusen III) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 22:25:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telenet Announces New PCP Terms Early this year, Telenet announced new terms for the PC Pursuit program, which placed time limits on the use of the service, and set new rates for usage of the service. ***** Most of the deal has been called off ***** In a letter dated March 29, 1989 from Floyd H. Trogdon, Vice President and General Manager of Network Services announced several revisions in the earlier plans. His latest letter supercedes all previous memos and usage agreements, and becomes effective July 1, 1989. There will be THREE membership plans: REGULAR membership will be $30 per month for up to 30 hours of non-prime time (evenings and weekend) use. This can be used by the subscriber only. No others allowed to use it. FAMILY membership will be $50 per month for up to 60 hours of non-prime time (evenings and weekend) use. This can be used by the subscriber and any immediate family members in the same household. If a single person expected to use more than 30 hours per month, s/he would still buy this 'family' plan, even if the entire 'family' consisted of just one person. HANDICAPPED membership will be $30 per month for up to 90 hours of non-prime time (evening and weekend) use. To qualify for these terms, proof of physical handicap must be provided. Ask Telenet for the exact terms. EXCESS HOURS over 30 (or 60/90) per month during non-prime time hours will be billed at $3.00 per hour. This is a decrease from the earlier proposed charge of $4.50 per hour. PRIME-TIME USAGE will be billed at $10.50 per hour, regardless of how much time may be remaining on the PCP membership plan. The billing will be in arrears each month. That is, the July usage will be billed in August, etc. Call detail will be automatically provided to any subscriber going over thirty hours per month. GRACE PERIOD/FORGIVENESS: All calls will be given a one minute grace period for the purpose of establishing the connection. There will never be a charge for calls lasting one minute or less. If you disconnect promptly when you see that your call will not complete for whatever reason, there will be no charge. There will be a two minute minimum on all connections (after the first minute has passed.) Otherwise, times will be rounded to the *nearest* minute for billing purposes. NEW PASSWORDS AND USER I.D.'s FOR EVERYONE: During April, 1989, all current subscribers to PC Pursuit will be issued new passwords and new user identities. On May 1, 1989, all existing passwords and ID's will be killed. New users after July 1, 1989 will pay $30 to set up an account. Password changes will be $5.00. *Existing* users will never have to pay a fee to adjust their account upward or downward from regular < == > family plans. Call detail will be provided in June, 1989 to users with more than 30 hours of usage to help them detirmine which plan they should use; however there will be no charge for extra hours until July. Because of the confusion and lack of good communication between Telenet and its users over the past few months, the official change in terms from unlimited use to measured use has been postponed from its original starting date in June to July 1. These are just excerpts from the letter to subscribers posted on the Net Exchange BBS. If you subscribe to PC Pursuit I recommend you sign on and read the full memo, along with the accompanying Terms and Conditions and price schedules. Remember, any changes you may have made in February/March in anticipation of the changeover originally planned for May/June are now void. Telenet has stated all users will be defaulted to REGULAR memberships effective July 1 unless they specifically make changes to this during the months of May and June. Telenet Customer Service: 1-800-336-0437 Telenet Telemarketing: 1-800-TELENET Sign up via modem with credit card number handy: 1-800-835-3001. To read the full bulletins, log onto Net Exchange by calling into your local Telenet switcher and connecting to '@pursuit'. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: dts@cloud9.Stratus.COM Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network Date: 6 Apr 89 23:10:23 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA In article , stiatl!pda@gatech.edu (Paul Anderson) writes: > In article LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu writes: > >A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and > >played back her answering machine, and got this: > > (those tones that come with intercept recordings) > > "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call > > again later." > > I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta We had a similar problem with the dialup lines at our company. The modems started answering the phones when there was no call. The result, predictably, was lots of screaming modems (The "your phone is off the hook" noise). The problem turned out to be a servicing error at the local #5ESS switching office. They has replaced some of the line cards and had set them up wrong. Evidently the line voltage was high enough to confuse some devices into thinking it was time to go off-hook. The modems in this case were Microcoms, and they evidently (according to our hardware types) were properly within spec. -- Daniel Senie UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts Stratus Computer, Inc. ARPA: anvil!cloud9!dts@harvard.harvard.edu 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686 ------------------------------ From: irv@happym.wa.com Subject: Re: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles Date: 10 Apr 89 02:46:59 GMT Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe Organization: SOLID VALUE, the newsletter for Benjamin Graham's intelligent investor (sample on request) In article "t.m.ko" writes: >I am looking for a cordless phone that would work even if the handset >is away from the base for up to 10 miles. Amazing! I'd be grateful to have a cordless phone that would work from one end of my >house< to the other without buzz or interference as I pass through the fields of the high voltage power lines outside! If I could have one that would let me walk around the block with my dog, that would be magnificent! -- Irving Wolfe irv@happym.wa.com Happy Man Corp, 119 Aloha St 206/282-9598 tikal!camco!happym!irv Seattle, WA 98109-3799 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors (free sample on request: tami@happym.wa.com) ------------------------------ Subject: Gremlins in the network Date: Fri Apr 7 23:05:43 1989 From: phantom From article , by LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu: > Is this a new service? The switch notifies people when high utilization > occurs? Was her recorder trying to make calls to its friends? The > message (and especially the tones) sounded real, or I would be more inclined > to expect a joke (it was April 1st.....). Oh, you have service from Contel. The year-round April Fool's joke! I have heard worse sounding intercepts, so it probably is legitimate. But then, there are ways to 3-way legitimate recordings to others' numbers. :)(: Francis J. Haynes uunet!slinky!fjh ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 08:36:41 EDT From: "A. M. Boardman" Subject: Centrex >There are a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button: >press it and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of >time for call waiting or 3-way calling. This can, however, be taken to extremes. The telephones of Columbia's new digital CBX have, among a plethora of other buttons, a flash button. In no detectable way, however, does this button actually flash the line in any traditional sense; it is instead just another signal to the exchange. Really flashing will disconnect the line every time. I'd love to find out more about how the system works, but, as in everything related to IBM, the information is proprietary. (It's an IBM/Rolm 9751 CBX -- a half- decent buisness system, but totally unsuited for a university environment. It replaced a vastly more popular Centrex system.) "ROLM is a four letter word" Andrew Boardman ab4@cunixc.[columbia.edu|bitnet] {backbone}!columbia!cunixc!ab4 ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Help please - acronyms and resources [SECOND REQUEST] Date: 9 Apr 89 03:55:33 GMT Reply-To: chip@vector.dallas.tx.us Organization: Dallas Semiconductor In article I write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 105, message 1 of 7 >I would like to compile a list of acronyms and resources for TELECOM >readers, and I solicit your help. This is the second (and final) call for your inputs. I have received some good responses so far, but I'm sure many other folks could provide additional pointers. Please take a moment to read this through and drop me a note. Here is what's needed: books, magazines, journals, catalogs, etc. ====== ========== ========= ========= ==== First and foremost, I need your suggestions for telecom resources. If you know of any such things which might help TELECOM readers, please take a moment and send me a note. If possible, please include author, publisher, subscription info, etc. as appropriate. Also, your subjective comments are very welcome. glossary of terms and acronyms ======== == ===== === ======== This is required to a lesser extent. The goal here isn't to provide a comprehensive index of terms, but rather to just explain some of the commonly used lingo to help out new TELECOM readers. If you have a handful of items which you believe should be listed, send 'em in. But also send in your book/magazine/etc. references at the same time -- that's what I need the most. If you responded to my first request -- my thanks. If you did not receive a mailed response from me, then I didn't get your message. Please try again. I will compile the list in about two weeks. Stay tuned... -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 ------------------------------ From: John E Van Deusen III Subject: Re: Demon Dialer Date: 9 Apr 89 18:40:07 GMT Reply-To: John E Van Deusen III Organization: VI Software Development, Boise, Idaho I read in DATA COMMUNICATIONS a few months back that there was a "Son of Demon Dialer" product shown at Comdex. It was a 2400 Baud modem, matrix switch, mini data PBX, as I recall. I think it was about $700. Does anyone know anything more about this product? -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #130 *****************************   Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 2:39:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #131 Message-ID: <8904110239.aa20056@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Apr 89 02:21:15 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 131 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 976-WAKE - up Service in California (Peter Thurston) Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California (Kian-Tat Lim) Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California (John Higdon) Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (Rich Straka) Re: Divestiture was not a mistake (John Higdon) Re: FCC AOS Order (Douglas Scott Reuben) Re: Cellular Radio Hazards (John Wheeler) Re: Help please - acronyms and resources (Peter Desnoyers) Determining length of country code (Howard J. Postley) Dialing with switchhook (Wm Randolph Franklin) Shenandoah National Park, Va. (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 18:45:59 +0100 From: pwt1%ukc.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Subject: Re: 976-WAKE - up Service in California Wake up calls are available in Britain for 10pence a time (18c) if you happen to be connected to a System-X exchange. The service comes free rental together with Charge-Advice which rings back and tells you how much your call cost. Both services offer Minutes of endless fun with payphones that have not had the two services disabled (particularly as payphones return your 10p!) Peter Thurston ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 23:42:31 PDT From: Kian-Tat Lim Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California Ummm... From the description given of the wake-up service ("entering his own telephone number"), it appears that it would be quite easy to annoy my enemies (for $2/day), without my having to be awake to place the crank call. As this service is presumably provided by a company separate from PacBell, the call would also be a little more difficult to trace. This kind of service would be much more secure if Calling Party ID were implemented for it, and such usage of CPID should not be objectionable to civil libertarians. -- Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California Date: 10 Apr 89 20:51:24 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The charge is $2 for each wakeup/reminder call. You do not have to be in > California to hear how it works; just dial 213-976-WAKE. From outside of > California all you will pay is around 25 cents if you call at night, but The California 976 providers hate it when you do that :-) Pacific Bell may be the only BOC to not block 976 calls from outside the state. As a result, providers' call counters click away, but the Pac*Bell remittance is a pittance. Some of the party line people have literally been driven out of business because their machines have been busied out by out of state (and non-remitting) calls. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: You mean like 415-976-4297, which bills itself as the San Fransisco Hot Conference, where in just a few seconds you will be connected for up to two and a half minutes of lively adult conversation? Men from all over the world call that thing for the cost of the tolls. To heck with any surcharge! That only applies to Californians, and *they* call the one in New York City to avoid the same surcharges! PT] ------------------------------ From: Straka Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Date: 10 Apr 89 13:00:54 GMT Reply-To: "55223-Straka,R.J." Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois In article optilink!cramer@ames.arc. nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 126, message 1 of 8 |In article Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Date: 10 Apr 89 20:45:16 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , optilink!cramer@ames. arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes: [Regarding COCOTs] > If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an > issue. Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an > ambulance after a traffic accident? In reality *that* call would be free as mandated by tarrifs. What I really object to is paying $3.50 for a one-minute call from San Francisco to San Jose to say I'm going to be late. Particularly when there is no indication that this will be the case. > If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service) > that's quite different from "outrageous pricing". This is a grey area to be sure, but when I call my voice mail for messages and the tone pad ceases to work midway through the session and I am forced to simply hang up, leaving my listened-to vs unlisted-to messages in total disarray, animalistic tendancies come to the fore. You have to be in this position to appreciate the frustration. Perhaps if such phones were required to carry a notice e.g.: "This telephone cannot be used to access voice mail or other DTMF activated services." it would save a lot of trouble. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: 10-APR-1989 02:50:42.15 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: re: FCC AOS Order After reading the lengthly FCC rulemaking order on AOS outfits (and THANKS for posting it!), I want to make sure I have the 'timetable' correct: (I am assuming that as the release date was Feb 27th, the effective date was March 27th, as stated towards the end of the order.) 1. The named AOS outfits MUST ID themselves at all times. 2. The named AOS outfits MUST post rate/customer service information by May 27th, 1989. (60 days from effective date. 3. The named AOS outfits MUST stop blocking and/or contact the owners of COCOTS, dorm phones, etc, and require that they discontinue blocking by April 27th, 1989. 4. The named AOS outfits may continue to connect you to AT&T/local Bell Operators, but are not required to do so. So am I correct as to the dates for parts 1-3? If I find a COCOT, let's say sometime in July (to give them some time...) that still blocks me from dialing 10288, what recourse do I have? Do I complain directly to the FCC, or the state Public Service Commission, or who? (Obviously the FCC assumes all of the 5 named AOS 'firms' will comply, but what if they don't?) Finally, what will be the equal access code for the local Bell operator? In New York (NYTel) it's 10NYT, in PA 10BPA, Jersey 10NJB, etc. Yet are we going to be required to remember hundreds of local 10xxx numbers, or will there be one standard one? (Or will just dialing "0" just get you a local Bell Op., like it did when we had a normal phone system a few years back? [sorry for editorializing..]) Well, all I can say is I'm glad to be in Connecticut, where we don't have such problems (at least not from payphones...) (Although what WAS the State of CT 'observing' down in DC anyhow? Hmmmm....) -Doug DReuben%Eagle.Weslyn@Wesleyan.Bitnet DReuben@Eagle.Wesleyan.Edu (and just plain old 'DReuben' to locals! :-) ) ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: Cellular Radio Hazards Date: 10 Apr 89 05:14:47 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta In article Rob Warnock writes: >....I was at a breakfast meeting at Coco's in Sunnyvale, when I >wanted to call a later appointment to tell him the meeting was going >to run over and I'd be late. Being new to cellular, and still somewhat >cautious about costs, I dutifully went towards the payphones in the >back. Uh, oh, COCOTs! Let me get this straight - COCOTs at Coco's? This could drive a person COCOnuts! -- Turner John Wheeler E N T E R T A I N M E N T ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw Networks Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports ------------------------------ From: Peter Desnoyers Subject: Re: Help please - acronyms and resources [SECOND REQUEST] Date: 10 Apr 89 17:55:08 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article chip@vector.dallas.tx.us writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 130, message 6 of 7 >In article I write: >>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 105, message 1 of 7 >>I would like to compile a list of acronyms and resources for TELECOM >>readers, and I solicit your help. At home I have a copy of a SIGCOMM article from about a year or two ago that has a list of telecom and data network acronyms. I'll try to get the reference. Peter Desnoyers ------------------------------ From: "Howard J. Postley" Subject: Determining length of country code Date: 10 Apr 89 18:32:10 GMT Organization: On Word, Inc.; Santa Monica, CA Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits in a country code is. From the U.S. there are 1, 2, and three digit codes. When I am parsing international phone numbers, I am having a tough time figuring out where the country code ends and the phone number starts. Thanks in advance, //hjp -- Howard Postley usenet: uunet!bambam!hjp On Word internet: hjp@bambam.bedrock.com phone: +1 213 399 7733 snail: 2434 Main St; Santa Monica, CA 90405 ------------------------------ Subject: dialing with switchhook Reply-To: franklin@turing.cs.rpi.edu Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 16:48:56 EDT From: Wm Randolph Franklin In the 60s pay phones were designed with mercury switches on the hook so that if you tried to dial with the hook the splashing mercury would defeat you. Otherwise you could make local calls for a nickel instead of a dime, or some such thing. -------- Wm. Randolph Franklin Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 15:47:23 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Shenandoah National Park, Va. I just travelled down the Skyline Drive in Virginia, from Front Royal to Waynesboro, and have the following data regarding phones along it (notice several phone prefixes not in use outside the park?): Public phones available along it (mileposts southbound from Front Royal): Dickey Ridge Visitor Center, 4.6; use Front Royal exchange, 635 or 636 in 703 area Mathews Arm Campground, 22.3 Elkwallow Wayside, 24.1; use 703-420, on phone bill as Elkwallow Panorama Restaurant, 31.5; use 703-421, on phone bill as Panorama Skyland Lodge, 41.7; use 703-422 Byrd Visitor Center, 51; apparently use 703-423, on phone bill as Big Meadows (see the pattern forming with use of 42x? comments?) Lewis Mountain Campground, 57.6; apparently use 703-424 Swift Run Entrance, 65 Loft Mountain Wayside, 79.7; I saw pay phone on 804-823 Crozet, the name of a town which is RATHER far away. Also, 703-999 is used for official phone numbers in this park; it appears on phone bill as Shenandoah Park. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #131 *****************************   Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 3:01:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #132 Message-ID: <8904110301.aa20360@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Apr 89 02:43:34 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 132 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Text of HR971 - AOS (Martin Weiss) Cellular eavesdropping in the press (Will Martin) E-mail Clearinghouse (Andy Roth) [Moderator's Note: Martin Weiss has kindly made available to the Digest the text of a bill pending in Congress regarding the AOS industry, and although it is longer than most articles, I am devoting most of this issue to presenting it in full. It is intended to compliment the special three part posting over the weekend of the FCC ruling. Thanks, Martin! PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 14:12:01 est From: fac martin weiss Subject: Text of HR971 - AOS Attached is the text of HR 971, a bill submitted by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) regarding the AOS industry. I would like to make it available to the telecom bulletin board. BTW - thanks for posting the text of the FCC decision --Martin Weiss University of Pittsburgh mbw@idis.lis.pittsburgh.edu ============================ Cut here 8< ============== 8< ============ 101st Congress 1st Session H.R. 971 To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in the provision of operator services, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 9, 1989 Mr. Cooper (for himself, Mr. Swift, and Mr. Leland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce A BILL To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in the provision of operator services, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the "Telephone Operator Service Consumer Protection Act of 1989". SEC. 2. FINDINGS The Congress hereby finds that -- (1) the divestiture of AT&T and decision allowing open entry for competitors in the telephone marketplace produced a variety of new services and many new providers of existing telephone services; (2) the growth of competition in the telecommunications market makes it essential to ensure that safeguards are in place to assure fairness for consumers and service providers alike; (3) a variety of providers of operator services now compete to win contracts to provide operator services to hotels, hospitals, airports, and other aggregators of telephone business from consumers; (4) the mere existence of a variety of service providers in the operator services marketplace is significant in making that market competitive only when consumers are able to make informed choices from among those service providers; (5) however, often consumers have no choices in selecting a provider of operator services, and often customers' attempts to reach their preferred long distance carrier by a telephone billing card, credit card, or prearranged access number are blocked; (6) a number of state regulatory authorities have taken action to protect consumers using intrastate operator services; (7) from January 1988 through February 1989, the Federal Communications Commission received over 2000 complaints about operator services; (8) these consumers have complained that they are denied access to the interexchange carrier of their choice, that they are deceived about the identity of the company servicing their calls and the rates being charged, that they lack information on what they can do to complain about unfair treatment by an operator service provider, and that they are, accordingly, being deprived of the free choice essential to the operation of a competitive market; and (9) a combination of industry self-regulation and government regulation is required to ensure that competitive operator services are provided in a fair and reasonable manner. SEC. 3. DEFINITION As used in this Act: (1) The term "Commission" means the Federal Communications Commission. (2) The term "the Act" means the Communications Act of 1934. (3) The term "consumer" means a person initiating any interstate telephone call using operator services. (4) The term "operator services" means any interstate telecommunications service that includes, as a component, any automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or completion, or both, of an interstate telephone call through a method other than automatic completion with billing to the telephone from which the call originated. (5) The term "aggregator" means any person, that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or to transient users of its premises for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services. SEC. 4. RULEMAKING REQUIRED (a) INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. - The Commission shall, within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate a proceeding pursuant to title II of the Act to establish regulations to protect consumers whose use operator services to place interstate telephone calls from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure that consumers have the opportunity to make informed choices in making such calls. (b) TIMING AND CONTENTS OF REGULATION. - The regulation required by subsection (a) shall -- (1) be prescribed not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act; (2) contain provisions to implement each of the requirements of section 5; (3) for purposes of administration and enforcement, be treated as regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to title II of the Act; and (4) take effect not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 5. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS The regulations required by section 4 shall, at a minimum -- (1) require that the provider of the operator services identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer prior to the consumer incurring any charges and permit the consumer to terminate the telephone call at no charge; (2) require that the provider of operator services ensure, by contract, that each aggregator post on or near the telephone instrument, in plain view of consumers -- (A) the name, address, and toll-free telephone number of the provider, and (B) a written disclosure that consumers have a right to obtain access to the interstate common carrier or their choice and may contact their preferred interstate common carriers for information on accessing that carrier's service using that telephone; (3) require that the provider of operator services disclose immediately to the consumer upon request -- (A) a quote of its rates or charges for the call; (B) methods by which such rates or charges will be collected; and (C) the methods by which complaints concerning such rates, charges, or collection practices will be resolved; (4) require that the provider of operator services -- (A) neither require nor participate in the blocking of any consumer's access to the interstate common carrier of the consumer's choice; and (B) assure, by contract, that its aggregators neither require nor participate in the blocking of access to such interstate common carriers; (5) require that the provider of operator services charge rates which are just and reasonable as required by title II of the Act, which requirement shall include, at a minimum -- (A) prohibiting the provider of operator services for knowingly charging for uncompleted calls; (B) ensuring that, in charging for distance, the provider of operator services charge for no more than the distance, in a straight line, between the points of origination and termination of telephone calls; and (C) ensuring that any consumer billing a telephone call on a billing card provided by an interstate common carrier is billed at the rate of that common carrier for that call; (6) establish minimum standards for providers of operator services to use in the routing and handling of emergency telephone calls; and (7) establish a policy for requiring common carriers to make public information about recent changes in operator services and choices available to consumers in the market. [Moderator's Note: Regrettably, I am not certain if this was the intended ending of Martin's submission, or if it got truncated en-route. As Milton Berle used to say, "...a funny thing happened on the way to the Telecom mailbox today...." It seems an abrupt ending. Hopefully I got it all. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 14:14:20 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Cellular eavesdropping in the press The following item appeared in RISKS Digest V8 #52 and is of interest to Telecom and Hams. Please note there is no mention of the ECPA in this, except fo a slight allusion to it at the end. Also note that the equipment being used is not a high-end 800 MHz-coverage scanner, but a simple TV audio tuner or radio. Obviously a continuous-tuned TV will work as well. (Maybe the bandwidth on this simpler equipment is wide enough that the listeners get multiple cellular frequencies without retuning, and therefore are not impeded by the frequency-hopping during handoffs within conversations? That would mean this low-tech method was actually better for surreptitious eavesdropping than using more sophisticated equipment. Certainly makes fools of the scanner manufacturers who program out cellular coverage!) -- Will Martin ***Begin included item*** Date: Fri, 07 Apr 89 20:27:24 -0400 From: denbeste@BBN.COM Subject: Cellular telephones From the 4/7/89 Boston Globe: "Some Bostonians are having the time of their lives eavesdropping on Nynex Mobile Communications cellular phones. With the help of their trusty Radio Shack Portavision 55s, designed to pick up the audio portion of UHF television signals, these naughty people claim to have heard Secretary of Finance and Administration Edward Lashman discussing a press conference with his wife and Boston Mayor Ray Flynn checking in with his office. "It makes for a great day," says one listener who calls in sick at his job to spend the day with his ear pressed against the radio. "At 7 a.m. you hear the construction people complaining that their suppliers delivered the wrong stuff. At 9, it's the lawyers telling their clients how to lie in court. After noon the risque stuff starts..." The article goes on to say that Radio Shack no longer sells that model, and that the FCC says such eavesdropping is illegal. Steven C. Den Beste, BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge MA ***End of item*** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 10:47:45 edt From: Andy Roth Subject: E-mail Clearinghouse We have heard of a service, that for a nominal monthly fee, will interface with a local UNIX host (ostensibly uucp) and other subscribed email services acting as a clearinghouse. This service will poll your commercial mailboxes (MCI, EXLINK, etc.) and mail them to your local system. Outgoing mail is sent to the service and automatically diverted to MCI or whatever as required. If anyone has used or is familiar with wuch a service, I would appreciate a reference. Thanks in advance. Andy Roth EDO Corporation Virginia Operations 814 Greenbrier Circle Suite U Chesapeake, VA 23320 (804) 424-1004 uucp: ...xanth!edo!andy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #132 *****************************   Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 0:50:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #133 Message-ID: <8904120050.aa25665@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:35:09 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 133 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AOSs and the H.R. bill (Bob Langford) Local Calling Area For Hawaii (Mike Newton) Telephone wire (Steve Bellovin) Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Ron Natalie) Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? (Dr. T. Andrews) RE: Determing country code length (John R. Covert) Re: Caller ID (Dave Levenson) Submission for comp-dcom-telecom (Trevor Zion Bauknight) Re: Diverstiture was not a mistake (Steven A. Minneman) [Moderator's Note: Just this one issue of the Digest today! PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:44 EST From: LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu Subject: AOSs and the H.R. bill It seems to me that the reason we have the problem with high AOS fees is that normal market forces aren't at work, not so much because of uninformed customers, but because the person making the choice of which AOS is used is not the person who _uses_ it, and the two people have different goals. As I understand it, a hotel or airport (or other property owner) signs up with an AOS and receives a cut from the revenue generated by the phones at that location. Thus, the incentive for both the AOS _and_ the property owner is toward _increased_ prices and/or kickbacks, whereas the user, who pays the bill, would have chosen the exact opposite. There's no negative feedback built in---in fact, it's positive feedback, guaranteed to go out of control. (I discount such indirect effects as complaining to the manager, which can in fact act as a control, and complaining to the FCC, which seems to have had a major effect on the situation.) Maybe all that's needed is to require hotels or airports (or whoever) to use the same AOS for their own business lines as for the pay phones---that gives them the right economic incentives. With regard to the posting of the bill before the House of Rep., did you notice that it requires AOSs that accept my MCI calling card to bill the call at the MCI rate? Even if their network is resold AT&T lines, perhaps at a higher rate than MCI? I'll bet that if this passes intact, these AOS companies will stop honoring calling cards from the "discount" long-distance companies (and maybe even AT&T, if the specific call computes as a "net loss"). They could always route you straight to your favorite carrier, after all, and let _them_ carry it at their own rate. Reminds me of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." Bob Langford Medical College of Virginia langford@crc.crc.vcu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 01:05:46 HST From: Mike Newton Subject: Local Calling Area For Hawaii Reply-To: kahuna!csvax.caltech.edu!newton@csvax.caltech.edu In V9#115, Wayne Folta asks about large calling areas. Well we have a rather large/unique calling area (someone else mentioned it, but had slightly wrong figures): [] Large local calling area: 4038 sq miles as of 1980. [] Growing calling area: the volcano adds more area each day. [] One of the widest (?) variations in altitude: 0 to 13800 feet (there are many phones at the observatories "up top"). of course, there are some disadvantages: [] Every non-local call is "overseas", and of poor quality. [] Its cheaper for me to call the mainland (ROM) than Oahu (another island), yet every mainland call goes through Oahu! [] it reaches very few people (125,000) (roughly 10 exchanges) I strongly suspect areas in Alaska, Montana, Nevada,... have larger 'local' areas. - mike From the bit bucket in the middle of the Pacific... Mike Newton newton@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech Submillimeter Observatory kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu Post Office Box 4339 Hilo Hawaii 96720 808 935 1909 ------------------------------ From: smb@arpa.att.com Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 05:35:03 EDT Subject: Telephone wire Is special telephone wire required for outdoor use? Specifically, if I wish to run the wiring for an extension outside the house -- in genuine telco style! -- should I get different wire? I'm concerned about the effects of weather and sun on the outer jacket. I know that these are of concern for ordinary electrical wiring. --Steve Bellovin att!ulysses!smb smb@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1989 8:54:49 EDT From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? Everytime I think about telephone company price gouging I snicker about the 30 cents, indoor wire maintenance plan, I am paying on my lines (they snuck it in on me when I moved). Someday I'm going to have to have them come out and take a look at my wiring (I've got 25 pair cable running to each room of the house with 66 blocks on each end). _Ron ------------------------------ From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp Date: Sun Apr 9 21:18:13 1989 Subject: Re: CLID for 911 - who pays? You're right; it is not right to come down too hard on the local BOC for excessive 911 charges. Since the charge here is set by the county, and goes from the BOC to the county gov't, it is probably best to not blame the local BOC at all. Still, I wonder how much use my modem lines get from the "service" for which they are charged (it's not called a tax -- there's an extra 10% tax on the lines but it doesn't get you anything). Dr. T. Andrews, Systems CompuData, Inc. DeLand --- ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner or... {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ From: "John R. Covert" Date: 11 Apr 89 06:05 Subject: RE: Determing country code length Howard J. Postley asks: >Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits >in a country code is. From the U.S. there are 1, 2, and three digit codes. There is no formula; you must do a table lookup. I provided the table of country codes from CCITT E.163 in Telecom V9#55. /john ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: 11 Apr 89 20:41:47 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , edw@wells.uucp (Ed Wells) writes: > > How does the caller ID work (technically)? Is it a DTMF code before > the phone rings? Some other kind of digital code? What ESS switch > does this feature start on? Caller*Id service is offered by NJ Bell using 1ESS and 1aESS switches. The calling number is delivered to the called party by a short blast of 1200 bps fsk data (similar, but not identical, to the modulation pattern used by 202 (half-duplex) 1200 bps modems). This occurs immediately after the first ring. It is not repeated after additional rings, nor is any ACK expected. In other words, it's simplex analog transmission, using 1960's modem technology. -- Dave Levenson /-----------------------------\ Westmark, Inc. | If you can't give me your | Warren, NJ USA | Phone number, don't call! | {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave \-----------------------------/ ------------------------------ From: Trevor Zion Bauknight Date: 10 Apr 89 18:26:15 GMT Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Date: 10 Apr 89 18:26:14 GMT Organization: Clemson University I read somewhere that Atlanta, GA has the biggest Local Dialing Area in the country. Of course...you can't believe everything you read... -Trev -- Trevor Zion Bauknight Clemson University - Clemson, South Carolina "walking down the mystery road ...{backbone}!gatech!hubcap!trev following the light that shone" "You connect the dots..." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 09:20:10-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: Diverstiture was not a mistake Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc. In article Leslie Mikesell writes: >[...] >>I don't think the answer is to allow any one company to monopolize >>long distance service. >The services should be required to connect through the lowest priced LD >service unless otherwise directed (by dialing the access code) by the caller. >Any machine capable of billing a call can easily find the cheapest >rate. Then they could only gouge you for local services. Not at all true -- its a lot easier to bill for a call than to find the cheapest route available. Billing only involves deciding what you want to charge -- its my understanding that many of the AOSs including some of the largest, bill all long distance calls at one rate. Finding the cheapest route would involve having V&H coordinates (to determine the call distance) and also tarriff information from every telephone company in the country. Each call would then have to be costed using all the different carriers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #133 *****************************   Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 0:30:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #134 Message-ID: <8904130030.aa05114@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Apr 89 00:10:37 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson National Computer Network? (Steven J Owens) Re: FCC AOS Order (John Hood) Re: Determining the length of the country code (Steven A. Minneman) Re: Make/break ratios (Charles Bryant) Automatic hook-flash (Mark Brader) Bell Canada can't find AT&T Canada (Mark Brader) Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Scott Barman) Re: E-mail Clearinghouse (Dave Levenson) Cordless Telephone Range (Hector Myerston) Extra service offered by a COCOT (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven J Owens Subject: National Computer Network? Date: 12 Apr 89 21:36:50 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys I'm doing a paper for a mass-media class on the possibilities of a national computer network accessible by anybody... sort of like Usenet with a lot more support and cash flow, I suppose. I'd appreciate any suggestions or information for this paper, as well as suggestions of where I could _look_ for information :-). One person I asked said he recalled a post somewhere/somewhen that gave estimates of how much a nationally available, non-commercial computer network would cost. Does anybody remember that? Are the figures still available? I'll outline some of the stuff I'm thinking about below, but if you don't want to read it, please don't let that stop you from replying right now! (I know I get longwinded sometimes :-) I'm sort of basing my paper on the French Minitel computer network. In case you've never heard of it, a quick summary: France had a minor problem with their telephone directories. They were becoming outdated as fast as they were printed and distributed. So, in order to correct the problem, they set up a national computer network and gave EVERYBODY who had a phone a computer terminal. The terminals weren't fancy, and they couldn't do a lot, but they were produced at rock bottom price and distributed at cost (about $165, I think, with the price taken in phone bills in small chunks...) As anybody who's ever used compuserve or the source, or other computer services could predict, it wasn't long before the services available via terminal "mushroomed" into areas like newsgroups, etc. Naturally, this is all very inaccurate on my part, esp. since most of it's based on a few magazine articles about Minitel. Does anybody know more about this? Does anybody know how quickly and/or easily it could be done here? And how much it would cost if the target was NOT an attempt to suck as much cash off of the customers as possible? I was thinking that the advantages of a really professionally supported network with commercial interests added would outweigh the costs. If that great "evil", advertising, was used, much of the network would pay for itself. I'm not talking about heavy advertising, but would you mind living with maybe one thirty second commercial per hour of online use in order to get the service free? It should work, since the network could "narrowcast" commercials to only those who would have an interest (thus thirty year old black females wouldn't get suntan oil and kiddie-toy commercials, for example). Any ideas? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Sjost1@Pittvms | (UUCP? Good question.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Not to say I didn't like this story (and other Brunner works); just that a Brunner story is usually not exactly a ray of sunshine in your day. Unless he's talking about the hole in the ozone layer..." - Larry Wake, rec.arts.sf-lovers, McGuffin Discussion =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Wed Apr 12 14:32:57 1989 From: John Hood Subject: Re: FCC AOS Order Reply-To: jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) Organization: Biar Games Inc., Ithaca, NY In article DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: >After reading the lengthly FCC rulemaking order on AOS outfits >(and THANKS for posting it!), I want to make sure I have the >'timetable' correct: Well, I don't know if it is or not, but... >3. The named AOS outfits MUST stop blocking and/or contact the owners > of COCOTS, dorm phones, etc, and require that they discontinue > blocking by April 27th, 1989. This isn't quite correct. In the appendix, there is an escape hatch that allows AOS companies to continue blocking as necessary to prevent people from abusing the network. Now I ask, who decides what blocking is necessary...? --jh -- John Hood, Biar Games snail: 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 BBS: 607 257 3423 domain: jhood@biar.uucp (we hope) bang: anywhere!uunet!biar!jhood [food for disclaimer readers] [special dessert tidbit for broken mailers] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 10:39:16-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: Determining the length of the country code Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc. In article bambam!hjp@uunet.uu.net (Howard J. Postley) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 131, message 9 of 11 >Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits >in a country code is. ... When I am parsing international phone numbers, I >am having a tough time figuring out where the country code ends and the >phone number starts. Country codes are set forth in CCITT Recommendation E.163. There is no pattern. There are one, two, and three digit country codes. If the first digit is "1" or a "7" it is a one digit code. Otherwise, it is a two or three digit code depending on what the first two digits are. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 89 21:02:34 GMT From: Charles Bryant Subject: Re: Make/break ratios Reply-To: Charles Bryant Organization: Maths Dept., Trinity College, Dublin In article e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu (e118 student) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 122, message 4 of 7 >The make/break ratios in the US and UK are different, but the ratio >isn't terribly critical (at least in US). I discovered some years ago >that I can dial by clicking the switchhook rapidly. One time I even >dialed 9-1-214-233-2768 successfully by this method. Obviously my >fingers weren't carefully figuring out whether I was using a 39/61 >ratio or 33/67, so I suspect there is a high tolerance in the system >for slop. The ratio can be wildly wrong and stil work. I once tested a modem that had the make and break reversed and it still worked fine. -- Charles Bryant. Working at Datacode Electronics Ltd. (Modem manufacturers) ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Automatic hook-flash Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 15:09:54 EDT > Will's problem is not with Centrex, it is with his telephone! There are > a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button: press > it and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of time > for call waiting or 3-way calling. I've also seen the button called "Link". But this doesn't solve Will's problem. Will's problem wasn't that he had trouble flashing the hook for the right length of time -- it was that the system accepted an on-hook period longer than that length as being a flash. False positive, not false negative, so to speak. -- Mark Brader "VAX 3 in 1 carpet care -- now 129.95 pounds" utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Bell Canada can't find AT&T Canada Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 15:10:31 EDT A while ago I posted an item to comp.dcom.telecom / the Telecom Digest about some alphabetization issues in telephone directories. I pointed out in particular that Bell Canada treats corporate names that consist of a string of initials in a special way, which generally results in them appearing at the front of the listings for their letter, in a sequence that isn't the one that most people would first think of. It turns out that normal users of the directories are not the only ones who may be confused by this. Two recent articles in our local area newsgroup "tor.general" have cited instances of Bell Canada directory assistance (411) operators being unable to locate listings, which actually existed, for so-named companies. (Of course, the fault may lie with badly designed database-query software rather than the queriers.) One of the companies was AT&T Canada! -- Mark Brader "A computer[']s view of the world is analogous [to] a SoftQuad Inc. flashlight in the dark. What they can see, they see Toronto well. What they can't see, they see not at all." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- M. Valvo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 14:28:38 EDT From: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Reply-To: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA In article klb@lzaz.att.com (K.BLATTER) writes: >In article , folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) >writes: >> a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area. If you count DC as >> a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC). >> But is this really a very large area? How large might a local call area be >> in LA or NY? Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might >> there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes >> thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people? >To my knowledge, the largest (in terms of square miles) local dialing >area in the United States is the Big Island of Hawaii in, of course, >Hawaii. It is roughly 4900 square miles in size. When I moved to the Atlanta Metro area, the Southern Bell representative told me that the Atlanta area is the second largest "toll free" calling zone in the United States. From what I understand, the Georgia Public Service Commission refuses to listen to reason when trying to change the way rates are charged (as it is I pay over $25 for service before long distance charges are added and the only "extra" I have is touch-tone service). My question is where is the largest? I think the woman at SoBell ment the number of available phones that I could call toll free when the statement was made (I don't know, just an impression). If so I think it would be interesting to find the largest. -- scott barman {gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: E-mail Clearinghouse Date: 12 Apr 89 18:41:29 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , andy@virgil.uucp (Andy Roth) writes: > We have heard of a service, that for a nominal monthly fee, will interface > with a local UNIX host (ostensibly uucp) and other subscribed email services > acting as a clearinghouse. This service will poll your commercial mailboxes > (MCI, EXLINK, etc.) and mail them to your local system. Outgoing mail is > sent to the service and automatically diverted to MCI or whatever as > required. If anyone has used or is familiar with wuch a service, I would > appreciate a reference. Thanks in advance. There is at least one commercial e-mail service which is uucp-based, and can communicate directly with your favorite uucp site. It is called AT&T Mail, and provides e-mail to fax, e-mail to paper-mail, and other related services. You can register yourself for logins from a dumb terminal (they provide a text-editor and other user-friendly covers for the UNIX shell) or you can register your UNIX machine and receive your mail on your own system. -- Dave Levenson /-----------------------------\ Westmark, Inc. | If you can't give me your | Warren, NJ USA | Phone number, don't call! | {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave \-----------------------------/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 10:08:02 PDT From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: Cordless Telephone Range Phones sold in the US are limited by the FCC to freq/power combinations which equate to 700 to 1000 feet free-space ranges. As someone pointed out, actual ranges tend to be much worse and transmissions highly subject to interference. There is a "Range Extender" passive antenna made by Valor which inmproves range but only marginally. Overseas, more powerful transmitters are used and ranges up to 50 Km are common. There ARE place in the US which sell them for "use outside the US". One such is Phone Masters in LA. I do not recommend trying then here, you will probably interfere with someone and the FCC will eventually track you down. Telcos also use various narrow-band microwave sets to save stringing wire to remote locations. These sets are not available to the public. [I tried to reply to tmk@research.att.com but the net didn't like the address] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 11:08:44 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Extra service offered by a COCOT I used a COCOT on 703-261 prefix in Buena Vista, Va. last Saturday, and after I had punched in credit card number (and waited for verifi- cation), I got (before my call went thru, which it did) a recording saying (this should be pretty much exact): "Thank you for using ITI. If busy or no answer, press 1 to leave a 1 minute message.". This suggests that this particular COCOT does indeed offer extra service not available with some other carriers. Also, it reminds me of that MESSAGE SERVICE note I copied off a phone at Finksburg, Md. recently. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #134 *****************************   Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 2:16:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #135 Message-ID: <8904140216.aa17470@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Apr 89 01:59:42 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Reflections on Ethics (poem) (Roy A. Crabtree) Re: Flash vs. hangup (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Centrex (Gerry Wheeler) Re: Question on system made by TIE Communications (Gerry Wheeler) Re: Dialing with switchhook (Dave Fiske) Call Histories For Sale? (Daniel Faigin) 24 volt loop (Gerry Wheeler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Roy A. Crabtree" Subject: Reflections on Ethics (poem) Date: 13 Apr 89 12:18:20 GMT Organization: AT&T Reflections on His Way We all know now the Chairman of AT&T Has passed this way, and gone along His Way I felt, within, the need because of this to say A cantry which expresses feelings raised in me In hopes that those who read these words will also see And find perhaps some things, within, to live by day to day A former note which came from one of us among Our group whose feelings here are seldom, softly, sung Which pointed out someone who Brashly dared to say That Naming Products *we* build here, if not His Way Indeed could lead us to the loss of well made sales And bring on all of us the things which that entails For by our deeds - or Things *Not* Done - from day to day AT&T, you see, _our_ Company, succeeds or fails It isn't very hard to sum the sales we lost Because in former years we raised the user's cost Just look and see, the tools we use in company They are not cheap, but costly to AT&T For by our deeds - or Things *Not* Done - our soul's embossed And dreams within us, shackled tightly, slowly struggle free So while at work, what e'er you do, please do it well Remember when we once had Pride in Old Ma Bell? With words pejorative, but maybe true, I say As we do business, building, selling, day to day Just do it right: Let's get out there & give'm hell! (to have some fun AND make a profit while Along The Way) I must say this with words which may sound dialectic: It may be true the Job we face will be Quite Hectic To meet the Goals which in our products we have set We must scale Heights, and look towards Sights we've seen Not Yet I think you know that You must be A Soul Eclectic: From Life's Confusions, Face it: Choose Your Ethics: *the*best*set* I'm sure that all of us who work here truly see That UNIX OS software doesn't come for free The users of our hardware pay a lot of cash To buy a system from us, folks, Which Shall Not Crash And if it does, not one of us should seek to flee It is _Our_ job to fix it then, and do it in a flash I'm sorry, Folks, this cantry took so long to write I didn't want to say it wrong, or too polite It should be written down just right, with verse that's true Without a phrase which Paeans meanings trite or blue For if some phrasing does amuse it may bring light and Reach Out, Touching, gently, inside _each_and_all_ of you As long as all of us each day intend to grin By punning try to tap each other on the chin With each jibe said by each of us with fuss and finicks To prod and poke and gently heal in humor's clinics As long as we can jest in fun and find no sin With in a sense: we won't become, at heart, just jaded cynics In naming, daily, products of our Company The trade mark "UNIX", granted by AT&T When written down must have at end an English noun Or else perhaps Someone upstairs (you know!) will frown And so, by day we shouldn't from the challenge flee Or nightly speak with gloom and act the frowning, cynic clown It's hard; I know the verse above would phrase much better Were I not held, by metric rules, hard to the letter Because in prose: Adjective, noun is hard to meter By breaking form it could perhaps be said the sweeter Though form at times may seem to badly bind and fetter You may find soon the syntax will march on in step much neater To keep AT&T from growing stiff and pompous (or else competitors around will surely stomp us) Perhaps We should begin each day again anew By gently chiding all within which isn't true And if we gently _cull_it_all_ we could go far Since, after all, I hope you know, you guys, it's OUR Death Star! From quality (in quantity) we must not budge Through sleepless nights and lonely days, yes, grind & drudge We should in selling Tell no Tall Tales with Our Voice For in the end, If We Build Right We Shall Rejoice: When we sell goods, our Customers will *always* Judge And having done so, promptly *do* make _the_ Right Choice It's time to look around yourself, and stop to think: "Just what is it that _I_ will write with my Life's Ink?" It sometimes seems we never will make any gain And all we build is lost, with lack, or loss, or pain As day to day we stumble, halting, brink to brink If _each_of_us_ give _all_ we have, you'll know it's not in vain. So look around, and find your way; be not frenetic And should you _lose_ once, don't become an Apathetic Since in the end, it's you Yourself you do protect For those of you who do demur, on this reflect: It's true that those who Doom Say *will* become Prophetic Though Life Abounds, it _does_ become, in deed, What You Expect royc ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" Date: 13 Apr 89 13:13 Subject: Re: Flash vs. hangup In Telecom Digiest V9I134, Mark Brader says, >Subject: Automatic hook-flash >But this doesn't solve Will's problem. Will's problem wasn't that he had >trouble flashing the hook for the right length of time -- it was that the >system accepted an on-hook period longer than that length as being a flash. >False positive, not false negative, so to speak. Some sets will solve this problem! There are two different type of implementations of the timed-flash telephone. The one sold by Northern Telecom under the trademark "link" has a timed red flash button and an untimed hookswitch. But the ones sold by Comdial and Alcatel Cortelco have timed hookswitches too, typically around 2 seconds. (Comdial, then Stromberg-Carlson, made the Rolm Flashphone. Unless I'm confusing them with Cortelco, then ITT.) So the timed switchhook guarantees hangup. This could, I suppose, be viewed as a disadvantage; if you're used to flashing, you'll lose a few calls until you break yourself of the habit. But it's worthwhile. It was especially worthwhile for Rolm owners! Y'see, Rolm uses a different set of rules for feature-flashing. If you have a call on flash-hold and hang up a second call, the first call rings you back. (On most switches, like AT&T and NT, hanging up the second also disconnects the first; you flash to get back the first.) The upshot was that with ordinary untimed switchhooks, users would dial busy signals, press the switchhook, get dial tone, yak for a while, hang up, and the phone would ring back with a busy signal! Rolm's trainers didn't know why it was happening, either. Flashphones fixed it, since the switchhook guaranteed disconnect of that busy. (The flash tied up WATS trunks too, and the spurious call showed up on call detail billing.) fred ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 1:53:37 CDT From: Gerry Wheeler Subject: Re: Centrex Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont. In article , ab4@cunixb.cc.columbia. edu (A. M. Boardman) writes: > The telephones of Columbia's new > digital CBX have, among a plethora of other buttons, a flash button. > In no detectable way, however, does this button actually flash the line > in any traditional sense; it is instead just another signal to the exchange. > Really flashing will disconnect the line every time. Our phone system is the same -- the flash button sends some digital code to the electronic equipment, which then flashes the CO line being used. In ours, the duration of the flash is programmable. The default is, I think, 1.5 or 2 seconds, which actually disconnects the line. However, it can be reset to very short intervals which would perform a real flash. The button serves a dual purpose, though. When making an internal (intercom) call, the flash button *always* terminates the call and provides new internal dial tone. Since we don't have any need for a hookflash on the outside lines, it seems reasonable to have the button disconnect the call in both situations. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043 ------------------------------ From: Gerry Wheeler Date: 13 Apr 89 21:24:15 GMT Subject: Re: Question on phone system made by TIE Communications Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont. Lines: 19 In article , jeff@kestrel.ARPA (Jeff Kitson) writes: > we want to run > both the phone and RS232 lines through the same 25-pair cable into > offices. My question is if anyone out there has a similar setup and > has successfully or unsuccessfully done this? We did that in our offices, but found that the data lines induced noise into the voice lines, so you would hear a funny ZZZiiippp noise each time the screen of a terminal was rewritten. We eventually changed phone systems anyway, and expanded our terminal wiring so much that we had to run separate cables, so it is no longer a problem. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043 ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: dialing with switchhook Date: 13 Apr 89 18:58:09 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes: > In the 60s pay phones were designed with mercury switches on the hook so > that if you tried to dial with the hook the splashing mercury would > defeat you. Otherwise you could make local calls for a nickel instead > of a dime, or some such thing. Here's a related anecdote. I saw an interview with Walter Cronkite once, where he spoke of his eary career as a newspaper reporter. One day the editor called him into his office, to ask about a reimbursement form Walter had put through for calls from pay phones. "What's this?" said the editor. "Well, I had to make some phone calls to the newspaper, and I want to be reimbursed." At this point the editor laughed and shouted out to another staff member "Hey, show this guy how to make a call from a pay phone," at which point the other person took two straight pins from the underside of his lapel, and stuck one into each of the wires leading to a pay phone in the hall. He then touched the wires together and the phone was powered up. Obviously, pay phones simply used a simple coin-activated switch to enable the connection in those days. -- "FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 07:43:10 PDT From: faigin@aerospace.aero.org Subject: Call Histories For Sale? I was listening to a "talk-radio" program on the way home yesterday, and they were discussing a new FCC ruling that allows telephone companies to sell to anyone the calling history and payment patterns for an individual account, unless specifically requested not to do so by the customer. Does anyone on [Telecom] know any more about this? Daniel Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149 Home :8333 Columbus Avenue #17 * Sepulveda CA 91343 * 818/892-8555 Email:faigin@aerospace.aero.org (or) Faigin@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest" ------------------------------ From: Gerry Wheeler Date: 13 Apr 89 21:39:31 GMT Subject: 24 volt loop Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont. I need some advice, and perhaps one of the readers can help. We have a new electronic phone system which includes several "single line jacks" -- jacks that emulate a normal loop to be used with modems, FAXes, answering machines, etc. The biggest difference is that these loops are powered with 24 volts, rather than the more normal 48 volts one would expect. Most of our equipment is quite happy with this, except for a credit card validation machine with an autodialer built in. I did some tests on this device (using several nine-volt batteries in series with the line!) and determined that it really is the low voltage causing the problem. As near as I can figure, the dialer tests the line voltage before going off hook, to avoid connecting to a line that is already in use. I presume they use a zener diode or something to provide a reference voltage. If the line voltage is higher than the reference, it will dial. If not, it gives an error message. I can see two different solutions. 1) change the zener diode, or 2) provide some sort of black box to convert the 24 volt loop to 48 volts. I can't really do option 1, because we don't own the machine. (Still, if anyone has a short list of part numbers for zener diodes that are about 30 volts, I may have a look for it.) So, does anyone know of a simple way to accomplish option 2? As I see it, this box would have to terminate the 24 volt loop, and provide power for a 48 volt loop, and patch the audio from one to the other. It would also have to sense the off hook condition and handle that appropriately. Any leads, or any ideas for other options I haven't considered, would be most appreciated. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #135 *****************************   Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 1:29:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #136 Message-ID: <8904170129.aa10381@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Apr 89 01:00:04 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 136 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson 1989 ADCU National Conference (TELECOM Moderator) Mexico's Phone System Going Private? (TELECOM Moderator) Information Needed on Connecting Speakerphone (Miguel Cruz) Re: How to use Caller*ID? (Vance Shipley) Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (John Wheeler) Ringback Numbers in the USA (Bill Gerosa) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 0:56:43 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: 1989 ADCU National Conference 1989 ADCU National Conference Marriott Copley Place Hotel Boston, MA June 11 - 14, 1989 The Association of Data Communications Users invites your participation in this three day conference and exhibition. Selected events for Monday, June 12 (many others to pick from): "Building a 21st Century Telecommunications Infrastructure: How to Get There from Here". This will focus on the development and maintainence of an adequate infrastructure for information age businesses. The Local Infrastructure: Developing Alternatives to Local Exchange Facilities. 1) case studies from Teleport Communications of Boston who will soon provide high-capacity leased transmission facilities. 2) a panel of large users will discuss how they chose alternative local carriers. Disaster Planning: This will focus on the plans of major carriers and service providers to insure continued service. A panel will discuss the well publicized service interuptions of 1988. Communications By Land or By Air will focus on the latest developments and advantages of fiber optic versus microwave versus satellite for the data communications manager and designer. Some of the presentations for Tuesday, June 13 are: Regulatory and Legislative Developments in Data Communications. Standards Developments in Data Communications. This will be a review of all standards programs and committees now in operation and a forecast of how these will impact your data network. International Network Design will focus on the many issues unique to international data networks. Major Vendor Integration will discuss the efforts of U.S. Sprint and Illinois Bell to meet the requirements of their joint contract with the Illinois Department of Central Management Services for the State of Illinois. Over 40,000 data terminals and 130,000 telephones are involved. This presentation will discuss the data capabilities and statewide network in the integrated CMS strategy. Wednesday, June 14 will be largely devoted to communications software presentations and discussions of network management issues facing most companies that have integration objectives for their data networks. Presentations will be given on X.400, X.25, and point-to-point networks which have expanded into multiple technologies such as LANs, satellite, underwater cable and fiber optics. The conference fee, giving admission to all exhibits and presentations over the three day period is $350 for ADCU Member Companies and $450 for Non- Member Companies. In addition to the several exhibits and partial list of presentations mentioned above, the NIU Forum ISDN sessions will continue through the remainder of the week and are included in the above fee. For more information and to receive a complete schedule of activities at the 1989 ADCU National Conference, June 12-14 in Boston, call their offices at 612-881-6803, or write ADCU, Box 20163, Bloomington, MN 55420. Reservations with the Boston Marriott Copely Place are made at 1-800-228-9290. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 0:17:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Mexico's Phone System Going Private? The Mexico Telephone Company, a/k/a Telefonos de Mexico, a/k/a Telmex, is likely to go private in the next year or two. The Mexican government is giving serious consideration to selling its controlling interest in that nation's communications network, despite very stiff opposition from the local unions which would prefer to see the existing bureaucracy stay in place. The proposed sale, which is part of a move to upgrade the phone system there -- and it *does* need upgrading -- by allowing more private investment, is part of a growing trend in Mexico to privatize heretofore nationalized industries. The Mexico Telephone Company has spent more than a year planning a $14 billion, five-year restructuring plan which will probably give AT&T and the Bell regional holding companies a role in the improvements. One plan being discussed by the Mexican government is a complete break-up of Telmex. similar to the court-ordered divestiture of AT&T a few years ago. Under this plan, there would be one central long distance company in Mexico, with the government retaining control of it, but privately owned regional firms providing local and auxiliary services. I'm told representatives of the Mexican government have talked on more than one occassion with some folks at Southwestern Bell about making a formal proposal. Likewise, Pacific Bell has been making some overtures to the Mexicans. It will be interesting to see what develops. About two years ago, [Teleconnect Magazine], in a humorous article on the divestiture, presented a bogus map of the territories assigned to each BOC, with Texas, New Mexico and Arizona grouped under an entity called "Taco Bell". :) Any phone company which takes over the Mexican system will be an improvement over the current operation, which has been slowly deteriorating for several years. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 89 16:19:42 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Information Needed on Connecting Speakerphone I have an old Western Electric/AT&T 2-piece speakerphone that I would like to be able to use. The larger part has a speaker and most of the circuitry, and has a 20-pin plug that looks like it would fit into a 50-pin cable from an old 5-line key system. The other part has a microphone, on-off switch, indicator lamp, and volume control, and an 8-pin connector. Is it possible to connect this to an ordinary phone line? What additional circuitry is needed (I assume at least some kind of power supply). Does anyone know the connections for this? Thanks, Miguel Cruz Univ of Michigan Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 14 21:18:09 1989 From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: How to use Caller*Id? Reply-To: vances@egvideo.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: The Linton Technology Group - SwitchView (replying to the item about the mysterious caller looking for the health club who always winds up reaching the same wrong party. pt) A sixth and even more likely possibility; an incorrectly programmed speed call number. -vances ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Date: 16 Apr 89 16:03:48 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta In article hubcap!trev@gatech.edu (Trevor Zion Bauknight) writes: > >I read somewhere that Atlanta, GA has the biggest Local Dialing Area in >the country. Of course...you can't believe everything you read... > Well, those of us who live here may tend to be boastful (grin) but we DO have over 6 inches (of phone book, thick, that is) in two white-page and two Yellow Pages volumes, weighing in around 12 pounds. What's metered service, anyway? (hee hee) I have heard rumors of another area code for us, which we currently share with the rest of North Georgia... -- Turner John Wheeler E N T E R T A I N M E N T ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw Networks Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports ------------------------------ From: Bill Gerosa Subject: Ringback Numbers in the USA Date: 13 Apr 89 22:05:51 GMT Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci. Does anybody have a list of the ringback numbers used in the states? There was some talk about this topic a while ago, but I don't think anyone posted a list. I don' even know if the public is allowed to have access to these numbers. Any replies would be apprecaited. Bill [Moderator's Note: I do not believe there is any standardization in this at all. Every area, indeed probably every telco within a given area, has its own 'ringback codes'. They are intended for installation/test purposes, and the numbers are rarely given out just because someone asks for them. In Chicago, a/c 312, the codes vary from exchange to exchange, but always take the form 1-571-xxxx through 1-577-xxxx, where xxxx is the last four digits of the telephone number being rung-back. For some prefixes, or exhanges, it would be 1-571, while others are 1-572, 1-573, 1-574, etc. The only way I found what works on my home phones (1-573-xxxx) was by trial and error. If you select one of the above which is not correct for your exchange, or put in incorrect digits for the last four, it returns re-order (a rapid busy signal). If you get it correct, it returns dial tone. You click the hook once, and get a high pitched tone, then hang up. It will ring back for five minutes, or until you go off hook, whichever comes first. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #136 *****************************   Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 0:31:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #137 Message-ID: <8904180031.aa14890@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Apr 89 00:12:08 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 137 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Voice Management Courses (TELECOM Moderator) More on Cellular Eavesdropping from Risks (Will Martin) Charges for Busy signal when using modem? (Timothy Stark) Prefix duplications near Washington, DC (Carl Moore) Good Supply Sources (TELECOM Moderator) CRT code: NK (Bob Frankston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 0:04:43 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T Voice Management Courses The Education and Training Division of AT&T has announced its second quarter, 1989 course schedule. Classes are given at various AT&T facilities around the United States during May and June. The courses all award CEU's (Continuing Education Units), and most are in multiple locations at various times over the next two months. Most range between 2-4 days in length, and while not inexpensive, I suspect they do offer very high caliber instruction in telecom related fields. The two day courses range in price from $500-800, and the four day courses typically are priced $1000-1300. A *free* one day course being offered is "Network Management", at numerous locations around the United States and Canada on April 21, including Toronto, Atlanta, Lexington MA, Southfield MI, Washington DC and Ft. Lauderdale. The same course will be given April 20 in Itasca IL (suburb of Chicago) and Birmingham AL. It will then be offered on May 9 in Tucson and Phoenix AZ, and San Fransisco. On May 10 it will be offered in Englewood and Colorado Springs CO; also in Boise, ID. Other courses include -- Introduction to Telecommunications (2 Days) Voice Communications: A Management Perspective (3 Days) Voice Communications I: Analysis of Services and Applications (4 Days) Voice Communications II: Voice Theory and Design Analysis (4 Days) Voice Switching Technology (3.5 Days, only in Cincinnati beginning 5/22) 5ESS Switch Elements Seminar (3 Days, Lisle IL beginning 5/22 and 6/26) 5ESS Switch ISDN Seminar (2 Days, Lisle IL several sessions in 5/89 - 6/89) 5ESS Switch Translations Seminar (2.5 Days, Lisle IL various dates 5/89) System 85 Concepts/Technology (4 Days, Cincinnati beginning 5/1, 5/22, 6/19) System 75 Concepts/Technology (4 Days, New York 5/15 and Atlanta 6/26) Premises Distribution: Applications Design (2 Days, various dates, cities) and a big, national one day seminar on fiber optics, price just $150 -- "Fiber Optics: Issues and Trends" This presentation will be given in 25 cities across the United States and Canada, mostly on June 15 or June 16; a few cities will have seminars on June 20 or June 21. For more specific information, a complete copy of the schedule of instruction for each course/city, and to register for classes, call the AT&T Education and Training Division at 1-800-554-6400, Ext. 4116. Or, you may write to -- AT&T Education and Training Post Office Box 6991 55 Corporate Drive Bridgewater, NJ 08807 - 9964 Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:17:58 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: More on Cellular Eavesdropping from Risks This is a follow-up posting from the Risks Digest on the Boston cellular eavesdropping subject; being sent to Telecom to keep its archives complete on the subject. ***Begin included item*** Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 10:22:10 EDT From: roskos@ida.org (Eric Roskos) Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones (Re: Thayer, RISKS-8.53) > Has the law changed? I was led to understand that the FCC does not ban > the reception of any signal. Of course, banning the reception of > certain signals is going to be tough to enforce anyway. [I originally wrote the following posting in response to the first cellular telephone posting, then decided not to send it because (a) I'd already made several RISKS postings recently and (b) I'm reluctant to comment on legal matters when many legal people seem to get upset by lay-persons doing so. However, in response to the above question I decided to send it in anyway.] (Re: Den Beste, RISKS-8.52) > The article goes on to say that Radio Shack no longer sells that model, and > that the FCC says such eavesdropping is illegal. Intentionally listening to cellular communications is a violation of PL 99-508, "The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986," and the violator is subject to a $500 criminal fine if the interception was of cellular telephone and not for one of the "bad purposes" defined in the legislation (other types of violations have penalties up to $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for an organization). Accidentally encountering such a broadcast while tuning this model of receiver is not a violation if you do not intentionally listen to it, i.e., if you just pass by it in the course of tuning the radio; this issue was specifically addressed in the ECPA. The cellular telephone frequencies are adjacent to and overlap part of the UHF TV band, so it is also possible to tune them on older, continuous (as vs. discrete)-tuning UHF TV sets. It was reported in the press that the FCC recently stated that it is not illegal to manufacture and sell radios that tune the cellular frequencies, and in the past the FCC has allegedly declined to enforce the ECPA as applied to cellular telephones. On the other hand, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association recently used legal measures to force Grove Enterprises, a small dealer of radio equipment in North Carolina, to stop enabling a disabled feature of Radio Shack scanners that allowed reception of cellular telephone. It's interesting to note that Radio Shack was one of the companies listed in the Senate Report 99-541 as "support[ing] the principles involved in the [ECPA] legislation," and they manufacture a radio which has an option jumper that enables reception of these communications. It is currently sold with this option disabled. There is currently an ongoing debate between radio hobbyists and various sections of the government on application of the ECPA to cellular telephone communications. Recent issues of the monthly periodical _Monitoring_Times_ contain a good bit of editorializing and news items on the subject; there was also a recent book specifically about how to intercept radio telephone communications released by a publisher oriented towards "communications monitoring" topics. It also appears to be the case that a lot of scanners are sold and modified to receive cellular communications, and that the popular opinion is that the ECPA will not be enforced with regard to cellular telephone. From a practical standpoint, this suggests that it is wise to assume that any cellular telephone communications are probably being listened to. From the viewpoint of the potential listener, like the types of unauthorized computer access discussed here recently, in the absence of strong enforcement it is probably largely an ethical consideration: whether or not it is technically legal or illegal, one has to consider whether it is ethical. And, as I've argued in the past, Ethics per se doesn't say whether this sort of activity is "ethical." It's a difficult problem to address, other than simply to realize that the problem exists, and act in an informed manner. Disclaimers: The above comments result from reading published documents on the ECPA, and are *not* the opinions of a legal professional. My interest in the subject is solely in the area of keeping up with security and privacy issues, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone else. Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.ARPA) ***End item*** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 12:41 EST From: Timothy Stark <11TSTARK%GALLUA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Subject: Charges for Busy signal when using modem? [Moderator's Note: Due to some errors in transmission, the message which follows was received somewhat garbled. I have reconstructed it. PT] Hello Telecom Users: Last weekend, at RELAY server, Phantom talked with me about charging for busy signals when using modem. Phantom was hit by a high bill because of busy signals. He told me that: If voice-to-voice, they will not charge busy signals; If modem-to-modem, they will charge busy signals. I get very angry with Phantom's telephone company. At my local company they do not charge me for voice or modem for busy signals. What are the FCC regulations about busy signals? Is charging for busy signal unlawful? I will appreciate any responses. Thanks! -- Tim Stark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Timothy Stark | Bitnet: 11tstark@gallua.bitnet VMS Gallaudet University | Internet: 11tstark@gallux.gallaudet.edu UNIX P.O. Box 1453 | GEnie: T.STARK1 Washington, DC 20002 | People/Link: OCS130 U.S.A. | QuantumLink: TimS18 Earth | "Gallaudet University is the only university for Solar System | the deaf in the world." Milky Way | The Known Universe | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 11:07:38 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: prefix duplications near Washington, DC I came across a few new prefixes in Va. just beyond Washington calling area; these are in 703, and I will list them and show the duplications between them and the Washington calling area: 330 Manassas (301-330 Gaithersburg) 878 Dale City (301-878 Fort Ritchie, with DC and Baltimore area service?) 497 Occoquan (301-497 Laurel)--same already existed regarding 490 Also, I know of (703 area): 882 Waterford, 822 Lovettsville, 668 Hillsboro, 554 Bluemont (sp?), all in or near western Loudoun County, and duplicating prefixes in DC. When you proceed into 703 area beyond DC suburbs, you don't hit a big metropolitan area that you encounter in Maryland (Baltimore); in the latter case, there are many prefix duplications between Balt. area and DC/Va. suburbs. How tight is 703 area nowadays, anyway? (It was split in 1973 to form 804 area.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 23:25:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Good Supply Sources I seem to be on a lot of interesting telecom industry mailing lists;, and two recent mailings are worth describing here. Unfortunatly, one of the two has now gotten away from me and I cannot tell you the complete address for that firm. Both arrived about a month ago, but the digest was too full at the time to include any additional messages. 1. US West Business Resources, Inc., through the Brokerage Services Division, 5095 Dahlia Street, Denver, CO 80216 offers an interesting bulletin from time to time describing what is in stock. They seem to have literally hundreds, maybe thousands of different types of phone equipment, including very specialized phones with multiple lines; headsets; speakerphones; various signalling devices; intercoms; you name it. Lots of AT&T/Bell System stuff from years past. Dials, both rotary and touchtone; cords of various colors/lengths for handsets; terminal blocks; more. The catalog is free, and the last one I received was about 100-125 xeroxed pages stapled together. I guess they might send you a copy if you indicated you were reselling that stuff/consulting with business clients. Phone 1-800-247-3630. 2. The other catalog of interest was from the 'Hello' people in California. And that is the one I unfortunatly lost sometime in the last week or so. They offered a number of interesting devices including headsets, answering machines and assorted telephone related electronics. Someone posted a message here about them three months ago or so, and shortly thereafter I got their nifty little catalog. I have looked *everywhere* for it; my bedroom; bathroom; under my desk where I am always finding old printouts and unanswered letters; at my other office, etc. No where to be found. Maybe whoever posted the original message about them will post it again; and when they do, I urge you all to get on the mailing list for that one also. 'Hello Direct' is the name which sticks in my mind. San Fransisco or environs is the location, I think. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Bob Frankston Subject: CRT code: NK Date: Sun, 16 Apr 89 16:11:31 EDT In ad for "nikko hotels international" it has the line: PHONE: 1-800-NIKKO-US or use CRT code: NK Does anyone know what a "CRT code" is? Is it a private system for travel agents? Bob Frankston ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #137 *****************************   Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 0:55:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #138 Message-ID: <8904190055.aa02353@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Apr 89 00:27:46 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson New and Exciting Developments at AT&T (TELECOM Moderator) Can $4,000/mo cross country T1 be for real? (Brian Jay Gould) Bell claim to cable in my building (Steve Swingler) CRT Codes (Kenneth R. Jongsma) Re: Good Supply Sources (Will Martin) Re: Good Supply Sources (Kenneth R. Jongsma) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 0:22:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New and Exciting Developments at AT&T Tuesday, April 18 was opening day for the transpacific fiber optic cable developed by AT&T,and installed by a consortium of communications companies including AT&T, MCI and Sprint. This new cable, which presently terminates in Tokyo, can handle 40,000 calls at once. In addition to connecting with land-based cables in the United States, a portion of the cable has been assigned to handle connections between Tokyo and the capitals of Western Europe. A transatlantic fiber optic cable was installed between the states and Europe late last year. Future plans for international fiber optic cables include connections to Australia and the Carribean in 1991. It is certainly true that the rapid pace of technological advancements in telecommunications is causing some exciting changes in the way we communicate around the globe. As one who remembers well the time when you made a *reservation* to place an overseas call to London, and you were called back by the international operator at White Plains, NY when a circuit was free, I am amazed by the speed with which calls are placed now. And there was a time when calls to Africa were first routed to London, and then on the British Telecom cables to Cairo *when they chose to extend calls from the United States* -- typically three or four days per week during the early morning hours. Calls to Antarctica are still handled in a round-about way; via the overseas operator in Oakland, CA to Australia, then via a radio link from that country to the South Pole; but given the speed with which AT&T is covering the globe with fiber optic, the land at the southernmost tip of our planet may someday be direct-dialable. ========================================= And then there was MultiQuest. AT&T bills it as 'a powerful new way for you to make valuable information available to your customers...' Multiquest, according to AT&T, is the first national, interactive 900 service for businesses. According to an AT&T spokesperson, "Customers nationwide can obtain information, services or advice from you more easily than they ever could before." And at more expense to the customer, I might add. AT&T notes, "..unlike 800 service, where you pay the bill, your customers pay for calls to 900 numbers....you select the price, and AT&T will handle billing and collection from your customers." AT&T is promoting MultiQuest as a way to market your services, run a promotion and reach customers 'cost-effectively' (you bet!). For more information about MultiQuest, installation pricing and procedures, call 1-800-222-0400. If anyone gets specifics on this regards pricing and how it is installed, etc, please write it up for publication here. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Brian Jay Gould Subject: Can $4,000/mo cross country T1 be for real? Date: 19 Apr 89 02:30:37 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Someone has offered a satellite T1 (I still have to buy the local loop) to or from any combination of New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and San Francisco for about $4,000 per month. They are also planning to offer Houston, Dallas, Chicago and Detroit. I'm giving serious consideration to using these links in a couple of networking and supercomputing proposals. I've never heard of these guys (I won't post the name because I don't want to be advertising for them, but I'll provide the name on individual request). Can someone really do this? AT&T is asking $30,000/month for a T1 from NY to LA. --> Any disclaimers, made by me or by anyone on my behalf, may or may not accurately represent my representation of myself or others. -- =========================================================================== - Brian Jay Gould :: INTERNET gould@pilot.njin.net BITNET gould@jvncc - - UUCP rutgers!njin!gould Telephone (201) 329-9616 - =========================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 09:40 CDT From: Steve Swingler Subject: Bell claim to cable in my building My local BOC say that they own the feeder cable that is completly within one of my dorms. They plan to remove it. I was under the impression that this cable now belongs to us. Can someone give me the exact ruling in this type of situation. Thank You. Steve Swingler Center for Computing and Information Systems Baylor University ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: CRT Codes Date: Tue, 18-Apr-89 09:54:30 PDT CRT codes probably refer to the airline computer reservation system used by most travel agents. Though there are several such systems in use, many of the nonairline booking codes are similar on each system. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 8:25:06 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Re: Good Supply Sources HELLO DIRECT 2346 Bering Drive San Jose, CA 95131-9749 (*) 1-800-HI-HELLO (800-444-3556) Local phone: (408)435-1990 Fax: (408)435-1993 (*) Strange thing: This is the 9-digit ZIP on their business-reply-mail card to ask for a catalog. In their catalog, the address is the same, but the 9-digit ZIP is "95131-1121". I suppose one is wrong, but don't know which one. The catalog is Spring '89, the card is also recent. Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Good Supply Sources Date: Tue, 18-Apr-89 09:52:31 PDT Pat... Hello Direct is the company name. Their number is 1-800-HI-HELLO. (Seriously! Don't blame me, I dislike names for numbers. AT&T used to discourage that when they controlled the yellow pages. Takes forever to dial such numbers.) [Moderator's Note: In any event people, *do* call and get on their mailing list. Their catalog is full of neat phone equipment. And tell them I am sorry I lost my copy. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #138 *****************************   Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 0:35:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #139 Message-ID: <8904200035.aa15000@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Apr 89 00:21:10 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 139 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Where am I calling from? (Sharon Tres) Finding out that phone number (TELECOM Moderator) ANI Backfiring Already (from RISKS) (Will Martin) AT&T Cited on Illegal Service (David Gast) Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California (Dave Horsfall) $4K T-1 for real? (Scott Statton) Hello Direct ZIP code (Sam Ho) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Apr 89 08:47:43 PDT (Tuesday) Subject: Where am I calling from? From: Sharon_Tres.ESM6@xerox.com Is there a way to determine the telephone number you place a call from? I know, I know...look at the number on the phone...but what if that is wrong?? Then what? Any info would be appreciated. Sharon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 0:15:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Finding out that phone number Sharon (see above message) asks how to find out the number on the telephone being used if the number on the dial is wrong or is not there at all. I think we all know asking the operator for the number will almost always result in the operator telling you its none of your business. Either you are the subscriber and know your own number, or maybe you are just trying to find out the unlisted number of the phone you are using. In some communities, a recorded announcement is available which will give you the number you are calling from; but this does not seem to be very common. Here in Chicago, quite a few (not all) exchanges have the ability to recite your number to you -- if you know where to call to get it. The numbers are always 1-200-xxx-yyyy, but they change from one prefix to another, and they seem to get changed on the same prefix about once a month or so, perhaps out of spite by the technicians; who knows. I knew one of them for phones in the Chicago-Franklin office, and had great fun listening to it recite the numbers on the various outgoing trunks on the Rolm PBX I was using when I called it. A week later it was not in service. If you know for a fact the number you are on, you can verify it (but who needs to verify a fact, right) by dialing 1-200-that number. You will get a high pitched tone with a break in the tone every two or three seconds. 1-200-any other returns re-order tone. Bear in mind, this is Chicago; I can't speak for other communities. This still does not resolve the question of how to find out the number being used. There are two approaches: Make a collect call (or credit card call) to your home number or some phone under your control. When the bill comes, note where it says the call came from. If you do not want to wait a month for the bill to arrive, and need the information now, there is another, less forthright approach, which will probably interest the {Risks} readers among us. The other technique involves making a person to person call, and asking the operator to leave word for your party. For example, if your friend Joe Doakes was en route to New York City, and was going to be staying at the Waldorf Astoria, you'd probably call 212-355-3000 person to person, and have the operator leave word with the hotel operator. They used to call it an 'Operator 8 leave word'. When the operator asks where should Mr. Doakes call you to return your call, tell the operator "just give this number, I will be right here". So in her effecient way she will instruct the Waldorf Astoria operator to have Mr. Doakes return the call to Mr. Smith at 312-xxx-yyyy. Thank you operator! Thank you indeed. The operator who thinks twice about it -- which most of them don't -- will split the connection while she passes the number. The reason I say it never occurs to them to cut the calling party out of the line is because I frequently get collect calls from people and I want to bill it to my AT&T Calling Card to take advantage of Reach Out rates late at night. Before I pass the card number to the calling operator, I always have to tell her to split the connection so the caller will not hear my PIN. Of course this latter approach, of calling a non-existent person and leaving word for a call back is quite simply, fraud. I would suggest the former approach, where you at least pay something for a phone call. Patrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 14:43:26 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: ANI Backfiring Already (from RISKS) Here's another telecom-related item from the RISKS Digest: ***Begin Included item*** Date: Sat, 15 Apr 89 15:53:18 EDT From: USER=GEBM@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: Companies mask ANI to calm callers The following condensed from Bob Wallace, Network World v6#7 2/20/89 pg 1. Fear of alienating customers has encouraged some companies to rethink the way they use ISDN's automatic number identification (ANI) capability. American Express Travel Related Services Co. (TRS), AT&T's first commercial ISDN user, reportedly found that customers were startled when some of its agents greeted them by name. TRS has since prohibited the practice. Richard Zatarga [TRS employee], in a presentation at a "Preparing for ISDN" conference in Toronto (12/88), said TRS now avoids identifying callers by name. "We have changed the way we answer the [telephone]. We know who they are, but we still hunt for information" from callers as if we had to identify them. Although TRS has since denied that it used ANI to identify callers by name and that it received negative feedback from cardholders, sources close to the project who requested anonymity said numerous users reacted unfavorably to personalized greetings. TRS "learned that you don't answer the telephone with the customer's name." American Transtech, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T (and the first company to test ISDN Primary Rate Interface [32B+D]), processes one million calls a day, making it the nation's fourth largest telemarketing company. The company does not, however, greet callers by name. "We could do it, but we don't want to let customers know we can capture their telephone number," said a spokesman. "We don't use [specialized greetings] because it would intimidate callers." Besides the RISK of alienating customers with ANI, there is a pervasive fear among prospective ANI implementors that callers will raise legal objections to ANI once they know how it works. People with unlisted phone numbers are expected to spearhead that movement. According to Huel Halliburton, a communications manager with Centel Electric, central office switches equipped to support equal access deliver the phone numbers of callers with both listed and unlisted telephone numbers to companies that use ANI. ***End of item*** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 12:48:14 PDT From: David Gast Subject: AT&T Cited on Illegal Service Our moderator who is always finding great new AT&T and BOC services seems to have missed this story about AT&T. (If it had been an AOS, I feel we would have received a long story about it). Capping a two-year investigation, the FCC unanimously ruled last week that AT&T illegally offered customized telephone networks to large business customers at special prices. The FCC ordered AT&T to make these networks available to all customers. The tariff under which these networks are offered is called Tariff 12 service. The FCC found that AT&T currently restricts this service to certain geographic areas. Such restriction is illegal under the communications act of 1934. I and others have pointed out that the 70% market share controlled by AT&T makes this type of abuse possible. Due to the cost nature of the telephone business (high fixed costs, almost zero marginal cost), subsidizing large firms is likely to occur. Providing fair telephone service to all is one reason that I and others do not favor deregulating AT&T. Allowing AT&T to behave like an AOS is not going to solve our telephone problems. A much better solution is to regulate the AOSes. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California Date: 19 Apr 89 03:50:50 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: | | You don't have to be a hotel guest to get a wake-up call anymore. | People in California can now dial a service called '976-WAKE' and arrange | a telephonic alarm clock/reminder service for the next day. I don't know about the rest of the world, but Australia has had this service for years. However, it is a manual service (you speak to a Real Person), and I presume the cited service is automatic. This has its advantages, since you are called back within a minute or so, to confirm it (you have to say what number the call is to go to), and this obviously reduces the potential for abuse. Of course, this is easily circumvented by methods I need not go into. Does the California system perform any such checks? Or does it immediately know the number you are calling from? Suppose you really want the call to go elsewhere? Is this comp.risks material? -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 21:21:55 EST From: statton@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: $4K T-1 for real? Well, I'm no expert in x-continental T-1 pricing (I just have to figger out how many I want ... not how much they'll cost), but I suspect that sattelite based circuits will get cheaper and cheapr. They're all but useless for voice communications, because of delay (and related echo) problems, but for hacker-based networks, they'd be really winning. With more and more traffic being moved to fiber based networks, I see sattelite channels being given away in boxes of cereal. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 10:20:20 PDT From: Sam Ho Subject: Hello Direct ZIP code A minor note, but Hello Direct's 9-digit ZIP code is 95131-1121. The 9000-series endings are used to route business-reply mail for reverse charging the addressee. (Yes, this list is about the telephone system, not the post office.) Sam Ho / samho@larry.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #139 *****************************   Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 0:45:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #140 Message-ID: <8904210045.aa02981@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:25:45 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 140 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Tariffs -- First Minute Costs More (Kenneth Selling) Finding your phone number (Kenneth H. Lee) Phoney for Rent (Scott Statton) Call Waiting Deluxe service names (Bill Cerny) Telephone Extender ?? (Bill Gerosa) Re: Telephone Extender (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20-APR-1989 03:29:12.35 From: Kenneth Selling Subject: Tariffs -- First Minute Costs More Some new AT&T long distance rates puzzle me. In the new April 1989, tariff, certain short-haul rates (around 80 - 100 miles, night rates here) are: First Minute = 11 cents (e.g., Middletown, Conn, 203 - 344 to Addtl. Minute = 12 cents NYC 212 , or Springfield, Mass 413) Note the first minute costs LESS. I thought that the reasoning in the past for having the initial minute *more* expensive than the rest was to theoretically charge for making the connection. Operator-assisted calls still tack a hefty charge on the initial minute, then charge direct-dial rates for addtl. minutes. Does anyone out there have ideas as to what strategy AT&T is following here? I can only think of one reason, which is to end up being more competitive with other interstate carriers in 1 - 3 minute comparison tests used in advertising. The pattern above seems widespread with AT&T. For some longer distance calls (e.g., coast-to-coast), AT&T rates are now the same for first and additional minutes. Ignoring competitive strategy for a moment, perhaps AT&T now considers the cost of "making the connection" negligible. Interestingly, it is only on relatively short-haul rates that AT&T is slightly more expensive than major competitor US Sprint. On some long-haul rates, I have found that AT&T is now less expensive than Sprint. Not surprisingly, Sprint's advertising features almost exclusively short-haul rates. In the opinion of the informed TELECOM reader, why might this be the case? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= /------------------------------\ Ken Selling | The Scholar on the Schwinn | \------------------------------/ Organization: Wesleyan University Internet: kselling@eagle.wesleyan.edu BITNET: kselling%eagle@wesleyan.bitnet Local: :-) kselling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1989 14:23:01 EDT From: "Kenneth H. Lee" Subject: Finding your phone number In New York City, one can easily find out the phone number for most phones by dialing "958" and waiting for a synthesized voice which recites the number. This works most of the time. If it didn't work you'll just get a fast busy signal. I'm not sure if this works for all phones in New York State, even though all phone service is handled by New York Telephone. This a good for those times when you aren't sure about the accuracy of the number listed on the pay phone. I'm not sure if this works on "third party" pay phone, i.e. those pay phones not maintained by New York Telephone. /k Kenneth H. Lee khl@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu Columbia University ...{topaz|rutgers}!columbia!cunixc!khl 209 Watson, 612 West 115 Street khlcu@cuvmc.bitnet New York, NY 10025 (212) 854-8230 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 23:12:28 EST From: statton@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Phoney for Rent Greetings! As many of you may know, I've been employed with my current employer a little over a year now. I currently live and work in Metro Boston, and would like to relocate to California, preferably San Jose/Peninsula area. Since there may very-well be people in a hiring position on this list, I thought I'd give a very brief description of my current job, in case your firm has a position, or you know a firm that does. My official job title is "Chief Hacker", but that doesn't look good to people with a non-MIT point of view. The job I hold is the combination of three other jobs, "Switching Supervisor", "Transmission Supervisor", and "Facilities Manager". I am responsible for day-to-day operation and maintenance of a Northern Telecom (Danray) CTSS-4000 digital tandem switch. I handle both software and hardware maintenance. I'm also responsible for QC on all VF transmission facilities, ordering, turnup, and acceptance of facilities. I would like to find a position with a firm using this switch, or perhaps it's cousin, the DSC DEX-400. If you have any leads, you'd make me a happy hacker indeed! From the Terminal of Scott Statton, N1GAK statton@bu-cs.bu.edu previously scotts@bu-it.bu.edu also scott@eddie.mit.edu +1 617 738 8299 ------------------------------ From: Bill Cerny Subject: Call Waiting Deluxe service names Date: 20 Apr 89 14:30:55 GMT Organization: Telecomm Research Associates, St. Marys, KS I'm compiling a list of the various service names for the *70 feature that disables call waiting for the duration of a call. Please tell me the service name, and the phone company/ies using it, e.g.: "Cancel Call Waiting" - Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell I'll post a summary later. -- Bill Cerny bill@toto.uucp (fax: 913-437-2600) ------------------------------ From: Bill Gerosa Subject: Telephone Extender ?? Date: 20 Apr 89 23:12:57 GMT Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci. Does anybody know what a telephone "extender" number is? My friend has one of these numbers. It is (an 800 number), and when he calls it all he gets is a strange tone. Does anyone know what this type of number is used for? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 0:19:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Telephone Extender Bill (see prior message) asks about the nature of 'telephone extenders'. Actually, they are more correctly called 'WATS extenders', since their main purpose is generally to permit the use of an outgoing WATS line by someone calling in on another line. Let's say you are an outside sales rep for some company, or an executive who travels a lot in the course of your business. You need to make many long distance calls, and making them by putting coins in a phone or by charging each call to a calling card or third number gets expensive. You certainly wouldn't call collect to your customer either! :) The thinking is that the cost of an incoming call via an 800 'toll free' line added to the cost of an outgoing call via the company's WATS lines is still less expensive than a directly routed call on which a surcharge for calling card or coin collection is imposed. The tone your friend is hearing when he dials the 800 number is most likely the internal dial tone for the phone system at the company he is reaching. In all probability, an access code, or password is required at this point to go further. Once the proper password has been entered, the caller is given use of the company's phone system remotely, the same as if he were in an office at the company using an actual extension phone. He *is* on an extension of the company's phone system actually, since the incoming line is answered and electronically connected to an extension at the company. After entering the appropriate password, the caller can then proceed to dial an outgoing call as if he were calling from his office. He would enter whatever access code is required to get an outside line, then dial the desired number. Although there are now two links in the connection instead of just one, had he dialed direct to the other party, the line degradation is not usually too bad. Both parties can hear each other and talk okay. When he is finished with his call, he will press a touch tone button on the phone, typically the octothorpe (#), to tell the 'WATS extender' that the outgoing line can now be disconnected. The company's internal dial tone will return to the line, and he can place other calls or he can simply hang up if he is finished with his calls. The use of these devices by persons not authorized to make calls through the connecting phone system is considered fraud. The company which owns the device can prosecute you, and generally the phone company is more than willing to assist in the prosecution. Here at [TELECOM Digest] we talk about anything and everything related to telephone systems and communications with a couple of exceptions: We don't print passwords/authorization codes; nor do I print telephone numbers which could concievably be used by someone reading the message who has less than honorable intentions. I'm sure you understand. :) Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #140 *****************************   Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 2:08:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #141 Message-ID: <8904220208.aa21578@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Apr 89 01:37:50 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 141 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Canadian Phone Monopoly Attacked (Gerry Wheeler) Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Kurt A. Geisel) Ringbacks Revisited (Kevin Lightner) MCI Telecommunications Needs Phone Switch Hacker (Jon Solomon) Followup Report on MultiQuest Service (Richard Edell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) Subject: Canadian phone monopoly attacked Date: 21 Apr 89 13:52:56 GMT Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont. Well, it looks as though the Canadian phone system might be undergoing the same upheaval as the US system has. The following item appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on Thursday April 20. It is reprinted without permission. ================================================================= Rogers, CNCP Will Challenge Bell Monopoly By Karen Lewis The Canadian Press Toronto -- Long-distance telephone service will no longer be the preserve of Bell Canada and the provincial phone companies if cable king Ted Rogers and CNCP are successful in an alliance announced Wednesday. "Soviet-style telecommunications monopolism is out of date," Rogers, a colorful entrepreneur and president of Rogers Communications, told a crowded news conference. "Even in Russia they are allowing some competition, which improves people's standard of living." Rogers Communications and CNCP Telecommunications, both based in Toronto, said they are joining forces to forge a new company. It will fight to offer an alternative long-distance telephone network that would lower costs and provide innovative services, they said. Bell Canada and provincial phone companies like SaskTel -- through their affiliation with Telecom Canada -- have a monopoly in the long-distance business. Under the deal announced Wednesday, Rogers Communications Inc. would pay up to $275 million for 40 per cent of CNCP. A final agreement is being negotiated and will be subject to regulatory approval, the companies said. The new company will get a new name. CNCP reiterated its intention to apply to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for permission to offer long-distance services. The application will be made within six months, the company said. CNCP's first application was denied in 1985. At that time, CNCP had said the new service could result in average rate reductions of 10 to 20 per cent from consumers' bills. CNCP president George Harvey said he couldn't say how much comsumers would benefit if the Rogers and CNCP alliance breaks the monopoly. Rogers said there would be some lowering of cost "but the real thrust of the application will be innovative new services." But Bell Canada spokesman Linda Gervais reiterated the company's argument that consumers will suffer because the any reduction in long-distance revenues will result in larger bills for local service. "We're not convinced it's in the interest of our customers," she said in an interview. A spokesman for the Consumers' Association of Canada also said it would be bad news for consumers if the monopoly is broken. "Some subscribers will not be able to afford phone service any more due to the rise in local rates," David McKendry said from Ottawa. In the United States, where there is competition, only 93 per cent of household have telephones; 99 per cent have them in Canada. In a fiery defence of the competition, Rogers said Bell's argument "is preposterous. It's nonsense." And Harvey said CNCP will try to "explode the myth that local rates would have to rise if long-distance rates come down." CNCP, which uses microwave and satellite technology to send voice and data signals across Canada and around the world, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Ltd. "The sale will create a strategic alliance that will strengthen the base on which CNCP intends to build a major second force in tthe Canadian telecommunications industry," said William Stinson, president of Canadian Pacific. Rogers would become the chairman of the new venture with CNCP. Rogers Communications owns the Cantel cellular telephone network as well as the Rogers cable television service. CNCP's application for a long-distance licence could take up to a year to review, including hearings, said Pierre Pontbriand, a spokesman for the CRTC in Ottawa. Rogers said a new long-distance service could be in place two months after approval. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 10:47:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work An unnamed acquaintance of mine at an unnamed university [not this one] kept telling me about this trick he was using to make all his long distance phone calls. At first, I didn't believe him at all because it sounded like there was no way it would work. But, he is quite persistant at boasting about this trick and a friend confirmed that he is actually doing it. Then, I began to tell him it was a dangerous anomoly and he should stop now before it catches up with him. Anyway, here is how it goes: 1) Place a call from a pay phone, but go through the long distance operator and tell them that you want to charge to number x. 2) Give them the number of another payphone. 3) Have friend answer the payphone and agree to accept charges. 4) The call goes through (!) and presumable the payphone gets "charged"! Now, it would seem to me that the operator would be able to see right away that the number to charge to was a payphone. It shouldn't work unless this service branch is surprisingly ignorant. Furthermore, after doing for months, the phone company should eventually realize that this bills are going into the ether... Is this for real? Will they ever find out? Will this misguided person get a mysterious bill at the end of his college education for $50,453.23? Has anyone heard of such trickery working? - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, BIX : kgeisel briefed, debriefed, or numbered!" - The Prisoner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 11:35:50 CDT From: Kevin Lightner Subject: Ringbacks Revisited I once read about these ringback numbers in a magazine called Phrack Inc. I have recycled the information here. Below is a partial listing of the ringback numbers for people in the St. Louis, Missouri (314 NPA) area. To get your phone to ring; 1. Lets say your phone number begins with 432. Find the CODE for 432, in this case the CODE is 575. 2. Dial 575-XXXX (where XXXX = the last four digits of YOUR phone number). 3. Wait for the other end to answer. You should hear a low pitched tone at this point. 4. Flash the switch hook of your telephone and wait for what sounds like a faint dial tone. 5. Hang up your telephone. 6. :-) Prefix CODE Prefix Code ------ ---- ------ ---- 432 575 867 552 521 557 868 573 522 452 869 574 524 557 872 571 567 574 921 972 569 978 991 552 694 972 993 952 831 552 994 573 837 557 997 977 838 573 227 852 839 952 527 877 Enjoy! :Kevin Lightner (C483307@UMCVMB.BITNET) (C483307@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 01:55:20 EDT From: jsol@bu-it.bu.edu Subject: MCI telecommunications needs phone switch hacker Scott: this one's for you. You already know about it tho, and it is probably not in California. When I had a business, I had (617) 864-6440. I had MCI install an in-wats line (that's what we used to call them before they started calling them 800 numbers). I got 1-800-666-9633. When the business went under, I transferred the 800 number to my residence line. (617) 354-8676. Recently I decided to cancel the 800 number. I called MCI. They told me I had to write them a letter explaining that I wanted a disconnect. I did this. They called me and said they wanted to know why I was disconnecting. I told them why. This after much telephone tag. Finally, I got the contact person and she explained that "due to a problem, beyond their control, they are unable to disconnect the number." They assured me that if I sent them a copy of my Bill, they would gladly issue me a credit each month until this gets resolved. Meanwhile, I disconnected the line. If you call 1-800-666-9633 you will get a recording saying 354-8676 is disconnected (until they reassign it). I actually have two 800 numbers, but the second one is connected to my home phone number, and I won't tell you what that is. MCI can't disconnect that 800 number either. The number is pretty dear to my heart, so I don't want to disconnect it too. --jsol [Moderator's Note: Jonathan A. Solomon was the founder of {TELECOM Digest} and the moderator of this news group for the first several years of its existence. PT] ------------------------------ From: Richard Edell Subject: Followup Report on MultiQuest Date: 21 Apr 89 19:50:58 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >If anyone gets specifics on this regards pricing and how it is installed, >etc, please write it up for publication here. Installation is similar to 800 service via dedicated access (leased T-1 or, not cost effective, leased voice grade lines). This service will not be available from every AT&T point-of-presence. It does appear (from the tariff) that they intend to include at least one point-of-presence in each LATA. Costs - *FROM TARIFF*: Non-Recurring Charges: Service Arrangement* (one 900 number) $1,200 900 Number Added or Changed 175/number Monthly Charges: Service Arrangement* 1,000 Each additional 900 number 125 Usage Charges: Initial Minute (or fraction) 0.30 Each Additional Minute (or fraction) 0.25 Note that these charges do not include the access arangement (T-1 or voice grade lines) which, here in Pacific Bell teritory, costs $400/month for a "local" (0 miles) connection. I don't know the current installation cost for a "local" connection. * Service Arrangement includes up to 960 access lines (this isn't mentioned in the tariff but is mentioned in the service description I mention below.) The tariff does not have specifics regarding "Premium Billing" but a service description sent to me in early February gives some details. Caller charges will be based upon the office code (NXX) of the 900 number as given in the following table: NXX 1st Min Addit Min --- ------- --------- 344 $0.00 $0.00 342 0.75 0.00 786 1.25 0.00 773 2.00 0.00 370 0.75 0.50 420 1.00 0.50 740 1.25 0.75 820 1.50 0.75 860 2.00 1.00 If the "sponsor" selects premium billing then AT&T will charge the sponsor a "Billing Service Charge" of 10% of the retail price (the amount the caller pays) in addition to all the tariffed charges mentioned above. >Multiquest, according to AT&T, is the first national, interactive 900 >service for businesses. Maybe they were very clever in how they worded this but Telesphere/Media 4 have been offering 900 service for about 2 years. Perhaps Telesphere doesn't cover every LATA for inbound service. It is worth noting that while 900 service is implemented in a fashion similar to 800 service (except for billing), the per minutes charges ($.30/.25) are about 150% higher. A general note about AT&T 900 services: MultiQuest is diferrent from Dial-It in that the program is supplied at the sponsors site, allowing interaction (if the sponsor wishes it). Dial-It 900 is a mass announcement service allowing only outgoing messages, all the same. -Richard J. Edell (edell@garnet.berkeley.edu) (415-882-7133) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #141 *****************************   Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 22:01:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #142 Message-ID: <8904222201.aa28576@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Apr 89 21:33:57 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 142 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Bell claim to cable in my building (Richard Edell) Re: Finding your phone number (denber.wbst@xerox.com) Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (Kevin Lightner) What is the "busy signal number"? (Evelyn C. Leeper) Re: Good Supply Sources (Brent Laminack) Re: ANI Backfiring Already (from RISKS) (D. W. James) Tariffs (Jerry Glomph Black) Looking for Houston internet access... (Brian Jay Gould) Phone company double billing (Leonard P Levine) Telephone Extender (Kevin Lightner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Edell Subject: Re: Bell claim to cable in my building Date: 21 Apr 89 20:24:41 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article SWINGLERS%BAYLOR.BITNET @mitvma.mit.edu (Steve Swingler) writes: >My local BOC say that they own the feeder cable that is completly within one >of my dorms. They plan to remove it. I was under the impression that this >cable now belongs to us. > >Can someone give me the exact ruling in this type of situation. > Unless you've paid for it (either installed it at your expense or bought it from the RBOC) the cable (I believe it's called House Wire) belongs to the regional bell operation company (RBOC). Pacific Bell (in California) has tariffs filed listing prices for purchasing existing house wire. These prices are broken down to things like punch-down blocks, cable feet (by number of pairs), etc. The price is based upon the condition of the cable. If the RBOC owns the cable only the RBOC is allowed to use it (i.e. phone lines before demarkation point). You're not supposed to use the wire for your PBX, computer terminals, or LAN. If you own the cable you can put your PBX, computer terminals, or LAN on it. If you want the RBOC to put thier phone lines on your cable then you're not supposed to have non-FCC registered equipment on the cable. At my former employer we had a pre-divestiture (AT&T manufactured, RBOC owned) PBX using house wire for distribution. This PBX became AT&T property when the RBOCs were prohibited from leasing customer premise equipment. So a situation was created where non-RBOC equipment was using RBOC wire. When we replaced the equipment one of the questions raised by the new equipment vendor (Pac Tel Info Systems) was the ownership of the house cable. We ended-up not buying the cable, just-removing the old PBX and installing the new on the old cable. Later we started wireing computer terminals through the house wire. It was only after I left this employer that I learned about the house wire regulations. I don't know that if I knew the regulations at the time if it would have changed how we wired things. -Richard J. Edell (edell@garnet.berkeley.edu) (415 882-7133) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 89 15:41 EDT From: denber.wbst@xerox.com Subject: Re: Finding your phone number >"I'm not sure if this works for all phones in New York State, even though >all phone service is handled by New York Telephone." It doesn't and it isn't. Rochester Telephone Corp. serves the city of Rochester and an area from Lake Ontario on the north, and roughly half-way to Buffalo on the west, Syracuse on the east, and well into the Southern Tier on the south. The number here is 511. - Michel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 11:03:29 CDT From: Kevin Lightner Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number In the St. Louis (314 NPA) area, you can dial 410-XXX-XXXX (Where the X's are any phone number that is real in the area) and it will tell you the number you are dialing from. In Columbia, MO (also 314), you can dial 530 and it will do the same. Both of which by a computer generated voice. St. Louis is under Southwestern Bell and Columbia is handled by GTE. Does anyone else know of more of these? :Kevin Lightner (C483307@UMCVMB.BITNET) (C483307@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU) ------------------------------ From: "Evelyn C. Leeper" Subject: What is the "busy signal number"? Date: 21 Apr 89 15:07:47 GMT Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ Does anyone know what the number is that you can dial to get a busy signal? (Yeah, it's a weird question.) I believe the exchange doesn't matter, so it's just the last four digits. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- ------------------------------ From: Brent Subject: Re: Good Supply Sources D). Apparently they want to increase rates in Mass for all customers. What I am wondering, both for Mass. customers and for outside of Mass, is how the flat-rate/measured-rate fight is going. I now live within local calling of all the computers I could ever want (;-), and I don't need metropolitan service and don't have it on any of my lines. That means if I dial outside of Cambridge, Boston Central exchange, Somerville, Charlestown, Brookline, Brighton, or Watertown, I incur message units. Since I don't make any data calls to those areas, and don't talk long voice on most of my calls, I don't see a problem with that. However, if flat rate goes away entirely, my phone bill is going to be large. I remember Patrick telling me that his calls to telenet were message unit calls, and he was paying about $300.00/month. I think I use the phone far more than that for data, so my bill in his area would be more like $600.00. Patrick, can you tell us what the message unit charges per unit are like in Chicago and what the call to Telenet was (# of message units). Also, is there a discount for calling at night? If they take away Metropolitan service, I won't be sorry unless I find myself moving away from the Cambridge/Boston area. I moved to Cambridge because I needed direct access to Boston; but now that we have a microwave to MIT, I can move into Somerville (which doesn't have local calling to Boston Central -- where the BU dialups are), I can still call MIT and net over from there. Phew. On the other hand, if I were to move beyond that small area, I would incur message unit charges. We have a 3-tier message unit scale. One message unit calls are 5 minutes long. Each additional message unit is another 5 minutes, but only for one and two message unit calls (I think -- Scott ... correct me if I am wrong). Three message unit calls are expensive. I wouldn't want to make data calls at three message units. Something of interest (Carl Moore, you are going to like this one): Calls from Cambridge to Lynn, Mass are within the metropolitan area, but are toll for flat rate and measured rate (incl business) customers. That means they appear itemized on the bill just like any other toll call, but you don't have to dial 1 to get them. Interestingly enough, when you have toll restriction, you can call Lynn just by dialing the 7 digits, but it's billed as a toll call. The idea is if you want a toll restricted residential line to be for public use, get metropolitan service to protect yourself totally. Cambridge, ex: (617) 354. Lynn, ex: (617) 599. The phone book says with metropolitan service you can call any area which is listed on a certain page (which is all the areas which are measured service rates), plus Burlington, Lynn, and Saugus. I think these areas are all toll if you don't have metropolitan service. It's alot of fun planning for your phone calling needs in Boston. There are alot of options (including pay phones in nearby locations). That's it for now. --jsol [Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon was the founder of {TELECOM Digest} and the moderator of this forum for several years. In a message tomorrow, I will describe the unit billing scheme used here. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: WPM and Baud Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 15:50:12 PDT From: "Willis H. Ware" Perhaps some of you can clarify with certainty a question that I have asked many telecommunicators and gotten unsure and/or waffling answers. It concerns bits and baud rates, and units. In careless usage, I notice (especially among computer types) the use of baud and bits per second synonymously - which I believe to be a corruption of the units. I'm familiar with the old mechanical TWX machines and their mechanical commutators, so I know that they transmitted a start pulse, 5 data pulses (a Baudot character) and a stop pulse per rev of the commutator and thus, per character transmitted. I also know where the name Baudot code comes from and the derivation of Baud from the proper name. My hunch is that Baud, in a rigorous sense, ought to be used only in connection with a character group of the telecom system in question and to designate the rate of transmission of such character groups, be they the 7-bit groups of the old TWX, or the 8-bit groups of byte-oriented systems. Thus the relationship between Baud and bps (I'll assert) will be variable and dependent upon the system under discussion, if the term is used with rigor and precision. In elaborate systems that incorporate error-control and other things, the bps and (for example) the bytes per sec will not differ by 8 but some larger number dependent on various technical details of the transmission format, including extra bits added for error control. OR maybe the accessory (so to speak) bits are never counted? Maybe a Baudot character is really 5 bits - ignoring the start and stop. Maybe error checking bits are never counter? Can you confirm any of this or point me to a precise definition of Baud? Of is this one of those things that the technical field is generally careless about? Incidentally, I occasionally run across someone that would like to use "elements per second" but it's a careless synonym for bits per second. On a related topic .. It seems to me that the "word" of Words Per Minute has always taken to be 5 characters which would make (say) 65 WPM equate to 325 characters per minute. If my argument above for meaning of Baud is accurate, then dividing by 7 (1+5+1) would yield a baud rate of about 46. OR maybe the divisor is 5 in which case the baud rate would be 65. I will appreciate any comments that you care to make. Thnx for your thoughts. Willis H. Ware RAND Corp Santa Monica, CA 90406 willis @ rand.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 17:41:42 EDT From: Gabe M Wiener Subject: speaking of ringbacks My family has a house in Litchfield, CT. Up there the ringback works a little differently. All you have to do to get one is: 1. Dial YOUR OWN number. 2. Listen for a "beep beep beep...." tone (not a reorder.....about twice as fast as a reorder). 3. Hang up 4. Wait about 10 seconds and your phone starts ringing. You can then pick up and hang up and it'll still keep ringing. 5. To stop the ringback, pick up, wait about 10 seconds with the line off hook. The beeping will stop. Then hang up and all is well again. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\******/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Gabe Wiener -- Columbia University \****/ "It doesn't matter how sincere it \**/ is, nor how heart-felt the spirit. INTERNET: gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu \/ Sentiment will not endear it. BITNET: gmw1@cunixc /\ What's important is the price." COMPUSERVE: 72355,1226 /**\ - Tom Lehrer WUI: 650-117-9118 /****\ on gift giving =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/******\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ From: menges@menges.cs.unc.edu (John Menges) Subject: Automated Telephone Calls Date: 23 Apr 89 00:29:01 GMT I'm looking for a box to do the following: - Initiate and receive voice telephone calls (one at a time is ok). - Speak messages (from arbitrary text, not pre-recorded) well enough for a small number of experienced users to understand. Better speech preferable, of course. - Interact with user by speaking messages, receiving responses via DTMF tones, and determining its sequence of actions accordingly. - Interact with a computer (preferably via TCP/IP, but serial line or file system (TOPS or NFS) is ok). Can send call progress and DTMF responses to computer, can receive call initiation info (phone numbers, arbitrary messages, interaction scripts, etc.) from computer. Preferably can do so during a conversation and determine its sequence of actions accordingly. Can notify computer when it is busy. Immediate application is network/host monitoring by computer (UNIX), which notifies operations personnel via email, syslog, and/or telephone of abnormal events and receives authorization code and "what to do" commands via DTMF. Alternatively, operator can call in to request certain status or that certain actions be taken. The more direct the connection between the controlling computer and the voice line, the better. E.g., it would be best if the box only speaks and decodes DTMF tones, and the computer makes decisions, tells the box what to speak, etc. Does anybody have experience with such a box? How about the Teleflex from Information Systems International Inc.? A big disadvantage of this box is that the connection to UNIX is less than direct, as it communicates with a MacIntosh. Ideas? Is there a better newsgroup for this? I'm interested in all such systems, regardless of cost, but what I put together will probably have to be < $10K. Primary consideration is how easy it will be to put together. ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: $4K T-1 for real? Date: 22 Apr 89 08:59:36 GMT Reply-To: chip@vector.dallas.tx.us Organization: Dallas Semiconductor statton@bu-cs.bu.edu writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 139, message 6 of 7 >Well, I'm no expert in x-continental T-1 pricing [...] >but I suspect that sattelite based circuits will get cheaper and cheaper. The bottom is falling fast on terrestrial T1 lines. AT&T dropped their rates a little while ago, and MCI just followed suit. From the April _Data_Communications_ Fixed Term Plans: 1year 2years 3years 4years 5years Per circuit: 5880$ 5880$ 5880$ 5880$ 5880$ Per mile: 171$ 142$ 142$ 123$ 123$ Personally, I think anybody who signs on the line for that 5-year plan must be nuts. -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 ------------------------------ From: Doug Krause Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work Date: 23 Apr 89 11:18:56 GMT Reply-To: Doug Krause Organization: University of California, Irvine If nothing else, the phone company could contact the person that you called and say, "Who called you at 9:16pm on the 23rd of June?" Douglas Krause CA Prop i: Ban Gummie Bears(tm)! University of California, Irvine ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa ------------------------------ Reply-To: toto!bill@apple.com Subject: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? Date: 22 Apr 89 14:02:40 CST (Sat) From: Bill Cerny Do you have this service in Illinois Bell? One of our associates tells me this service is called "Modem Call Privacy," but I haven't been able to confirm that yet. And does IBT charge extra for this feature? Pac*Bell provides it free with Call Waiting; a logical way to sell Call Waiting in the Silicon Valley I reckon. 8-) -- Bill Cerny bill@toto.uucp (fax: 913-437-2600) [Moderator's Note: Suspend Call Waiting is available throughout area 312 with the possible exception of the Morton Grove CO. It was not available on those prefixes as of a year ago, but that may have changed. We use *70 to turn it on, and it disconnects itself when you hang up the phone. You turn it on prior to dialing your call, as in '*70-123-4567'. If you have three way calling you can also use it on calls you receive as well as at anytime in the middle of a call. Just flash, get dial tone, and dial *70. It clicks and you are automatically reconnected to the call in progress. Obviously, without three way calling there is no valid reason for flashing in the middle of a call (short of receiving another call), so flashing won't work, ergo, turning on *70 in mid-conversation or for an inbound call won't work without three way calling also installed. One oddity here is that if you have two lines which hunt each other on busy/no answer as I do, they will never hunt if you also have call-waiting, since hunting requires that the line test busy, which it won't do. But when I turn on *70, presto the line appears 'truly busy' and subsequent calls get forced over to my second physical line. Neat! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #143 *****************************   Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 1:58:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #144 Message-ID: <8904240158.aa11394@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Apr 89 01:34:01 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 144 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Unit Billing in Chicago (TELECOM Moderator) Speaking of Starline... (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 0:14:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Unit Billing in Chicago For quite a few (like sixty) years, Illinois Bell offered several options for unit billing. The choice was yours, depending on the community you lived in and a few other factors. Units could be purchased in blocks of zero, thirty, eighty, one-hundred forty and two hundred at a time. These had to be used up during the month. You pre-subscribed for the number you thought you would need, taking care not to oversubscribe and waste any. If you used up your entire pre-paid package, additional units were billed to you, but at a price slightly more expensive than pre-paid. The more units you bought in advance, the cheaper they were. Units ranged in price from five and a half cents (the person who bought zero to begin with) to as little as three and nine-tenths cents each for the purchaser of two hundred who ran over and had to pay for more. Calls within your city or town were one unit, regardless of how long you talked. Five minutes or five hours, it was still just a single unit. Calls to other towns were billed on a time/mileage basis. Rates were typically three or four units to start with, and another unit every minute or two. You were free to use your prepaid units in any combination you desired between local (in your town) calls and calls to other nearby northern Illinois communities. For heavy users, three additional plans were available: 'call pack unlimited' permitted calling anywhere within a twenty-eight mile radius of downtown Chicago without regard to units. Calls beyond twenty-eight miles from downtown were billed as coin-rated calls. Obviously the cards were stacked in favor of business places in the downtown area. People on the outer edges of the ring, twenty-eight miles from downtown could call *into the city* as often as desired; let them call as little as a mile outside of town to the west/north/northwest/southest of them, and the coin rates kicked in. A second plan called 'extended call pack unlimited' resembled the other bulk plan, but allowed calling up to forty miles from downtown with no regard to units. The third bulk plan was 'metro call pack unlimited' which allowed unlimited calling throughout all of area 312, along with parts of area 815 and a single prefix from area 414. People in Chicago proper loved the call packs, obviously, especially if their calls were mainly to suburbs where the time/milage factor was present. But for suburbanites in the outer suburbs, the whole thing sucked, because their choices were limited to local (within their town, all six blocks of it) local calling - or - get the metro call pack unlimited in order to call even a few miles away, if they were unfortunate enough to sit on the outside of the 28 or 40 mile ring which circled downtown Chicago. Bell did offer a service called 'Pick-A-Point' which allowed a special discount on calls to pre-selected exchanges for a small monthly fee, but there were problems with that also. The people who wanted to get rid of the call packs and 'untimed local calls' (although local calls *did* cost one unit each) were in organizations like CUB -- the Citizen's Utility Board -- and similar consumer activist groups. They wanted a pay-as-you-use-it system for everyone, based on calculations which were obviously stacked in favor of the suburbanites. Don't forget, Chicago is thirty miles from one side of town to the other, and we could call a million phones over a twenty or twenty five mile area 'locally' on an untimed call basis. The suburbanites could not do that. Illinois Bell put a new plan into effect in March, 1987 which applied to everyone in their service territory in northern Illinois. The plan eliminated *all* unlimited call pack arrangements and prepaid unit packages. The new plan gave untimed calls for one unit to everyone within approximatly an eight mile radius of yourself. Each CO can call the CO's on any side of it as a local, untimed call. The political and geographic boundaries between the various towns no longer matter. Calls outside the eight mile area are charged multiple units, based on time and distance *and time of day*. Your local calling zone is always Zone A. Zone B is 8-15 miles away; Zone C is 15-40 miles from you; and Zone D is anything more than 40 miles away (from wherever you happen to be). In Zone A, a distinction is made between residence phones and business phones as follows: 8 AM - 9 PM 9 PM - 8 AM First minute: 1.0 0.7 Residence 0.7 0.4 Business Additional Mins 0.3 0.2 Business Additional Minutes do not apply on local Zone A calls from residence phones. Zone B calls: First Minute: 1.6 1.1 All phones Additional Mins 0.6 0.4 All phones Zone C calls: First Minute: 2.1 1.4 All phones Additional Mins 0.8 0.5 All phones Zone D calls: First Minute: 3.6 2.4 All phones Additional Mins 1.3 0.9 All phones Calls made during the nighttime hours are given a thirty-three percent discount *in the number of units used* as can be seen from the above chart. The cost of units goes down as you consume more. Of course by making most of your calls during the overnight hours, it takes longer to use the required number of units. At the end of your billing period, the number of units you have used are tallied, and priced thus: From 1 - 50 units x .052 cents each = 2.60 From 51-100 units x .050 cents each = 2.50 From 101-200 units x .048 cents each = 4.80 From 201-500 units x .045 cents each = 13.50 From 501-1000 units x .043 cents each = 21.50 From 1001-2000 units x .040 cents each = 40.00 In excess of 2001 units x .035 cents each As an example, 500 units would cost $23.40, with a certain number purchased at each of the intervening price steps shown above. 2000 units would cost $84.90. To this, you add the 'network access fee', plus other charges for non-pub service or additional listings, 'wire maintainence', if you choose to have it, and of course, custom calling fees. Uncle Sugar gets his portion as well. When we city people could call 'locally' for one unit and talk all day, I had a call-pack unlimited and was going through 2000+ units per month with my modem. When the changes went into effect I quickly quit making modem calls outside my local 8 mile area (zone A) with the exception of calls to the Telenet switch which is in Chicago-Lakeshore, a *zone B* place. I called via Telenet/PC Pursuit to (a) Portal Communications in San Jose, CA; and to the (then) home-base for [TELECOM Digest] in Boston. Despite the fact that I cut out virtually all modem calling outside my local area except for the call to Telenet, I was still on line there for two to three hours per day and still going through 2000+ units per month! The first few months of my moderation of this digest brought me telephone bills of $300 or more per month as a reward. Granted, that included my AT&T long distance calls and the various charges associated with my Starline service, but it was still eating me alive. I dropped Portal in February this year, and began using Chinet for local access to Usenet. Chinet, located in Chicago-Kildare is zone A. The digest moved to Northwestern University, Evanston, IL which is now a local, zone A call for me also. In the old days, Evanston would have been timed, with the clock running on all my calls there. My March phone bill had slightly over 700 units on it, a considerable drop from the months before. And even though the units cost me slightly more since it takes me longer to cross the threshold of 50/100/200/500 units consumed, the overall bill is probably less since I rarely use the modem until after 9 PM at night, or on weekends when the one third discount on *usage* (not price, mind you!) also applies, as of a couple months ago. When IBT dumped the old, unlimited call-pack plans, the loudest screams came from the modem users and the work from home telephone solicitors, needless to say. Where before unlimited call pack cost me about $80 per month and I would stay on the modem for literally hours at a time to far- away suburbs, the same calling practices now would run me hundreds of dollars. But, the new plan is fairer to all concerned. After all, modem users are still a small minority of the total customer base of the phone company. The people who rejoiced in the new arrangement were those folks who lived in the suburbs (about 50 percent of our metro population) who *had* to take unlimited plans based around downtown Chicago or else pay through the nostrils to call a mile or two from their home 'locally'. People on fixed incomes who make little use of the phone for outgoing calls also love the new arrangement. The old plan cost them on an average about $12-15 per month; under the new plan they pay $8.50 for the line and and the network access fee, but only pennies for the few outgoing calls they might make each month. Suffice to say, the modem users raised plenty of hell though! :) Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 1:31:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Speaking of Starline... I briefly mentioned Starline in the last message, and have had a few other inquiries about how it works, so I might as well cover that today also. Starline is a 'residential centrex' offering from Illinois Bell. Other telcos also offer it under various names. It combines existing custom calling features with several additional features which give the user a tremendous degree of control over the use of his phone lines. Starline can be installed on 2-6 lines at the same residence. Each line receives its own CO number, so if you have a roommate, or other members of the family who need to make/receive calls independent of your own, they can have their own number. Under Starline, these additional custom calling features are available: Answer any incoming call from any phone. If it is not the phone near you, then use that phone and dial *9. Call is automtically switched over to your line. Transfer inbound or outbound calls to any other line. Flash, dial the desired intercom code, announce call and hangup. Call is transferred. You can also transfer incoming or outgoing CO calls to another CO number if desired. Unlike three way calling, where you must be a party to the call between two outside points, under Starline you can transfer an outside call to another outside point then disconnect; leaving them connected. Intercom calling between various phones. Not to be confused with speed dialing, which is also available. Intercom numbers #2 through #7 are assigned to the (up to six) phone lines. No charge for intercom calls. Distinctive ringing between intercom calls and CO calls. CO calls have a short, double ring sound. Intercom calls have a single longer ring. You can identify the source of the call to detirmine the desired answer phrase. There are also distinctive call waiting tones. Call forwarding of course transfers incoming CO calls to some other place. Under Starline, intercom calls override call forwarding, and ring through. Call forwarding can be straightforward on all calls, or it can be done under a provision called 'forward on busy or no answer' (after three rings). The forwarding can simply be to another number in your group, or to some other CO line. Call Hold and Call Parking is accomplished by flashing, then dialing *8. At that point, simply leave the phone off hook. The call remains on hold and can be retrieved from some other line by going off hook and dialing *9. Or the original line can pick the call up by hanging up for a second, waiting for the phone to ring, then answering. Call Waiting does require an extra step not required in conventional custom calling. Ordinarily you hear the tone and simply flash, to bring the other party on the line. Repeated flashing switches between parties. Under Starline there are several things one can do when flashing, so the additional step of dialing *8 to put the existing party on hold is required; then dialing *9 to retrieve the new call if it is on some other line than your own. Under Starline, you can process call-waiting calls from either end of the stack. That is, you can 'pop the stack' and take the one on the bottom and transfer it elsewhere all the while leaving the latest caller on hold. Under conventional custom calling, one cannot start a three way call while a call-waiting condition exists, since flashing the hook simply switches between callers. One can answer a call-waiting condition while a three way call is in progress, but you still have problems getting a new three way call going until the call-waiting person is gone. All these manipulations are quite easy under Starline, due to the additional step of entering *8 which is required to force a party on or off hold, leaving the switchhook free to do other things. Starline automatically comes with a 30 number speed dial repretoire. The speed numbers can be programmed from any line in the system and accessed from any line in the system using access codes *20 through *49. They are programmed using *75. Units charged on any line are billed to a master account for the purpose of accumulating them for volume discount purposes; however they can be billed individually if desired. Likewise, on long distance calls, your long distance carrier can show the various numbers in your group under one account if desired for the benefits of whatever bulk pricing options are available; however the calls will show up on your bill broken down by actual line they were made from. All in all, I like Starline. It gives me *tremendous* control over the phone, and the way calls are answered and disposed of. IBT charges $5.50 per line/month in addition to what the custom calling features would normally cost. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #144 *****************************   Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 0:20:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #145 Message-ID: <8904250020.aa27191@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Apr 89 00:04:30 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 145 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Missouri: PSC Bans Operator Companies (Rich Zellich) Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth (Scott Statton) Flash! (Was: Re: Centrex) (Otto J. Makela) Southwestern Bell's QuickSource (Bill Cerny) Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Linc Madison) Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Neil Ostroff) Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Tim Pozar) [Moderator's Note: You would have to be an old man to remember a famous radio news broadcaster, Gabriel Heater. Very much a cynic, Heater seldom had anything good to say about anyone he didn't like. But about once every six months or so, something would happen which he really enjoyed, and on those days he would always begin his broadcast by saying, "There is good news tonight...". And I start this issue of the Digest in the same way: Good News! for folks in Missouri, at least. Read our first article, submitted by Rich Zellich. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 21:46:44 CST From: Rich Zellich Subject: Missouri: PSC Bans Operator Companies From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24 Apr 89. --- P S C B a n s O p e r a t o r C o m p a n i e s By Jerri Stroud Of the Post-Dispatch Staff The Missouri Public Service Commission voted 4-1 last week to ban providers of so-called alternative operator services in Missouri because allowing the companies to operate is "not in the public interest." Alternative operator services companies contract with hotels, motels colleges, hospitals, airports, restaurants and other facilities to provide operator assistance to customers using pay telephones or house phones. Consumer groups have complained about price-gouging by the companies nationwide. Mark Wheatley, a lawyer for the Office of Public Counsil [sic], praised the commission's decision. The Office of Public Counsel has received numerous complaints about excessive rates and surcharges by alternative operator services companies, said Wheatley. Some alternative operator services companies also have accepted other companies' credit cards without authorization from the companies issuing the cards, he said. "We feel that it's an extremely important decision by the commission." said Wheatley. But he said he expects the companies affected by the ruling to appeal. Lawyers for the alternative operator services companies could not be reached for comment. In it's ruling, the commission said many consumers aren't aware of the rates charged by the alternative operator services companies until they receive "a bill for operator services at prices higher than those to which he is accustomed." Consumer groups say the rates often are twice or three times the rates charged by better-known long-distance companies. Even if an operator service company identifies itself when a consumer makes a call, the commission said many consumers don't understand the significance of the identification. "If the end user is not educated as to the intricacies of using an alternative operator services provider, he does not truly have a meaningful choice..." the commission said. The ruling only affects intrastate calls handled by alternative operator services companies, but it may effectively prevent the companies from providing interstate service as well. The commission specifically denied tariff requests from International Telecharge Inc. and American Operator Services Inc. The commission also directed three other companies - Teleconnect Inc., Dial US and Dial USA - to file new tariffs consistent with the ruling. The ruling allows companies to operate who provide operator services in connection with their business - long-distance carriers and local telephone companies, for example. But the commission also placed limits on these companies. Under the ruling, operator services companies must: * Identify themselves to the caller as well as to the party being billed by the call (in the case of a collect or third-party call). * Quote rates to the caller or billed party on request, without charge. * Use calling card verification procedures acceptable to the companies issuing the cards. * Post in a prominent position the company's name, detailed complaint procedures and instruction on how to reach the local telephone company operator and other long-distance carriers. * Transfer emergency traffic to the local telephone company or American Telephone & Telegraph Co. until the alternative services provider can show that it can handle emergency calls adequately. --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 20:34:18 EDT From: Scott Statton Subject: Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth In a recent digest, Willis H. Ware writes asking questions about the relation between baud rate and bit rate. There's a lot of hand-waving about Baudot and character length and the like, but the basic question was "what is baud rate vs. bit rate". Definition #1: Baud rate is the reciprocal of the duration of the shortest signalling element. Or, "elements-per-second". Definiton #2: Bit rate is the number of data bits transmitted from point A to point Z in one second. Take the case of a Bell 103 FSK modem, (0 - 300 baud, asyncronous) at 300 baud/bits-per-second. A one bit is transmitted as 3.333 mS of "mark tone" and a zero bit is transmitted as 3.333 mS of "space tone" (where mark is either 2225 or 1270 for Answer or Originate respectively, and space is either, 2025 or 1070 for Answer/Originate). In this case, the "signalling element" for either tone is 3.333 mS, for a "baud rate" of 300. Now, for example, let's consider the Bell 212A 1200 bit-per-second modem. This uses a carrier of 1800 Hz Answer, and 1200 Hz originate, that is not frequency shift keyed, but instead is phase shifted. There are four phase shifts (it's either { 0, 90, 180, 270 } or { 45, 135, 225, 315 } I confuse formats in my head ) each shift representing two bits. For sake of argument, assume the following table (but I'm sure it's wrong) 00 = 90 shift 01 = 180 10 = 0 11 = 270 In other words, each signalling element sends TWO bits, for a BAUD rate of 600 (1200 bps / 2). In a APSK system, such as 9600 bd. half-duplex, there are several phase/amplitude combinations, representing 8 or 16 states, ergo 3 or 4 bits, and thus a baud rate of 3200 or 2400 (depending on complexity of the format). In a transmission system, there are two constraints to "information speed". These are (1) Bandwidth, and (2) Signal-to-Noise ratio. The maximum BAUD rate is related (directly and linearly) to Bandwidth. The maximum number of bits per baud (signalling element) is related (logarithmically) to the S/NR. This is what prevents the development of high-speed modems. The bandwidth of a phone line is hard limited to approx. 2700 Hz. (300 Hz - 3.0 kHz) and there is a finite amount of S/NR. (I'm at jsol's house, so I don't have my notes on all of this). For a more detailed discussion of the topic, go to your local library and look up Claude Shannon, who pioneered the field of "information theory" and proved mathematically why all of this works. ------------------------------ From: makela@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) Subject: Flash! (Was Re: Centrex) Date: 23 Apr 89 21:52:49 GMT Reply-To: makela@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) Organization: Grand Hall of Justice, Mega-City One Well, talking about flash buttons that are not the same as "flashing" the handset... over here at the other end of the galaxy, there are two types of flash buttons existent: the red ones and the white ones. The Red Button does the same as "flashing" the handset, but it's timed. The White Button shorts the "3rd cable" (all our phone plugs are three-pronged) with the, er, "ring". On a normal 2-wire telephone line you of course need the red one. Many small exchanges however use 3-wiring, so the flash signal is a kind of a offband signal, albeit a simple one... Otto J. Makela (with poetic license to kill), University of Jyvaskyla InterNet: makela@tukki.jyu.fi, BitNet: MAKELA_OTTO_@FINJYU.BITNET BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.22bis/V.22/V.21, 24h/d), Phone: +358 41 613 847 Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE ------------------------------ From: Bill Cerny Subject: Southwestern Bell's QuickSource Date: 24 Apr 89 16:15:09 GMT Organization: Telecomm Research Associates, St. Marys, KS SWBTCo is running a one year trial (Mar 89 - Mar 90) of two information services: QuickSource (audiotex) and Sourceline (videotext). The latter requires a terminal of some type, but the former only requires a touch tone phone for access. The QuickSource number is 323-2000, but cannot be accessed via 1+713+; SWBTCo has blocked access to "the Houston metro area served by SWBTCo," according to the script the woman reads to you when ask for help (713-865-5777; not blocked). The help desk will send you a free QuickSource directory though. I understand that QuickSource is a free call. If so, is there a Houston reader who'd volunteer to call forward to QuickSource on a "trial" basis? 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 23:02:58 PST From: e118 student Subject: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work When I was in Australia in 1987, I placed a couple of calls to the US billed either collect or third-number. The Australian operator called a US operator to do a "coin phone check" on the number billed. My impression was that this was a specific check not automatically done. In short, the trick of calling from a pay phone and billing third-number to another pay phone will work unless the operator does a coin check. The most likely route to apprehending the person using this trick would be to inquire of the person called whom they know in the area of the origin of the call. The closest it could come to airtight would be to call from a payphone to a payphone billed to a third payphone. ------------------------------ From: N Ostroff Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work Date: 24 Apr 89 15:10:07 GMT Reply-To: Neil Ostroff Organization: Bellcore (Red Bank, NJ) In volume 9, issue 141, message 2, kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kurt A. Geisel) describes how to make free long distance phone calls by calling collect from pay phone A to a friend waiting at pay phone B. About two years ago this scheme made headline news in New York City. It worked so well that NY Telephone disabled incoming calls to pay phones while the problem was solved. What made the fraud possible was a change in pay phone NXX codes. When fewer pay phones existed, they all shared the same NXX codes. Only pay phones were assigned these numbers. In this way, an operator could immediately tell whether a collect call or third-party billed call was being directed to a pay phone by checking the NXX code - obviously the operator would say something clever like, "I'm sorry, your call can not go through." when a caller tried this trick. However, NY Tel started numbering pay phones with arbitrary NXX codes making it impossible for an operator to differentiate between pay phones and regular phones in NYC. At least this was true until phone companies installed a database to identify all phones unwilling or unable to accept collect and third-party billed calls. I'd be surprised if your friend can still call from pay phone A to another person at pay phone B. Neil Ostroff Bell Communications Research UUCP : bcr!maestro!nao ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 14:29:50 PDT From: Tim Pozar Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work Reply-To: Tim Pozar Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco) In article kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kurt A. Geisel) writes: >1) Place a call from a pay phone, but go through the long distance >operator and tell them that you want to charge to number x. > >2) Give them the number of another payphone. > >3) Have friend answer the payphone and agree to accept charges. > >4) The call goes through (!) and presumable the payphone gets "charged"! > >Now, it would seem to me that the operator would be able to see right >away that the number to charge to was a payphone. It shouldn't work >unless this service branch is surprisingly ignorant. Furthermore, after >doing for months, the phone company should eventually realize >that this bills are going into the ether... > >Is this for real? Will they ever find out? Will this misguided person >get a mysterious bill at the end of his college education for $50,453.23? In this area, pay fone numbers used to start with a '9' (ie. xxx-9xxx). Operators would be able to identify pay phones in this manner. I imagine in this day and age of ESS systems, that there must be some indication that a number is a payphone since when I try to charge calls to another number from payphones, the operator needs to get an ok from the charged number, and when I do this from a private phone the operator just puts the call through. I do know that when fradlent billing occurs, the phone company will call the numbers that the caller called and ask the people who called during those times to track the person down. If this guy that is doing this, only did once or twice, he may get away with it. If he is doing this all the time, he will get caught. Tim -- ...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar >fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406 ...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #145 *****************************   Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 2:02:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #146 Message-ID: <8904250203.aa28143@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Apr 89 00:45:56 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 146 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Finding out that phone number (John Wheeler) Re: Finding out that phone number (Davin Milun) Re: Finding out that phone number (Linc Madison) Cancel-Call Waiting (Scott Statton) Automatic Box (Scott Statton) Re: ANI Backfiring Already (Torsten Dahlkvist) Dialed Number Readout and MATCO (Bill Gerosa) Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? (Peter da Silva) "Natural monopoly" on airport pay phones (Linc Madison) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: Finding out that phone number Date: 25 Apr 89 02:56:03 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta That number in Atlanta (yes, this is a weird one) is 940-222-2222. (Nothing happens until the 10th digit is entered.) You get a computer voice telling you your number. John -- Turner John Wheeler E N T E R T A I N M E N T ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw Networks Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports ------------------------------ From: nobody@cs.buffalo.edu Subject: Re: Finding out that phone number Date: 25 Apr 89 03:39:45 GMT Reply-To: Davin Milun Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science In most of the New York metro area (212,718,516,914), simply dialing 958 will have the NYTel computer read back your number to you. This has worked from all private and business phones that I have tried it on; but it only seems to work on some public (coin) phones (which is of course when it is useful!) Davin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Davin Milun Internet: milun@cs.Buffalo.EDU uucp: ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!milun BITNET: milun@sunybcs.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 22:57:41 PST From: e118 student Subject: Finding out that phone number Patrick Townson (Telecom moderator) suggested placing a collect call to a number you control and checking the bill as a way of finding out the number you were calling from. Time lags aside, there is one other snag to this plan: if you happen to live in Pacific Bell territory, the call will be listed as "From WhateverCity" with no telephone number listed -- only the city of origin for collect, third-number, and calling-card calls. -- Linc Madison = e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: I think that is more a matter of how they get the tickets from the podunk telco rather than any set policy at Pacific Bell. Chances are the operator who originated the call did not bubble in the calling number and the ticket went through without it. Many small telcos still have no way to identify the phone number which is connected to the operator unless she asks for the number (and the person tells the truth). When I get them with only a city listed and no number, I call the Business Office. They will investigate, and get back to me 2-6 weeks later with an actual number in most cases. If they cannot locate the calling number and you continue to dispute the call, IBT will write it off. The funniest one I ever saw came after I once accepted a collect call from someone calling me from a toll station in Nevada. The bill said 'From Other Place, NV 702-181-0002'. Seriously. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 20:49:41 EDT From: Scott Statton Subject: Cancel-Call Waiting Is the "generic" name for this service. It is avaliable on all 1A and 5 ESS, and on DMS100 with the expanded memory option. I thought that Call-Forward-Busy or Hunting (They're actually slightly different features) and Call-Waiting were mutually exclusive. My question is: If you con the person at RCMAC to put them both on one line, which takes precedence in which software versions? Patrick: What kind of CO do you have? [Moderator's Note: I think Chicago is all digital ESS now. I know my local office, Chicago-Rogers Park is an excellent, very neat switch. How I came to get hunting and call-waiting on the same account is this: I have had these two phone numbers for about 15 years. My grandparents had the numbers before me, so I guess that's 70 years in the family. My grandparents were the first subscribers on the Sheldrake exchange in 1919, literally, they were 'Sheldrake 1'. The first line hunted to the second longer than I can remember. In 1984 when we got ESS and custom calling, I asked for call-waiting and they said they would put it on the second line, but not the first. When Starline came out two years ago, I ordered it. I think I was one of the first people here to get it. *Nobody* at Bell knew how to program it correctly. I still have the 'old style' hunt; which they forgot to remove, along with everything else. It was always free, so they are not out any money because of it. The order of priorities is this: If call forwarding is on, then calls dialed *direct* to that number are forwarded. Intercom calls and calls which hunt to that line ring through, despite forwarding. If call forwarding is not turned on (either line) then incoming calls first attempt to get through on call-waiting. If they cannot get through on call- waiting because both 'sides' of the call-waiting are busy or the phone is merely off hook, dialing, or being rung on an incoming call, then busy signal is returned to the caller. The only time the 'old style' hunt is activated is when *70 has turned off call-waiting. Then a second call to that line hunts to the other physical line. If I dial my own number, I get a busy signal unless I dial *70 my number, in which case I hear the other line start ringing. Clear on tbat? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 20:45:35 EDT From: Scott Statton Subject: Automatic Box You're looking for a Dialogic card and a PC. Things a Dialogic card does: 1) Record/playback messages from the disk (approx. 3kbytes per second of pretty natural sounding speech). 2) Send/receive DTMF signalling. 3) Detect "precise" call-progress tones. 4) Easy to use from C, Basic, Assembly, with lots of good examples. 5) Costs approx. $1000 6) Handles 4 phone lines independantly. 7) Is FCC Part 68 compliant. Watch this space for where they are located and a phone number (once again, if I were at HOME, I'd have this info). P.S. I'm STILL looking for a job in California. ------------------------------ From: euatdt@euas11g.ericsson.se Subject: Re: ANI Backfiring Already Date: 24 Apr 89 08:52:55 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden In article various quotations are given on the "undesiredness" of the ANI service provided by ISDN. Having worked on the Swedish ISDN project (run by Swedish State Telecom and ERICSSON) for several years, I would like to claim that the problem is mostly one of information and education. The users who have seen the ANI service (we call it Calling Party Number Identification or A-number transfer but yout term ANI is shorter) have so far reacted favourably. Partly this may be because we haven't as yet reached beyond the engineers and tech-happies with our demos, but I don't think this can be the whole answer. The service, as we've implemented it, where the received numbers are stored in the terminal for easy call-back has been very well received so far, but I think the need for information to the users is paramount. The potential for *very* user-friendly facilities lies within our reach if we don't scare the users away. This means that the phone-company staff, especially those dealing with customer contacts and information, must be educated on the possibilities and consequences of ISDN. >Besides the RISK of alienating customers with ANI, there is a pervasive fear >among prospective ANI implementors that callers will raise legal objections >to ANI once they know how it works. People with unlisted phone numbers are >expected to spearhead that movement. Once users and journalists REALLY find out how ANI works, they will also know that the subscriber who so wishes can elect to have his number NOT sent to the other subscriber. This is normally a fixed value, set in the exchange according to the wishes of the subscriber. Subscribers with unlisted phone numbers are an obvious example of users who should automatically be set as "No ANI". As a matter of fact, according to the CCITT spec. the service should be implemented in such a way that the caller can specify FOR EACH CALL whether he wants to send ANI or not. The default (to send or not to send) is a central setting, set by the administration. Then the subscriber can order an individual setting for his line, which becomes his own default (overriding the central) and then he has the opition to counter his own default, on a call-by-call basis, if he desires. So the secrecy-minded user will have his line blocked against ANI and that's it. If public opinion against ANI becomes strong enough the default can be set to No ANI and only those specifically wanting it will get it. At least, that's the way ERICSSON has implemented it. Maybe AT&T doesn't offer these choices to the users (heh, heh, heh...)? Maybe I should have sent this to the RISKS forum, but this is where I read it. Sorry it grew so long. E-mail questions on ISDN services welcome. ------------------------------ From: Bill Gerosa Subject: Dialed Number Readout and MATCO Date: 25 Apr 89 02:45:15 GMT Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci. Does anyone know where I can obtain a DNR (Dialed Number Readout) that operates with pulse and tone dialing? MATCO Electronics used to sell a DNR kit a few years back, however I have not been able to locate them recently. Does anyone know if they are still in business? If see please post the address. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 22:06:24 -0400 From: ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? I suspect 713, Houston, is in the running as the largest local calling area. Don't have figures offhand. --- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 22:53:05 PST From: e118 student Subject: "Natural monopoly" on airport pay phones Rich Straka wrote recently: >Of course, the airport pay phone is a bit of a different animal. There is >enough demand to support several suppliers here. It does appear to the busy >traveller, however, that he is facing a slightly less than competitive >situation. This is due to a real lack of information about the services the >customer is trying to acquire. It may also because the traveller is facing an enormously less-than-competitive situation, because the airport may have signed a contract with an AOS to give them exclusive rights to all public phones in the airport. If that particular AOS is nasty about connecting to other carriers, you have no competition. We can only hope that the recent FCC ruling will make a tiny dent in this practice. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #146 *****************************   Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 2:41:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #147 Message-ID: <8904260241.aa14559@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Apr 89 02:34:52 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 147 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Washington DC & suburban calling areas (John Boteler) Re: Automated Telephone Calls (Ken Levitt) 1-800 ABC DEFG vs 1-800 123 4567 (Geoff Rimmer) Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (George Pell) Unlocking Those Payphone Riches (TELECOM Moderator) Carte Blanche Card (for pickpockets) (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Washington DC & suburban calling areas Date: Mon Apr 24 11:23:59 1989 From: John Boteler Summary: Washington Metro service ain't everywhere! cmoore@brl.mil says: /* I came across a few new prefixes in Va. just beyond Washington calling area; these are in 703, and I will list them and show the duplications between them and the Washington calling area: 330 Manassas (301-330 Gaithersburg) 878 Dale City (301-878 Fort Ritchie, with DC and Baltimore area service?) 497 Occoquan (301-497 Laurel)--same already existed regarding 490 */ Neither 330 nor 49X are in the Washington metropolitan calling area. 330 is in the Washington-Gaithersburg (Maryland suburban) calling area and cannot be reseached from Northern Virginia. 490, 497, 498, 776, etc. are in the Washington-Laurel calling area (Maryland suburban), suffering similar restrictions. 878 comes out of Silver Spring for Uncle Sam; no further comment necessary! BTW, Silver Spring has the widest calling area of the Maryland suburban exchanges with Washington metro calling; it can reach outlying exchanges on both sides of the line dividing the Gaithersburg side and the Laurel corridor. For those outlying Virginia exchanges which have Washington calling, these restrictions are necessary. Each Washington metropolitan suburban calling area actually is mapped into 202; this is how the calls are actually routed as 'local' calls. Only one of the duplicated exchanges can coexist with its nearby corresponding 'long distance' exchange in order for the translation to be unique. This means that I can call Laurel from the Washington metro calling area as a local call, but in Virginia it is charged at long distance rates. Further, if that same 703 exchange has Washington calling area, my call will end up there, not in the Maryland suburbs. (Yes, this leads to confusion among callers who don't know this.) Check out the 'Regional Calling Area Map' on p.23 of the October 1988 Montgomery County white pages. It shows the logical dividing lines between Washington metro and the suburban exchanges, as well as the Washington regional calling area and some of the community FXs, like La Plata. /* How tight is 703 area nowadays, anyway? */ Must be tighter than ever; haven't you seen all those rich folks over there? But seriously folks, 602, 603, 818 each come out of NorVa offices. The bulk of these "no-no numbers" are being assigned in suburban Maryland, because of the proximity to Baltimore, as you mentioned. Bote uunet!cyclops!csense!bote {mimsy,sundc}!{prometheus,hqda-ai}!media!cyclops!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 11:43:03 EDT From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Automated Telephone Calls In Vol 9, Issue 143, John Menges asks about a box that talks and understands DTMF. Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC) sells a box called DECtalk. I believe that it does everyting that you specified. It has a several voices that you can select. The speech is clear and can be understood by almost anyone. It interfaces to the computer via standard RS-232. It will do OK on about 99% of the text that you send it. If it really messes up a word, you can change the spelling fo the word to make it come out correctly. I think that you can also add words to its dictionary. DECtalk comes in single line and multiline versions. The single line version has a list price of $4200 and can be ordered from their mail order service (DECdirect 800-DIGITAL). They have a technical assistance line for questions (800-343-4040). I do not work for DEC, but I have played with this unit and was very satisfied with the quality of the speech. -- Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 01:48:59 BST From: Geoff Rimmer Subject: 1-800 ABC DEFG vs 1-800 123 4567 I have some comments and questions about the common practice in the US of using letters for phone numbers, for example 1-800-ABC-DEFG How long has this been going on? Have you always had letters as well as numbers on your phones? Here in England, we used to have letters on the dials as well as numbers, and these were mainly used for area codes ( eg to call Stourbridge you would dial "STO" followed by the number ). You could also find out the time by dialling "TIM". However I think they phased this out more than 15 years ago, possibly more! (before my time you understand!) As far as I am aware, you can no longer buy a phone in the UK with letters also printed on the buttons, and so it would not be wise for a company to advertise their number as letters! :-) If a company wants people to remember their phone number, they apply for an easy-to-remember one (usually with a recurring pattern), or they just have a jingle on the radio that drums the number into you: Two competing taxi services here have phone numbers 555555 and 666666. Jingles from radio: "Mountrange Bedding's the place to be, phone 7 8 6 1 2 1 3" "Style-a-home, phone double-3 1 4 1 4 1" (chanted 3 times during the commercial!) Myself, I find it easier to remember a number than words (the above examples have been written into my brain and I cannot forget them!!!) What about everyone else? Do you find words easier to remember? Doesn't it take longer to find which button to push? Or do you get used to it eventually? I have seen 1-800 and 1-900 numbers make use of mnemonics - do companies ever use letters even with regular phone numbers, and if so, do they get their entry in the phone directory printed with letters? Finally, can 1-800 and 1-900 numbers in the USA be accessed from overseas? If so, I need to know how to translate from [A-Z] -> [0-9] ! Geoff /---------------------------------------------------------------\ | GEOFF RIMMER - Friend of fax booths & ANSI C & PCBH & | | phone *numbers* | | email : geoff@uk.ac.warwick.emerald | | address : Computer Science Dept, Warwick University, | | England. | | PHONE : +44 203 692320 (10 lines) | | FAX : +44 865 726753 | \---------------------------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ From: George Pell Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work Date: 25 Apr 89 22:31:06 GMT Reply-To: George Pell Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kurt A. Geisel) writes: > >1) Place a call from a pay phone, but go through the long distance >operator and tell them that you want to charge to number x. > >2) Give them the number of another payphone. > >3) Have friend answer the payphone and agree to accept charges. In most of the places I have visited, pay phones have numbers with at least two 9's in the last four digits, allowing an operator to instantly recognize that the number is from a pay phone. I learned this because a phone number I used to have was 639-9000, and the operators would mistake the "double 9's" as being from a phone booth, and would refuse to charge to my home phone. geo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 2:22:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Unlocking Those Payphone Riches Pay telephone thieves may have bigger things in mind than merely ripping off coin boxes. According to an article in [Payphone Exchange] for March, 1989, a deft crook with a key and ten minutes to spare can steal between $500 - $800 worth of parts from your run-of-the-mill payphone. Before deregulation, all GTE Automatic Electric coin phones sold to non-GTE local telcos had the same lock in the box's upper housing. And those devices -- called 'BJ locks' -- all take the same key. John Lilla, who wrote the article in [Payphone Exchange] (and whose company makes some of its money replacing those locks) says there are about 150,000 of those GTE coin phones still out there. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 2:32:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Carte Blanche Card (for pickpockets) People who are tired of sorting through all their credit cards will love this one. It's a credit card, automatic teller card and telephone calling card all in one. That's because it's from Master Card, People's Bank and Southern New England Telephone, all of whom are cooperating on this new slice of plastic. They are doing it as a joint venture as a 'convenience' to the consumer. That's you! ha ha! And how convenient! It even has your phone number on it so you won't have to bother writing it down on all those nasty transaction forms everytime you charge something. Real convenient, huh? Now with one card only, you can call halfway around the world, buy a suit of clothes and a nice dinner, and draw all your money out of the bank. I call it a Carte Blanche Card for pickpockets. You may call it a convenience, but I think not, and I expect Southern New England Tel and the others involved will have to learn their lesson the hard way. See you tomorrow! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #147 *****************************   Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 2:27:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #148 Message-ID: <8904270227.aa03671@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Apr 89 02:06:11 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 148 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson New Jersey area code split (David M. Kurtiak) New Jersey area code split (Mark Robert Smith) Cancel Call Waiting (David Tamkin) Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? (Paul Anderson) Call Waiting Beep (Steve Robiner) Is there a version of 5500 cordless phone w/220v charger? (Tsz-Mei Ko) Omni-card doesn't have to be bad (Jerry Glomph Black) Results of LBOC Cable Ownership Question (Steve Swingler) Re: What is the "busy signal number"? (Lang Zerner) Re: Overseas 800/900 Access (Kenneth R. Jongsma) Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work (Ed Boston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 08:50:40 EDT From: "David M. Kurtiak" Subject: New Jersey area code split I just heard on the radio this morning that New Jersey Bell will be announcing an area code split for the north Jersey (201) calling area. Appearantly, details are still being worked out, and a formal announcement will be made this upcoming Monday, May 1st. I'll post a summary once this is made available. Does anyone out here know of any details that can be passed along *before* the official announcement?? (such as what the NPA will be, cutover dates, boundaries?) Thanx for any info. that can be shared! Enjoy, ---- David M. Kurtiak Internet: dmkdmk@ecsvax.uncecs.edu BITNET: DMKDMK@ECSVAX.BITNET UUCP: dmkdmk@ecsvax.UUCP (rutgers,gatech)!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 14:12:39 EDT From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: New Jersey area code split In 1991, area code 908 will be allotted to Central New Jersey. The area affected, according to the Star Ledger of 4/26/89, will be Union, Warren, Middlesex, Hunterdon, Somerset, and Monmouth counties, along with part of Morris County, and the part of Ocean County in the 201 area code now. All of these areas are in the 201 area code. This change will require 1+AC+number dialing between the 201 and 908 areas, but the rates for these calls will not change. This dialing change includes local calls between area codes, which will be free, but will require all 11 digits. This will certainly affect UseNet, as many of the numbers for ATT sites and Rutgers will be changing to the new area code. An interim step, to alleviate the number shortage until the new area code can be implemented, will be that beginning in October, calls to New York and Pennsylvania from New Jersey, which can now be dialed with just 7 digits will be required to use the full 1+AC+number. Customers affected by this will be notified in June. This measure will free 24 exchanges, which should suffice until the new area code is implemented. Mark ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Cancel Call Waiting Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 17:21:05 CDT Patrick Townson wrote in volume 9, issue 143: | Moderator's Note: Suspend Call Waiting is available throughout area 312 | with the possible exception of the Morton Grove CO. Call Waiting altogether is not available on six of the eleven suburban prefixes in the Des Plaines CO. A customer with any of the six prefixes who wants Custom Calling features has to accept a new telephone number on one of the other five prefixes. | We use *70 to turn it on, and it disconnects itself when you hang up the | phone. In the Centel part of 312, it is 70#. From rotary phones, I believe 70 plus a four-second pause will do, since that is how 72#, 73#, and 74# are implemented: rotary phones can replace the octothorpe with a four-second pause. Illinois Bell uses the more common *70 to disable Call Waiting, and its rotary line substitute is 1170. | If you have three-way calling you can also use it on calls you receive as | well as at anytime in the middle of a call. There's another difference: Centel enables flashing on all lines with Call Waiting so that it can be disabled during a call, even if the subscriber does not have three-way calling. | One oddity here is that if you have two lines which hunt each other on | busy/no answer as I do, they will never hunt if you also have call-waiting, | since hunting requires that the line test busy, which it won't do. But | when I turn on *70, presto the line appears 'truly busy' and subsequent | calls get forced over to my second physical line. Neat! Reverse oddity here! In Centel's switches hunt supersedes Call Waiting. Call Waiting will never get a chance to function on any line that has another to hunt from it, because hunt will catch the incoming call first. As a result, Call Waiting works only on single lines or on the last line of a hunt group. And there's also the toll-free calling area I have here: six hundred fifty-seven prefixes. Remember the good old days, Patrick? David Tamkin POBox 567542 Norridge IL 60656-7542 ...killer!jolnet!dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN BIX: dattier CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us ------------------------------ From: Paul Anderson Subject: Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? Date: 26 Apr 89 15:28:02 GMT Reply-To: Paul Anderson Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., a teeny little company in the existance of creation... In article toto!bill@apple.com writes: >[regarding how to get the call-waiting disable feature] >And does IBT charge extra for this >feature? Pac*Bell provides it free with Call Waiting; a logical way >to sell Call Waiting in the Silicon Valley I reckon. 8-) Funny how I first found out about it. When I was in Florida, I had call waiting but had not been using a modem. Then one day I started using a modem & had call waiting problems. I got really hot under the collar about it. I also had 3 way calling, call forwarding and speed dialing. None of which I was using. SO, I called Ma Bell and said 'I want all those special features disconnected'. And the response was, "But why Mr. Anderson. Don't you find those features extremely help- ful?" "No. I don't. I am tired of my modem hanging up when call waiting beeps!" "Oh, Mr. Anderson, for special people like you, we have a code that you can dial to keep call waiting from interrupting your modem use. Would that help?" Would that help?! Well, suffice it to say, that upon threat of disconnecting all special features, Ma Bell was only too glad to give me a 'free' extra service. So, I guess my response to you would be that you shouldn't have to pay for it. :-) paul -- Paul Anderson "But Why?" gatech!stiatl!pda "Because they tried to make it (404) 841-4000 secure..." ------------------------------ From: Steve Subject: Call Waiting Beep Date: 26 Apr 89 23:05:35 GMT Reply-To: Steve Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Hi - Can some knowledgable person out there tell me exactly how long in milliseconds, the call waiting beep tone lasts for? A friend of mine is trying to set up some software to recognize this tone and deal with it. Please respond via E-mail, as I don't normally read this group. Thanks, =steve robiner@ganelon.usc.edu ------------------------------ From: "t.m.ko" Subject: Is there a version of 5500 cordless phone with 220v charger? Date: 26 Apr 89 15:32:55 GMT Reply-To: "t.m.ko" Organization: AT&T, Middletown, NJ A friend of mine is planning to buy a 5500 and a 4410 cordless phones and bring them to Europe. Does there exist a 5500 or 4410 that uses 220v power supply to charge it? Thanks in advance! Please email: ****************************************************************************** Tsz-Mei Ko ARPA: bentley!tmk@att.ARPA AT&T Bell Labs UUCP: tmk@bentley.UUCP LC 3N-P08 184 Liberty Corner Road {att-ih,decwrl,amdahl,linus}!ihnp4!bentley!tmk Warren, NJ 07060-0908 ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 14:08:50 EDT From: Jerry Glomph Black Subject: Omni-card doesn't have to be bad--- Reply-To: black@null.ll.mit.edu Patrick, the combination Mastercard/Calling Card/ATM card doesn't HAVE to be a disaster! It only has to have the Mastercard number printed on it. There have been combo Master/ATM cards for years now, OK so long as the PIN (password number for the uninitiated) isn't on the card (which amazingly, many customers who can't remember a 4-digit number, add). AT&T/BOC cards always struck me as being both dangerous and stupid for that reason, the whole misusable number u!is right there for the stealing, when again a 4-digit # is all you need to memorize. The same people who claim that they are baffled by all these numbers are the ones who could tell you what was on channel 7 thursday at 7:30, three weeks ago. For those who just *can't* hack it, you can write your PIN on the appropriate card in some personal encoding, like 10's complement, add 5, etc. All this ranting from me, a guy who just memorized his 13-digit Sprint card!!! Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173 Phone (617) 981-4721 Fax (617) 862-9057 black@MICRO.LL.MIT.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 15:35 CDT From: Steve Swingler Subject: Results of LBOC Cable Ownership Question I recently submitted a request for information on ownership of Bell cable in our buildings. There are MANY different opinions of this, but I will share what we have learned here. The Texas Attorney General's office said that while the cable is legally owned by Bell, we are operating in a "free lease", the only restriction being that we let Bell use whatever pair they require first, and that we cannot destroy the cable. We will become owners of the cable in either 1990 or 91 (they could not remember the exact date). Finally, they said that Bell has no right to remove it. When we told the Bell people what we had learned they quickly changed their minds and backed off. I guess my advice for anyone in similar situations would be to call their bluff. Steve Swingler Center for Computing and Information Systems Baylor University Waco, TX DISCLAIMER: I'm no Lawyer, and Baylor is not in the business of giving legal advice. I am only sharing my experiences for your general information. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Apr 26 11:08:56 1989 From: Lang Zerner Subject: Re: What is the "busy signal number"? Reply-To: langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA In article ecl@mtgzy.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >Does anyone know what the number is that you can dial to get a busy signal? Uh, try calling the number you are calling from. That usually works for me. Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner Internet: langz@athena.mit.edu UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!athena.mit.edu!langz Witnessed: "...that is the question. Whether 'tis knobblier in the knees..." [Moderator's Note: I think she meant a test number for that purpose. Here in Chicago, any.prefex-9968 usually returned a busy signal. If you wanted to shake someone who constantly pestered you for your number so they could call you, give them one of those! The above was the one used under the old cross bar system. Things have changed so much I do not know what is what some days. I think prefix-9995 also sends a busy signal here on most exchanges. PT] ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Overseas 800/900 Access Date: Wed, 26-Apr-89 07:49:50 PDT Regarding the question if overseas callers can reach 800 and 900 service (area code) numbers in the US. The answer is no. Since 800 and 900 service is mapped to an undialable trunk number, there is no dialable equivilent. Now, there are a couple of caveats: First: AT&T is offering a new 800 service for low volume users where they will "forward" 800 calls to your basic local number. Obviously, if you know the local number, you can dial direct and pay the usual rates. Second: USA Direct is not as direct as they advertise. I needed to call United Airlines to reconfirm a flight from Austrailia. Since the local office was closed, I thought "No Problem, I'll just call back to the US and ask the AT&T operator to give me United's US 800 number. I realize I will have to pay the overseas rate, but at least they can connect me." Wrong. Even though AT&T advertises USA Direct as getting connected to an AT&T operator _in the US_, she stated she could not dial the 800 number. I had to get a local Chicago number for her to dial. Ken ------------------------------ From: Ed_Boston Subject: Re: Dangerous Phone Trick Shouldn't Work Date: 25 Apr 89 14:40:18 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Boise R & D Lab Most operators can see that a phone number is a pay phone. I the area that I grew up in, all pay phones had a prefix of 978 or something like that. Unless you saw your friend doing this, I wouldn't believe them. If you have seen them doing it, I would suggest that you talk to the person and tell them to stop. Also, let the phone company know how the person is doing thins. I AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU TURN THE PERSON IN SO NO FLAMES ABOUT IT!! This would be your choice. It is people like this that keep our phone bills so high! Ed Boston ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #148 *****************************   Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 0:03:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #149 Message-ID: <8904280003.aa19737@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Apr 89 00:02:41 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 149 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson NYNEX Announces INFO-LOOK Gateway (Patt Haring) Re: Southwestern Bell's QuickSource (J. Eric Townsend) Re: Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth (Tim Pozar) New area codes for London (Nigel Whitfield) Change in Area Code for London, UK (Kevin Hopkins) Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? (Richie Tozier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Patt Haring Subject: Re: National Computer Network? Date: 26 Apr 89 08:14:38 GMT Reply-To: Patt Haring Organization: City College Of New York In article telecom-gateway@vector. UUCP writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 134, message 1 of 10 >I'm doing a paper for a mass-media class on the possibilities of a national >computer network accessible by anybody... sort of like Usenet with a lot more >support and cash flow, I suppose. >I'd appreciate any suggestions or information for this paper, as well as >suggestions of where I could _look_ for information :-). One person I asked >said he recalled a post somewhere/somewhen that gave estimates of how much >a nationally available, non-commercial computer network would cost. Does >anybody remember that? Are the figures still available? >I'm sort of basing my paper on the French Minitel computer network. In case > > As anybody who's ever used compuserve or the source, or other computer >services could predict, it wasn't long before the services available via >terminal "mushroomed" into areas like newsgroups, etc. NYNEX announced INFO-LOOK Gateway at a press conference in NYC yesterday. [INFO-LOOK is already operating in Bell South and Bell Atlantic.] Are local RBOC's entering the electronic information market? This looks like another version of Compu$erve, The Source, GEnie, to me. I received this insert with my monthly phone bill: "Introducing a new service for accessing information and more... all through your personal computer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting in May, New York Telephone's INFO-LOOK (tm) Gateway Service can be your link to accessing a variety of information, products and services. The INFO-LOOK Gateway simplifies on-line computer access to a variety of information providers. When you call the Gateway phone number through your modem, you'll be able to scan a menu of information services. The types of information services you may choose from include: entertainment, business, health, food, news, weather, sports, travel, government, educational and reference information. The servicfes, some interacctive, are provided by independent companies. The INFO-LOOK Gateway is easy to use -- even if you're relatively new to using a PC. What you'll need to use the INFO-LOOK Gateway 1. Virtually any type of personal computer. 2. A modem (300, 1200, or 2400 Baud), and communications software. This enables your computer to communicate with other computers via the telephone system. 3. A New York Telephone Calling Car. If you need a New York Telephone Calling Card, (it's FREE), call your service representative whose number appears on page one of your New York Telephone bill. Charges for using the INFO-LOOK Gateway There are ** no ** Gateway enrollment fees and ** no ** monthly subscription charges. In most cases, you will be charged: o A local call to reach the INFO-LOOK Gateway. o While you're browsing the Gateway directory of services, or moving between services, you pay $.05 a minute. o Once you connect to a service, the charge is determined by the Service Provider. Some services have a per-minute usage charge. Some services are free. The charges for each service are listed in the Gateway menu. You'll find most charges itemized on your monthly New York Telephone bill. Some Service Providers may decide to bill you separately and directly for use of their services. Call for more information To get your free INFO-LOOK Gateway information booklet call (toll- free) 1-800-338-2720, Ext. 20, any day from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Note: New York Telephone does not provide or control the services offered through the INFO-LOOK Gateway Service. They are provided by independent companies, which are responsible for the content, character, and quality of their services." The predictions run $5 billion now and another $5-10 billion by 1991. Look for a new billing category on your phone bill: data charges -- Patt Haring rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth patth@ccnysci.BITNET ------------------------------ From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell's QuickSource Date: 26 Apr 89 19:56:15 GMT Reply-To: "J. Eric Townsend" Organization: Fusion-Chem-Info-Med-Data-Bio-Net-Tech-Quik, Inc. (Ltd.) In article toto!bill@apple.com (Bill Cerny) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 145, message 4 of 7 > >The QuickSource number is 323-2000, but >cannot be accessed via 1+713+; SWBTCo has blocked access to "the >Houston metro area served by SWBTCo," according to the script the woman >reads to you when ask for help (713-865-5777; not blocked). The help >desk will send you a free QuickSource directory though. 4-5 days from now I should get mine. The help number is for all of SWB, so you have to spell out that you want a QuickSource directory. I just called, and there's nothing online for entertainment/dining. They also don't tell you the "go up one menu level" command until you timeout and go through help. One of the "help" choices thinks it's the "goodbye" command. I usually like toying around with things like this, *however*, QuickSource seems so broken that it's not even funny. I didn't play with it too much, but still... You should always have *something* on line, no matter what. Anything is better than "I'm sorry, this selection is not currently available." -- If you're not using UNIX, you're just using an operating system... J. Eric Townsend Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu 511 Parker #2 Houston,Tx,77007 EastEnders Mailing List: eastender@flatline.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 20:41:41 PDT From: Tim Pozar Subject: Re: Bits, Baud, and Bandwidth Reply-To: Tim Pozar Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco) In article statton@bu-cs.bu.edu (Scott Statton) writes: >For a more detailed discussion of the topic, go to your local library >and look up Claude Shannon, who pioneered the field of "information >theory" and proved mathematically why all of this works. Another good description of Baud and Bits is the technical manual for the Am7910 WORLD-CHIP FSK Modem, made by AMD. Their number is 800-538-8450, and they are located in Sunnyvale CA. Tim -- ...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar >fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406 ...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 17:16:14 BST From: Mad Nige Subject: New area codes for London British Telecom has announced this week that the area code for London is to be changed on May 6th, 1990, due to the increased number of lines needed in the capital. The existing code is 01-, and the new codes to be introduced are 071- for the centre of the city and 081- for the suburbs. A list was published in the Evening Standard today, showing which exchanges will fall in which area, but I don't really feel inclined to type it all in. As yet, I don't know what the transitional arrangements are, but I'll try to find out. Response in the letters columns of papers seems to be a bit negative at the moment. Nigel Whitfield. ------------------------------ Subject: Change in Area Code for London, UK Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 15:23:32 +0100 From: Kevin Hopkins British Telecom (BT) published advertisements in the national press today which announced that the 01 area code for London will be abolished at 00:01 (British Summer Time) on Sunday May 6th *1990*. At the same time two new area codes, 071 and 081, will be introduced to cover the same area. 071 will cover Inner London and 081 will cover Outer London. Having not lived in London for the past 3 years I cannot determine where BT's cut-off line is, but using some of my friends' 'phone numbers as a guide it is about 5 miles out from the West End. BT say they will be informing the international community nearer the time of the change over. UK phone numbers are of the form AAA-EEE NNNN or AAAA-EENNNN where A is the area code and E is the exchange code. London 'phone numbers have a shorter area code of 01. The current 01-EEE exchanges that will be in the 071 area from May 1990 are: 21x, 22x, 23x, 24x, 25x, 26x, 27x, 28x, 32x, 35x, 37x, 38x, 40x, 43x, 473, 474, 476, 48x, 49x, 511, 512, 515, 537, 538, 58x, 60x, 61x, 62x, 63x, 70x, 72x, 73x, 79x, 82x, 83x, 92x, 93x, 976, 978, 987 and the following will be in the 081 area: 20x, 29x, 30x, 31x, 33x, 34x, 36x, 39x, 42x, 44x, 45x, 46x, 470, 471, 472, 475, 478, 50x, 514, 517, 518, 519, 52x, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 536, 539, 54x, 55x, 56x, 57x, 59x, 64x, 65x, 66x, 67x, 68x, 69x, 74x, 75x, 76x, 77x, 78x, 80x, 84x, 85x, 86x, 87x, 88x, 89x, 90x, 94x, 95x, 96x, 974, 977, 979, 980, 981, 983, 984, 985, 986, 988, 989, 99x (99x excludes 999 which is the UK equivalent of the US 911 number) Most of the moves are for a full EEx group but 5 groups of exchanges have been split between the 071 and 081 areas (47x, 51x, 53x, 97x and 98x). BT says that 071 and 081 will still operate as one charge area for both local and long distance calls. Subscribers in the 071 area will have to use the 081 code to reach numbers in Outer London from the very first day of the change over, and vica versa, though I presume BT are going to allow 7 figure dialling instead of 10 figure dialling within the 071/081 area during some over-lap time period. These calls will still be classed as local but no doubt BT will gradually change this policy in the years to come and start to class them as 'mid-distance' (less than 56km). When I phoned the BT information line (0800-800 373) they said that people dialing 01 from outside London after May 1990 will get a recorded message telling them to dial 071 or 081 appropriately instead of the 01 code. The gentleman also said that it had not been decided whether this recorded service would come in immediately after the changeover date or whether the 01 code could still be used for a few weeks it. This new plan for London's 'phones is slightly different to the one many people believed BT were going to use. That one would have changed the three figure exchange numbers EEE into 4 figure numbers by doubling the first digit of the exchange number (e.g. 01-234 NNNN would become 01-2234 NNNN). This would have made London numbers 10 digits long, like those of most of the UK. The rest of the UK is moving to 10 digit numbers, including the area code, ASAP and it is only small towns and villages that need their exchanges upgrading that still have 8 or 9 figure numbers at present. This scheme would have allowed Londons telephone number capacity to increase 9-fold, as opposed to just doubling it as in the 071/081 scheme. The major dialling centres in the UK from May 1990 will now be: 021 Birmingham 031 Edinburgh 041 Glasgow 051 Liverpool 061 Manchester 071 London (Inner) 081 London (Outer) 091 Tyne & Wear (Newcastle & Sunderland) Hope that has helped bring a touch of internationalism to the area code discussion in the Telecom Digest. Kev. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcvax!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins | Department of Computer Science,| | or in the UK: K.Hopkins@uk.ac.nott.cs | University of Nottingham, | | CHAT-LINE: +44 602 484848 x 3815 | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Richie Tozier Subject: Re: "Cancel Call Waiting" in IBT? Date: 26 Apr 89 17:15:59 GMT Reply-To: Richie Tozier Organization: TVH @ Jolnet Public Access UNIX Where i live in North Carolina...the cancel call waiting '*70' can be done any number of times ie: *70 dialtone *70 dialtone again and again..why is this is it a toggle or just a little bug or what? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #149 *****************************   Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 1:15:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #150 Message-ID: <8904290115.aa08095@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Apr 89 00:55:40 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 150 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson New MCI Long Distance Pricing (TELECOM Moderator) Re: New Jersey area code split (Robert Halloran) Re: New Jersey area code split (Ron Natalie) Re: New Jersey area code split (Carl Moore) Re: Overseas 800/900 Access (Linc Madison) Re: Overseas 800/900 Access (Clive Dawson) Switch between speech/fax/modem? (Robert Olsson) 800 number directory (Mark Linimon) Re: speaking of ringbacks (Edward Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 89 0:50:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New MCI Long Distance Pricing On Friday, MCI Communications Corporation announced a new long distance bulk usage plan for residential phone subscribers. This new offering is designed to provide direct competition to AT&T's Reach Out America Plan. The new plan provides one hour of calling each month between 7 PM and 8 AM weeknights, anywhere (interstate) in the country for $8. Additional hours after the first hour are $6.80, and are pro-rated by the number of minutes used. This is 13.3 cents for the minutes in the first hour, and 11.3 cents per minute in the additional hours. A companion plan is called 'MCI Supersaver' and it allows customers to make interstate calls all day Saturday *only* for five dollars per hour, or 8.3 cents per minute. Comparing this to the AT&T Reach Out Plan we see that -- AT&T does not begin its cheapest rates and residential bulk plan until 10 PM. The new MCI plan gives three extra hours in the evening. Additional hours on the Reach Out Plan are $6.90. Additional hours on MCI's plan will be $6.80. MCI's plan stops at 5 PM Sunday, and does not resume until 7 PM Monday. AT&T's plan stops at 5 PM Sunday also, but resumes at 10 PM Sunday night and gives from then through Monday morning. MCI only offers their plan to customers with one plus dialing; they do not offer it to callers via 10222 or 950-1022. AT&T does permit its Reach Out subscribers to be 'casual callers', via 10288, while keeping some other carrier as one plus. AT&T allows Calling Card and Call Me Card holders to call into the number associated with the Reach Out Plan and be billed at Reach Out rates. No surcharges are added to these calls, provided the number associated with the plan is the number being called (from wherever). MCI says no credit card calls can be tied into their new low rates. This new program from MCI is tarriffed to begin May 1, at 7 PM that evening. They are taking orders now, but YOU must call your local telco to make the conversion to MCI for one plus calling; MCI will no longer do it for you. The person I spoke to in the Chicago area office of MCI seemed rather familiar with this new product, but may have been mistaken on some points (which would cause me to be mistaken in this article), so you may want to double check and see if you can keep AT&T/Sprint as one plus while using MCI's Saturday Supersaver rates via 10222. For various reasons I probably will not switch from AT&T's Reach Out and having them on one plus, but if I could get the Saturday Supersaver via 10222 I would probably sign up and make extensive use of it on Saturday long distance calls. Finally, as a special deal, MCI is giving the first month free of charge. If you take the $8 weekday evening program, you get the first hour of calls -- $8 worth -- free. Likewise the Saturday deal is being given free the first month. Although MCI *still* does not connect to 976 or 1-900 numbers, their line quality is pretty good. The lady I spoke with also offered to send me a Calling Card with the 'Around Town' option allowing local calling with no surcharge. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Robert Halloran Subject: Re: New Jersey area code split Date: 28 Apr 89 13:43:58 GMT Reply-To: Robert Halloran Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA In article dmkdmk@uncecs.edu (David M. Kurtiak) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 148, message 1 of 11 >I just heard on the radio this morning that New Jersey Bell will be >announcing an area code split for the north Jersey (201) calling area. >Appearantly, details are still being worked out, and a formal announcement >will be made this upcoming Monday, May 1st. I'll post a summary once >this is made available. > >Does anyone out here know of any details that can be passed along >*before* the official announcement?? (such as what the NPA will be, >cutover dates, boundaries?) Thanx for any info. that can be shared! The article I read in yesterday's local paper said that the split will occur 'in 1991'. The new NPA will be 908, and will basically cover the southern 'half' of the current 201 area (for the geographically inclined, affected counties will be Warren, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Union, Monmouth and Ocean, plus the southwest corner of Morris). Counties remaining in 201 will be Sussex, Passaic, Bergen, Essex, Hudson and the majority of Morris. NJ Bell will also start requiring area codes on calls into NY and PA that have been considered part of NJ local calling areas. This will apparently take effect Oct. 2, and free up about 25 exchanges. (all this is from a cover story in the Asbury Park Press of 4/27; any inaccuracies can be attributed to them.) Bob Halloran ========================================================================= UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM USPS: 17 Lakeland Dr, Port Monmouth NJ 07758 DDD: 201-495-6621 eve ET Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. Quote: "Well, if it wasn't Buckaroo Banzai, I'd say 'commit the man.'" - where else? ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: New Jersey area code split Date: 28 Apr 89 13:00:19 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Sure, being involved in the University communcations system, I immediately called our NJ Bell Account Rep on this. He really didn't have any more details that I'd already read in the papers. The boundry falls along the Morris and Union county lines in New Jersey. Those counties and north remain 201, those south (and north of 609, which doesn't fall along county lines) are in the new 908 area code. The LATA boundries remain unchanged (there are three in New Jersey, one covering the 201 area code, and two more dividing the 609 into east (Atlantic) and west (Delaware Valley) LATAs). Cutover is to occur two summers from now. As with other area code splits there will be a time where both the old and new numbers will work. One thing that hasn't fully been worked out yet is a few central offices on the border. There are a handful of distinct towns (political boundries) that would be split by this. Another interesting observation is that this boundry cuts right through the heart of AT&T land. The paper noted that this will cause some substantial amount of money to be spent just dealing with chaning half of their facilities numbers. I suppose it is some kind of revenge on the part of the operating company. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 10:57:21 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New Jersey area code split The word "local" was omitted in the reference to calls from NJ to Pa. and NY state. Also, there is a case where 11 digits are already required: Suffern, NY, in area 914 and a local call from part of 201 area; I believe the Suffern prefixes are 357 and 368, and there is 201-368 in existence as well. Does the coming change from xxx-xxxx to 1-NPA-xxx-xxxx for inter- area local calls also affect: 1. calls between 201 and 609 areas 2. calls from 609 to Pa. (such as from Trenton, NJ to Morrisville, Pa.) Recall that requiring 1 before areacode was done in 609, not just 201. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 14:28:19 PST From: e118 student Subject: Overseas 800/900 Access >From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com > >Regarding the question if overseas callers can reach 800 and 900 >service (area code) numbers in the US. The answer is no. Since >800 and 900 service is mapped to an undialable trunk number, >there is no dialable equivilent. ... >Second: USA Direct is not as direct as they advertise. I needed to call >United Airlines to reconfirm a flight from Austrailia. Since the local >office was closed, I thought "No Problem, I'll just call back to the >US and ask the AT&T operator to give me United's US 800 number. >I realize I will have to pay the overseas rate, but at least >they can connect me." Wrong. Even though AT&T advertises USA >Direct as getting connected to an AT&T operator _in the US_, >she stated she could not dial the 800 number. I had to get a >local Chicago number for her to dial. "Can overseas callers reach 800 numbers?" YES! I have done it myself. From Australia, as a matter of fact, from a payphone in Hobart Airport. I simply dialed 0011-1-800-XXX-XXXX and pumped in coins. However, later I was dialing an 800 number and figured on being on hold a while, so I wanted to charge it to a US calling card number. No go. The operator wouldn't even attempt the call, even though I told her I had dialed the number myself successfully. Moral of the story: sometimes machines are smarter than people. -- Linc Madison = e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu 27 Apr 89 12:30:39-CDT From: Clive Dawson Subject: Re: Overseas 800/900 Access From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Overseas 800/900 Access Date: Wed, 26-Apr-89 07:49:50 PDT Regarding the question if overseas callers can reach 800 and 900 service (area code) numbers in the US. The answer is no. ... This isn't quite correct. AT&T has recently begun offering 800 service to callers from Mexico. Clive ------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 13:20 +0100 From: "Robert Olsson datoravd, EMC tfn 018-672581" Subject: switch between speech/fax/modem? Organization: SLU, Swedish university of agricultural sciences Is there any product or device capable of switching between speech, facsimile and modem for public telephone line? I can imagine there are lot technical problems detecting carriers and switching etc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Dept. of Statistics, Data Processing and Agricultural Extension Computer Section EMC, Box 7072, 750 07 UPPSALA, SWEDEN Tel +46 18 672407 E-mail robert@eva.uu.se, SUNET eva::robert ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 17:16 CDT From: Mark Linimon Subject: 800 number directory Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx NPR's "Marketplace" program the other night had a pointer to a neat toy: The AT&T Directory of 800 Numbers, available for plunking down $14.95 to 1-800-426-8686. It allegedly has 120,000 800 #s listed, in both white-pages and yellow-pages formats. I haven't checked it out yet, myself, so caveat emptor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Linimon Mizar, Inc. uucp: {sun!texsun, killer}!mizarvme!linimon ------------------------------ From: bridge2!bridge2: edg@ames.arc.nasa.gov; Subject: Re: speaking of ringbacks Date: 27 Apr 89 22:55:12 GMT Reply-To: bridge2!bridge2: edg@ames.arc.nasa.gov; Organization: 3Com Corp., Mt. View, CA In article gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia. edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 143, message 3 of 7 > >My family has a house in Litchfield, CT. Up there the ringback works a little >differently. All you have to do to get one is: > > >1. Dial your own number. [Rest of procedure deleted.] This sounds like it is a vestige of the procedure used to call another party on your party line. Was this line once a party line? Is it still? I'll bet it's an OLD central office. -edg -- {decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg Ed Greenberg -or- 3Com Corporation {sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg Mountain View, CA 415-694-2952 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #150 *****************************