Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 21:01:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #501 Message-ID: <8911092101.aa06603@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Nov 89 21:00:27 CST Volume 9 : Issue 501 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T's ACUS Service (Gregory K. Johnson) Re: CT2 - A Low-cost Mobile Phone in the UK (5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au) Re: Is this V&H Data? (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Cellular Phones Frying Your Brains (John Higdon) Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Michael Katzmann) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Ben Ullrich) Re: The Hottest Answering Machine (Lang Zerner) Re: Caller ID Device (Mary J. Winters) Help Please re Chicago Local Calling (Dick Jackson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gregory K Johnson Subject: Re: AT&T's ACUS Service Date: 8 Nov 89 20:32:42 GMT Reply-To: Gregory K Johnson Organization: Columbia University In article rmadison@euler.berkeley. edu (Linc Madison) writes: >In article Bill Fenner >(wcf@hcx.psu.edu) writes: >>AT&T announced a new service at Penn State's University Park campus >>this fall, called ACUS long-distance service. With this service, each >>student gets their own PSC (Personal Security Code). The PSC >>identifies the student, no matter which room he is calling from.... >This sounds very similar to the system used in the dorms at >UC-Berkeley, although my understanding was that it was more the >University than the telco or LD Co that put this into place. There >was one HUGE hitch: if you ever accepted a collect call, you were hit >with a HEFTY surcharge, to the tune of $20 or some such absurdity, to >cover the administrative cost of manually assigning the charge to your >account. At Columbia University, ACUS administers the billing for our ROLM PBX campus phone system. I have the following complaints about it, some of which have to do with ROLM I think more than ACUS, but I find the ACUS people much more difficult to deal with than New York Telephone or any other local phone company. 1. They will charge $5 to accept a collect call, because it requires a human clerk to handle the billing. 2. They will cut off your service when either (a) you are more than 5 days late in paying it or (b) you go over some pre-set credit limit. You get no warning if either of these conditions is imminent, and it takes *over two weeks* in some cases to reactivate service because the only way to get it back is to mail them a check and wait for them to get around to processing it. 3. Due to the problem in (1), they will not allow calls to 976, 1-900, or any other exchanges which have special billing arrangements. 4. They do not provide supervised billing. While they will give you credit for uncompleted calls, they will admonish you not to let the phone ring more than *six times* or you will be billed for the call. This is ridiculous and I tell them so every time I have to call them to get credit for my dozen or so uncompleted calls. In conclusion, ACUS sucks and so does ROLM. Get a standard phone line if you can. Greg Johnson ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: CT2 - A Low-cost Mobile Phone in the UK Date: 9 Nov 89 13:52:03 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne > Here in the UK we are seeing the launch of a low-ish cost alternative > to cellphones: a roaming cordless phone. The technology is referred > to as 'CT2'; brand names of Phonepoint and Zone Phone are being > promoted. > A limitation is that you can't take > incoming calls; a pager may be used to get round this. > {My employer has an interest in one of these ventures, although I'm not > working in any connected area. From the advertising, "our" handset > (Phonepoint) looks to be half the bulk of the other one, so it looks like > we can expect to *stuff* the competition once again!} I read about this in a magazine a while ago. After pondering the question of receiving calls for a few days I came up with the following possible solution: Each phone comprises telephone AND pager, with an LCD display. An incoming call is handled by paging the phone with the number of the caller. This can be automated by Caller-ID. The owner of the CT2 phone then finds a Phonepoint and tells the phone to call the number which the pager function received. OR, the pager displays an 'incoming call' message, possibly with ID, and the user moves to a Phonepoint to accept the call. Callers would have to be warned that it may take a couple of minutes before the call is answered. If the Phonepoint density were high enough, however, it would be workable. This really boils down to a cellular network with very small cells which do not overlap at all. How many channels can the CT2 phone operate on? This determines the number of lines available at a given phonepoint, I guess. Even if the above is not implemented, a combination pager/CT2phone might interest manufacturers / purchasers of these phones. Danny U5434122@uscvc.unimelb.edu.au ( University of Melbourne ) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Is this V&H Data? Date: 8 Nov 89 17:10:58 EST (Wed) From: "Paul S. Sawyer" Dave, and Telecom readers: The file you have is not quite the same as the Bellcore V&H files, though some fields seem to be in the same places; I would guess it was some switch or call accounting vendor's V&H/NPA-NXX data file. The Bellcore file has 80 columns per record, (just right for punched cards - hmmm B-) and there is a Copyright notice as the first file on the tape. We have the full documentation for the file, and it has such telco-oriented things as LATA, RAO, and time zone information; we are basically interested in the NPA-NXX, place name and state, and V&H coordinates for pricing calls. We get the tape once a year, and "Emergency Notification" (on paper) which comes about once a week with minor changes, new exchanges, etc. The tape is issued monthly for those who could afford it (or could not afford NOT to have the most current information - - like telcos). The emergency notifications do NOT cover planned changes like NPA splits, so we have to stay aware of such things during the year between tapes. I believe we pay several hundred dollars for this service, and our sales or license agreement limits our use of it to the one computer. Hope this helps, Paul = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Frying Your Brains Date: 9 Nov 89 19:16:11 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , moscom!pyrite.telesci! kindred@cs.rochester.edu (David L Kindred (Dave)) writes: > My $.02 -- is the through glass antenna warning because of harm to a person > sitting too close, or because the inherent equivalent circuit of the > human body would interfere with the through glass coupling?? Now that makes more sense. As a matter of fact, someone from Stanford left a message on my machine (a voice follow-up :-)) indicating that he felt that the concern was really over harm to the cellular transmitter due to high VSWR caused by the detuning of the antenna by a human head. This would be a real concern. But I'm afraid that the real furor is from dweebs who hide under the bed over anything with the word "radiation" associated with it, even if it comes from a micro-power communications transceiver. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 16:21:47 -0500 From: Michael Katzmann Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Reply-To: Michael Katzmann Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home In article rmadison@euler.berkeley. edu (Linc Madison) writes: >>For starters, Australia uses 000 as the emergency number (like 911 in >>USA and 999 in GB). ^^^ >>Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU >Oy! I found that surprising, since in Australia the digit to dial for >calls outside a Centrex or similar system is "0" instead of "9" in >U.S. Thus, a call to the U.S. from an Australian Centrex is >0-0011-1-etc. To then have "000" as emergency seems it could have >high potential for misdials. "Emergency? No, I'm trying to reach >France!" The PABX at the place where I worked in Australia had 555 as the emergency number (it translated it to 000 for the outside line). It was also barred for trunk and overseas calls (at least from my phone), so dialling 0-0011 etc would just give you an engaged tone! Having different numbers for emergency is annoying! When I was in London one time, I wanted directory assistance, so I looked (not to carefully) and came up with 999. The operator became quite irrate when I told here that there was no fire. I then found the correct directory assistance number and called it. To my amazment the person who answered said "Were you the person who just called 999 ??"!!! I then received five minutes more of abuse and lecture! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca. Date: Thu, 09 Nov 89 16:18:03 -0800 From: ben ullrich As you discovered, 1+ dialing does not necessarily indicate a toll call... it merely indcates a call to a different npa. Some of the time, these calls are toll, and may be handed off to a long distance company for handling. With neighboring area codes, it may also very often result in no charge, such as what will happen to me in 91 when 415 splits off into 510 and 415: my office, a free call, will be 11 digits from my home phone! In light of the reality of what 1+ dialing means, I'd venture to say you erred in your supposition upon which your repeater's programming was based. Tell us this: If another area code were across the street from you (thus making it a free call), how would you suggest the numbering scheme work for this? How does a scheme based on 1+ == toll deal with 800 calls? 1+ aside, there are, at least in my area, several prefixes that are toll (zone) calls within the npa. The only way to catch these, as well as *allow* free 1+ calls is, you guessed it, toll tables. ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." - mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben ------------------------------ From: langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) Subject: Re: The Hottest Answering Machine Date: 9 Nov 89 09:47:59 GMT Reply-To: langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) Organization: The Great Escape, Inc In article John Tsang writes: >[The only "drawbacks" to certain Panasonic answering machines] >are the outgoing message seemingly is too short of 1/2 min., which may >not be enough for business operation announcement of operation hours >and introduction, and, the annoying beep during 2-Side-Conversation- >Recording. On most machines using two cassettes (not digital recorders) the outgoing message goes on a loop tape. While the manufacturer usually supplies a 30 second loop, you can buy longer and shorter ones at your local Radio Shack. As for the beep while recording a conversation, well, it may be annoying, but in the United States it is the law. Be seeing you... Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!" [Moderator's Note: I believe the law does not require the beep every few seconds. It merely requires that both parties be *aware* of the taping and consent to it. Therefore, if in the first few seconds of the recording I say to you, "I am recording all this, is that okay with you?" and you respond it is okay AND I have this consent itself recorded at the start of the conversation, then the law has been obeyed. The beeping every few seconds is of course one way to insure the other person in theory knows about and has consented to be taped. PT] ------------------------------ From: mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary J Winters) Subject: Re: Caller ID Device Reply-To: mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary J Winters) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 13:49:57 GMT Some months back, I chanced upon several BBS sysops discussing the caller ID service in a (gasp!) FidoNet ECHO Conference. They were using homemade devices(!) to display the caller's phone number and feed it to their computers. They seemed to have gotten a hold of some schematic for the device and were passing it around. Of course I didn't pay much attention to all of this at the time, and so now that I'm interested in obtaining such a device I can't remember any of the important details. My questions are these: Are the plans for this device still available? If I do manage to build one, will the device work for caller ID in all areas, or do different telcos use different schemes for transmitting the information? Many Thanks, Mary ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: Help Please re Chicago Local Calling Date: 9 Nov 89 16:56:05 GMT Reply-To: Dick Jackson Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica This is a request for help. For the work I am doing I need to know about local calling areas in the Chicago area. Approximately how big are the single message unit calling zones in and around the city? Is measured use in effect for residential phones or are local calls "free". I would greatly appreciate it if someone could email this information to me. Thanks in advance. Dick Jackson [Moderator's Note: The calling zones are about eight miles apart; that is, *residence* phones can call anywhere within their eight mile zone as an untimed local call. We can talk as long as we want for one unit, which is about 5 cents. *Business* phones have this same local, one unit zone, but they pay by the minute. Nothing is untimed for business. Local calls within your zone (whatever that may be) are called 'Zone A' calls. The next 8 miles in any direction are 'Zone B', and those are timed for residence and business alike. One minute is about 3/4ths of a unit, but the clock keeps running. The third set of 8 miles out is called, obviously, 'Zone C'; and places 32 miles away are 'Zone D'. C Calls cost about a unit and a half per minute. D Calls are about two units per minute. Units get cheaper as you use more of them. By the time you are up to your thousandth unit for the month, the cost is down to about four cents each. Between 9 PM and 9 AM daily, the *unit absorbtion* per call is discounted by one-third. A local, 'Zone A' call for a residence therefore costs only about 2/3rds of a unit during the night. Maybe one or more of the Chicago readers will write you with more detailed specifics and answer questions. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #501 *****************************   Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 2:31:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #502 Message-ID: <8911110231.aa17721@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Nov 89 02:30:59 CST Volume 9 : Issue 502 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson FAX System Information Needed (Ethan Lish) FAX Modems (Piet van Oostrum) RAPICOM 230 (Ricoh) FAX Question (Steve Pozgaj) AT&T Sues Intellicall (Paul Fuqua) Touch-Tone Obfuscation (David Robbins) Charge for Int'l D.A. (was "Why not 00...") (Linc Madison) Poor Man's Intercom (Henning Schulzrinne) Yellow Pages in Electronic Form (Andrew M. Winkler) Implementing CLASS #1 vs. #5 ESS (John Boteler) Reasons (was Re: Time to "Disconnection") (David Lewis) Is Robot-calling An 800 Number a Nuisance Call? (Mark Seiden) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ethan Lish Subject: FAX System Information Needed Date: 9 Nov 89 00:30:48 GMT Organization: Analytics, Inc., Columbia, MD Greetings - I am in search of *ANY* and *ALL* information I can receive on Fax Solutions. I am looking for a "Black Box" that I can interface to through an RS232C Serial connection and perform: Remote Dialing, ASCII/EBDIC to Group III Fax translation, Error Detection and Notification. Any And All responses are appreciated. Thank you in Advance, Ethan A. Lish __ __ /| ((__ \ \'o.O` \\ ! =(___)= !!! U o_@@--.\ ACK! PHHT! (___, / ___! ! "Life's an adventure.. go for it." / .-! ! _) "Make America beautiful, eat your beer cans." (_/ _/ \_/ \ _( _( / (_(__(____) (c) Copyright (James "Odie" Perkins) ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: FAX Modems Date: 9 Nov 89 12:09:15 GMT Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht, Holland Does anyone know what kind of modulation technique is used for faxes. As I understand, a modern fax does the following: 1. The document is scanned, giving a bitmap. 2. The bitmap is compressed. 3. The compressed bitmap is sent to a remote fax, using some kind of modem and an appropriate protocol. 4. At the other side the reverse applies. My question is about step 3. What kind of modem technology is used? Are there normal modems that can be used to communicate with a fax? Is a fax card in a computer more than just a modem? When ISDN will be more prevalent will it then be possible to send faxes over ISDN? and will these be able to communicate with a normal fax? 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 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31-30-513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 14:52:56 EST From: Steve Pozgaj Subject: RAPICOM 230 (Ricoh) FAX Question We have one of these beasties, and it's performed superbly for over a year. Lately, odd things are happening. For example, on the monthly phone bill, I keep seeing repeated calls to the same number in 2-minute intervals, then a final longer charge. The FAX protocol is a CCITT T3C, and, according to the docco, it's supposed to retry on bad lines. My question is: does "retry" in the FAX sense mean "establish the connection; verify that the line is ok; if not, hang up, and try again". If so, then a noisy line would certainly mean a lot of repeat call attempts, which result in minimum-charge connections. (In my case, that meant about $15 last month!) Also, we had one instance of a $26 charge ... hmmm? You'd have to send a HECK of a lot of pages for that. (It was Toronto (416) to Virginia (703) at off-peak, so the long distance would have normally been around $10!) Is there something in the makeup of FAXes that could cause them to hang for a long time? (I suppose what I'm really asking is: Has my FAX had the biscuit?) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 12:30:48 CST From: Paul Fuqua Subject: AT&T Sues Intellicall The November 9, 1989, Dallas Morning News contains a short article about a suit that AT&T filed the day before, charging that pay phones made by Intellicall, a COCOT manufacturer in Carrollton (a northwest suburb of Dallas), "surreptitiously reach into AT&T's computerised system of verifying calling cards." AT&T wants unspecified damages plus $2 million in punitive damages. Intellicall's phones, called IntelliStar, "call into remote computer systems, such as AT&T's, to retrieve information about the caller and verify the card." AT&T also says they can't block the calls, because "when the call comes in, it looks like any other customer call." (Sounds like a case of the COCOT placing a call via AT&T just to verify the card, then cancelling and calling via its usual carrier.) The article also includes the usual amount of sniping from both sides (AT&T says talks with Intellicall failed, Intellicall says there were no such talks). Coincidentally enough, Intellicall was about to sell 1.25 million shares in a new public stock offering; that's delayed now, and Intellicall's stock dropped from $14.50 to $12.00. 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 ------------------------------ From: David Robbins Subject: Touch-Tone Obfuscation Date: 9 Nov 89 15:46:53 GMT Reply-To: David Robbins Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA Last night's newspaper contained a piece of sheer obfuscation, misinformation, and outright lies that struck me as rather amusing. A significant number of SxS exchanges in our general area have been converted to ESS in the past year or two, and the phone company seems to engineer each ESS to accept from all subscribers, by default, both dial-pulse and DTMF signaling. But, as we well know, the phone companies still cling to the now-counterproductive notion that DTMF service must cost the customer more money. It is surely almost pure profit to them these days, but that's another issue that I'm not really discussing here. A reader from a town just recently converted to ESS wrote in to the newspaper's "help" column, asking why in the world would the phone company insist on the customer paying a service charge (somewhat more than $10) for the phone company to hook up a service *that is already hooked up*. Of course, the column asked a representative of the phone company to answer the question. I got a kick out his answer: >Although the towns in question may have gotten Touch Tone service, it >still requires addition of equipment at the telephone company to provide >the Touch Tone "beeps" to residents. The one-time ... charge is for >installation of the special equipment on each line, he said. Touch Tone >customers then pay per month for the right to beep in their numbers. I can't recall when I have seen a higher ratio of lies to sentences than in the above! And I noted that the response absolutely refused to acknowledge that what the customer said was true: that Touch Tone service is *already available to every customer for immediate use*. Reading the response, I get a picture of a little bottle full of "beeps" attached to the customer's line, and every time the customer pushes a button on the phone, one beep comes out of the bottle. No doubt the monthly charge is to refill the bottle. :-) I wonder when the state commissions that regulate the phone company's rates will wake up to the current realities of the cost of providing DTMF versus dial-pulse service? The phone company is really not 100% to blame for the current situation vis-a-vis Touch Tone charges, although I am sure that they will be more than happy to keep the public utilities commissions in the dark. Dave Robbins GTE Laboratories Incorporated drobbins@gte.com 40 Sylvan Rd. ...!harvard!bunny!drobbins Waltham, MA 02254 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 02:03:23 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Charge for Int'l D.A. (was "Why not 00...") Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article John Levine writes: >>I just saw an AT&T ad in USN&WR that claimed that "00" is international >>directory assistance. >In the past, if you got international DA through the operator, they'd >charge you for the call unless you called the number you got >afterwards. The one time I got DA from the 800 number, they asked me >for the number I was calling from but didn't charge me. Anybody know >how they charge now? If AT&T charged at all for international Directory Assistance, it was either very recent or a long time ago. I spent one summer checking a customer database, including lots of overseas numbers. I called D.A. in Italy, Britain, Germany, Africa, Japan, Panama, Brazil -- you name it, and I'm quite sure there was no charge. That was pre-divestiture (and thus pre-charge for any D.A. except local), but I've made calls to int'l D.A. on AT&T since (I called "00" to get int'l D.A. through my Sprint operator, who told me to dial 10288-0!) and was not charged. That was about six months ago. The above is, of course, only my own experience, 1978 (+/-) and 1989. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 08:27 EST From: Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Poor Man's Intercom By accident I discovered a way to use the phone for in-house calls: Dial your own number and hang up immediately after the last digit. All phones in the house will ring and (hopefully) the person you wanted to talk will pick it up. Is this a special "feature" of our exchange (we are part of tiny Granby Telephone Company in Western Mass.) or does that work everywhere? Henning Schulzrinne (HGSCHULZ@CS.UMASS.EDU) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: (413) 545-3179 (EST); FAX: (413) 545-0724 ------------------------------ From: "Andrew M. Winkler" Subject: Yellow Pages in Electronic Form Date: 10 Nov 89 14:32:26 GMT Reply-To: "Andrew M. Winkler" Organization: Columbia University Does anyone have pointers as to where, if at all, such a thing can be obtained? ------------------------------ Subject: Implementing CLASS #1 vs. #5 ESS Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 16:56:22 EST From: John Boteler My former housemate works for Bell Atlantic (serving D.C., Virginia, Maryland, et. al.) and last year brought home one of the many company newsletters desktop publishing has made possible. It described the proposal to implement CLASS services on an office-by- office basis and pointed out that ESS1 offices would get all the features at once, but, oddly, ESS5 offices would only get some of the features at first. The features to be implemented later include Select*Forward (selective call forwarding of a list of up to 6 calling numbers), Priority*Call (distinctive ringing from a list), and Call*Block (block up to 6 numbers from reaching you). It occurs to me that it would be easier to implement CLASS features in a #5 than a #1. Am I close? I note that the features to be implemented last in the #5 offices have the need to store a list of up to 6 numbers, and I believe the LECs are purchasing equipment from other telecom companies to provide these services, hence the delay. But why not the same delay for #1s?? BTW, if anybody is interested in hearing a recording of these 3 features mentioned above, send me email and I will describe to you how to access a little demo I have set up on a voice response system which I operate. I nabbed these during the test period (before they were turned off to begin the billing period!). It's a standard number in the Washington D.C. metro calling area. Fun if you're bored. Bote going away soon: uunet!cyclops!csense!bote changing soon: {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!cyclops!csense!bote to this: ...!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Reasons (was Re: Time to "Disconnection") Date: 10 Nov 89 14:46:28 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , varney@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (Al Varney) writes: > The rules in the LSSGR, etc. are there for a reason (too bad Bellcore > doesn't give the reasons), 'Cause we're the phone company. We Know What's Right. (Joke! Joke!) > One MAJOR casualty of divestiture is the > knowledge base that knew WHY the specs said a particular thing. Good point. Both Bellcore and Bell Labs have people who were instrumental in writing the specs for just about every CO switch built and in designing the 1AESS and the 5ESS -- but the structure, the interrelationships, the informal channels of communication that capture so much of an organization's knowledge doesn't exist anymore. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Mark Seiden Subject: Is Robot-calling An 800 Number a Nuisance Call? Date: 9 Nov 89 23:44:20 GMT Organization: Seiden & Associates Inc., Stamford, CT I am incredibly angry at a tour operator and a travel agent -- I placed a $500 deposit for a Hawaii trip over xmas based on the agent's substantial misrepresentation of the price ($3200 lower than actual price), and the tour operator tells me the entire deposit is nonrefundable even in that case. I am attempting to reason with them. I'd rather get EVEN than get mad...though I AM mad...how does this look? Set up a dialout modem to call their 800 numbers during prime time. Wait for an answer (in one case, from their robot operator, in which case dial a randomly chosen digit), and hang up 3 seconds later. repeat ad infinitum. (The telephonic equivalent of mailing in a truckload of empty business reply envelopes.) The effects: they pay for a minimum charge of 1 minute per call, (I think) and I can get a lot of these done in a few hours. Also, I imagine, partial denial of service since some people may get busy signals or be ignored in the noise. Questions: Are these nuisance calls? Could this possibly be legal? Can they find me? (and how easily?) What can they/They do to me? (they = the bastards, They = the govt or TPC)... (I know this is nasty/sophomoric -- I'm not a Christian and please don't suggest I become one... I don't have the time to sue the bastards who are half way across the country.) Flame me directly, I'll summarize to the net. I almost feel better already... mis@seiden.com [Moderator's Note: I *strongly* recommend against the action you have described to get even. You can get caught, and 'they' can do a few things including sue you to recover the phone costs and whatever business they claim they lost while the lines were tied up. What 'They' can do is another matter: 'They' can take you before a federal grand jury and indict you on charges of mis-use of the wires. Telephonic harassment is illegal in all states, and on the federal level. If 'they/They' put their mind to it, you will be caught. You should remember that many/most 800 subscribers do get a print out of the calls received. It would be a simple matter to look for patterns in the calls matching the time the harassment occurred. About four years ago, a man in Georgia used his computer and modem to dial repeatedly for days on end to the toll free lines of Jerry Falwell. The result was a phone bill of about *one million dollars* which Falwell settled with AT&T for considerably less. Falwell's total phone bill ordinarily runs about $275,000.00 per month. Falwell sued the guy in Georgia and got a judgment; I doubt he has collected it. AT&T stunk up things with the feds, and the guy wound up in court getting a year of federal probation. And by the way, the mis-use of Business Reply Envelopes (mailing them back blank, etc) is also against the law. You've been counseled. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #502 *****************************   Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 3:25:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #503 Message-ID: <8911110325.aa19028@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Nov 89 03:25:05 CST Volume 9 : Issue 503 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Caller ID Okayed in Pennsylvania (Scott Alexander) Re: Caller ID Device (Dave Levenson) Telecom Scenario In India (Giridhar Coorg) California Local Calling Should Now Change (John Higdon) [Moderator's Note: Watch for a special edition of the Digest sometime on Saturday discussing the Internet/Telenet mail gateway, with detailed instructions on its use. It will be sent for your reference files. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 01:16:30 -0500 From: Scott Alexander Subject: Caller ID Okayed in Pennsylvania The decision was made yesterday regarding Caller ID in Pa. Here's the text of the [Philadelphia Inquirer] article about it. One thing that I felt the article didn't make clear is that the administrative judge's recommendation was that Caller ID be made available with optional blocking on a per call basis. He felt that this would not infringe on the wiretap law. From The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10 November 1989: Caller ID is Approved With Slight Changes by Larry Fish, Inquirer Staff Writer Despite warnings that some lives might be endangered, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission yesterday voted to allow Bell of Pennsylvania to offer Call ID, a service that allows customers to see the phone numbers of callers before answering the phone. On a 3-to-1 vote, the PUC made only minor modifications in plans for Caller ID, which vice chairman William H. Smith described as a valuable service to help fire and ambulance companies save lives and to discourage obscene phone calls and false alarms. But commissioner Joseph Rhodes Jr., who wanted to permit Caller ID only if telephone subscribers could protect their privacy by being able to block identification, said in a statement that he feared that "unblockable Caller ID will sooner or later cause the death or serious injury of persons who have good reason to keep the identity of their calling numbers anonymous." For instance, critics fear that it would deter people from calling suicide, AIDS, or domestic-violence hotlines. In voting to allow Caller ID, the commission disregarded the findings of one of its own administrative law judges, who ruled in September that the service should be blockable, and also disregarded much of the testimony at public hearings on the issue. The commsision voted to require Bell to modify its plans for Caller ID so that "private, nonprofit, tax-exempt, domestic-violence-intervention agencies," the home phones of their staff members and law-enforcement personnel could get free call blocking if they wanted it, so their calls would not be traceable. Under the PUC's order, no other Pennsylvanian would be able to get call-blocking. Critics also fear that provision could discourage people from giving anonymous tips to police, newspapers or other investigators. "I'm very concerned about this. It doesn't seem logical to extend blocking to domestic-violence shlters and not extned it to rape-crisis hotlines." said Karen Kulp of Women Organized Against Rape in Philadelphia. "It may cause some people not to call." To deal with such problems, the PUC's order requires Bell to help social agencies advertise the fact that they do not use Caller ID. Bell has seven days to modify its plan to meet the PUC order, a timetable that the company said it could meet. The commission then has one day to review the changes, after which Bell would be free to offer it. Bell plans to charge $6.50 a month for Caller ID. Users would have to buy a device to display the incoming phone number, at a cost of about $70. A Bell spokesman yesterday said that it most likely would be about Jan. 1 before Caller ID became available. But some opponents may try to derail Caller ID in court before then. Rhodes, a former legislator who helped draft Pennsylvania's Wiretap Law, has said that Caller ID violated one of its provisions, and a challenge could come on that ground. Dan Clearfield, senior assistant in the state Consumer Advocate's office, said that the commission "only addressed a tiny percentage of the problems" with Caller ID. He said that "we plan to study it carefully." If the consumer advocate decides to challenge the decision, he said, it could either ask the commsision to reconsider or it could appeal to Commonwealth Court. Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia, said that "we intend to pursue the subject," though he did not yet know what course would be taken. "We believe that Caller ID in the hands of the general public will result in a signficant invasion of privacy," Steinhardt said. Both sides of the Caller ID issue have claimed to be preserving privacy and protecting lives. Bell and others favoring Caller ID say that the service can speed emergency teams to someone calling for help, and that it can discourage obscene or nuisance calls. They also point out that subscribers can choose not to answer the phone calls from numbers they do not recognize, discouraging telemarketers, for instance. Opponents cite, in addition to their concerns about crisis-hotline calls, the prospect that businesses might use Caller ID to compile lists of potential customers. Others point out that some Bell customers are charged extra for unpublished phone numbers, and that Caller ID would circumvent that service. Caller ID, without blocking, has been offered for about two years in northern New Jersey, and was recently introduced in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. Bell says none of the dangers its critics fear has developed in those areas. Opponents say there has not been enough experience to judge. Scott Alexander salex@cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller ID Device Date: 11 Nov 89 00:37:02 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc. edu (Mary J Winters) writes: > My questions are these: Are the plans for this device still available? > If I do manage to build one, will the device work for caller ID in all > areas, or do different telcos use different schemes for transmitting > the information? Caller*ID is part of the Class(sm) feature package. It is implented in the same way throughout the Bell System. The information is delivered using a simplex 1200 bps fsk data transmission (similar to the modulation used on 202-type modems) which occurs after the first ring on lines subscribed to the service. Colonial Data Technologies (the folks who made the Call Identifier(tm) box I use with this service) is rumored to be working on a PC card capable of receiving this data transmission and passing it to some software they'll supply. I don't know how open the application interface will be. In the "Bell System of the Future" a new kind of calling number delivery will be offered to ISDN subscribers. This is a different transmission method, and is digital, rather than analog. Instead of a modem, you'd need an ISDN processor, capable of implementing a sizeable subset of HDLC data communications protocol. This service is used today by a few large businesses -- notably those with large groups of 800 service circuits. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 13:33:48 EST From: Giridhar Coorg Subject: Telecom Scenario In India This information is as of January 89. There has been a tremendous improvement in the quality of telecom services in India. Till 1984, EPABX's were not manufactured in India. The Indian govt. decided to throw open the manufacture of EPABX's to the private sector industry. Tenders were floated and for some reason the technologies chosen were: GTE-ATEA of Belgium Jeumont Schneider of France Oki of Japan. These are definitely not the best of technologies. These were chosen possibly due to reasons known to the Indian govt. Probably at that time the big time players of the telecom game were too busy with the testing of their new systems to respond to the tender or their terms for technology transfer were too rigid or they did not want to part with their latest technology. Anyways, these are the three technologies which will be present in India. Simultaneously, a body called CDOT (Center for Development of Telematics) was set up under the leadership of Sam Pitroda (former switching & transmission design engineer at GTE with a lot of patents to his name and former owner of a company sold to Rockwell International) with the goal of creating a rural network to work in adverse conditions. The time span was 3 yrs and a budget of Rs. 360 million. Within the time span and well within the budget, this goal was achieved. C language was chosen as the programming language and the hardware incorporates the latest in semiconductor advances. As an by-product, a 128 port (TDM-PCM ofcourse!) EPABX with all facilities was brought out to compete against the manufacturer's with foreign technology. 48 manufacturers all over the country signed up to actively promote this product with CDOT providing all the necessary technical back-up. This scheme has been very successful. The CO system is also functional and is helping to remove bottlenecks in communication. The 128 port system has had a chance to participate in international telecom exhibitions and has won wide acclaim from people all over the world. So beware AT&T and other big names!! Watch out for the system from India!!!! To meet the short term needs of the country, 27-30 Alcatel (of France) E-10B digital exchanges have been installed. For e.g, in a city like Madras where the total number of telephone lines are 140,000, there are 30,000 digital lines and another 30,000 on electronic exchanges (analog). The rest are a mix of cross-bar and strowger exchanges. There are factories set up to manufacture these exchanges. To meet the access to STD (subscriber trunk dialling) or long distance dialling demand, MAX (main automatic exchanges) were also in the scope of design of CDOT. These are also working successfully. The MAX'S are being progressively being changed to digital. On the subscriber equipment side, for telephones, three technologies were chosen. They were Siemens of West Germany, Ericsson of Sweden and Face of Italy (I don't know if I got the spelling right for the last one!). So a user could hook up any of the three types of approved instruments. Of course, there are a lot of fancy gadgets similar to the ones available in the US which have been connected by the users themselves. The P&T (Post & Telegraph) which is responsible for the telecom services in India, assumes responsibility for data transfer rates upto 1200 bauds although rates of up to 9600 bauds have been measured to pass peacefully. The network is still primarily analog but switching fast to digital. 30-channel PCM links to subsriber ( as a first step towards ISDN) are being offered to subscribers on a limited basis. Satellite transmission is used by some organisations and also networking of various offices (for e.g State Bank of India net) is in vogue. FAX machines are pretty common although in offices, most of which are imported from Japan or elsewhere. Manufacturing of fax machines will start pretty soon with technology transfer. Other office automation equipment available are Copiers (eg Xerox), electronic typewriters, electronic telexes etc. etc. You name it, India has it. Such has been the rapid development of telecom services in India that any global telecom manufacturer cannot afford to neglect the market potential in India. Also, the competition from India for a niche in the telecom market is expected to be very intense. Item-wise billing is available in India on demand to those subscribers connected to electronic exchanges (either analog or digital). It works on battery reversal principle. Also the exchanges which have been installed are capable of working on pulses. A massive computer and software has been set up by a local manufacturer with collaboration with Bull to take care of billing software. The battery reversal principle has been quite reliable and not many disputes have been known to occur on the bills. Now, the metering of calls can be done at the PBX level also by keeping track of the first battery reversal which takes place when the called party lifts up the receiver. Subsequently, the duration of the call is calculated by noting the time of disconnection of the call by the user on the PBX. This information is fed to a billing system consisting of a computer to calculate the charges for the calls. In fact, the star hotels (luxury type) have this sort of an set up to give the guest a detailed billing of all calls. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: California Local Calling Should Now Change Date: 11 Nov 89 07:41:41 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows [Describing local calling in Chicago] > [Moderator's Note: The calling zones are about eight miles apart; that > is, *residence* phones can call anywhere within their eight mile zone > as an untimed local call. We can talk as long as we want for one unit, > which is about 5 cents. *Business* phones have this same local, one > unit zone, but they pay by the minute. Nothing is untimed for > business. Currently, we have Zone 1, 2, and 3. For business and [optional] measured residence a Zone 1 (local) call is $.05 and $.01 a minute, with discounts for evening and night. A flat-rate residence phone is not charged for such a call. Zone 2 and 3 calls are higher for the first minute and per minute and are treated equally in all classes of service. Zone 1 extends 8 miles, Zone 2 is 9-12 miles, and Zone 3 is 13-16 miles. Now that Pac*Bell has been given its blank check by the PUC, it will be interesting to see how fast their promises are fulfilled. Specifically, that Zone 1 will extend to 12 miles, Zone 2 will be 13-16 miles and Zone 3 will not exist. The other promise is the elimination of TouchTone charges. Since TT is included with Commstar, do you suppose they will reduce the Commstar rate by $1.20? HA! The clock is ticking... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #503 *****************************   Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 11:33:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #504 Message-ID: <8911111133.aa19972@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Nov 89 11:30:00 CST Volume 9 : Issue 504 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Proposed Tariff for Billing Name & Address Service by NY Tel (Ed Ravin) Re: Greasing Skids at NYTel (David Tamkin) Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Torsten Dahlkvist) Re: PABX Communications With Local Telco (Bill Cerny) Re: The Hottest Answering Machine (Andrew Hastings) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) Subject: Re: Proposed Tariff for Billing Name & Address Service by NY Tel Date: 9 Nov 89 17:32:39 GMT Reply-To: eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) Organization: Adventures In Telecom, Inc. In article CER2520@ritvax.bitnet (Curtis E. Reid) writes: >I read a notice of proposed tariff [...] >BNA Service is the provision of the complete billing name, street >address, city or town, state and zip code for a telephone number >assigned by New York Telephone. >BNA Service is provided for the sole purpose of permitting the >customer to bill its telecommunications services to its end users. >Further, an amendment to the offering of Non-Published Service has >been filed to specify that BNA information on a non-published number >will be provided to a BNA subscriber when a call utilizing the BNA >subscriber's service originates from that non-published number. The term "telecommunications services" is a wee bit vague. If we're talking about common carrier service, that is, telephone service, then this says that organizations that provide phone service to their users but only know their user's phone numbers can buy the name and address from the telco so the organization can ostensibly bill their users. But why doesn't the organization know who its users are? If the service provider got a phone number from the user, why didn't the provider ask the user for a name and address at the same time? Maybe this is to allow the provider to have casual users, so that anyone can call the provider and make use of these "telecommunications services". The provider gets the user's phone number via Caller ID, and the user's name and address via the BNA tariff described above. Unlisted number? Tough, the telco will deliver your name and address anyway. Now suppose that these "telecommunications services" aren't just long distance phone calls or something telecom oriented. Suppose you're calling Dial-A-Porn or a 900 number. Now the provider can harrass you directly for the large bill someone ran up on your phone line. They can pass your name to a collection agency, and your old recourse of bitching to the telco or bitching to the public utility commission about the telco's participation in this scheme is gone: you never see the telco's participation behind the scenes in supplying your name and address to the provider. How will the provider get the name and address information? Perhaps at the end of every month, when it's time to make out the bills, the provider will get on the phone and call a special operator who will supply the names and addresses? Fat chance. There will probably be some kind of data link, the provider's modem calls the special number and gets billed by ANI or whatnot. If the provider has enough traffic, it might be worthwhile to set up a leased line and keep the inquiry line for names and addresses open all the time. A user calls up for the provider's services. Perhaps the user is ordering a pizza. The user presses "1" for cheese pizza, "3" for anchovies, and "4" for mushrooms. The voice system reads back the order and the user presses "#" to confirm. The system then does a name and address inquiry, and writes a ticket for a pizza delivery. Your pizza arrives, cold as usual, but this time untouched by human hands. Anyone see the potentials for abuse here? An unscrupulous provider could subscribe to this service, and pretend to be getting names and addresses for billing customers but really doing lookup on people for marketing or surveillance reasons. A person's directory information, once thought to be a matter only between the telco, the person, and the phone book, is now sold to the highest bidder. Even unlisted numbers aren't safe anymore. If this stuff takes off like 900 and 540 number did, you can count on seeing all sorts of advertising campaigns: "Want to get a new Ronco combination nose-picker and vegetable-slicer delivered to your home? Just call 1-800-BUY-JUNK." I'd rather not think about what we'll see on the Saturday morning cartoon circuit. I hope someone can provide more information on this stuff and maybe prove me wrong. I plan on looking into it myself. But it sounds all too much like the general trend where telephone companies are not only selling telephone service, but also selling transactional information about telephone services, and all sorts of assumptions about the privacy of the telephone (or the commitments one makes by making phone calls) will have to change as the telcos cash in on "enterpreneurial spirit" which translates to fast bucks for sleazy operators. Ed Ravin | hombre!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing (BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| eravin@dasys1.UUCP | to waste-- boycott TV!" +-------------------------+----------------------+----------------------------- Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article. [Moderator's Note: Mr. Ravin's reference to pizza reminds me of a good item in the Telecom Archives: 'pizza.auto.nmbr.id', which is a discussion of this very topic which appeared some time ago in the Digest. Anyone who wants further research on this might want to pull that item from the archives with ftp. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Greasing Skids at NYTel Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 11:13:45 CST A few weeks ago I submitted a question for a friend who was moving to New York City and who needed telephone service in a hurry despite the strike against BOC's that are subsidiaries of NYNEX. John Levine and Rob Warnock sent email suggesting that she get cellular service. She had just dumped her car phone service in Illinois but still had the equipment, so it was a strong possibility. At the time she was spending the early part of the week in Illinois and the latter part of the week plus the weekend in New York. The eventual results were as follows: Her second Thursday there she went to NYTel's offices and waited to be helped in person. They told her to send documentation of her professional need for immediate telephone service and told her their fax line number for sending it in. The next day she faxed NYTel a cover letter and a copy of her license and such. She went back to Illinois that Monday and returned to New York on Friday. There was dial tone on her line, and at first she thought that the previous tenant's service might never have been shut off, but the building's concierge confirmed that it had been. My friend called NYTel's business office to confirm that the service was hers and to find out the phone number. So within a week (it might have been sooner, since she was out of town and couldn't test the jacks) she had the service turned on. Getting her second line will take longer because the job requires wiring, but it can wait. PS: I managed to mistype "one's" for "ones" in my response to John Covert's submission on cellular service and the 312/708 split. Sorry. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 (708)518'ORNY (312)693-0591 dwtamkin@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Torsten Dahlkvist Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Date: 9 Nov 89 09:49:26 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden munnari!cit5.cit.oz.au!jwb@uunet.uu.net (Jim Breen) and I have been having a little discussion about byte/bit transmission over ISDN. I said: >> The basic ISDN-frame is byte-oriented and the hardware (in this case >> the ISDN-chip in the SPARCstation) ALWAYS provides a frame sync to >> allow you to read the bit stream byte by byte. Why? Because the >> TELEPHONY transmission is byte oriented.......... ... and he countered: >Ok I'll bite. WHERE in the Red or Blue books does it say the B >channels are byte oriented. Of course, the networks will go to a lot >of trouble to maintain synch, which they do out of band, i.e. using >the F bits on the S bus, and timeslot 0 on the primary access. If >SPARC terminals are adding a frame synch, that's terrific for them; >provided they are always talking to other SPARC terminals. We're looking at different levels of the system. The ISDN frame consists of a frame recognition pattern, D-channel bits and B-channel BYTES. Your basic ISDN chip will extract the clock frequency, B-channels and D-channel and output them separately. Typically the B-channels appear serially on an output pin, eight bits B1, eight bits B2, next eight bits B1 and so on. Since maintaining the byte-wise sync is absolutely crucial for telephony, the frame sync is used together with some counter device and the clock to read the eight bits wanted at the moment into the next device along the line. In a telephone this will be the codec. In some datacomm equipment it can typically be a shift register bank, where the output clock on the other side is the 64000 bps synchronous data rate. Now do you see what I'm getting at? Up until the codec/shift register, a strictly byte-wise transmission is essential for the function of your equipment. It would be trivially easy to implement a byte-wide parallel output instead of the serial one, if some scheme for flow control and such could be established. >> In the bit-oriented datacomm standards specified, this frame sync is >> simply ignored, as far as the interface to other equipment is >> concerned...................... >I'll say they they ignore them; they never see them. I maintain synch >info is NOT sent on the B channel. Certainly. What I'm talking about is the frame surrounding the B-channels. This is ALWAYS available at some level in the hardware. It might not be a good idea to let this generate a system interrupt, however. An interrupt every 125 us to handle a single byte of data seems inefficient. Probably use some kind if FIFO and empty it at regular intervals. If it can be cross-connected with DMA to pipe directly into main memory, all the better! >> >must NEVER be a standard protocol above Layer 1. ISDN is to be a >> >bit-pipe service. >> Aren't there ANY byte-oriented protocols around that could be used to >> form a basis for a bytewise link over ISDN? There are obvious >> advantages. >Sure, there are several: HDLC, LAPB, etc. etc. Different pairs of >users make up their own minds. Of course, if you are using your B >channel to access a service, such as a packet-switched network, you >will have to fall into line with that network. Here in Australia >Austpac access will be available through the B channel, with LAPB as >the link protocol. It will be available for BRA users over the D >channel, in which case LAPD will be used. You seem set on insisting that we stick to the same old methods we've used all along. I suppose that's safer from many points of view. As a (former) designer of the systems involved, however, I feel it's a shame that we can't let them come to full advantage by making use of all the inheritent possibilities. On the other hand, maybe the net gain from eliminating the HDLC frame info from the data stream isn't big enough to justify the work of specifying a new standard. Some kind of flow control, packeting and such would still be needed, so it might turn out not worth it in the end. Torsten Dahlkvist ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.UUCP (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: PABX Communications With Local Telco Date: 9 Nov 89 15:46:28 GMT In article , nvuxr!deej@bellcore. bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: > Another approach often used, instead of running 7000 wire pairs, is to > locate a Remote Switching Unit, or RSU, on the customer premises. An > RSU is a "module" of a central office switch which has a control link > and a transport link to the main switch. The control link is > essentially an extension of the switch control bus, usually running > over fiber these days; the transport link is a high-capacity fiber > link. AT&T calls their version of this product the Optical Remote Module (ORM), and SW Bell uses ORM's to link Tenneco's various Houston locations into a "city-wide" centrex provided from a 5ESS. > The RSU isn't a switch in that it has no standalone > "intelligence", instead being directly controlled by the central > processor in the main switch Not strictly true anymore. I believe an AT&T Remote Switching Module (RSM) can be configured for stand-alone operations, and Northern Telecom will soon have a stand-alone remote switching unit. This touches on a very hot issue: telco provided CPE (a real no-no). When Tenneco selected SW Bell city-wide centrex, the PBX association filed a lawsuit which categorized the on-premise remote as CPE. SW Bell responded by categorizing it as central office plant. The judge ruled SW Bell may not locate the remote in the customer's portion of the building, i.e., SW Bell must lease space for its remote apparatus, or place the remote in a physically separate facility (e.g., underground vault). In the Tenneco situation, a corner of the basement was walled off, and a telco-keyed lock installed. As if that made a fundamental difference... Bill Cerny bill@toto | attmail: !denwa!bill | fax: 619-298-1656 ------------------------------ From: abh@pogo.camelot.cs.cmu.edu (Andrew Hastings) Subject: Re: The Hottest Answering Machine Date: 10 Nov 89 17:28:48 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI In article , langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) writes: > As for the beep while recording a conversation, well, it may be > annoying, but in the United States it is the law. The laws governing the recording of a telephone conversation vary from state to state. Some states require a beep. Some states require the consent of both parties. Some states require the consent of only one party. -Andy Hastings abh@cs.cmu.edu 412/268-8734 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #504 *****************************   Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 16:47:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Internet to Telemail Message-ID: <8911111647.aa19808@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Nov 89 16:45:04 CST Special: Internet to Telemail Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Internet Addressing To Reach Telemail (John Ellson) [Moderator's Note: This special edition of the Digest discusses how mail is sent between the Internet/Bitnet and Telemail. You may wish to keep it with other email reference materials. My thanks to John Ellson for making it available to us. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 15:50:38 MST From: uunet!ontap.stsusa.com!ellson%sdcsvax@ucsd.edu Subject: Internet Addressing To Reach Telemail In article , boulder!ngdc2!gho@ncar. ucar.edu (Gerald H. Orita) writes: > I would like to know if there is an Internet address for Telemail. We > would like to excess Telemail through Internet instead of through > modems. > I would like suggestions. > Thanks in advance. I had exactly the same question and, just last week, I received the following answer. So far I have only verified the ability to send mail in the UseNet -> Telemail direction. If you need more information please contact Chris Refuerzo directly. John Ellson ellson@ontap.stsusa.com 602-395-5281 /// Siemens Transmission Systems, Inc., /// 8620 North 22nd Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85021 /// /// "Are you insinuating that my brain consists \\\ /// If my employers had my of, at bottom, just a bunch of ants running \\\/// opinions then they wouldn't around?" Douglas R. Hofstadter. \XX/ need me, would they? ========================== attachment ======================================= Date: Fri, 03 Nov 89 11:40:09 PST From: Chris Refuerzo Hello Here is the information you requested about TELEMAIL. If you have further questions, please let us know. Chris Commercial Mail Relay Project TELEMAIL Ann Westine Annette DeSchon Jon Postel Craig Ward ISI February 1989 MAIL FORWARDING BETWEEN TELEMAIL AND ARPA-MAIL USING COMMERCIAL MAIL RELAY OVERVIEW ======== These are the instructions for using the Commercial Mail Relay (CMR) system that has replaced the Intermail system. The CMR is used for transmitting computer mail between users on the Telemail system and the ARPAMAIL system. CMR may be used in either direction. ******************************************************************* Please note: The use of DARPA supported facilities is for DARPA sponsored research activities and other approved government business. ******************************************************************* Messages to be forwarded are sent to the CMR mailbox called "Intermail" on the local mail system. The CMR operates by having a program service mailboxes in both the local and the destination mail systems. When the right information is supplied either in the ARPA- Mail header "TO" field, or at the beginning of a message, the program forwards those messages into the other mail system. In order for a message to be delivered from ARPA-Mail to a mailbox on a Telemail system you simply type the Telemail mailbox in the ARPA- Internet header. TO: user-mailbox%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU For more details, see "ARPA-MAIL TO TELEMAIL" section on page three. In order for a message to be delivered from Telemail to a mailbox in the ARPA-Mail system, you must first send mail to the CMR mailbox in Telemail called "[INTERMAIL/USCISI]TELEMAIL/USA" and then add the ARPA forwarding information at the beginning of the text of each message. This forwarding information tells the mail forwarding program which mail system to forward the message to, and which Westine, DeSchon, Postel, Ward [Page 1] TELEMAIL--ARPA-MAIL Forwarding Instructions February 1989 mailboxes to send it to. Always forward to ARPA, even if you are sending to BITNET you must specify ARPA. Telemail users please note that forwarding information MUST be included in the text of the message, even when the "ANSWER" command is being used. This information is in the form: Forward: ARPA TO: The syntax allowed on the "To:" line is any acceptable ARPA-Internet address, (user@host.domain). In a list, the addresses are separated by commas. It is also possible to include a list of CC recipients. See the example for further details. In either direction, the local Subject field of the message to "Intermail" is used as the Subject field of the message delivered in the other mail system. TELEMAIL TO ARPA-MAIL ===================== The following is an example of how to send a message to Annette and Bob, on the Internet, with copies going to John on BITNET, Joe on CSNET, and Fred on UUCP. Note that addresses are separated by commas (not spaces). Example 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- To: [INTERMAIL/USCISI]TELEMAIL/USA Subject: Test Message Number 1 Forward: ARPA To: DeSchon@ISI.EDU,Bob@LCS.MIT.EDU CC: JOHN%ABC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU,joe%oksu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET, foo!bar!fred@UUNET.UU.NET Annette, This is the text of the test message. --Fred ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Forward: ARPA" signals the beginning of the forwarding information and tells the forwarding program that this is mail for the ARPA-Mail system. On the next line, "To: DeSchon@ISI.EDU,Bob@LCS.MIT.EDU" specifies the mailboxes that it will be delivered to. The "To:" line Westine, DeSchon, Postel, Ward [Page 2] TELEMAIL--ARPA-MAIL Forwarding Instructions February 1989 is required, to deliver the message. It is also possible to send copies to other mailboxes, using a "CC:" line. Note that in the forwarding information section, the "To" and "CC" fields must start at the beginning of the line. Continuation lines of the "TO:" and "CC:" fields, however, are indented. The "To" and "CC" fields can contain anything that ARPA-Mail allows. The blank line separates the forwarding information from the rest of the text. Therefore, there can't be any blank lines between the "Forward:" line and the "To:" line. The "Subject" field from the Telemail header will also be used as the subject in the ARPA-Mail header, when the message is forwarded. Sending to BITNET, CSNET, or UUCP NETWORKS: =========================================== Some hosts need to go through one of the internet gateways. The following is a set of examples of how to send mail through each gateway. BITNET: Forward: ARPA To: JOHN%ABC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU CSNET: Forward: ARPA TO: joe%oksu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET UUCP: Forward: ARPA TO: host2!host1!fred@UUNET.UU.NET ARPA-MAIL TO TELEMAIL ===================== In this direction the Telemail mailbox is typed in the "TO" field of the standard Internet header of your mail program. Please note that in some mail interfaces, such as "hm" you need to quote the string before the at-sign. For example, to forward a message to Mary Worth of XYZ-INC you would type: TO: "WORTH/XYZ-INC%TELEMAIL"@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU Westine, DeSchon, Postel, Ward [Page 3] TELEMAIL--ARPA-MAIL Forwarding Instructions February 1989 BITNET USERS: ------------ Some systems in the BITNET world treat square brackets, "[" and "]", as special characters. On these systems, a square bracket that is used in an address must be quoted through the use of a preceding backslash, "\". Where this applies, an address should be in the form: TO: \[GORDON/OMNET\]MAIL/USA%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU Everything to the left of the "%" is the user mailbox address in Telemail. Everything to the right of the "%" is the ARPA-Mail forwarding information. The "%TELEMAIL" must be included in each address so the program can recognize this and queue the message for Telemail. Be sure that there are no blank spaces anywhere in the address. Note that addresses are separated by commas. The "Subject" field from the ARPA-Mail header will also be used as the subject in the Telemail header, when the message is forwarded. In the following example, a message is being forwarded from the ARPA-Mail system to several TELENET mail systems. (TELEMAIL, MAIL, TELECOM, GSFC, NASAMAIL, and TELEMEMO.) In the "To" field, copies of the message are sent to seven mailboxes (Washington, Gordon, Joe, Lewis, Webster, Glenn, and Pat). Example 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- To: Washington/XYZ-INC%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU, [Gordon/OMNET]MAIL/USA%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU, [Joe/EDUNET]MAIL/USA%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU, [Lewis/TELECOM]TELECOM/CANADA%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU, [Webster/GSFCMAIL]GSFC/USA%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU, [Glenn/NASA]NASAMAIL/USA%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU, [Pat/ABC-CO]TELEMEMO/AUSTRALIA%TELEMAIL@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU Subject: Test Message Number 2 Fred, This is a test of mail forwarding. --Joe --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is possible to communicate with a number of organizations using Telemail systems in other countries, as well as the U.S. Here is the basic format: [username/organization]system branch/country Westine, DeSchon, Postel, Ward [Page 4] TELEMAIL--ARPA-MAIL Forwarding Instructions February 1989 The old style method of including the forwarding information in the text of the messages is also acceptable. For example, to forward a message to Worth, on the TELEMAIL/USA, the forwarding section at the beginning of the Telemail text would consist of: Forward: TELEMAIL To: Worth/XYZ-INC The following is an example of a message to be forwarded from the ARPA-Mail system to the Telemail system. The text on the right (for example, "--ARPA-Mail header") is for explanation only, and should not be included in an actual message. Note that in the forwarding information section, the "To" field must start at the beginning of the line. Continuation lines, however, are indented. The "To" field can contain anything that Telemail allows. The "Subject" field from the ARPA-Mail header will also be used as the subject in the Telemail header, when the message is forwarded. Example 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- To: Intermail@ISI.EDU --ARPA-Mail header Subject: Test Message Number 3 Forward: TELEMAIL --ARPA-MAIL text, forwarding info To: Worth/XYZ-INC,[Gordon/OMNET]MAIL/USA, --Telemail mailboxes [Meyer/Dept5/Div2/ABC-CO]MAIL/USA --a continuation line --blank line ends forwarding info Folks, --start of text of the message This is a test of mail forwarding. --Fred --last line ends with --carriage return ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IN CASE OF QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS PLEASE SEND A MESSAGE TO: Intermail-Request@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU. Westine, DeSchon, Postel, Ward [Page 5] << end of special report>> John Ellson // ellson@ontap.stsusa.com // 602-395-5281 Siemens Transmission Systems, Inc., 8620 North 22nd Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85021 [Moderator's Note: Thanks very much John for sending this along. These new instructions obviously supercede the instructions given by the same organization about two years ago, and this improved method seems a lot easier to use. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Internet to Telemail *****************************   Date: Sun, 12 Nov 89 7:16:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #505 Message-ID: <8911120716.aa26397@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Nov 89 07:15:06 CST Volume 9 : Issue 505 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson The Pinnacle of Telephone Service (Edward Greenberg) Bell of PA Answering Service (Thomas Lapp) Beep Tones During Recording (MJK2660@ritvm.bitnet) Data PBX Equipment (Gary W. Sanders) 8-Digit Numbers vs. More Area Codes (S. M. Krieger) Re: Cellular Phones Frying Your Brains (Dave Levenson) Re: NYC Time and Weather (Fred E.J. Linton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 11:20 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: The Pinnacle of Telephone Service Back on a ranch driveway off a twisty backroad highway in Northern California, you'll find the Pinnacles Telephone Company. Here owner Rex Bryan and his assistant, Janice Moses provide a mixture of private and party line service to 150 subscribers over a sixty mile strip of Highway 25, south of Paicines, California. I visited the Pinnacles National Monument this weekend, and when I checked out the pay phone up in the monument, I found the strangest set of dialing instructions I had ever seen. This led me to investigate, with the hopes of reporting to Telecom Digest. I asked at the Park Ranger station, "excuse me, who provides your telephone service?" I was told, "Rex -- If you want to talk to him, just dial operator, he'll come on if he's around." Well, I couldn't find Rex, but I found Janice Moses, his trusty assistant, and she invited me (well, I asked) to come by and hear all about it. Pinnacles Telephone Company was acquired by Rex Bryan about 45 years ago when he made the mistake of complaining about the quality of the phone service at his ranch. He was told that if he thought he could do better, he should buy the company, so he did. Rex and Janice do all the maintenance and installation work in this valley, working in the CO and in the field. This includes such things as telephone poles! Readers of the Digest will likely be most interested in the way calls are handled, and I'll try to describe what I learned. There are two central offices, both step by step. Touch Tone service is provided by a bank of tone to pulse converters. The exchanges are numbered 408-389 (Pinnacles) and 408-693 (Idria.) For your info, the service area abuts Pacific Bell's Monterey LATA. Local calls are made by dialing the three final digits of the number. Thus there seems to be a shelf of line finders, ONE shelf of selectors instead of the more traditional two, and a shelf of connectors. In the 389 CO, numbers are in the range of 400 to 599. All numbers are preceded by 4 in the outside world, thus, the phone number appearing on the switch as 419 would be reached by dialing 408-389-4419. Calls between 389 and 693 are handled by some dedicated trunks between the offices. The full seven digits are dialed, although it's not clear to me how many digits are absorbed. All local service within and between the two Pinnacles CO's is flat rate. Calls outside of the Pinnacles and Idria service area are handled by Pacific Bell, which also serves to connect out of LATA calls to AT&T. There is no opportunity to select a carrier, and I'm not sure whether one can dial 10xxx codes into the Pacific Bell trunks. When a subscriber wants to dial outside of the local area, he dials 1++number. The first 1 connects the call to Pacific Bell via a CAMA card. Then the ID code identifies which subscriber on a party line is calling. Private line subscribers must still dial 1 as a party code. After the CAMA card repeats the subscribers pulses , it provides the originating phone number in MF tones. Pacific Bell then routes the call and makes a billing record. Once a month, Pacific Bell provides a tape with the billing record on it. Pinnacles Telephone contracts with another telephone company (one that has a computer, according to Janice) to print the bills and provide both a printout summary and a microfiche permanent record. Operator service is provided by Pacific Bell or AT&T for third party billed calls. There is no cord board or other operator position associated with the Pinnacles system. When I made an out of lata call, I dialed (according to instructions) 0+0+Number. An AT&T operator came on, asked me the number I was calling FROM and my billing, and told me she'd put the call up at the direct dial rate. It'll be interesting to see the placename that comes up on my bill as the source of the call. I won't be disappointed if it's Salinas, but I'll be pleased if it's Pinnacles. Pinnacles Telephone Company has two public phones. One is up at the monument, the one I found, and another is at the Thousand Trails Campground. Local calls are free, and AT&T or Pacific Bell calling cards work just fine. I don't know if they handle coin deposited long distance calls. The physical plant for the Pinnacles CO is typical. A brick building with a stout metal door. Only difference between this and your more mainstream CO is that the building is only 8 by 10. Outside the building is a small green cabinet with a generator. During the recent earthquake, the generator worked fine. About a minute after the quake hit, Mr. Onan came on line and service was restored. Naturally the CO was overloaded, but it came back as people calmed down. Inside the CO were the shelves of Strowger switches, a rack of tone to pulse converters, a shelf of cards that comprise the Automatic Number Identification equipment, two shelves of CAMA/TSPS cards to drive the outgoing trunks, and two shelves of cards that were Rotary Receivers for incoming trunks. The trunks are divided into groups going to Salinas (Pacific Bell) and to Idria (the other Pinnacles CO.) There's also a large power supply device that transforms the incoming power into the various voltages needed to run the whole affair. I made a few calls while I was inside the CO, and was able to follow the progress of the calls through the strowgers, and through the outgoing CAMA cards. When you pick up the phone, the linefinder finds you, and then you work the switch train to make the connection. Janice says that the Idria CO is similar to the Pinnacles installation. When there is a problem in Idria, Rex makes a 60 mile drive to attend to it. The Pinnacles CO building is located on Rex Bryan's ranch. There's also an office located on a dining room table in one of the houses on the ranch. Pinnacles Telephone is the only telco I know of with it's own cat, Tabby, who presides over the operation. Several alarms are remoted to the house. When the light goes on, Rex or Janice drive up to the CO and fix whatever problem has arisen. One problem that might arise is a receiver off hook at one of the subscriber's premises. Whenever anyone is off hook, one of the lights goes on at the house. It goes off when the first digit is dialed. If the light stays on permanently, they need to go up to the CO, find the offending line and, "put the howler on." Rex Bryan is 72 years old. He's been doing this for 45 years. One subscriber raised the fear that, "I don't know what we'd do if anything happened to him. We don't know if Pacific Bell or AT&T could figure this out or would try." One thing is for certain, Rex and Janice bring a personal touch to their utility that you just don't get from Pacific Bell. As Janice said, "we're a real 'country' telephone company." For my money, I hope they stay that way. Ed Greenberg Phone: 415-694-2952 (w) 408-283-0408 (h) Usenet: edg@netcom.com edg@CSO.3mail.3com.com Compuserve: 76703,1070 Snail Mail: PO Box 28618 San Jose, CA 95159 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 12:39:23 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Bell of PA Answering Service From the Wilmington (DE) News-Journal (w/o permission): ANSWERS BY BELL A new telephone call answering service, which permits callers to leave a message if you're not home, takes messages even when your phone is busy, and requires no equipment purchase, has become available for Philadelphia residents. Bell of Pennsylvania is introducing Answer Call, giving touch- tone telephone users voice-message capabilities. Customers can check their voice "mailbox" by dialing a special access number and their personal password. Any telecom readers use this service provided by Bell of PA? Comments? - tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA Quote : Virtual Address eXtension. Is that like a 9-digit zip code? [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, Centel offers voicemail, for $4.95 per month. Illinois Bell offers it on an experimental basis only in the Summit CO, but is scheduled to expand it in the next several months. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 08:15:44 EDT From: MJK2660@ritvm.bitnet Subject: Beep Tones During Recording Over the summer I received a rather comprehensive list (150+ pages) of laws governing and court cases testing the need for a "beep" while recording a conversation. I became interested in this for my application because we tape all of our calls here (campus security department) whether they are of an emergency nature or not. In New York state only 1 party of the conversation must know that the call is being recorded. It is not necessary for any of the other folks to be informed. If anyone is interested in their particular state e-mail me and I can respond with a summary of your state if you like. ------------------------------ From: Gary W Sanders Subject: Data PBX Equipment Date: 9 Nov 89 19:30:29 GMT Reply-To: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders,59361,cb,3T219W,6148605965) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article 74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 499, message 3 of 6 >Recent comments on the topic of residential/small business PBXs have >encouraged me to share my experience with the Panasonic KX-T61610. I have also been looking at the Panasonic KX series PBX for my home looks like all of the features that I need. So now that I have my phone networking done, how about data networking? Does anyone have any suggestions on a medium feature data switch/pbx? I am looking for something that will support at least 8 ports, 16 RS232 ports prefered. I need some promtping and help features for the users. Support of bi-directional lines for dialin/dialout on the same modem. 9600 baud support on all lines, 19.2 or faster would be nice. Some security features would be nice. All of this in an attractive (-:)) package at a bargain price. Comments? Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ From: S M Krieger Subject: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 10 Nov 89 14:41:07 GMT Organization: Summit NJ Based on the number of area code splits that have recently occurred or have been announced, I am wondering if the idea of just expanding our phone numbers to 8 digits is being considered? Doing that just inconveniences all phone users eually and multiplies by 10 the number of phone numbers that are possible within an area code. On the other hand, splitting an area code changes three digits of the phone number, and only doubles the number of phone numbers that are available. Also, based on the growth in the demand for phone numbers, a demand incidentally which the phone companies are themselves encouraging (i.e., the coded ring feature, or whatever it's "officially" called), it seems that area code splits will need to occur even more often than they do now. For this, I am looking at my home state of NJ: a second area code was created for NJ in 1958 (the 201/609 split), and now a third area code (the 201/908 split) is being created. Since it probably won't be 30 years until the next split, and 30 years after that until the fourth split, there has to be a better way to "stabilize" our phone numbers. Any ideas or thoughts? Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Frying Your Brains Date: 11 Nov 89 00:26:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article ,john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Now that makes more sense. As a matter of fact, someone from Stanford > left a message on my machine (a voice follow-up :-)) indicating that > he felt that the concern was really over harm to the cellular > transmitter due to high VSWR caused by the detuning of the antenna by > a human head. This would be a real concern. I think a very likely explanation is that whether or not there is long-term damage done to the human head or the transmitter, the immediate problem with operations close to someone is that the signal will be absorbed to the point where the call gets dropped. This creates for the user the impression that the phone is not working properly -- and leads to complaints that come back to the manufacturer via the dealer etc. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: NYC Time and Weather Date: 10 Nov 89 20:57:06 GMT Just TIME, that I know of, in New Haven, CT -- local call, with a 10 second SNET public service plug, at [1 203] 777-4647 ("SPRINGS" to the innumerate). flinton ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #505 *****************************   Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 1:49:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #506 Message-ID: <8911130149.aa00765@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Nov 89 01:45:00 CST Volume 9 : Issue 506 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Thomas E. Lowe) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (David Lesher) Re: Is Robot-calling An 800 Number a Nuisance Call? (J. Philip Miller) Re: Poor Man's Intercom (John Higdon) Re: Implementing CLASS #1 vs. #5 ESS (John Higdon) Re: TCP/IP Over ISDN Basic Rates (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: AT&T's ACUS Service (Kevin Blatter) Wireless PBX Developments (Scott Loftesness) Help Please Chicago Local Calling (Kevin Blatter) Residential Centrex (Louis J. Judice) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thomas E Lowe Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Date: 11 Nov 89 04:04:22 GMT Reply-To: tel@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.e.lowe,ho,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article ben@sybase.com (ben ullrich) writes: >Tell us this: If another area code were across the street from you >(thus making it a free call), how would you suggest the numbering >scheme work for this? In Central New Jersey, along the 201/609 split, there are several exchanges that are local calls to each other, even though in different area codes. In the phone book under the Local Calling section is the the following paragraph: "From telephones designated 597, 693, 698, 971, or 978, it is not necessary to dial the Area Code 201 on calls to the Toms River Exchange Area 240, 244, 255, 269, 270, 286, 341, 349, 505, 506, or 929 telephones." The first 5 (597,etc) are in 609, and the last 11 (240, etc) are in 201. Each of these exchanges exists only in either 609 or 201 area codes. All of these exchanges are local to each other. From other exchanges not listed above, you must dial the 201 or 609. Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM attmail!tlowe 201-949-0428 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (keep them lawyers happy!!) ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: Sun, 12 Nov 89 11:40:53 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Stan Krieger asks about 8 digit phone numbers, and makes some good points. But, alas all is not simple. On the human side, each existing user could get a number assignment of NPA-old-nmbr0 so that no one would have to learn a new number. Then new assignments could take the form of different last digits. This would help ease the shock of the changeover. The bad news is the technical picture. I suspect that EVERY piece of switch equipment in the country (or n.a. for that manner--remember NPA 809?) would have have to modified to handle this. While the ESS's might get by with what an old boss called "SMOP--simple matter of programming", what will all the SxS, panel, X-bar et-al offices do? I doubt the material or expertise exists to upgrade these, much less the $$$$. (larry@kitty would be better source on this. My only time in CO's has been tours) Then, what about all the millions of CPE call-dialers? But, all this said, we can assume we will be driven to such a change eventually. Would we better to bit the bullet and do it now? A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: Is Robot-calling An 800 Number a Nuisance Call? Date: 12 Nov 89 23:35:11 GMT Reply-To: "J. Philip Miller" Organization: Washington University (St. Louis) >[Moderator's Note: >...... You >should remember that many/most 800 subscribers do get a print out of >the calls received. Is this new? It has been a couple of years since I had 800 service (from AT&T) for inward dialing of a modem connection. I repeatedly asked about this because of my vulnerbility to the hacker and was told all they offered was a 24 hour sampling of the area codes of the calling party (I think in the last year or so they said they could identify the LATA of the caller). I know MCI and some of the others offer this service, but if AT&T offers it, it is new. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 phil@wubios.wustl - bitnet uunet!wucs1!wubios!phil - UUCP C90562JM@WUVMD - alternate bitnet [Moderator's Note: Well, I don't think it is that new for AT&T. Actually I think they were doing it before MCI, et al were able to. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Poor Man's Intercom Date: 12 Nov 89 17:15:39 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , HGSCHULZ@cs.umass.edu (Henning Schulzrinne) writes: > By accident I discovered a way to use the phone for in-house calls: > Dial your own number and hang up immediately after the last digit. All > phones in the house will ring and (hopefully) the person you wanted to > talk will pick it up. Is this a special "feature" of our exchange (we > are part of tiny Granby Telephone Company in Western Mass.) or does > that work everywhere? This is something that must be purposely engineered into the CO switch (it doesn't just happen). It is generally found in "Ma and Pa" telephone companies (and GTE) due to the high percentage of party lines in the system. As you might guess, it's used to enable party line neighbors to call each other. You dial your party line neighbor's number, hang up, then lift the receiver when the ringing stops (the switch rings both of you), or if it appears that there is no answer. This "feature" is generally not enabled in metro areas, where there are few, if any, party lines. In fact, Pac*Bell currently has a ring back code that you can subscribe to (for a monthly charge, of course) so that you can do exactly what you describe above--have a poor man's intercom. Given Pac*Bell's money-grubbing tendancies, I'm surprised the ring-back service isn't timed and measured. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Implementing CLASS #1 vs. #5 ESS Date: 13 Nov 89 03:13:20 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > It occurs to me that it would be easier to implement CLASS features > in a #5 than a #1. Am I close? Why would that be? Implementation of CLASS features is no different than for any other software-driven features. There is no magic here. A #5 ESS is no more capable of providing switching logic than a 1AESS. What makes the magic happen is the controlling software (the generic). Both switches are stored-program controlled. > I note that the features to be implemented last in the #5 offices have > the need to store a list of up to 6 numbers, and I believe the LECs > are purchasing equipment from other telecom companies to provide these > services, hence the delay. But why not the same delay for #1s?? The features and the implementation were originally developed on the 1ESS family. This being done, software had to be written for the other switches (5ESS, DMS, etc.) in general CO service. If you think about it, there are more 1/1As out there than anything else. Any features that expect to be widely implemented will have to work in a 1/1AESS. Example: ISDN. Pac*Bell just filed its ISDN offerings with the CPUC. While ISDN is a natural for a digital switch, widespread offering will require the ability to provide it out of an analog office. Hence, Pac*Bell will provide ISDN out of 1AESS offices using an NEC adjunct. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Reply-To: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sun, 12 Nov 89 17:47:04 GMT In article Torsten Dahlkvist writes: >Now do you see what I'm getting at? Up until the codec/shift register, >a strictly byte-wise transmission is essential for the function of >your equipment. It would be trivially easy to implement a byte-wide >parallel output instead of the serial one, if some scheme for flow >control and such could be established. >You seem set on insisting that we stick to the same old methods we've >used all along. I suppose that's safer from many points of view. As a >(former) designer of the systems involved, however, I feel it's a >shame that we can't let them come to full advantage by making use of >all the inheritent possibilities. >On the other hand, maybe the net gain from eliminating the HDLC frame >info from the data stream isn't big enough to justify the work of >specifying a new standard. Some kind of flow control, packeting and >such would still be needed, so it might turn out not worth it in the >end. The maintenance of frame sync on ISDN circuits would certainly allow you to send DATA at the frame rate (8 KB/sec), but then you would lose the "out-of- band" information of the HDLC frame, such as FLAG and IDLE. I always felt that BOPs were a MUCH cleaner way of maintaining packet synchronization than kludges like Transparent Bisync (DLE-SOH, DLE-SYN, DLE-ETX, DLE-DLE, etc). Besides, this is only going to work on pure digital ISDN-ISDN circuits. What happens when one end of the connection is a remote X.25 dial-up? I like to use all the bits, too, but you shouldn't overly constrain the channel. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: Kevin Blatter Subject: Re: AT&T's ACUS Service Date: 12 Nov 89 01:55:22 GMT Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA In article , gkj@cunixb.cc.columbia. edu (Gregory K Johnson) writes: > At Columbia University, ACUS administers the billing for our ROLM PBX > campus phone system. I have the following complaints about it, some > of which have to do with ROLM I think more than ACUS, but I find the > ACUS people much more difficult to deal with than New York Telephone > or any other local phone company. > 3. ... they will not allow calls to 976, 1-900, > or any other exchanges which have special billing arrangements. > 4. They do not provide supervised billing. While they will give you credit > for uncompleted calls, they will admonish you not to let the phone ring > more than *six times* or you will be billed for the call. This is > ridiculous and I tell them so every time I have to call them to get > credit for my dozen or so uncompleted calls. > In conclusion, ACUS sucks and so does ROLM. Get a standard phone line > if you can. Unless the PBX is connected to the CO via ISDN lines, there is no way for the PBX to know if a call is completed or not. I suspect that whoever the "ACUS People" are also don't know whether calls were completed, since they probably draw their information from the ROLM SMDR (Station Message Detail Recording) port. Also, ACUS probably is not privy to the 900 billing database. Therefore, it is not just ROLM (or ACUS), but anybody with this kind of configuration would provide the same sort of thing. I was talking to my sister who is a college senior and they are doing this sort of thing on her campus (BYU) as well, so it seems to be a trend that is sweeping across college campuses. Don't feel bad, she says that her LD service is provided by a company called Tel-America and her opinion is that the line quality sucks. She makes all of her LD calls at pay phones or at friends' homes where she can choose her LD company. Kevin L. Blatter AT&T - Bell Labs Disclaimer -- I have nothing to do with ACUS (or ROLM ;-) ) and the opinions that are expressed herein are strictly my own. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 89 13:04:47 EST From: Scott Loftesness W3VS (HamNet) <76703.407@compuserve.com> Subject: Wireless PBX Developments I'm looking for information about development activity that might be underway for wireless PBX's. If anyone is aware of existing products or will be willing to share information about product development activity, please e-mail me at the address below or fax me at 617-248-0543. Scott Loftesness W3VS Internet: 76703.407@compuserve.com CompuServe: 76703,407 ------------------------------ From: Kevin Blatter Subject: Help Please Chicago Local Calling Date: 12 Nov 89 02:01:43 GMT Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA Can someone in the Chicago area please post the cities that will be included in the 708 area code? Kevin L. Blatter AT&T - Bell Labs Disclaimer - The opinions expressed herein are my own and have nothing to do whatsoever with my employer. [Moderator's Note: Mercy! All two hundred villages and towns in northern Illinois? I haven't the nerve to ask David Tamkin to type in such a list. The general rule of thumb would be this: Chicago, zip code 606xx, will be in 312. All other towns in the 600-601-602 zip codes will be 708. Take any old area code directory you have now. If the listing for a place in northern Illinois says 815, leave it alone. If it says 312 and is *not* Chicago, change it to 708. Some 604xx zip codes will also be in 708, although many are presently in 815. If someone wants to enter all the 'parks', i.e. Park Ridge, Park Forest, Forest Park, Oak Park, more; and all the variations on Chicago, i.e. Chicago Heights, North Chicago, West Chicago, (but not South Chicago! that *is* part of the city proper); all the 'Forests' including the two above, also Lake Forest, more, I'll be glad to post it here. Remember, if it is not "Chicago" -- no more, no less, with a 606xx zip code, and it isn't 815, then it is 708. Chicago central offices are usually identified as Chicago-office.name. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 89 08:30:33 -0800 From: "Louis J. Judice 12-Nov-1989 1126" Subject: Residential Centrex Can someone explain how residential Centrex (which I believe is offered by Illinois Bell) works (ie. connections to the CO, what premises equipment is required, etc). Thanks, Lou Judice Digital Equipment Corp. Piscataway, NJ 08855 201-562-4103 [Moderator's Note: Nothing is required except the requisite number of pairs from the CO and the single line instruments. Everything else is in the software at the CO. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #506 *****************************   Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 23:44:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #507 Message-ID: <8911132344.aa22723@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Nov 89 23:42:56 CST Volume 9 : Issue 507 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Centrex Hold, Call Transfer, Call Pickup (Tad Cook) Phones in the Movies (Roger Clark Swann) Ground-Start, Anyone? (Jim Gottlieb) "Private" Call Tracing (Bruce J. Miller) Weird Telecom Device (Jamie Coe) Datacomm Book Wanted (Stephen Fleming) Building Your Own Home PBX (Steve Gaarder) AT&T/Intellicall Lawsuit Settled (Don H. Kemp) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Centrex Hold, Call Transfer, Call Pickup Message-ID: <266@ssc.UUCP> Date: 12 Nov 89 01:18:58 GMT References: Organization: very little Lines: 59 I have a centrex question. My home is served by a 5ESS and I have 2-line "Centraflex" from US West. We have a call pickup feature, where if I have the phone for line #1 in my hand, and the phone for line #2 is ringing across the room, I can pick up the call by dialing *8. There are a couple of ways we transfer calls within the house. If I am in the basement and pick up a call for my roomate two floors up, I can do a flash-#2 to transfer it to the other line. Or, I can do a flash *9, which puts the call on hold until I go on hook, then rings it back to the SAME line, rather than transferring it to the other line. There is no difference in ringing cadence between a hold-ringback call, a transferred call, or an outside call ringing in. I ran into an interesting problem the other day. I was on line 1 talking to my mom, when a call came in, which rotated to line 2. My roomate picked it up upstairs, and then did a flash *9 and hung up. The call rang back on line 2, I ended my call with mom, and attempted a pickup with *8, but got a fast-busy reorder tone! I ran some tests, and discovered that my pickup feature doesn't work to pickup a call that is rung back with *9. This is very confusing for my roomates, who are already a bit intimidated by all the Centrex features (like it takes flash-*9 rather than just flash for call waiting on line 2!). I called telco repair, and they checked with the Centrex support staff, who said that I definately should be able to use call pickup on any ringing call. After a few days of fooling around, they reported that this was not possible, because the ringing call was not REALLY a call...it was merely an "alerting" feature whereby the CO is letting me know that I have just hung up on an on-hold call! But they never were able to point to anything specific that said you could not do this. I claimed that if this is true, then the on hold-ringback MUST have a distinctive cadence...otherwise how can anyone tell whether or not they can perform a pickup? There are a number of reasons why we want to use this for ringback. The most common is, I have used the pickup on line 2 to get a ringing call on line 1....I find out it is for someone else, but I dont want to transfer it back to line 1, lest the answering machine gets it before my roomate decides to get it. Anyone have any ideas about this? Is the telco correct about restricting call pickup, even though the ringing is not distinctive? Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP KT7H @ N7HFZ MCI Mail: 3288544 ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Phones in the Movies Date: 11 Nov 89 20:13:08 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA I caught a couple of movies this past week on the local movie channel that are of interest to this group... The first one was Blade Runner with Harrison Ford. There is a bar seen where Harrison Ford makes a phone call from a pay station and of course it is a picture phone with a CRT on the upper part of the panel and a kaypad that looked like a touchpad ( microwave oven style ). There was no hand set, just some kind of speakerphone. No money (coins) of course, he pushed a card through a reader I think. The kicker was the placard that said "VID PHONE" with the BELL SYSTEM (TM) - the outline of a bell inside a circle. No AOS stuff here.... The second flick was Jigsaw with Harry Guardino and Bradford Dillman, ( 1968 ). This is a murder mystery involving some "Doctors" at a think tank "institute". The set designer must have been NUTS about card dialers, they were everwhere. Two strange things: they never used the card dial function, they just used the things like a standard 2500 style phone when placing a call. The other strange thing was that these phones were all equipped with WECO speakerphone boxes that were never used. Instead they had these tacky, low-tech multi-pushbutton intercom boxes that were used to communicate between offices. One of the shows that I remember as doing a good job with the phone equipment was the NBC Mystery Movie, Name of the Game. The Howard Publications building had all the latest WECO phone toys, speaker- phones, card dailers, you name it. And the best part was that they USED them! The writers actually included these toys in the script. Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Ground-Start, Anyone? Date: 13 Nov 89 05:26:06 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan Our company's voice processing equipment, just like most PBXs, works better when using ground-start (as opposed to loop-start) lines. Ground-start has the advantage of reducing glare and (of most importance to us) providing positive disconnect supervision. However, when I asked about getting ground-start lines here in Japan, I was told that they do not exist. I asked someone I know over at Meisei Electric about this and he confirmed it and added that the U.S. is the ONLY country that has ground-start. Is this really true? Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: (011)+81-3-239-7453 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-944-6221 ID#82-42-424 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 08:26:29 -0500 From: "Bruce J. Miller" Subject: "Private" Call Tracing I have been told that in my area (Eastern PA, A/C 215), it's possible for an individual to trace, or at least call back, the originator of a crank and/or nuisance call by dialing *69 from a DTMF phone after the caller hangs up (but before you do). Supposedly this initiates a call back to the originator (without revealing the number to you); the callback is said to keep trying for 1/2 hour in case the calling phone is busy. Does anyone know if this is for real? If so, if there any way to extract the number of the caller? Comments, please. (Forgive me if this covers old ground. I've only been reading the group for a week.) Bruce Miller (miller@gvlv3.gvl.unisys.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 89 03:11:03 CST From: Jamie Coe Subject: Weird Telecom Device I recently traded some items and acquired a Racal-Vadic Model VA811. It appears to be some kind of modem or, maybe, telecom security device. Can anyone help me get more info on this thing? Jamie de Warlock@Pro-Harvest ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@apple.com Subject: Datacomm Book Wanted Date: Mon, 13-Nov-89 08:19:31 PST Dear Mr. Townson: I don't know if this is worth posting or not... but I am trying to find a particular tutorial on datacomm which I saw advertised a year or so ago. I don't remember the author or title, but the ad copy mentioned "don't ever underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tape backups going 50 m.p.h." I didn't need such a tutorial then, but I do now. Do you or any readers of dcom.telecom recognize this book? (PS - what is the "Digest"? You E-mailed me a copy once, when I submitted my piece on SONET. I access Usenet through Portal... do I see everything that goes into the digest?) Thanks very much. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Stephen Fleming | Internet: fleming@cup.portal.com | | Director, Technology Marketing | Voice: (703) 847-7058 | | Northern Telecom +-------------------------------------| | Federal Networks Division | Opinions expressed do not | | Vienna, Virginia 22182 | represent Northern Telecom. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ [Moderator's Note: I do not know what tutorial you are discussing. There is not one like it in the Telecom Archives. Someone may recognize it and write to you. You might also try posting your question in the 'comp.dcom.modems' group. TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are about the same. The Digest is distributed to anyone on the mailing list who wants a single digest-style presentation sent to them through email. Comp.dcom.telecom is a Usenet group and for that purpose, the Digest is 'undigestified' and presented as single messages; but the messages are the same ones in either case. You pick the way you want to read it. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 13:19:40 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Building Your Own Home PBX Is there anyone out there interested in working on designing a small PBX for home use? I've been tossing the idea arount for some time now. I know I can buy them, but there are advantages to building one's own: - You can program it to do *anything*, and do it *exactly* as you want it. For example, in my local area there are only a dozen or so prefixes. I would like to choose extension numbers different from the starting digits of these prefixes, and not have to dial an access code for an outside line. - If you have a good junk box, it may be cheaper. - Building things is fun. A group effort would help a lot in speeding up the process, and makes the of producing PC boards more feasible, which would save a lot of construction time. I suppose electronic switching is best, although at surplus prices Good Old Relays might be a viable option. The thing could be controlled by a single-board computer. Anyone interested should write to me at gaarder@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu on the Internet, or {backbone}!cornell!batcomputer!gaarder on UUCP. Steven Gaarder Ithaca, N.Y. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T/Intellicall Lawsuit Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 11:50:41 EST From: Don H Kemp [Moderator's Note: Mr. Kemp passed these along. The first describes the lawsuit, which we covered here in the Digest recently. The second press release from AT&T announces the settlement of the lawsuit. PT] FOR RELEASE NOV. 8, 1989 DALLAS -- AT&T today filed a lawsuit charging that a Texas-based corporation equips its pay telephones to illegally obtain billing information owned by AT&T. The lawsuit asks for $2 million in punitive damages and an undetermined amount in actual damages from Intellicall Inc., headquartered in Carrollton, Texas. It also asks the U.S. District Court in Dallas to order Intellicall to stop its unauthorized use of AT&T billing information. At issue is how Intellicall pay phones determine the validity of calling card numbers for billing purposes. AT&T contends that Intellicall pay phones are designed and programmed by Intellicall to reach into and obtain the information directly from AT&T's card validation system. That system, called Billing Validation Application (BVA), is a part of AT&T's network facilities. Before AT&T completes a call that will be charged to an AT&T Card, its validation system verifies that the number provided by the customer is currently valid. Based on contractual arrangements made before the 1984 breakup of the Bell System, regional Bell telephone companies also use the validation system. AT&T does not permit competitors such as Intellicall to use the system because the system was built by AT&T and contains valuable competitive information. AT&T alleges that when callers use an AT&T Card or Bell company calling card at an Intellicall pay phone, the pay phone automatically places a separate call through AT&T or local Bell facilities to a pre-programmed telephone number so that AT&T's validation system will automatically check the card number. If the card number is valid, the Intellicall pay phone then puts through the original customer call. "As a result of these practices," the lawsuit says, "Intellicall surreptitiously and without authorization obtains validation data from AT&T, obtains fraud control for calls by its customers without having to invest in fraud control facilities or otherwise purchase fraud control services, imposes costs on AT&T, and ... obtains an unfair advantage over its competitors providing pay telephone and/or long-distance service, including AT&T." Although AT&T does not authorize other companies to accept the AT&T Card and does not permit competitors to use its validation system, the lawsuit notes that Intellicall could purchase validation services for Bell company calling cards from other companies. AT&T said it notified Intellicall that it was violating AT&T's proprietary rights and gave Intellicall every reasonable opportunity to halt the fraudulent validation practice. Only after Intellicall persisted in its unfair practices did AT&T decide to take legal action. # # # FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DALLAS -- AT&T and Intellicall, Inc. today announced the settlement of a lawsuit filed last week by AT&T against Intellicall, seeking damages and an injunction. AT&T had accused Intellicall of unauthorized access to AT&T's calling card validation system. The settlement also covered potential counterclaims which Intellicall intended to file against AT&T. In the agreement, Intellicall acknowledged AT&T's proprietary rights in the Billing Validation Application system, and agreed to make modifications in its licensed pay telephone software to safeguard against unauthorized access and use of the AT&T system. The terms of the agreement include an undisclosed payment by Intellicall to AT&T to contribute to the establishment of a compliance program which will permit AT&T to monitor unauthorized access to its billing systems. "AT&T is pleased that a settlement recognizing AT&T's proprietary right to the validation system was reached so quickly," said Gerald Hines, director of AT&T Card Services. "It Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #507 *****************************   Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 0:43:37 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #508 Message-ID: <8911140043.aa22761@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Nov 89 00:43:12 CST Volume 9 : Issue 508 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Peter Desnoyers) Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Lars J. Poulsen) Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Jim Breen) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (David Lewis) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Peter da Silva) Re: NYC Time and Weather (Linc Madison) Re: FAX Modems (Gary Segal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Desnoyers Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Date: 13 Nov 89 18:56:25 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article euatdt@euas11c05. ericsson.se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes: > munnari!cit5.cit.oz.au!jwb@uunet.uu.net (Jim Breen) and I have been having a > little discussion about byte/bit transmission over ISDN. I said: > >> The basic ISDN-frame is byte-oriented and the hardware ... > >> [...] TELEPHONY transmission is byte oriented.......... > ... and he countered: > >Ok I'll bite. WHERE in the Red or Blue books does it say the B > >channels are byte oriented. In my opinion that is what "8 kHz integrity" means when applied to ISDN data calls. (ref. Q.931, low-layer compatibility info element.) This only suggests such a guarantee, however - to prove it would require the appropriate reference from the ISDN service specification. > We're looking at different levels of the system. The ISDN frame > consists of a frame recognition pattern, D-channel bits and B-channel > BYTES. Your basic ISDN chip will extract the clock frequency, ... > Now do you see what I'm getting at? Up until the codec/shift register, > a strictly byte-wise transmission is essential for the function of > your equipment. That is irrelevant, as it applies only to voice calls. There is no reason why a telco must treat voice and data calls identically. If you don't want to risk getting your data ADPCM'd or sent over analog facilities by some el-cheapo LD company*, you'd better request data service. In that case, only the guarantees in the spec for data service hold. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469 * I don't mean to suggest that any major LD companies would do this. Someone will, however. ------------------------------ From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Reply-To: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 19:34:51 GMT In article kaufman@Neon.Stanford. edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >The maintenance of frame sync on ISDN circuits would certainly allow >you to send DATA at the frame rate (8 KB/sec), but then you would lose >the "out-of- band" information of the HDLC frame, such as FLAG and >IDLE. I always felt that BOPs were a MUCH cleaner way of maintaining >packet synchronization than kludges like Transparent Bisync (DLE-SOH, >DLE-SYN, DLE-ETX, DLE-DLE, etc). Just before HDLC became ubiquitous, DEC designed the last byte-oriented protocol: DDCMP. This is full-duplex, sliding-window and all that good stuff. It also allows transparent binary 8-bit data. DDCMP frames start with a byte count and end with a CRC. You'd still need some idle pattern, DDCMP has a sync character defined. > Besides, this is only going to work >on pure digital ISDN-ISDN circuits. What happens when one end of the >connection is a remote X.25 dial-up? The same thing that always happened when the two ends are dissimilar. They won't talk to each other. What happens when one end is async data and the other end is synchronous ? They won't talk to each other. This should not preclude us from designing a better protocol. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 00:00:10 GMT > Continuing Torsten Dahlkvist and Jim Breen's > little discussion about byte/bit transmission over ISDN. > We're looking at different levels of the system. The ISDN frame > consists of a frame recognition pattern, D-channel bits and B-channel > BYTES. [...] This is correct for the S-bus interface, and for the T interface for Basic Rate. Primary Rate is different. > [...] Since maintaining the byte-wise sync > is absolutely crucial for telephony, [....] Now that Torsten has amplified his original statment, I agree with *most* of what he says. The exigencies of telephony will result in a de-facto byte synch, which can potentially be exploited by manufacturers. We need to watch out, though. If one device always expects an HDLC Frame octet to turn up in "synch", but the sender offsets it a bit (as it is allowed to do), we will have no communication. > >> Aren't there ANY byte-oriented protocols [...] > >Sure, there are several: HDLC, LAPB, etc. etc. [..] > You seem set on insisting that we stick to the same old methods we've > used all along. I suppose that's safer from many points of view. As a > (former) designer of the systems involved, however, I feel it's a > shame that we can't let them come to full advantage by making use of > all the inheritent possibilities. > On the other hand, maybe the net gain from eliminating the HDLC frame > info from the data stream isn't big enough to justify the work of > specifying a new standard. Some kind of flow control, packeting and > such would still be needed, so it might turn out not worth it in the > end. I quite agree. There is a potential gain if you could insist on all devices alligning their frames with the ISDN frames, but 8 bits is not much overhead. Also, you need some way to mark start and end of frame. _______ Jim Breen (jwb@cit5.cit.oz) Department of Robotics & /o\----\\ \O Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology /RDT\ /|\ \/| -:O____/ PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145 O-----O _/_\ /\ /\ (p) 03-573 2552 (fax) 572 1298 ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 13 Nov 89 18:04:40 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: > I am looking at my home state of NJ: a second > area code was created for NJ in 1958 (the 201/609 split), and now a > third area code (the 201/908 split) is being created. Since it > probably won't be 30 years until the next split, and 30 years after > that until the fourth split, there has to be a better way to > "stabilize" our phone numbers. I don't know; 30 years between changes sounds pretty "stable" to me... Seriously: Even without addressing implementation issues (i.e., how you make it work), there are questions surrounding an eight-digit "phone number". Like, where do you put the eighth number? Is it part of the CO code (NXX) or part of the station code (XXXX)? The former multiplies by ten the number of CO codes available in each LATA -- including LATAs in places like Montana where you may not need more CO codes for 20 years. The latter multiplies by ten the number of stations available in each CO code -- again, including places where more station codes may not be needed for twenty years. In addition, a change to eight digit numbers is actually a change to 11 digit numbers, since no phone in North America is uniquely identified by a seven digit number today, but instead by a ten digit number. NPA splits allow the increase of available numbers where needed, and leave the rest of the numbering plan alone. Which seems to me to be a rather cost-effective way of going about it. Disclaimer: Just because I work for Bellcore, which administrates the North American Numbering Plan, doesn't mean I know the labrynthine workings of the Numbering Plan Administration organization... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 9:50:08 CST From: Peter da Silva After all the exchanges are on NXX, and after we've used up the NXX exchanges, then what's the plan? 8- or 9- digit local numbers, or 4-digit exchanges, or partitioning Zone 1, or what? (Yes, I know this will take a while... maybe another 20 years) `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 15:27:48 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: NYC Time and Weather Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Fred E. J. Linton (FLINTON@eagle.wesleyan.edu) writes: >Just TIME, that I know of, in New Haven, CT -- local call, with a 10 >second SNET public service plug, at [1 203] 777-4647 ("SPRINGS" to the >innumerate). Here, the number is "POPCORN" (767-2676, although 767-XXXX works). It's treated as a local (Zone 1) call from anywhere that it works. (I don't know its geographical range.) It's also time only, but it's a "beep, beep, beep, beep, at the tone, 10:53:50, BEEP, beep..." system, and with NO ADVERTISING! Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: FAX Modems Date: 13 Nov 89 20:08:18 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes: >Does anyone know what kind of modulation technique is used for faxes. >As I understand, a modern fax does the following: >1. The document is scanned, giving a bitmap. >2. The bitmap is compressed. >3. The compressed bitmap is sent to a remote fax, using some kind of modem > and an appropriate protocol. >4. At the other side the reverse applies. >My question is about step 3. What kind of modem technology is used? >Are there normal modems that can be used to communicate with a fax? Is >a fax card in a computer more than just a modem? The most prevelant fax technology today is know as Group 3. Group 3 fax is specifed in CCITT recomandation T.4, while recomandation T.30 specifies the control link between fax machines (for Groups 1, 2, and 3). T.4 specifes the sizes of the scanning area, transmission times, coding (i.e. run length compression) scheme, line control commands, modulation and demodulation (modem type), and power levels. The modulation methods user are all simplex synchrounous data. They are V.29 9600bps and 7200bps, V.27ter 4800bps and 2400bps, and V.21 300bps. V.21 is used to transfer control information between machines, while the others are used for data transfer. Fax machines change the modulation used in accordance with the T.30 and T.4 recomandations. A typical fax call looks like this (typical means automatic machine at both ends, calling machine has doucment to send, no error correction): 1) Calling fax machine dials number, and generates calling tone, a 1100Hz tone for 0.5 sec repeated every 3 sec. Calling tone (CNG) is used to let a human who answeres the phone know that a fax machine is at the other end. A fax machine that answers ignores CNG. 2) The called fax machine answers, and generates Called Tone (CED), a continuous 2100Hz +- 15Hz tone for 2.6 to 4 seconds. 3) The called fax machine transmits information using V.21 at 300bps. Data transmitted includes the modulation methods the machine supports. Some machines may transmit and ID string or phone number that the operator has previously programmed. That is how the calling machine "knows" who it called (of course the information is only as valid at what was programmed into the called machine). 4) The calling machine responds with information using V.21 at 300bps. Most important, the calling machine tells the called machine what modulation method it is going to use, which is the highest common speed between the machines. The lastest and greates machines will use V.29 at 9600bps. 5) The calling machine transmits a training signal which the called machine uses to train its receiver to the modulation method selected. (ie, a V.29 training sequence). 6) The called machine responds at 300bps indicating if the trainning worked. The training may fail because of poor line conditions. If a failure to train message is sent to the calling machine, it will attempt to retrain at a lower speed (ie return to step 4). 7) The calling machine agains tramists a training signal, followed by a page of image data. This occurs at the data rate used in step 5. 8) The calling machine drops back to V.21 300bps and indicates if it is done or if it has another page to send. If it has another page to send, it waits for the called machine to respond that its ready, and then returns to step 7. If it's done, it disconnects from the line after sending the disconnect signal to the called machine. It is important to note that only one machine transmits at a time. Every time the direction of data flow reverses, each machine must reconfigure its modem to a different mode (ie recieve or transmit). So, to answer your question, a fax card or modem for a PC is nothing more than a modem that supports the above modulation standards. However, software must exist either on the card or on the PC to implement the T.4 and T.30 protocols. If you have a modem that includes the Group 3 fax modulation standards, you could write a T.4/T.30 driver for it, if you *really* wanted to. You could also use the modem for a data connection with any other such modem, but keep in mind that the connection would be simplex, unless you build your own half duplex protocol on top of it. Gary Segal @ Motorla C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!segal Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. +708 632-2354 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #508 *****************************   Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 1:54:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #509 Message-ID: <8911140154.aa14479@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Nov 89 01:53:29 CST Volume 9 : Issue 509 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Beeps During Conversation Recording (Wolf Paul) Bandwidth Usage: ASCII vrs. Voice (Steve Elias) Need Information on "Bit Slippage" (John Kennedy) Home KSU ??? (Dave Brightbill) Dialing the USSR and Deja-vu (Hector Myserston) Caller-ID and Blocking (Peter da Silva) New England Telephone Strike Tentative Settlement (Henry Mensch) Local Calls in the UK and Recovering STD Codes (Pete French) Re: Help Please Chicago Local Calling (Carl Moore) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Carl Moore) More on Inter-NPA Local Calls From 215 (Carl Moore) Re: The Hottest Answering Machine (John G. De Armond) Re: Is Robot-calling An 800 Number a Nuisance Call? (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wolf paul Subject: Beeps During Conversation Recording Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 9:46:01 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) writes: > In article John Tsang uhcc.hawaii.edu> writes: > >[The only "drawbacks" to certain Panasonic answering machines is] > >the annoying beep during 2-Side-Conversation-Recording. > As for the beep while recording a conversation, well, it may be > annoying, but in the United States it is the law. And the moderator responds: > [Moderator's Note: I believe the law does not require the beep every > few seconds. It merely requires that both parties be *aware* of the > taping and consent to it. Therefore, if in the first few seconds of > the recording I say to you, "I am recording all this, is that okay > with you?" and you respond it is okay AND I have this consent itself > recorded at the start of the conversation, then the law has been > obeyed. The beeping every few seconds is of course one way to insure > the other person in theory knows about and has consented to be taped. > PT] But with the prevalent tort climate in the US, the only way the manufacturer of an answering machine/recording device can ensure that he will not be held liable for illicit recording is to supply this beep. Of course, in my opinion the manufacturer should not be liable for the illegal use a consumer may make of the product, but the courts in the US seem to be of a different opinion, as evidenced by a number of ridiculous decisions along these lines. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: (Office) [43] (2236) 71521-465 (Home) [43] (1) 22-46-913 UUCP: uunet!mcvax!tuvie!iiasa!wnp DOMAIN: iiasa!wnp@tuvie.at ------------------------------ From: eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) Subject: Bandwidth Usage: ASCII vrs. Voice Date: 12 Nov 89 16:22:51 GMT Reply-To: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (originally seen in rec.music.gdead and passed along to telecom) In article <12291@cgl.ucsf.EDU> seibel@cgl.ucsf.edu (George Seibel) writes: !scott@everexn.uucp (Scott Baldwin) writes: !!My personal speculation is that is takes less bandwith to send a couple !!hundred Ascii characters than it does to make a voice connection. !True, as long as you compose the letter locally and then zap it over !the phone line. If you're dialed up for very long though, you will !be using a lot of bandwidth. The bandwidth taken up by voice is really !pretty low; you can stuff a lot of voice signals on one line, but not !as many modem signals. I don't know exactly how much worse a modem is !than voice. Maybe one of you net.telecom heads knows? I think George is on target. many voice channels can be statistically multiplexed together since each has many intervals of silence. A modem connection is always making 'noise', so I believe that a modem connection will always be using the maximum allotted bandwidth of 8 KHz. Voice calls probably use 4 to 6 KHz on average.. (?) I'm going to forward this posting to comp.dcom.telecom. Come on over and check the group out. It's a good one! ... Steve Elias ; eli@spdcc.com ; 6179325598 ; {} *disclaimer(); /* necessary because of litigous weenies. */ /* and: free email-->fax for boston destinations */ ------------------------------ From: johnk@opel.uu.net (John Kennedy) Subject: Need Information on "Bit Slippage" Date: 13 Nov 89 15:53:09 GMT Reply-To: johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD A coworker is experiencing a problem while using a 1200-baud dialup modem, where he is seeing periodic "}" symbols, and characters 0x255 and 0x251. When I was having a similar problem at another company, the phone gurus there told me this was a phenomenon known as "bit slippage", whereby two switches were losing sync on the digital connection between them. Several questions: 1) Does the problem I described seem like a fair diagnosis? 2) Where is this "slippage" problem occur - between the subscriber and the switch, or between the two switches? 3) Can this problem be addressed by doing something with the subscriber's interface to the local switch? 4) What can the subscriber do about it? Does he have the right to have the problem corrected? Would ordering a so-called "conditioned line" either correct the problem or give the subscriber a right to have the problem corrected? 5) Are the local telco's sympathetic to residential customers' data problems? 6) Is there someone to ask for in a local office, if the usual customer assistance people are unable to help? Thanks, John Kennedy johnk@opel.uu.uunet Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 16:36:47 EST From: Dave Brightbill Subject: Home KSU ??? Recently, someone wrote about an electronic KSU which allowed the use of PVP's (plain vanalia phones). I've called around to several of the 1-800 phone suppliers (OAI, Commonwealth, etc.) and they all denied such a beast exists. I have need for a system with 2 CO lines and 6 or 8 extensions. Suggestions welcome. David Brightbill {gatech}!loligo!djb djb@loligo.uucp ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 13 Nov 89 13:35 PDT Subject: Dialing the USSR and Deja-vu Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] AT&T Overseas Operators report that we should be able to direct dial the USSR (again!) by the end of this week. Anyone have any info on this (Country/City Codes etc) ????? Reading this newsletter is sometimes like re-living your life, similar topics etc. But... am I crazy? or did it read Ed Greenberg's long account of the Pinnacles Telephone Company here a couple of months ago?. [Moderator's Note: Perhaps Mr. Covert can investigate this and re-post the pertinent parts of his last international list. Regards the Pinnacles story, no, it did not appear here a couple months ago, but the Digest frequently posts similar items submitted by readers. Perhaps you are thinking of the articles on toll stations, or the article on the rural telephone cooperative societies of a half century ago. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Caller-ID and Blocking Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 12:55:21 CST From: Peter da Silva I hope that this doesn't set too much of a precedent. As much as I like Caller-ID, it should be possible to block it on any call. At that point the recipient can decide not to accept such anonymous calls. Unblockable Caller-ID is, on the balance, a bad development. I wish some of the people out there would campaign to fix it, rather than tear it down. Sigh. `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu [Moderator's Note: But therein lies the rub. As much as you like it, you wish they'd give you an escape hatch, to prevent other people from 'enjoying' it as much as yourself! :) In the few places where it is now installed and a part of life, there seem to be very few or no exceptions to the non-blocking rule. I've come to the conclusion that voluntary blocking along with the ability to send unidentified calls to treatment would be a good compromise. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 01:37:02 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: New England Telephone Strike Tentative Settlement Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu On this evening's news it was announced that a tentative settlement was reached; workers could be back on the job within a week. A total raise of 6% + COLA increases, as well as health care costs are included in the new contract, which will be voted on by the end of the week. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ From: Pete French Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 10:04:44 GMT Subject: Local Calls in the UK & Recovering STD Codes From: pkh%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Kevin Hopkins) >In the UK most calls, if not all, within your STD (area) code are >classed as local, but there is no easy way to determine which other >calls are also classed as local. A few years ago most local calls >used a special local code (usually starting with a 9) instead of the >STD code, so that helped. Things like 9 were just an abbreviation, not a special code for a local call. I am still on an kind of sub-exchange at home - from anywhere in the U.K. you can dial 0206 225407 to get me, most people consider my number to be Colchester 225407. My number is actually Wivenhoe 5407 - you get from Colchester to Wivenhoe by dialing 22. From inside the village you just dial 5407. If I pick up the phone I can dial a 4 digit number which will connect me to a Wivenhoe number - to get to Colchester I dial 9. Most of the outlying villages use 9 to get a Colchester number - to get a Wivenhoe number they can dial 922 (simple, isn't it). But 9 is just an abbreviation for 0206. I can also dial 0206 to get to Colchester and it will still be charged as a local call. There is just a big table of codes, routes and charges in the exchange as far as I know. The only way to find out the charge rate for a call is to look it up in the local phone codes book. >Also BT are phasing out the least populous STD codes and placing their >subscribers on the exchanges in the nearest large town, so as to >recover some spare STD codes. Yup - in a few months my number will become Colchester 825407. The curious thing is that I had a friend who had this happen to him, but despite the fact that he is now on the main exchange officially, he still has to dial 9 to get to it from his phone! I think I am going to give up trying to understand the British phone network. Doesn't anyone from BTUK read this who can give an accurate explanation ? -Pete French. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 9:08:30 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Help Please Chicago Local Calling 606xx zipcodes pick up some suburban points; for example, what area code is Cicero going to be in? 602xx and 603xx zipcodes will be in 708. 600xx, 601xx, 604xx, and 605xx zipcodes will, except for those now in 815, be in 708. (This contradicts part of what was just sent out by the moderator. Try looking at Crystal Lake, IL 60014, using prefix 815-459.) [Moderator's Note: Carl raises good points. Cicero, IL uses the Chicago Post Office. It will be in 708 *mostly*, but there will be a few boundary line 'discrepancies' ala Harwood Heights. The 600xx zip codes serve far north points, and only a few exceptions in small towns will be far enough west to be in 815 instead of 708. Speaking of Crystal Lake, the (old) 312/815 boundary in that relatively secluded far northwest area was always sort of ragged also. Fox Lake 312 [708] - 587 has lots of 815 phones in the area, depending on where you are as you go around the shore of the lake, or down the highway to Crystal Lake. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 10:20:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation However, recent notes in Telecom Digest say that the area code is required for local calls FROM 201 TO other area codes, to help with code con- servation while awaiting the 201/908 split. The example you sent (from Barnegat to Toms River) was FROM 609 TO 201. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 10:25:03 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: More on Inter-NPA Local Calls From 215 On a recent trip on U.S. 1 across the 215 area (Pa.), I made these observations from public phones: Local call from Kennett Square (215-444) to Delaware requires the area code but not the leading 1. (I already noted this for call from 215-255.) Local call from Morrisville (215-295 or 736) to New Jersey requires 1+609+7D. Omitting the leading 1 was not allowed. ------------------------------ From: rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) Subject: Re: The Hottest Answering Machine Date: 13 Nov 89 05:25:06 GMT Reply-To: emory!rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) In article abh@pogo.camelot.cs.cmu. edu (Andrew Hastings) writes: >> As for the beep while recording a conversation, well, it may be >> annoying, but in the United States it is the law. >The laws governing the recording of a telephone conversation vary from >state to state. Some states require a beep. Some states require the >consent of both parties. Some states require the consent of only one >party. In ALL states, the use of recording devices is governed by part of the federal Communications Act. The act, as ammended in the late '70s states that at least one party to a conversation must be aware of the recording. That party can be you. In other words, you can record any conversation you are a party to with no beep or notification. You CANNOT record conversations between third parties (the traditional tap). Federal law will preempt any local regulations to the contrary. I know these laws firsthand. I used taped conversations between Tennessee, Georgia and Nu Joysey :-) to bust a thieving ex-partner. BTW, the rules of evidence in Tenn and Ga say that such recordings are heresay and as such cannot be submitted as direct evidence. IT can, however, be used as rebuttal evidence. In other words, if the scum lies on the stand, you can used recordings to prove he's lying but you cannot use them to prove a point not otherwise in evidence. The skill of a good trial lawyer is to lead the recorded person into saying something that lets the tapes in. It's also amazing how cooperative to negotiation the other side gets when you pop a box of cassettes down on the table. Makes the perp relive every conversation over the last year or so :-) Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer - I've just bought them by the dozen. John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Is Robot-calling An 800 Number a Nuisance Call? Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 13 Nov 89 10:46:21 EST (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: >And by the way, the mis-use of Business Reply Envelopes (mailing them >back blank, etc) is also against the law. You've been counseled. PT] Huh? I understand why the Post Office is allowed to throw it away if you glue one to a brick, but in what way is sending back an empty envelope illegal? Pretty stupid law if it even exists, it'd be near impossible to prove intent. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl [Moderator's Note: Didn't the original note refer to sending back *lots* of empty envelopes? If so, the intent would be easier to demonstrate. And although an empty envelope in the mail could easily be the fault of an absent-minded person who forgot to include whatever it was he was mailing, stuffing the envelope with (ahem!) un-business-like correspondence just to cause the receiver to pay lots of postage (something far less obvious than a brick, for example) is a mis-use of the envelope. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #509 *****************************   Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 1:22:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #510 Message-ID: <8911150122.aa28095@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Nov 89 01:20:06 CST Volume 9 : Issue 510 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Stan Krieger) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Stephen Fleming) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Fred Goldstein) Re: Residential Centrex (Tad Cook) Re: Centrex Hold, Call Transfer, Call Pickup (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID Device (Dave Hsu) Re: Phones in the Movies (Marshall Rose) Re: Bell of PA Answering Service (Eric Wagner) Re: Poor Man's Intercom (Jeff Wasilko) Re: Help Please Chicago Local Calling (Edward S. Sachs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Date: 13 Nov 89 18:33:27 GMT Organization: Summit NJ > In Central New Jersey, along the 201/609 split, there are several > exchanges that are local calls to each other, even though in different > area codes. In the phone book under the Local Calling section is the > the following paragraph: > "From telephones designated 597, 693, 698, 971, or 978, it is not > necessary to dial the Area Code 201 on calls to the Toms River > Exchange Area 240, 244, 255, 269, 270, 286, 341, 349, 505, 506, or 929 > telephones." > The first 5 (597,etc) are in 609, and the last 11 (240, etc) are in > 201. Each of these exchanges exists only in either 609 or 201 area > codes. All of these exchanges are local to each other. From another NJ resident, I'm curious about a few things concerning this- 1. Since the 201/609 boundary is one of the two LATA boundaries in NJ, how are local calls in the Toms River area across 201/609 handled by NJ Bell and the long distance companies? 2. In the press releases concerning the 201/908 split (as an aside, the Toms River area will be going to 908), it sounded like that, for further conservation of central office codes, NJ Bell was going to be getting rid of those cases where a call across area codes didn't require an area code (i.e., a central office in one area preventing its being used in another area). Did I read the press releases right, and will it affect the central office codes mentioned here? Another interesting point about telephony in NJ. In conjunction with implementing a statewide 911, and the corresponding need to know the municipality that a phone number is located in, calls within towns will now all be treated as local calls, even if the calls between the two central offices are normally toll calls (e.g., a call from the portion of Randolph Township served by a Morristown exchange to someone served by a Dover exchange). As I understand it though, this cannot be implemented without raising rates about $1.50 a month in those towns in the pine barrens that straddle the 201/609 boundary, because of the need to get long distance companies involved. Does anyone have more info on this? Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@apple.com Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: Tue, 14-Nov-89 06:24:28 PST smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: >Based on the number of area code splits that have recently occurred or >have been announced, I am wondering if the idea of just expanding our >phone numbers to 8 digits is being considered? Actually, I think this would cost several billion dollars more than it is worth... in addition to the vast amount of equipment out there, the 3+4 format is permanently wired into my brain. But if we're going to go through the incredible pain and agony of converting to more numbers, we shouldn't just stop at 8 digits. Take numbers to 9 digits, giving a 100-fold expansion, and everyone could have the same number as: Social Security number ZIP+4 code Phone number and so forth... Additional lines, FAX machines, cellular phones, beepers, etc. could be identified as two digit suffixes on the 9-digit "root" number. The same number could serve as driver's license ID, bank account number, etc. Phone numbers would follow individuals as they moved from city to city. And, in the famous scenario, if you get a "number has been disconnected" intercept, the fellow is dead. Make that several trillion dollars more than it is worth, and take all the above with a grain of salt and many smileys. But if someone (the Japanese, perhaps?) ever builds a city on the moon, I hope they start off with a rational personal ID system. +--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Stephen Fleming | My employer doesn't pay for this account. | | fleming@cup.portal.com | In fact, my employer doesn't even know | | CI$: 76354,3176 | I'm here! Disclaimer enough for any | | Voice: (703) 847-7058 | network-aware lawyer-types, I hope... | +--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 14 Nov 89 17:21:46 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article , peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes... >After all the exchanges are on NXX, and after we've used up the NXX >exchanges, then what's the plan? 8- or 9- digit local numbers, or >4-digit exchanges, or partitioning Zone 1, or what? >(Yes, I know this will take a while... maybe another 20 years) Actually, we're almost out of NXX codes. So far unassigned I think I recall it's down to 909, 410, 310, 210, 710, 810 and 910; the latter are formerly TWX. And a couple being recovered from Mexico. The plan is that area codes will next be in the pattern NN0, such as 260, 460, etc. (Those are the first two in the Blue Book recommendation.) Since those can be prefix codes anywhere, the entire NANP area will need to use 1+ dialing to identify that an area code (NOT a toll call) follows. That point in time is called "time T" and is scheduled for something like December, 1995, but I don't recall the exact date. In the interim, some "interchangeable" area codes (i.e., 486, 779) may be assigned to non-local exchange ISDN users. Since they're not used for local calling, they won't be accessible from the POTS net, but will be accessible from ISDN (with its fancier protocol). fred Disclaimer: This information is from my own memory; I attend T1S1 but not T1S1.4 which advises Bellcore on the numbering plan. ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Residential Centrex Date: 14 Nov 89 06:06:36 GMT Organization: very little Lou asked how residential Centrex works. Here is how mine is set up. We are served by a 5ESS CO, and US West calls the service "CentraFlex". When someone calls out number and it is busy, the call rotates over to our second line. When that number is busy, a third incoming call will give a call waiting tone on the second line. The call on the second line is put on hold (flash *9) and the second call is answered. Then that call can be transferred with another hookflash and any other number can be dialed. We also have call transfer...nice if I am in the basement and want to transfer the call back to the other line so someone on the 2nd floor can get it. We also have intercom from either line by dialing #2. Actually #2 is just the intercom code for the first line, but it works both ways since the first line dialing itself will roll to the 2nd line. Right now I am on the modem on the first line, wired thru a Proctor group exclusion module so no one can interrupt. Any incoming calls roll to the 2nd line. One thing the call transfer is fun for...saving my friends toll charges. Here in Seattle we have WIDE extended area service to the suburbs, but most of the burbs cannot call each other without paying toll. So my friends call me, tell me the number, I hookflash and dial it, then hang up....it ties up a trunk or two in my CO, but does not tie up my line. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Centrex Hold, Call Transfer, Call Pickup Date: 14 Nov 89 18:47:02 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > I ran some tests, and discovered that my pickup feature doesn't work to > pickup a call that is rung back with *9. This is very confusing for > [...] > I called telco repair, and they checked with the Centrex support > staff, who said that I definately should be able to use call pickup on > any ringing call. After a few days of fooling around, they reported > that this was not possible, because the ringing call was not REALLY a > call...it was merely an "alerting" feature whereby the CO is letting > me know that I have just hung up on an on-hold call! But they never Well, I just tried the following experiment. I dialed a supervising busy signal to simulate a call in progress. (Supervising busies are great to forward to when dealing with immediate harrassing callers, but that's another story.) Flashed the hook, dialed *9 and hung up. Phone rings. Picked up another line, dialed *8 and presto--ka-klunkplunk and I was connected to my busy. And no, it wasn't the busy you get when you *8 nothing. This appears to be a handy way to transfer calls to a line that I keep forwarded elsewhere. Just *9 the call, hang up. Pick up the forwarded line, dial *8 and there's the call. My CO switch is a wheezing 1ESS running some 1929 generic (that's a date, folks). Sounds like I don't want CommStar in a 5ESS, at least not with US West. > There are a number of reasons why we want to use this for ringback. Tell them that if Pac*Bell can do it, then their grandmother should be able to figure out how to do it :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu) Subject: Re: Caller ID Device Reply-To: hsu@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu) Organization: Merriversity of Uniland, College Purgatory Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 21:14:30 GMT Okay, Caller*ID is up and running at Chez Hsu. Outside a 15 mile or so radius, however, nobody here seems to be sending the originating number. Even with the base reversed, the LCD has an annoyingly narrow viewing angle. Nevertheless the folks think that in some ways, it's even better than having an answering machine. A few questions, then. One call so far has been misidentified; one digit was changed but not completely garbled. Is there no ECC sent along? And...anybody interested in trying this thing out long distance? Dave Hsu UMd EE Computer Facility hsu@eng.umd.edu "A program is like a nose. Sometimes it runs, sometimes it blows." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: Mon, 13 Nov 89 22:54:50 -0800 From: Marshall Rose Certainly the most shocking use of a phone in the movies comes from the Depeche Mode concert film "Route 66" earlier this year, which shows the band's manager using a cellular phone while in a private plane which is airborne. Geez, maybe the FCC oughta have a special branch that does nothing but watch films for violations of FCC rules. I could live with that if the pay was OK, and if the pay wasn't OK, it would depend on the films I guess. :-) /mtr ------------------------------ From: Eric Wagner Subject: Re: Bell of PA Answering Service Date: 14 Nov 89 15:33:22 GMT Organization: gte In article , thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel. edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: > Philadelphia residents. Bell of Pennsylvania is introducing Answer > Call, giving touch- tone telephone users voice-message capabilities. > Customers can check their voice "mailbox" by dialing a special access > number and their personal password. > [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, Centel offers voicemail, for $4.95 > per month. Illinois Bell offers it on an experimental basis only in > the Summit CO, but is scheduled to expand it in the next several > months. PT] US West has this available in AZ also. I called... $7/month!!!!!! They must be kidding! Eric Wagner (wagnere@gtephx) AGCS (formerly GTE), Phoenix (602) 582-7150 UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!hrc | att}!gtephx!wagnere ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: Poor Man's Intercom Date: 14 Nov 89 07:18:25 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Wasilko Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175} In article HGSCHULZ@cs.umass.edu (Henning Schulzrinne) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 502, message 7 of 11 >By accident I discovered a way to use the phone for in-house calls: >Dial your own number and hang up immediately after the last digit. All >phones in the house will ring and (hopefully) the person you wanted to >talk will pick it up. Is this a special "feature" of our exchange (we >are part of tiny Granby Telephone Company in Western Mass.) or does >that work everywhere? >Henning Schulzrinne (HGSCHULZ@CS.UMASS.EDU) >Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering >University of Massachusetts at Amherst >Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: (413) 545-3179 (EST); FAX: (413) 545-0724 Out here in Los Angeles, where we are served & abused by GTE (the Great Telephone Experiment) when I dial my own number I get a series of tones. When I hang up, the phone rings back and I am greeted by the same series of tones. Jeff Wasilko ------------------------------ From: essachs@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Edward S. Sachs) Subject: Re: Help Please Chicago Local Calling Date: 14 Nov 89 17:43:41 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > [Moderator's Note: Mercy! All two hundred villages and towns in > northern Illinois? I haven't the nerve to ask David Tamkin to type in > such a list. The general rule of thumb would be this: Chicago, zip > code 606xx, will be in 312. All other towns in the 600-601-602 zip codes > will be 708. ... Except for some suburbs such as Niles, which border on the city of Chicago and are served by the Chicago post office (606xx), but are in area code 708. Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL att!ihlpb!essachs, e.s.sachs@att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #510 *****************************   Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 2:00:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #511 Message-ID: <8911150200.aa01359@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Nov 89 02:00:07 CST Volume 9 : Issue 511 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: T1 vs T2; and Info (Stephen Fleming) Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Fred Goldstein) Re: "Private" Call Tracing (Mark Robert Smith) Re: Coordinate Tape Info Request (Dave Esan) Re: AT&T's ACUS Service (John Higdon) Re: NYC Time and Weather (Edward Greenberg) Re: Dialing the USSR and Deja-vu (Lars Aronsson) Re: Phones in the Movies (Christopher K. Davis) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@apple.com Subject: Re: T1 vs T2; and Info Date: Tue, 14-Nov-89 04:59:37 PST In response to T1 vs T2; and Info / lance@hermix.UUCP (Lance Ellinghouse): A T1 circuit carries 24 voice channel equivalents at a bit rate of 1.544 Mb/s. There are literally millions of T1 circuits in the North American network today. A T2 circuit carries 96 voice channel equivalents at a bit rate of 6.312 Mb/s. There are literally dozens of T2 circuits in the North American network today. Maybe a slight exaggeration... but T2 circuits are relatively rare. They were superseded by fiber optic equipment running at multiples of the T3 rate (T3 = 44.736 Mb/s). Both T1 and T2 are carried over copper wire... T1 over twisted pair, T2 over a specially shielded (screened) cable. T1 CSUs (the customer interface you need to hook up to a commercial T1 circuit) are readily available from any number of vendors, such as Verilink, Larse, Tellabs, and so forth. I don't know of any T2 CSU vendors, but there might be one out there. The only commercial T2 offering I am familiar with is Staten Island Teleport in New York City. To hook into a T1 line, you need a fast serial port on your computer, usually RS449 or V.35. Then you need a CSU (above). Then you need a deal with a friendly neighborhood carrier (telco, bypass outfit, MCI, electric company, university, or what-have-you) to terminate four wires on your CSU... these will transport the T1 signal. You will need a mirror image at the other end: +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | CPU |----| CSU |--------- ... -----------| CSU |----| CPU | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ data leased T1 circuit data I have no idea if Internet supports T2 access, but I suspect not. For most uses, T1 is a *lot* of data (equivalent of over 100 Trailblazer modems going full blast). Some users, of course, need 45 Mb/s and 150 Mb/s circuits for remote CAD, supercomputer links, broadcast quality video, and so forth, but these users have skipped over T2 and are looking at T3 and SONET. Hope you find this useful. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Stephen Fleming | Internet: fleming@cup.portal.com | | Director, Technology Marketing | Voice: (703) 847-7058 | | Northern Telecom +-------------------------------------| | Federal Networks Division | Opinions expressed do not | | Vienna, Virginia 22182 | represent Northern Telecom. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Date: 14 Nov 89 17:14:55 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA This has degenerated into a "tastes filling/less great" kind of argument. ISDN is a candy mint/breath mint. Okay, have it your way. ISDN provides 8 kHz integrity, which means that it does guarantee octet accuracy for the 8 kHz services, including circuit mode data. You put in an octet, you get out an octet. Voice coders need that; HDLC doesn't. But HDLC does need bit sequence integrity, so (for example) if you have two separate 64 kbps channels, you can't simply combine them and expect all 16 bits to be delivered in sequence; each channel may have different delay characteristics. H channels maintain 8 kHz integrity. HDLC protocols are usually processed on the ISDN chip, so the 8-bit chip output is taken after bit-destuffing. You tell the chip if it's HDLC or not; if not, you get raw bits. But the network itself delivers raw bits with 8 kHz integrity, and it's your option to use a bit or byte protocols. DDCMP does have its advantages... fred ------------------------------ From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Re: "Private" Call Tracing Date: 14 Nov 89 20:53:50 GMT Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey In article miller@gvlv3.gvl.unisys. com (Bruce J. Miller) writes: > I have been told that in my area (Eastern PA, A/C 215), it's possible > for an individual to trace, or at least call back, the originator of a > crank and/or nuisance call by dialing *69 from a DTMF phone after the > caller hangs up (but before you do). Supposedly this initiates a call > back to the originator (without revealing the number to you); the > callback is said to keep trying for 1/2 hour in case the calling phone > is busy. > Does anyone know if this is for real? If so, if there any way to > extract the number of the caller? Comments, please. > Bruce Miller (miller@gvlv3.gvl.unisys.com) Yes, this is true. It's called "Return Call" in Bell Atlantic country. This allows you to call back the last person who called you, without knowing their number. You must have this service turned on ($$$) for it to work. In New Jersey, Call Trace is turned on automatically for all lines. This allows you to initiate a trace of the last person who called you, and for that info to be forwarded to the phone company's harassment dept. You then have to initiate a complaint with the local Police, as only law enforcement authorities can get this information. The code for this is *57. You can also get Caller ID soon in PA, where a little screen will show the number of the person calling you between the first and second rings. This service must also be turned on in advance, and you must also buy a Caller ID box to attach to your line, which run about $80. BTW, I found a strange thing yesterday. If I try to use a CLASS feature that I haven't signed up for, I get the message "This feature will not work because the number is outside the CLASS area" or something close. It seems they have only one error message! Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: Coordinate Tape Info Request Date: 14 Nov 89 17:34:12 GMT Reply-To: Dave Esan Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY In article you write: >Well, it is my understanding that the units in the V&H master database >are miles. This allows the milage based costing of the phone company >services to be calculated using the simple distance formula: >sqrt( (x1- x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2 ) >although the phone companies really use the following formula: >sqrt( ( (v1 - v2)^2 + (h1 -h2)^2 )/10 ). V and H coordinates are points on a grid spread over North America. Being points they will be dimensionless. One can calculate the distance between any two points using the V and the H coordinates and simple geometry - eg the distance is sqrt ( (x1- x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2 ), as noted above. But this will be wrong. The Earth is round, and this distance will not be correct. There is a distance method given in FCC #10, page 13. Basically it is as follows: 1. Calculate the difference in V coordinates, and H coordinates. 2. Divide each by three. 3. Square the numbers and add them. 4. If the sum of the square is > 1777 go to step #2. (Forgive me for using a goto statement.) 5. If the sum of the square is < 1777 multiply it by a fudge factor based on the number of divisions done. 6. Take the square root of the product, and round up. Of course, if it is zoned city you have to worry if the distance is < 40 miles, in which case you have to recalculate using the zones coordinates rather than the master coordinates. Unless of course, this distance is greater than 40 miles, in which case you use the regular calculation. The distance between coordinates is supposed to be about 180 yards. (Maybe 173 yards = 1/10 mile?). The point (0,0) is someplace in the Atlantic. Unlike ATT which calculates that cost of a call to Puerto Rico based on 3 costing bands, Sprint calculates the mileage using a fake coordinate that has a negative H component. --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T's ACUS Service Date: 15 Nov 89 01:02:28 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , klb@lzaz.att.com (Kevin Blatter) writes: > Unless the PBX is connected to the CO via ISDN lines, there is no way > for the PBX to know if a call is completed or not. Not true. Hotel/motel PBXs have been doing this for decades. The most common way for a CO to signal to the PBX that the call has been answered is a battery reversal on the trunk (not very high tech, but such is life). The means is there; the question is whether or not they make use of it. > I was talking to my sister who is a college senior and they are doing > this sort of thing on her campus (BYU) as well, so it seems to be a > trend that is sweeping across college campuses. This seems to be the order of the day since the big breakup. Anytime some slimeballs see a concentrated, easy pickens market to skim from, a new "service" is born. Remember how we were now supposed to be able to *choose* who provided our services? > She makes all of her > LD calls at pay phones or at friends' homes where she can choose her > LD company. It seems that more and more, service providers are trying to make sure our choices are limited so they can sock it to us. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Edward Greenberg Subject: Re: NYC Time and Weather Date: 14 Nov 89 19:36:36 GMT Reply-To: Edward Greenberg Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175} Linc Madison reports that here in the Bay Area, Time is 767-XXXX or "POPCORN." I should add that we get a nice National Weather Service forecast on 415-WEather-6-XXXX. Recorded at the NWS in Redwood City with no commercials. Ed Greenberg uunet!apple!netcom!edg ------------------------------ From: Lars Aronsson Subject: Re: Dialing the USSR and Deja-vu Date: 15 Nov 89 03:00:24 GMT Reply-To: Lars Aronsson Organization: Linkoping University, Sweden myerston@cts.sri.com writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 509, message 5 of 13 > AT&T Overseas Operators report that we should be able to direct >dial the USSR (again!) by the end of this week. Anyone have any info >on this (Country/City Codes etc) ????? When I talk to them in October, the Finnish Telecom had plans on enabling automatic calls on the telephone link between Helsinki and Tallinn (Estonia, USSR) in "early November". I got the impression, however, that this was only for calls from inside Finland. The international number for USSR is 7. Then there is a hierarchy of area codes for republics (states) and cicties. Some are: 012 Lithuania 012 2 Vilnius 013 Latvia 013 2 Riga 013 52 Jekabpils 013 54 Daugavpils 014 Estonia 014 2 Tallinn 014 34 Tartu 014 44 Parnu 095 Moscow (treated as a republic because of its size) Dialing is all (?) automatic inside USSR. The union-wide prefix is 8. When calling another city inside the same republic, the prefix seems to be 82. Examples: Dial Tallinn from outside USSR: (int. prefix) 7 014 2 ... Dial Tallinn from Moscow: 8 014 2 ... Dial Tallinn from Tartu: 8 2 2 ... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 02:20:12 EST From: Christopher K Davis Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies >>>>> On 11 Nov 89 20:13:08 GMT, ssc-vax!clark@beaver.cs.washington.edu >>>>> (Roger Clark Swann) said: Roger> I caught a couple of movies this past week on the local movie channel Roger> that are of interest to this group... Roger> The first one was Blade Runner with Harrison Ford. [...description Roger> of some sort of video-speakerphone deleted, except for...] The Roger> kicker was the placard that said "VID PHONE" with the BELL SYSTEM Roger> (TM) - the outline of a bell inside a circle. No AOS stuff here.... I seem to remember Arthur C. Clarke, or Stanley Kubrick, or someone (my brain-grep comes up with Clarke's _The Odyssey Files_ book on the making of 2010, but I'm not certain) saying that "the only thing that's out of date in _2001_ is the Bell System logo on the phone in the space station." [paraphrase]. ------------------------------ From: "John R. Levine" Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 03:00:29 GMT In article cmoore@brl.mil writes: >However, recent notes in Telecom Digest say that the area code is >required for local calls FROM 201 TO other area codes, to help with >code conservation while awaiting the 201/908 split. The example you >sent (from Barnegat to Toms River) was FROM 609 TO 201. Nope, you never need an area code to make a local call in NJ. NJ Bell seems to feel very strongly like that. I grew up in Princeton, which is just south of the 609/201 split and is a local call to and from several exchanges in 201. In olden days Princeton had two prefixes, 921 and 924. (In the 1950s they had four-digit phone numbers and when they went to seven digits they assigned 0000-4999 to WA-4 and 5000-9999 to WA-1.) Then when Princeton University became dialable they assigned it 452. Then when they made student rooms dialable they added 734. Then 683, and now with a zillion new office parks near Princeton all with dialable prefixes they've added about six more prefixes none anything like any of the other prefixes. 609 is actually a very small NPA so they could have assigned 922, 923, 925, and 926 but they didn't. It took me a while to realize that the prefixes they used were some of the few remaining unused in 201, so they could keep seven-digit local dialing. I bet when they split 201/908 you'll be able to dial across that boundary with seven digits, too. Here in Massachusetts, though, if you live in Lexington and want to make a free local call to neighboring Concord you dial 1+508+NXX-XXXX. I suppose it'd have come to that sooner or later anyway, but it's interesting to see the differences among the former BOCs. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #511 *****************************   Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 22:34:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #512 Message-ID: <8911152234.aa27640@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Nov 89 22:30:37 CST Volume 9 : Issue 512 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: The Pinnacle of Telephone Service (Tad Cook) Re: The Pinnacle of Telephone Service (John Higdon) Re: Phones in the Movies (Bob Sutterfield) Re: Phones in the Movies (Thomas E. Lowe) Re: Phones in the Movies (Chad Fogg) Re: Poor Man's Intercom (H. Shrikumar) Re: Poor Man's Intercom (Sam Ho) Re: Beeps During Conversation Recording (Herbert Kanner) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Ben Ullrich) PacBell to List Gay & Lesbian Organizations (Jess Anderson via T. Russell) Internet Access From the Vatican (Tom Neiss) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: The Pinnacle of Telephone Service Date: 14 Nov 89 05:54:15 GMT Organization: very little I was AMAZED to read the description of tiny Pinnacles Tel. Co. Thank you! This explains a lot of things I have wondered about when trying to help Rex Bryan troubleshoot his CAMA trunks over the telephone! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: The Pinnacle of Telephone Service Date: 15 Nov 89 03:01:37 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows Just for giggles, I did a little experimenting with the Pinnacles exchange. First, dialing a 10XXX code reveals that it is in the SF LATA, since I was informed that "a company code is not required for this call". Second, I dialed a couple of numbers at random and got the "number you have reached..." recording in a man's voice. Third, dialing the prefix plus "4411" netted an answer (in the same man's voice) "Good evening 'Information'. May I help you?" Oops! Sorry wrong number! Do you suppose that was Mr. Bryan himself? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bob Sutterfield Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Organization: Morning Star Technologies Date: 15 Nov 89 10:11:20 In article mrose@cheetah.nyser.net (Marshall Rose) writes: ..."Route 66"... shows the band's manager using a cellular phone while in a private plane which is airborne. You're sure it wasn't a Wolfsburg (sp?) FliteFone? It would look like a cellular but legal (and appropriate) for airborne use. ------------------------------ From: Thomas E Lowe Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: 15 Nov 89 15:39:33 GMT Reply-To: tel@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.e.lowe,ho,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >Certainly the most shocking use of a phone in the movies comes from >the Depeche Mode concert film "Route 66" earlier this year, which >shows the band's manager using a cellular phone while in a private >plane which is airborne. If I remember correctly, it isn't illegal to use a cellular phone in a private plane. The reason they are illegal in 'public' planes is because they can interfere with the electronics in the cock pit and elsewhere on the plane and the pilot as little control over that. In a private plane, the pilot supposedly has total control, so it he is getting interference, it is up to him to stop it. Also, because of the signal pattern of cellular ground stations, cellular phones shouldn't work to well in the air. I do believe this was actually discussed a while back here in Telecom. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM attmail!tlowe 201-949-0428 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (keep them lawyers happy!!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 14:05:01 -0800 From: Chad Fogg Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article you write: >I seem to remember Arthur C. Clarke, or Stanley Kubrick, or someone >(my brain-grep comes up with Clarke's _The Odyssey Files_ book on the >making of 2010, but I'm not certain) saying that "the only thing >that's out of date in _2001_ is the Bell System logo on the phone in >the space station." [paraphrase]. It should be further noted that the clairvoyant Mr. Clarke adds in his latest sequel, 2061: Odyssey Three, and I quote: ..the coming of the jet age had triggered an explosion of global tourism. At almost the same time -- it was not, of course, a coincidence -- satellites and fiber optics had revolutionized communications. With the historic abolition of long-distance charges on 31 December 2000, every telephone call became a local one, and the human race greeted the new millennium by transforming itself into one huge, gossiping family. (p. 15) Sounds like science FICTION to me. INTERNET & BITNET: cfogg@blake.acs.washington.edu [IP:128.95.136.2] UUCP path : ....uw-beaver!blake.acs.washington.edu!cfogg ------------------------------ From: "H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in}" Subject: Re: Poor Man's Intercom Date: 16 Nov 89 00:43:01 GMT Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in}" Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst In article HGSCHULZ@cs.umass.edu (Henning Schulzrinne) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 502, message 7 of 11 >By accident I discovered a way to use the phone for in-house calls: >Dial your own number and replace the phone ...etc... Funny, it does not work in Sunderland. (413)-665-XXXX area. I was very excited when I saw this and tried it at first opportunity. But it failed. I get the same tones (sort of an engaged tone with a sore throat :-) each time, just after the number. Irrespective of how fast or slowly I put back the receiver, the phone never rings back. (FYI, Sunderland is next door to Amherst, MA, served by the same phone company. However, the 545 area seems to be a special area for UMass, so this might be source of the difference in behaviour.) shrikumar ( shri@ccs1.cs.umass.edu, shri@ncst.in , (413)-665-7215 ) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 16:51:14 PST From: Sam Ho Subject: Re: Poor Man's Intercom More on the subject of calling yourself: Years ago, (back when we had a #5 crossbar) if I dialed my own number, I'd get a busy signal. But, if I hung up immediately after dialing, there would be a ringback. I suppose we outran the relays opening and closing. When we got our ESS, and equal access, I tried again. Dialing self gets an immediate busy. So does 10288-NPA-self. Using 10777-NPA-self to Sprint produced silence. When I hung up, I got ringing. Currently, no call-self combination I know of produces a ringback on my phone. Routing via US West or ATT produces busy. Forcing MCI or US Sprint produces silence, or silence follwed by a busy. Sam Ho [Moderator's Note: In Chicago, dialing your own number produces one of two results, depending on the office serving you: Either you get a busy signal (as I do, regardless of having call-waiting on your line) or an intercept, 'your call cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number and dial again'. The offices which render this latter response to dialing one's own number are using an older generic. Try calling yourself via your calling card: that is, zero plus the area code, your number and your pin, terminated with an octothorpe (#). Here in Chicago, the zero plus gets me out of the local office and to some other center, thus the return trip from there to here is delayed by just a couple seconds and I do get a call waiting tone when the inbound side hits me. PT] ------------------------------ From: Herbert Kanner Subject: Re: Beeps During Conversation Recording Date: 15 Nov 89 19:55:19 GMT Organization: Development Systems Group, Apple Computer In article iiasa!wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 509, message 1 of 13 >langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) writes: >> In article John Tsang > uhcc.hawaii.edu> writes: >> >[The only "drawbacks" to certain Panasonic answering machines is] >> >the annoying beep during 2-Side-Conversation-Recording. >> As for the beep while recording a conversation, well, it may be >> annoying, but in the United States it is the law. >But with the prevalent tort climate in the US, the only way the >manufacturer of an answering machine/recording device can ensure that >he will not be held liable for illicit recording is to supply this >beep. >Of course, in my opinion the manufacturer should not be liable for the >illegal use a consumer may make of the product, but the courts in the >US seem to be of a different opinion, as evidenced by a number of >ridiculous decisions along these lines. It is interesting to note, in view of the above, that of the following list of machine brands that I have owned (and in most cases returned to the store) only the Panasonic emits the beep. AT&T top of the line machine Northwest Bell machine with time/day stamp Cobra with time/day stamp Record-a-Call (model over five years old) Panasonic with time/day stamp Herb Kanner Apple Computer, Inc. {idi,nsc}!apple!kanner kanner@apple.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca. Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 23:21:44 -0800 From: ben ullrich > In article ben@sybase.com > (ben ullrich) writes: > >Tell us this: If another area code were across the street from you > >(thus making it a free call), how would you suggest the numbering > >scheme work for this? > In Central New Jersey, along the 201/609 split, there are several > exchanges that are local calls to each other, even though in different > area codes. In the phone book under the Local Calling section is the > the following paragraph: > "From telephones designated 597, 693, 698, 971, or 978, it is not > necessary to dial the Area Code 201 on calls to the Toms River > Exchange Area 240, 244, 255, 269, 270, 286, 341, 349, 505, 506, or 929 > telephones." > From other exchanges not listed above, you must dial the 201 or 609. Yep, I imagined as such. I was wondering more how one would deal with this when the NPA's are so full they don't have the luxury of making certain exchanges unique across neighboring NPA's? I imagine that one would then be required to dial the whole 10 (or 11) digits. I don't know how often this would be necessary, i.e., is this sharing of prefixes across neighboring NPA's very sacred, or just a luxury of having enough exchanges to spare? Thanks for your input, Thomas! ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." - mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben [Moderator's Note: It used to be quite common that prefixes were never duplicated in neighboring area codes; i.e. nothing in northern Indiana was ever used in Chicago or Illinois suburbs, etc. 312-396 was never used here since folks in Antioch, IL had seven digit dialing to their neighbors in North Antioch, WI (414-396). Illinois Bell quit worrying about it years ago as the reserve of prefixes ran short. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 89 08:31:00 CST From: Tim Russell Subject: PacBell to List Gay and Lesbian Organizations [Moderator's Note: This was forwarded to the Digest by Tim Russell, who apparently received it from Jess Anderson. PT] From: anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) Date: 13 Nov 89 03:18:06 GMT Subject: PacBell to List G&L Orgs Left over from last week, this anonymous offering (I don't like posting for others, please don't ask.) ===== This article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on Sunday. Although it was in the back of section B it did have a box around it so it would stand out. Pacific Bell to Add Gay, Lesbian Listings (Mercury News Wire Services) Pacific Bell has agreed to a proposal by the Bay Area chapter of the Gay and Lesbian Allianced Against Defamation to establish a new Yellow Pages directory category for gay and lesbian organizations. In the Bay area, the first directories with this listing will serve the Los Altos, Palo Alto and Monterey areas. ===== ==Jess Anderson===Academic Computing Center=====Univ. Wisconsin-Madison===== | Work: Rm. 2160, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706, Ph. 608/263-6988 | | Home: 2838 Stevens St., 53705, 608/238-4833 Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc | ==Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu====UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 10:33:30 EST From: Tom Neiss Organization: State University of New York - Central Administration Subject: Internet Access From the Vatican Can any users near Rome tell me how they connect to the internet via dial-up? A friend in the Vatican would like access but doesn't know how to get that information. Is there a local number he can dial or an organization that is a node that will allow access? Thankx in advance. Please reply to RTRN AT SNYCENVM>BITNET. Tom Neiss The Research Foundation of S.U.N.Y. P.O. Box 9 Albany, New York 12201 U.S.A. 518 434 7200 ------------------------------ From: "John R. Levine" Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 03:00:29 GMT In article cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >However, recent notes in Telecom Digest say that the area code is >required for local calls FROM 201 TO other area codes, to help with >code conservation while awaiting the 201/908 split. The example you >sent (from Barnegat to Toms River) was FROM 609 TO 201. Nope, you never need an area code to make a local call in NJ. NJ Bell seems to feel very strongly like that. I grew up in Princeton, which is just south of the 609/201 split and is a local call to and from several exchanges in 201. In olden days Princeton had two prefixes, 921 and 924. (In the 1950s they had four-digit phone numbers and when they went to seven digits they assigned 0000-4999 to WA-4 and 5000-9999 to WA-1.) Then when Princeton University became dialable they assigned it 452. Then when they made student rooms dialable they added 734. Then 683, and now with a zillion new office parks near Princeton all with dialable prefixes they've added about six more prefixes none anything like any of the other prefixes. 609 is actually a very small NPA so they could have assigned 922, 923, 925, and 926 but they didn't. It took me a while to realize that the prefixes they used were some of the few remaining unused in 201, so they could keep seven-digit local dialing. I bet when they split 201/908 you'll be able to dial across that boundary with seven digits, too. Here in Massachusetts, though, if you live in Lexington and want to make a free local call to neighboring Concord you dial 1+508+NXX-XXXX. I suppose it'd have come to that sooner or later anyway, but it's interesting to see the differences among the former BOCs. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #512 ******************************   Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 23:17:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #513 Message-ID: <8911152317.aa02309@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Nov 89 23:15:24 CST Volume 9 : Issue 513 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson ISDN Service in Ann Arbor Area (Bryan Beecher) Re: ISDN Service in Ann Arbor Area (Alex Beylin) ISDN Interface Cards, Drivers for AT Bus (Unix SV3.2) (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez) Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Torsten Dahlkvist) Re: T1 vs. T2; and Info (Bruce Carlson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bryan Beecher Subject: ISDN Service in Ann Arbor Area Reply-To: bryan@terminator.cc.umich.edu Organization: U of Michigan, Computing Center Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 20:41:13 GMT ISDN service is in Ann Arbor. Service is provided by a 5ESS. I believe that much of Ann Arbor is serviced by the one CO, although some Ann Arbor mailing addresses (like me in Glenoce Hills at US-23 and Washtenaw) go through a different office. I worked at a display at EDUCOM with Dory Leifer of the MERIT network. Dory had written a device driver for the Teleos B100PC ISDN cards. We had two sets of two PCs at the Track and Tennis Building display area. Each PC has a ISDN card and was running KA9Q or FTP Software software. ISDN lines ran from them to the MBT Office in downtown Ann Arbor. ISDN lines ran from there to the School of Ed Building where we had two gateway machines, one for each pair of machines at Track and Tennis. These machines had both ISDN and Ethernet cards, and collected packets off of the Ethernet there that were destined for themself or the machines at Track and Tennis. The upshot off all this is that the machines at Track and Tennis looked as if they were on an Ethernet attached to the Internet. The cards had a Basic Rate Interface so we had two 64K channels are our disposal -- I've heard that MBT is going to hook up people to ISDN on a test basis in early 1990. I believe you must be within 10,000 feet of the MBT office. I've also heard that the cost would be something like the cost of two phone lines, so if you already had two lines -- one for voice and one for your modem -- this wouldn't be too bad at all considering you'd be moving from 2400 baud service to 64,000K (or 128,000K) service. You ought to contact Michigan Bell for more info: this is just rumor that I've heard. I think both Dory and I are hoping to do more with ISDN if we can get Michigan Bell and U-M together for some interesting projects. Several of the MBT employees have MTS accounts, and they do read mail there. One person we worked with is Peter Lodwick. If you want more information on the Internet/ISDN Gateway Project, you can mail me or Dory. Dory is Dory_leifer@um.cc.umich.edu. You could also call me (313-747-4050) or him (313-763-4896). For ISDN details, Dory is probably the better person to talk to. I was more of the Internet-half of the Internet/ISDN gateway! ;-) One more thing to add. I showed my posting to Dory who had this to say: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 10:06:42 EST From: Dory_Leifer@um.cc.umich.edu To: bryan@terminator.cc.umich.edu Subject: FYI Bryan, One thing to add. There is no general ISDN tariff offered by MBT yet. If they are a centrex user (probably large) they may be able to negotiate. UM pays $1000+/month for the first ISDN. This is probably not too reasonable for a small business. - Dory Bryan Beecher, University of Michigan Computing Center (+1 313 747 4050) Domain: bryan@terminator.cc.umich.edu Path: mailrus!terminator!bryan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 13:56:47 EST From: Alex Beylin Subject: Re: ISDN Service in Ann Arbor Area Reply-To: alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI Brian writes: >ISDN service is in Ann Arbor. Service is provided by a 5ESS. >I believe that much of Ann Arbor is serviced by the one CO, >although some Ann Arbor mailing addresses (like me in Glenoce Hills >at US-23 and Washtenaw) go through a different office. Wow! We are much further along then I thought. DO we know where the dividing line is and where the CO itself is located? >I've heard that MBT is going to hook up people to ISDN >on a test basis in early 1990. I believe you must be >within 10,000 feet of the MBT office. Where is the CO located anyways? And why the 10,000 feet limitation? I wonder how many people are willing to move closer to the CO in order to get ISDN at home. I probably would. >I think both Dory and I are hoping to do more with ISDN >if we can get Michigan Bell and U-M together for some >interesting projects. Several of the MBT employees have >MTS accounts, and they do read mail there. One person >we worked with is Peter Lodwick. From talking to people at SemiSLUG meetings I know there is a lot of interest in ISDN-at-home as a step in the Internet-at-home direction. Pehaps we can start a discussion here as to what all we need, who is interested, etc. A few questions come to mind right away: 1. Equipment. Does anyone know what does one need at home to connect a computer (PC-type or SUN) to ISDN? Brian mentioned a Teleos B100PC board. Can someone provide more details, pricing, etc? 2. Internet/Merit connectivity. With the ongoing commercialization of Merit and for-pay Internet connections, perhaps enough interested folk would get together to buy/build an ISDN-Ethernet router. Maybe we could talk Merit folk into connecting it to the Merit network...... A lot of "maybes", but if there is enough interest, some really amazing projects could be started. 3. MaBell cooperation. I think we may have a large enough group of people here to provide MaBell with incentive to get moving in our area. As usual, I am just trying to cause trouble. My final goal in all this is to have a 64Kb link to Internet from home. All other ways are rather expensive, so ISDN has to be it. Alex Beylin, Unix Systems Admin. | +1 313 948-3386 alexb%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | Chrysler Financial Corp. sharkey!cfctech!alexb | MIS, Distributed Systems ATT Mail ID: attmail!abeylin | Southfield, MI 48034 ------------------------------ From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez Subject: ISDN Interface Cards, Drivers for AT Bus Under Unix SV3.2 Date: 15 Nov 89 16:36:18 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA Hi there! I'm trying to find pointers to available ISDN interface products for AT-bus machines (386 and higher) that might be used with Unix SV3.2. Any suggestions will be appreciated. -- Jose +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez + + + GTE Laboratories, Inc. + Tel: (617) 466-2584 + + MS-46 + email: jdiaz@gte.com + + 40 Sylvan Rd. + + + Waltham, MA 02254 + + + + + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Torsten Dahlkvist Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Date: 15 Nov 89 11:42:10 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden In article kaufman@Neon.Stanford. EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >The maintenance of frame sync on ISDN circuits would certainly allow >you to send DATA at the frame rate (8 KB/sec), but then you would lose >the "out-of-band" information of the HDLC frame, such as FLAG and >IDLE. I always felt that BOPs were a MUCH cleaner way of maintaining >packet synchronization than kludges like Transparent Bisync (DLE-SOH, >DLE-SYN, DLE-ETX, DLE-DLE, etc). Besides, this is only going to work >on pure digital ISDN-ISDN circuits. What happens when one end of the >connection is a remote X.25 dial-up? >I like to use all the bits, too, but you shouldn't overly constrain >the channel. I guess you're right. The highest "standardized" net bit rate maintaining some form of framing within the data channel is 56' bps (I've decided to start using the "56'" notation for 56000 as opposed to 56 k which can be thought to mean 56*1024). The gain from 56' to 64' is 12%, maybe not worth it. But the framing at 56' is still pretty sketchy. Does it really provide all the info you want? The highest "rate-adapted" rate that I know of that provides the _full_ HDLC framing etc. is 48' bps. There are attempts to send framing at 56', but they aren't standardized (yet? :-). As regards the problems when leaving the ISDN system, you must realize that all such connections must always run through some sort of gateway. This IWU (Inter-Working Unit) must of course be compatible with _both_ ends of the dialogue. If I want to introduce "my" standard for 8' Byte/s, then IWUs knowing this protocol must be installed at strategic points in the network. This is really not very different from the conversion needed when leaving the digital network to access an analog phone line (except that X.25 is a *little* more complicated :-). BTW: Exactly which is the ISDN chip installed in the SPARCs? I seem to recall (but I can't be sure) that it was from AMD. Is that correct? In article jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) writes: >Now that Torsten has amplified his original statment, I agree with >*most* of what he says. The exigencies of telephony will result in a >de-facto byte synch, which can potentially be exploited by >manufacturers. We need to watch out, though. If one device always >expects an HDLC Frame octet to turn up in "synch", but the sender >offsets it a bit (as it is allowed to do), we will have no >communication. >[....] There is a potential gain if you could insist on >all devices alligning their frames with the ISDN frames, but 8 >bits is not much overhead. Also, you need some way to mark start >and end of frame. Exactly. Somebody mentioned a protocol from DEC that seemed reasonable. However, the effort of making it a standard seems hardly worth it. In article desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers): >> Now do you see what I'm getting at? Up until the codec/shift register, >> a strictly byte-wise transmission is essential for the function of >> your equipment. > That is irrelevant, as it applies only to voice calls. There is no > reason why a telco must treat voice and data calls identically. If you > don't want to risk getting your data ADPCM'd or sent over analog > facilities by some el-cheapo LD company*, you'd better request data > service. In that case, only the guarantees in the spec for data > service hold. Since we're fantasizing about introducing a new standard here, there's nothing to keep us from dreaming about persuading CCITT to include it as an accepted ISDN call class. One of the pre-requisites for this class would necessarily be the strict upkeep of byte-alignment throughout the network(s). Another pre-requisite is that the users would no longer be allowed to offset data bit-wise *in such a call*, just like you need to conform to the specs of X.25 when using *that* protocol. Maybe I should make it absolutely clear that I am in no way advocating the use of ISDN in non-standard ways. The question which started this thread of discussion was if there was any way that you could *theoretically* use the B-channel byte-wise. My answer to that was "yes, but you'd need to extend the specs for ISDN". Technically it is quite possible. I don't think it will ever be done, though. Torsten Dahlkvist ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ------------------------------ From: carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) Subject: Re: T1 vs T2; and Info Date: 15 Nov 89 13:18:51 GMT Reply-To: carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) Organization: The Mitre Corporation In article lance@hermix.UUCP (Lance Ellinghouse) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 499, message 5 of 6 >Ok, dumb question time!! >I keep hearing about T1 and T2 service. I know that T1 carries more >(from previous posts). I also know that connecting to the Internet >takes a T1 line (from word of mouth). >Ok, now the questions: > 1) What exactly is the difference between a T1 and T2 line? T1 is a 1.544 Mbps line, which is often channelized into 24 64kbps channels, may be used at its full capacity, or may be split into odd increments. T1 provides a capacity and a few other technical characteristics, but how you use it is up to you. T2 is a 6.312 Mbps line, which can also be used in various channel setups, depending on the multiplexers and other equipment attached. > 2) What is the difference in Hardware that is needed to use them? The hardware will vary based on how you want to use the lines. Most people want to break the capacity up into channels and/or interface the T1 service to their computers and the exact equipment needed will vary. > 3) What is the difference in costs? (This is regional and I would like > a general idea if at all possible) I don't know the tariffs and I don't > have any estimates. A T1 line is roughly equal to the cost of 3 to 4 56kbps lines when comparing costs, but I don't have any dollar figures. > 4) How does one hook a computer to a T1 or T2 line? and what > software is needed? > 5) Who do you contact for T1 and T2 install/maintance? Local telephone company for local lines, long distance carriers for long distance trunks. > 6) Can a T2 be used for Internet? or only T1? is there something > cheaper? I think you are making a wrong assumption that you need either T1 or T2 to connect to the Internet. Most Internet host connections are in the 19.2 to 56kbps range and most trunk lines (between packet switches) are 56kbps. T1 is being used in some subnets, but it is not required unless you are running applications that need T1 capacity or want to test/experiment with high bandwidth communications. > 7) anything else you can think of.... Disclaimer: Everything I said above is rather general and I don't expect it to be taken as gospel. Trying to explain the Internet and how to connect to it in a few sentences is not that easy. I will try to find you a reference that will give you more complete information. Bruce Carlson MITRE Corp Mclean, VA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #513 *****************************   Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 0:13:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #514 Message-ID: <8911160013.aa18310@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Nov 89 00:10:46 CST Volume 9 : Issue 514 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Edward S. Sachs) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (David Lewis) Re: Beeps During Conversation Recording (Robert E. Stampfli) ISDN Debate (was: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate) (Jim Breen) What I Did About AT&T ACUS (Bill Nickless) Calling Card Tones (Bernard Mckeever) US Sprint -- C&P Telephone Connection Costs (rja@edison.cho.ge.com) Sprint VISA Card (Ken Jongsma) Calls from Egypt (Ken Levitt) US West Automated Directory Lookups (Ken Jongsma) Delay in Accepting 708! (David E. Bernholdt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward S Sachs Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 14 Nov 89 17:35:36 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories How about this as an alternative for local calling: Split the area code (as in the recent 312/708 split here in the Chicago area), but go to 8 digit local dialing for intra-LATA calls. For example, if your number was (312) 555-1234 and is now (708) 555-1234, it would be dialable from anywhere within 312 or 708 as 8555-1234. Numbers still within 312 would have a '2' prepended to them. In other words, phone numbers would remain 10 digits, but local dialing would be the last 8 rather than the last 7. This could even be extended to those parts of the Chicago LATA that are in 815 and 219, and would also work for other multi-area code areas, as long as the final digit of the area codes are distinct and not 1 or 0. Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL att!ihlpb!essachs, e.s.sachs@att.com ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 15 Nov 89 16:26:36 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > After all the exchanges are on NXX, and after we've used up the NXX > exchanges, then what's the plan? 8- or 9- digit local numbers, or > 4-digit exchanges, or partitioning Zone 1, or what? I'm not sure I understand the question. Each NPA (Numbering Plan Area -- area code) will, over time, move to interchangeable CO (Central Office -- exchange) codes. That increases the number of CO codes available in each NPA. When all the CO codes in an NPA are exhausted, then you do an NPA split like Chicago's going through now, and NJ will go through in '91. In about 1995, the remaining NPA codes will also be exhausted. The plan then is to go to interchangeable NPA codes -- so that the syntax for a phone number will be NXX-NXX-XXXX. That will provide for 640 new NPA codes, whereas there are currently 152 available N{0/1}X NPA codes available. That should keep things quiet for some time, considering there will be (approximately -- I haven't removed codes like N00 and N11) 6.4x10^9, or 6.4 billion phone numbers available in North America. Interchangeable NPA codes will, alas, need to be implemented simultaneously across North America. Big bucks. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Robert E Stampfli Subject: Re: Beeps During Conversation Recording Date: 15 Nov 89 14:29:12 GMT Reply-To: res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli,55216,cb,1C315,6148604268) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >> >[The only "drawbacks" to certain Panasonic answering machines is] >> >the annoying beep during 2-Side-Conversation-Recording. >> As for the beep while recording a conversation, well, it may be >> annoying, but in the United States it is the law. Does the Panasonic beep more than once when recording a call as an answering machine? I know of no models that claim to do that. Legally, it would seem to me that this would still technically be a case of "recording a conversation", even if it is automated and one-sided. If it is truly a Federal law, why doesn't it apply in this case as well? Rob Stampfli / att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) / kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio) 614-864-9377 / osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home) [Moderator's Note: It is 'recording a conversation', however your outgoing tape message informs the caller (in so many words) that his 'conversation' is being taped; his continuing to speak at that point would seem to imply his knowledge of and consent to the recording. It is the *knowledge and consent* that is required -- not the beeps. PT] ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: ISDN Debate (Was: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate) Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 22:33:35 GMT In article , desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes: > There is no > reason why a telco must treat voice and data calls identically. If you > don't want to risk getting your data ADPCM'd or sent over analog > facilities by some el-cheapo LD company*, you'd better request data > service. In that case, only the guarantees in the spec for data > service hold. > * I don't mean to suggest that any major LD companies would do this. > Someone will, however. Hmmm. Telecom Australia's ISDN service offers two tariff options: "digital telephony" and "Digital Data". The Digital Data is about 5% more expensive. When quizzed on the difference, they advise that at some stage in the future they will possibly introduce either or both of ADPCM or digital speech interpolation unless a customer specifically asks for a pure 64k bitstream. Their unofficial advice is to use the (cheaper) digital telephony option for the time being. I think this is a legitimate Telco option. I also think Telecom here has done the right thing by stating it as an option right at the beginning of the service. BTW, ISDN users need to be aware of some of the implications of international 64k interworking. For telephony there will have to be A-law/Mu-law conversions, which means that fax and data users will need to declare their calls as such at setup time. _______ Jim Breen (jwb@cit5.cit.oz) Department of Robotics & /o\----\\ \O Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology /RDT\ /|\ \/| -:O____/ PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145 O-----O _/_\ /\ /\ (p) 03-573 2552 (fax) 572 1298 ------------------------------ Subject: What I Did About AT&T ACUS Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 21:31:59 EST From: Bill Nickless My apologies for not attributing an earlier poster, but the gist of their message was that their college campus has gone onto AT&T ACUS campus calling service. Originally we could dial 8 to get an ACUS line or a 5 to get a payphone- style line--one that allowed collect and standard Michigan Bell calling card calls. However, that changed such that 5 no longer worked in the residence halls. (They say the traffic was to high on the "5" trunks. I wonder why.....) In our phone system, 8 also works to get local area calls, as well as 1-800 numbers. So, I called US Sprint, applied for, and shortly received one of their FonCards. Since they use a 1-800 number I was able to call home and avoid the ACUS business altogether. Another anecdote about ACUS calls: Andrews is a very international school. We have an extremely high ratio of foreign students to domestic students. An acquaintance of mine went on to the ACUS calling plan, but his foreign roomate did not. This foreign roomate received a collect call from overseas. Guess who got the bill. That's right, our friend who went on ACUS. My advice is to avoid anything like this if you have to pay the bills and have any choice. Get a Sprint/MCI card and use it. If your department provides you a card for business calls use it, but don't get one personally if it can be avoided. Bill Nickless | bnick@andrews.edu or 71640.2533@compuserve.com Andrews University | sharkey!aucis!bnick or uunet!zds-ux!aucis!bnick Computer Science Department |------------------------------------------------ Unix Support Group | "Help! I'm locked up in a .signature factory!" ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: Calling Card Tones Date: 14 Nov 89 14:57:26 GMT Reply-To: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Some time ago a question was asked about the tone that signals you to enter your credit card number. I don't remember if the answer was ever provided, if it has, ignore this, if it has not, I found this information while looking at an old copy [1980] of Notes On The Network. Automatic Credit Card Dialing - Prompt Tone Frequency in Hz = 941 + 1477 for 60 msec followed immediately by 440 + 350 for 940 msec [exponentially decayed from -10 dbM per frequency at -3 TLP at time constant of 200 msec] A few other interesting items from the same issue: Some future capabilities 1. Using a single nationwide number to reach a function. What this feature allows you to do is reach the nearest location of the group you were trying to contact. The applications listed included government functions, as you would expect, but also retail outlets. 2. A national number to reach a person, not a telephone, wherever they are. [You thought caller ID got people upset] 3. Using the network to track the locations of people traveling. [See above and triple the results] Several other new features were mentioned and in spite of divestiture we have them in place today. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 12:14:20 EST From: rja Reply-To: rja Subject: US Sprint -- C&P Telephone Connection Costs US Sprint recently leased space in a friend's warehouse to place the fibre-optic termination equipment in. This was done because the connection between the CO switch of C&P (a 5ESS switch incidentally) is entirely C&P's cost if Sprint gets within 1 mile of the CO. If they are more than one mile from the CO it is entirely Sprint's expense to connect to the CO. Sprint indicated that it costs about $23/foot to connect from their fibre-termination equipment to the CO switch so that the savings in installation costs far out weighed the cost of leasing the space. ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Sprint VISA Card Date: Tue, 14-Nov-89 16:21:58 PST The following item was excerpted from this week's Communication Week: US Sprint will begin mailing next month a Sprint VISA card, which will combine the functionality of a long distance calling card, a credit card and an ATM card. Sprint will market the card which will be issued by State Street Bank and Trust, Boston. Business travelers will receive a single bill that list all their travel related expenses: hotel, meals and phone calls. While payment for the phone charges will be done through the regular VISA bill, call detail reports will appear on Sprint's standard FONcard bill. ================== It's unclear to me how this card will differ from any VISA card. Other than the cross billing it appears to be the same. I guess Sprint could do a positive lookup on the card number and see if it was a "Sprint" VISA, but that seems terribly limiting. I suspect they will allow any VISA to be used, but may suggest using their VISA for the cross billing feature. ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 23:30:29 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Calls from Egypt I just had a chat with an Egyptian friend about phone service in Egypt. Her parents live in Alexandria. In order for them to call to Cairo, her father has to go down to the post office and tell them that he wishes to place the call and has to pay for it in advance. Then he goes home and waits several hours for his home phone to ring with the call. If he doesn't wish to wait many hours, he must bribe the post office official to get his call through sooner. When the call finally goes through they have three minutes to talk. At the end of the three minutes, there is a beep and the call is disconnected. International calls are almost impossible. With the time difference and the hours that the post office is open, things never seem to work out. My friend here has only been called by her parents once in the past three years and that was a family emergency. In view of all this, I can't understand why the GTE customers in CA are complaining. It appears that things in CA are not as bad as they could be. 8-) Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: US West Automated Directory Lookups Date: Tue, 14-Nov-89 16:24:19 PST Summarized from a Communications Week article: US West has asked for permission to allow computer access to it's white pages listings by the general public. They want to open access to the centralized database in Omaha without having to use paper directories or access through operators. The move was apparently prompted by a request from AT&T, which wants to allow it's customers to have access via a reselling agreement between AT&T and US West. US West feels it may need permission because the service may violate Judge Greene's guidelines preventing RBOCs from originating and transporting information. Under US West's proposal, customers could call US West's computer in Omaha and initiate searches by street addresses, city, state, zip code, area code or telephone number. ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Delay in Accepting 708! Date: 15 Nov 89 01:31:44 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project As careful as the phone companies try to be about warning people about area code splits, I just had a funny experience with the 312/708 split which happened Saturday 11 Novermber (if I'm not mistaken). On the evening of Sunday the 12th, I tried to call my parents using 708 and got a recording "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please hang up and dial again." After getting that message a couple of times, I tried 312 and made the connection. I did *not* get a recording saying "The number you have dialed is now in area code 708..." or whatever it is they say. This evening (Tuesday, 14 November) 708 works. I forgot to try 312 and see if they have the "change of AC" recording. (We are served by Southern Bell for local service and AT&T for LD) So... 1) Is this kind of snfau common during splits? 2) Any guesses on where the error occurred? 3) Did anybody else have this experience over the weekend? David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #514 *****************************   Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 1:23:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #515 Message-ID: <8911160123.aa24343@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Nov 89 01:20:16 CST Volume 9 : Issue 515 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore (Willie Smith) Richard Lumpkin, Telephone Pioneer Dies (TELECOM Moderator) CT2 Public Cordless Phones (UK) (Phil Herlihy) Re: Data PBX Equipment (Dave Levenson) Re: AT&T's ACUS Service (Dave Levenson) 708 Insanity (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 14:36:58 -0800 From: "Willie Smith, LTN Components Eng." Subject: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore This is not an attempt to start the CLID wars and associated ratholes that so clogged this Digest in the past few months. On a more technical bent: I got the Bellcore Technical References (thanks to the reader who sent in the pointer!) for: CLASS (SM) Feature: Calling Number Delivery TR-TSY-000031 which is the technical spec on how CND (widely discussed in TELECOM as Calling Line ID) works, and; SPCS/Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface TR-TSY-00030 which is the low level details of how the data gets over the phone lines from the telco to your house. They are about $25 each from Bellcore (201) 699-5800 [there's also a toll-free number, but I don't seem to have it handy], and are well worth the price, as they answer a lot of the questions that come up in this Digest. Anyway, I've got a few observations and questions: 1) The basic interface is a 1200 baud FSK data stream between the first and second rings. The interface is not supposed to work in an off- hook state, though it might be interesting to see if they really work that way. All kinds of spoofing might be possible if the box depends on the fact that the CO will not send data when the phone is off-hook... 2) You need a computer to decode the data, as there's a fair amount of complexity, including a checksum and multiple messages. The interface is kind of general, so you could do several different things with it. One use that seems built into the spec is message-waiting (as used in hotels). Does anyone know any other uses? Is it worth making a transciever (so you can talk back to the telco) or should you only bother with a reciever if you are going to 'roll your own'? If you have a computer, you could build the interface (a simple FSK modem) pretty cheap! Does anyone know if any of the commercial units have an RS-232 output? 3) CND (CLID) is available in two different flavors, "subscription" is the usual one, where you sign up for it once, CND is used for all calls into your house, and you are billed (I assume) monthly. The other option is "usage-sensitive", where you still have to sign up for the service (and I imagine pay a connection fee), but you can turn it on and off at will by dialing *65 or *85 (on and off respectively, numbers may vary in your area). This service appears to be billed on a 'number of CNDs sucessfully delivered'. Why would anyone use the "usage-sensitive" option? 4) The calling directory number, "if available and can be disclosed", is transmitted to you. See TR-TSY-000391 for details on blocking. I'm not that concerned about it, but if you are, spend the $25 or so and get the info from the source. Then maybe we can have a reasoned discussion with facts and such. Nawww.... :+) 5) Here's an interesting option I don't remember hearing discussed. The calling party can dial a 4-digit (or longer) PIN that will be displayed instead of the calling DN. This brings up some rather interesting questions on spoofing or hiding your number, does anyone know if the commonly used boxes differentiate between DN (directory number) and PIN? I believe it's in the low-level protocol, but it would appear to be implementation-dependent as to how it's displayed. 6) Another neat future use mentioned in passing is an interface to directory assistance or another database to provide calling party name instead of calling DN. Yes the low level spec will pass ASCII, do any of the current boxes allow display of alphanumerics? 7) The requirement for a customer initiated testing number is "desirable". This would allow the customer to dial a special number, hang up, and get a series of test transmissions (display each digit in each position, etc). Do any of the CND trials out there provide such a service? 8) The various call forwarding options send the originating number to the far end. In other words, a call from A to B that gets forwarded to C should deliver A's number to C. 9) Automatic Callback is the only instance I found where the CND shows a 'private' number. This section is a but hard to describe, but basically: [See TR-TSY-000215 for more information] If I call someone with an unlisted number (I already know their number!) then fire up AC, when the connection is made and I get a special ring signal, that number shows up on _my_ box (so I know who I'm calling back). If I didn't put the number in in the first place and it's a 'private' number, then I'll get a privacy indication. 10) In a Centrex, you may only get the extension number on your box. Anyway, they seem to have thought this all out pretty carefully, and it's a very well written set of documents, so if you have more questions, you can try Emailing me, but the definitive answers are directly available. Kind of pricey if you get all the associated documents, but that's life. I called New England Telephone to try to figure out when this feature would be available in my area, but the customer service rep didn't know what I was talking about. In fact, references to Bellcore didn't seem to ring any bells with her either (sorry :+). She went away for a while doing some research on the question and came back with the response that they had no idea when that might be available on (508) 369-xxxx, but if I call back when the strike is over and they get back on their feet, they might have a better idea.... This has nothing to do with my employer! Willie Smith w_smith@wookie.enet.dec.com w_smith%wookie.enet.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com {Usenet!Backbone}!decwrl!wookie.enet.dec.com!w_smith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 0:52:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Richard Lumpkin, Telephone Pioneer Dies Richard Adamson Lumpkin, 92, of Mattoon, IL presided over the growth of two rural telephone companies begun by his father and grandfather until they became the 24th largest telephone company in the United States. Mr. Lumpkin, chairman and chief executive officer of Consolidated Communications, Inc. died last week at his home in Mattoon. Born in Mattoon in 1897, Mr. Lumpkin served in the Navy Reserve Flying Corps in World War I, and graduated from Yale University in 1921. His grandfather, Dr. Iverson A. Lumpkin, founded the Mattoon Telephone Company in 1894. His father, William Cutler Lumpkin, founded the Coles County Telephone and Telegraph Service to provide long distance phone service for customers of the Mattoon Telephone Company. When his father William died in an accident in 1924, Richard became general manager of the two companies, which had merged a few years earlier. He began purchasing other small rural telephone companies in Illinois, and founded Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company in 1935. He was president of Illinois Consolidated for 34 years, and became chairman of the board in 1970. During World War II, Mr. Lumpkin was a communications consultant to the War Production Board in Washington, DC. He was a past president of the United States Independent Telephone Association (USITA) -- a group founded many years ago to protect small independent telcos from being absorbed into the (then) rapidly expanding 'Bell System'. He was also president of the Illinois Telephone Association; vice-president of the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce; and president of Mattoon United Way, among other positions. Eastern Illinois University named its College of Business in his honor. In 1984, Consolidated Communications, Inc. was formed as the parent company of Illinois Consolidated Telephone and several other subsidiaries. With his passing last week, his son Richard Anthony Lumpkin has taken the reigns as chairman of Consolidated Communications and Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company. Richard Lumpkin was truly a telephone pioneer. In his home town of Mattoon, he was known as 'the telephone company' for several decades. Illinois Consolidated still serves the town of Mattoon, and other nearby small communities, as well as other parts of the state and elsewhere. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Phil Herlihy Subject: CT2 Public Cordless Phones (UK) Organization: STC Telecoms, New Southgate, London N11 1HB. Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 00:00:00 CST (In reply to a followup from U5434122@uscvc.unimelb.edu.au, whom I can't seem to reach by e-mail.) (Q. How many channels are supported?) A. The technical details issued to Joe Public by one company quotes 40 x 100khz channels. Encoding is 32kbit digital pcm. Max user density is given as 7,700 users per sq km. 'Home' base stations, which I understand can allow these phones to accept calls if they are left on 'standby', have capacity for 6 phones, which can dial each other. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Data PBX Equipment Date: 16 Nov 89 05:26:50 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) writes: > I have also been looking at the Panasonic KX series PBX for my home > looks like all of the features that I need. So now that I have my > phone networking done, how about data networking? ... > Does anyone have any suggestions on a medium feature data switch/pbx? > I am looking for something that will support at least 8 ports, 16 > RS232 ports prefered... Have a look at AT&T's Merlin II. It looks more like a key system than a PBX, but the distinction is a bit blurred. It supports electronic multi-button sets, and it also supports Tip & Ring sets with the same features available. It is a digital switch, and supports asynchronous data ports -- stand-alone or paired with voice ports. If you're looking for a BIG switch (big by residential standards) there's also System 25. More ports, different feature package, similar capabilities. Here, incidentally, we switch low-speed modem traffic with a Mitel SX-5, a two-trunk, six-station PBX which is now about ten years old, and probably no longer available. This is an analog electronic switch, and we use 2400 bps modems behind it. We also use an AT&T Starlan(tm) network to interconnect several PC devices at 1 Megabit. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: AT&T's ACUS Service Date: 16 Nov 89 05:40:47 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , klb@lzaz.att.com (Kevin Blatter) writes: ... > Unless the PBX is connected to the CO via ISDN lines, there is no way > for the PBX to know if a call is completed or not. Not necessarily true. Answer supervision on outgoing trunks is available from most local central offices including #5 crossbar, 1ESS, 1AESS, and 5ESS. It takes the form of a trunk battery reversal when the far end answers. It is an extra-cost feature, at least according to NJ Bell's tariffs, but it is available if you buy it. Some PBX equipment is designed to use this information if it's provided. Mitel PBX equipment can use it to decide whether or not to generate an SMDR record for an outgoing call. I don't know about the Rolm switch used to provide ACUS. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 0:32:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: 708 Insanity On the first official day of the phone network's 708 area code, an official '708 baby' was born into the world. Hilary Lynn Osiecki, weighing 7 pounds, 9.5 ounces was born at 12:03 AM Saturday, November 11 at Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL. She was the first baby born in the Land of 708. Illinois Bell, in a stunt to publicize the new suburban Chicago area code, promptly dubbed Hilary the '708 Baby' and later in the day presented her rather perplexed parents, Linda and James Osiecki, a check for exactly $708. "It's not bad," said James Osiecki, a carpenter in Glenview, IL. "The baby will have something to look forward to. When other kids say their father is a millionaire, she can say, 'I'm the 708 Baby.' " The Osieckis said they will put the money toward Hilary's education -- but I have a better suggestion: use it to pay the outrageous phone bills we get now-a-days since IBT went with totally measured service a couple years ago :) See you tomorrow! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #515 *****************************   Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 0:22:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #516 Message-ID: <8911170022.aa06742@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Nov 89 00:20:54 CST Volume 9 : Issue 516 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Phones in the Movies (Marshall Rose) Re: Phones in the Movies (John Higdon) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (John Higdon) Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Johnny Zweig) Re: Data PBX (Macy Hallock) Re: Home KSU ??? (Don H. Kemp) Re: NYC Time and Weather (John Wheeler) Re: Cryptic Abbreviations (John Wheeler) Re: Calls from Egypt (John Higdon) Re: Centrex Hold, Call Transfer, Call Pickup (Cyril Bauer) Re: Need Information on "Bit Slippage" (John Limpert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 21:47:03 -0800 From: Marshall Rose Well, if memory serves, it wasn't one of those GTE AirFones (which might be like a FlightFone, I guess). The guy was using a cellular in a car on the ground, and it seemed to me he was using the same phone on a plane. If I catch the film again, I'll watch more closely... /mtr ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: 17 Nov 89 03:23:57 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , tel@cdsdb1.att.com (Thomas E Lowe) writes: > If I remember correctly, it isn't illegal to use a cellular phone in a > private plane. The reason they are illegal in 'public' planes is > because they can interfere with the electronics in the cock pit and > elsewhere on the plane and the pilot as little control over that. In > a private plane, the pilot supposedly has total control, so it he is > getting interference, it is up to him to stop it. No, it's illegal regardless of the type of plane you are using it from. This comes up all the time in our various meetings when some hotshot has yet another idea for a promotion using a cellular phone from a plane. The reason is very straightforward. The system was designed to be used from ground level. The cell sites are carefully engineered to provide a specific amount of signal and sensitivity in each direction that is harmonious with each other cell site. Part of the calculation involves beam-tilt, so that your transceiver will intentionally work one site rather than another. In an airplane, all bets are off. When you push the s(p)end button, perhaps a dozen sites or more will suddenly see your signal, since you are high enough that your signal will hop over adjacent sites to the distant ones that are not supposed to see you. You may even be picked up by other systems. What will probably happen is that your cellular phone will be locked out. Most systems are set up to do this to protect themselves against multiple-site activation. This is semi-permanent, in that you will have to contact your service provider to get re-instated. > Also, because of the signal pattern of cellular ground stations, > cellular phones shouldn't work to well in the air. I do believe this > was actually discussed a while back here in Telecom. That is correct, on both counts. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Date: 16 Nov 89 07:51:58 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , johnl@esegue.segue. boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > Nope, you never need an area code to make a local call in NJ. NJ Bell > seems to feel very strongly like that. Up until the early 1980's, it was not necessary to dial anything other than the seven-digit number for any call within the Bay Area. This applied to local and toll alike. This was the case even though the southern end of the bay had been 408 since around 1960. Then suddenly, someone decided that they could no longer have non-duplicating prefixes within the metro area. We were all notified that beginning on a certain date, it would be necessary to dial the area code if different. This meant that on that date, a Mountain View caller had to dial 408+7D for a local call to San Jose, or even down the street to Sunnyvale. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 18:27:01 GMT A codec needs a byte-stream. If ISDN is going to be used with real live 8-bit codecs, there will have to be a byte-stream protocol on the wire. The frames already contain D-channel data as well as off-hook/on-hook bits (or at least that is the Party Line), so no need to do ugly nonsense like robbing the 8th bit. I can whip up a SLIP at 64000bps that will make me happy if I have a line that takes 8000 bytes every second and hands them to whoever I called. Routing and other considerations are research-problems and belong in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. I just want as many bytes/second as I can squeeze out of the wire. SLIP is a framing-protocol, so forget HDLC. I promise to be the only one using the bits. I just don't get this business of taking a byte-stream protocol and layering a bit-stream protocol on it (lowering the bandwidth available to payload), and then putting a byte-stream on that (using, say, bit-stuffing and further lowering available horsepower). Could someone please explain? It seems dumb. Now, if I envision having several interfaces contending for the 64kps, I need a medium-access protocol such as HDLC. Fine. Let me call someone who speaks HDLC if I want to use HDLC -- otherwise, let me use all the bits and call someone who expects that. HDLC is a bit-oriented protocol (see Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks", p. 254). It seems inappropriate, wasteful and silly to use it on a byte-oriented physical medium (which ISDN has to be to support digital telephony). I just don't get it. -Johnny Bits ------------------------------ From: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Data PBX Equipment Date: 15 Nov 89 18:21:19 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders,59361,cb,3T219W,6148605965) writes: >Does anyone have any suggestions on a medium feature data switch/pbx? >I am looking for something that will support at least 8 ports, 16 >RS232 ports prefered. I need some promtping and help features for the Newbridge makes a neat little series of RS-232 data switches. The small one is the 1080/1082 (8 port and two option parallel ports) and theres a 1032 (up to 32 ports). Highly reccomended! The make some interesting software for MS-DOS systems to use these switches as well. Available thru better distributors, as they say. Newbridge Networks is 800-332-1080 and is in No. Virginia as I recall...call and ask for info. If you are serious, they just might send a you a sales video tape, too. They have a neat installation video tape available for these systems, too. I wish other voice and data mfr's were as on the ball as Newbridge! Newbridge is a bunch of ex-Mitel people and know what they are doing. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Home KSU ??? Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 16:34:33 EST From: Don H Kemp >From article , by djb@loligo.cc.fsu. edu (Dave Brightbill): > Recently, someone wrote about an electronic KSU which allowed the use > of PVP's (plain vanilla phones). I've called around to several of the > 1-800 phone suppliers (OAI, Commonwealth, etc.) and they all denied > such a beast exists. > David Brightbill Try Panasonic. Their _analog_ electronic key systems will accept either a propriatary _or_ 2500-type set on any port. You do need, however, at least one electronic display set, in order to program the beastie. (Can't lay my hands on the documentation right now, but they come in three line and six line flavors) Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: NYC Time and Weather Date: 15 Nov 89 16:17:17 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta Of course for the ultimate in accuracy, you can call the National Bureau of Standards's WWV at (303)499-7111. The accuracy is limited to the length of time it takes the signal to travel through the line to you. /* John Wheeler - Unix/C Systems Designer/Programmer/Administrator/etc... * * Turner Entertainment Networks * Superstation TBS * TNT * Turner Production * * ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw (404) TBS-1421 * * "the opinions expressed in this program are not necessarily those of TBS" */ [Moderator's Note: And if it is 1200 baud ASCII you prefer from the NBS, dial 303-494-4774. To get the same thing from NAVOSBY, dial 202-653-0351 at 1200 baud. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: Cryptic Abbreviations Date: 16 Nov 89 17:55:54 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta Patrick, I don't think it would be such a bad idea to put out a glossary of telecom terms to stay on here all the time. I get lost myself when we start talking about all those cryptic acronyms. /* John Wheeler - Unix/C Systems Designer/Programmer/Administrator/etc... * * Turner Entertainment Networks * Superstation TBS * TNT * Turner Production * * ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw (404) TBS-1421 * * "the opinions expressed in this program are not necessarily those of TBS" */ [Moderator's Note: Well, the beginnings of the glossary are under construction now. I am trying to get a file transferred to me with quite a few terms defined. Stick around for a few days; I should have it installed. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Calls from Egypt Date: 17 Nov 89 03:35:30 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , levitt@zorro9.fidonet. org (Ken Levitt) writes: > [horror stories of the Egyptian telephone system] > In view of all this, I can't understand why the GTE customers in CA > are complaining. It appears that things in CA are not as bad as they > could be. 8-) Yes, I'm sure that GTE of California would love to be compared to Egypt, or maybe the USSR, or even Mexico. But unfortunately, they are playing ball in a different stadium. And as things stand, they can't hold a candle to Pac*Bell (with whom they must be compared), the most backward and antiquated RBOC in the nation. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: cy@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Cyril Bauer) Subject: Re: Centrex Hold, Call Transfer, Call Pickup Date: 16 Nov 89 05:32:56 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN. I believe that the telco informed you correctly. The posibility of a distinctive ring back I believes depends on the type of office. NEC,AT&T digital, or the DMS so I can't be sure that some don't have it. Either way I would sugest the Panasonic 616 or a 308. Start up cost would be higher but over a period of time it would pay for itself and you get all the flexability you could want. Ask about them. I have one and I have had it for about three years (closer to four) and no problems. (I have a three story house.) UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!cy ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!cy@nosc.mil INET: cy@pnet51.orb.mn.org ------------------------------ From: John Limpert Subject: Re: Need Information on "Bit Slippage" Date: 16 Nov 89 18:22:47 GMT Reply-To: John Limpert Organization: BFEC/GSFC Greenbelt, Maryland In article johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) writes: >A coworker is experiencing a problem while using a 1200-baud dialup >modem, where he is seeing periodic "}" symbols, and characters 0x255 >and 0x251. >When I was having a similar problem at another company, the phone >gurus there told me this was a phenomenon known as "bit slippage", >whereby two switches were losing sync on the digital connection >between them. I have heard the same explanation of the periodic '}' problem. The '}' is produced when a T1 (1.5 mbps) link loses synchronization and loses/mangles a frame. Each end of the T1 link is supplied with its own clock source. If there is a discrepancy in the clock frequencies the link will lose synchronization periodically. The phone company has a hierarchal timing distribution system that is supposed to provide an accurate clock to the T1 equipment. I have been told that the clock frequency error may be caused by two problems. One, the local clock distribution system fails and the T1 equipment switches to an internal clock source when it detects the failure. It may be a long time before anyone notices the failure and corrects the problem. Alarms only work if someone checks them. Two, someone has installed some T1 equipment without providing an accurate clock source. This can be out of ignorance or unwillingness to pay for a quality timing distribution system. This information is what I have been told by others, please correct me if it is wrong. John Limpert johnl@gronk.UUCP uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #516 *****************************   Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 1:22:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #517 Message-ID: <8911170122.aa04131@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Nov 89 01:20:00 CST Volume 9 : Issue 517 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson ISDN Home-to-Office (was: ISDN Service in Ann Arbor) (Hubert Daugherty) Modems and Telephone Lines (John M. Cook) KS19353 L4 Test Oscillator Docs Sought (Robert Kelley) Kermit Slinding Windows needed (Jose Luis Jimenez Fernandez) Help - Modem Info Needed (Bill McGown) ATTMAIL Access? (Chuck Bennett) What Happened to the EOBS Book? (James Kirchner) Phones in Planes (was Re: Phones in the Movies) (Bob Sutterfield) AT&T Rate Increase (Don H. Kemp) Latest in Junk Calling (Jim Gonzales) Cellular Pagers (Eric M. Carroll) [Moderator's Note: I get questions. Some days I have a dozen or more of the type printed in this issue of the Digest. Usually I just forward the message along to someone who might know the answer, but today I decided to print several and ask you to each 'adopt a question' and send the answers direct to the persons involved. The first half of the Digest today is a series of these questions, which all arrived in my mail today. If you choose to correspond with the people, no copy is needed here, unless you had something of particular interest to all. The Gloassary discussed several issues ago is under construction. I hope to have it available in a few days. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hubert Daugherty Subject: ISDN Home-to-Office (was: ISDN Service in Ann Arbor area) Date: 17 Nov 89 04:29:09 GMT Reply-To: Hubert Daugherty Organization: Rice University, Houston ANYONE who can provide information on how to accomplish a PC to ISDN to [CAMPUS(RICE)-UNIX-INTERNET and CAMPUS(RICE)-telphone] interconnection would make a personal dream come true. Let me explain. We (Rice University Electrical and Computer Engineering) have wired one of our classrooms for video production and transmission. Several times a week we roll out the monitors and the look down camera, hook up the microphones, and then we broadcast LIVE. We use the Instructional Television Frequencies to provide interactive course material to Houston Area engineering firms. The firms recieve live pictures and sound from our broadcast. Each firm telephones into our control room at the beginning of the class period. Each firm has a push to talk microphone at the remote site. When a student keys the microphone at the remote site the local telvision sound is muted to prevent feedback and the students voice gets mixed in with the sound broadcast to all sites. The instructor hears the students question through speakers in the classroom. The above EXISTS and has been in use for a year. Now for the IDEA! With ISDN we could impliment call-on-demand from each remote site. A PC outfitted with ISDN and a microphone could be used to establish the audio connection with almost no delay. The professor could be notified as to the identity of the caller since we get the calling phone number with ISDN. The students phone number could be matched to a data base in the PC and subsequently displayed on the bottom of the transmitted picture. WoW, I love it! Group III and IV images of the class notes would be made available via ftp via the data connection. If we get REALLY fancy we could SLAVE the students PC to our HOST. Then we could download the next assignment, upload a completed assignment, and/or monitor a test. There might even be enough bandwidth to provide an X-terminal interface to the student. I've been hunting arround for a really FUN millinium project. This may be it! If any of you ISDN guru types have implimented ANY PART of the described senario, PLEASE, PLEASE send me references! I need part numbers, phone numbers, books I should read, knees I should hug, etc. I have a very wide background, but I know next to nothing about ISDN to PC connectivity. Think of it; A student in his home, with a PC, a television, a cheap (less than $200) microwave dish and down-converter pointed at downtown, and an ISDN card would be able to participate as a full peer with students seated in the classroom. ------------------------------ From: nobody@acsu.buffalo.edu Subject: Modems and Telephone Lines Date: 17 Nov 89 04:31:24 GMT Reply-To: "John M. Cook" Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science Came across a question I didn't know today so I'm now asking the Net. Does anyone know what signals run across the cable running from a modem to a wall jack? In my case I have 6 wires, I know that 2 are transmission lines. Can some tell me what each wire is for? The complete problem is I need to know which line carries a signal when the line goes Off-hook. A friend added a modem to his computer at the office and the phone line is part of a PBX. The problem is he is only using the two transmission wires so when he uses the modem the light for that line doesn't lite on the phones in the office. I need to figure out which is the third or even fourth wire needed to tie into the PBX so we can get the lite on the phones to work. Thanks for any help you can provide. John Cook [Moderator's Note: I think you are looking for the pair which gives A/A1 supervision. Many (most) modems have a dip switch setting which provides for this. Set the switch one way for a single line phone, set it the other way if you want to illuminate the line key at some other station on a multi-instrument line. PT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Kelley Subject: KS19353 L4 Test Oscillator Docs Sought Date: 16 Nov 89 01:00:45 GMT Reply-To: Robert Kelley Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc This unit was built for Western Electric by Hewlett Packard in the early 1970's. I'm seeking schematic diagrams and other related documentation. Bob Kelley 50 NE Sacramento Street Portland, OR 97212 Home: (503) 249-5883 Work: (503) 526-5744 Uucp: ...!uunet!sequent!rjk ------------------------------ From: Jose Luis Jimenez Fernandez Subject: Kermit Slinding Windows Needed Date: 16 Nov 89 17:07:34 GMT Reply-To: Jose Luis Jimenez Fernandez Organization: Dept. Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos, dit, upm, Madrid, Spain Can anybody say me where I could take the "Kermit Slinding Windows" (SuperKermit) Thanks in advance, Jose L. Jimenez Fernandez| jjimenez@dit.upm.es | /| Centro de Calculo | jluis@adan.etsitm.upm.es | / | D. Ingenieria Telematica | jjimenez@goya.uucp | _ | | E.T.S.I.Telecomunicacion | mcvax!goya!jjimenez@uunet.uu.net | | | Jose\Luis Ciudad Universitaria s/n | | --------------- E-28040 MADRID | tel: +34 1 5495700 x.352 | / | SPAIN | fax: +34 1 2432077 | --- | Tlx: 47430 ETSIT E | |/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 13:53 CST From: Bill McGown Subject: Help - Modem Info Needed I just got a "gift" of a 30 Universal Data Systems Modems(?), made by Motorola. Why the question mark behind the modems? Well they look like modems and have all the other physical characteristics, but no manuals :-( ! Does anyone have any info on these critters. The model number is a 201B. Many thanks. Bill McGown CFWPM@ECNCDC.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 08:41 EST From: "Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134" Subject: ATTMAIL access? Patrick, I have an aquaintance who works at the Shreveport, LA AT&T location. When we meet (in person) he gave me the following email address "attmail!sp3ba!wcseal". As you can see I am on BITNET. I also have INTERNET access. Is there a way to get a message to him? My local email guru told me to try "sp3ba!wcseal@attmail.att.com", below is the result of that attempt. Any or no help would be appreciated. Chuck Bennett > Received: (from BSMTP@UCBJADE for UCHUCK@UNC via NJE) > (RSCS2382-2382; 31 LINES); Fri, 10 Nov 89 19:41:06 EST > Return-Path: > Received: from arpa.att.com > by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.23) > id AA12378; Fri, 10 Nov 89 15:55:53 PST > Message-Id: <8911102355.AA12378@jade.berkeley.edu> > From: postmaster@arpa.att.com > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 18:55:01 EST > To: UCHUCK%UNC.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu > Mail to `attmail.att.com!sp3ba!wcseal' alias `attmail!sp3ba!wcseal' > from 'jade.berkeley.edu!UCHUCK%UNC.BITNET' failed. > The error message was: > destination unknown or forwarding disallowed > The message was: > Received: from UNC.BITNET > by jade.berkeley.edu (5.61.1/1.16.23) > id AA06982; Fri, 10 Nov 89 11:48:10 PST > Message-Id: <8911101948.AA06982@jade.berkeley.edu> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 14:45 EST > From: "Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134" > > To: sp3ba!wcseal@attmail.att.com > Subject: Test of email pathbject: Test of email path > Craig, > Just testing to see if I could get through to you. IF so how are you > and Barbara? Enjoyed our visit. Maybe we will see you again. Are you > still considering the Guilford Center?? > Chuck Bennett ------------------------------ From: jimmyk@dasys1.UUCP (James Kirchner) Subject: What Happened to the EOBS Book? Date: 16 Nov 89 05:01:10 GMT AT&T Bell Labs used to publish a book called Engineering and Operations in the Bell System, known among Bell Labs employees as "EOBS". Does anyone know if any revised copies were printed/published after 1983? If so, does anyone know how to obtain this book? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Bob Sutterfield Subject: Phones in Planes (was Re: Phones in the Movies) Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Organization: Morning Star Technologies Date: 16 Nov 89 11:00:04 In article tel@cdsdb1.att.com (Thomas E Lowe) writes: If I remember correctly, it isn't illegal to use a cellular phone in a private plane. The reason they are illegal in 'public' planes is because they can interfere with the electronics in the cock pit (ahem - that's "cockpit", please :-) and elsewhere on the plane and the pilot as little control over that. You've probably never flown in anything but a "private" (legally meaningless term) aircraft. "Public aircraft" means "used only in the service of agovernment or a political subdivision" (e.g. military, police helicopters, etc.). The other kind is "Civil" which encompasses everything else, including air carriers, commercial operators, and not-for-hire guys like me. You're referring to FAR 91.19, the prohibition against certain portable electronic devices on US-registered civil aircraft operated by an air carrier or commercial operator (what you probably meant by "public") or under instrument flight rules. In a private plane, the pilot supposedly has total control, so it he is getting interference, it is up to him to stop it. 91.19(b)(5): The operator (not necessarily the pilot) of any aircraft makes the determination of whether navigation or communication will be interfered with. 91.19(a): The operator or pilot in command is responsible for enforcement. 91.3(a): The pilot in command is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. No matter the size or use. The pilot "has total control" and responsibility in every case. Commercial operators and air carriers generally have blanket policies regarding use of portable electronic devices on their flights, so their pilots or cabin attendants (with authority delegated by the pilot in command) don't have to make case-by-case decisions. Their policies are generally pretty conservative, as you might expect. Also, because of the signal pattern of cellular ground stations, cellular phones shouldn't work to well in the air. I do believe this was actually discussed a while back here in Telecom. It's an FCC issue, not an FAA issue. The problem is one of too many cells playing catch with the call, as has been thoroughly cussed and discussed in Telecom, I believe. There are mobile telephones that are FAA- and FCC-certified for use in aircraft, but they use different technology than ground-based cellular systems. They're also quite a bit more expensive. Please correct me if I'm wrong. OK, we're deviating quite a bit from Telecom, but since you asked... ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Rate Increase Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 16:26:59 EST From: Don H Kemp More news from AT&T FOR RELEASE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1989 WASHINGTON -- AT&T today announced plans to increase some basic domestic long-distance prices and to simplify international calling. The domestic increase -- about $34 million -- will raise AT&T's basic night/weekend prices about 1.3 percent, or about 0.2 cents per minute. For example, the average price of a 10 minute night/weekend call from New York to Los Angeles will increase from $1.30 to $1.32. AT&T said the increase on an average customer's monthly long- distance telephone bill will amount to about 3 cents. "These changes will allow AT&T to better align long-distance prices with costs," said Merrill Tutton, vice president, AT&T Consumer Services. The increase applies only to interstate long-distance calls made during night and weekend hours: after 11 p.m. Sunday through Friday and all weekend until 5 p.m. Sunday. Additionally, AT&T announced plans to restructure a portion of its international calling prices, simplifying rates to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. The changes include the elimination of one of three rate periods and reducing prices for some calls to each country. Under the revised plan, standard prices will apply from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the caller's time zone. Economy prices will apply from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. For calls to India, the standard price will drop from $4.50 to $4.20 for the first minute and from $2.77 to $2.04 for each additional minute. The economy price is unchanged. For calls to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, the standard price will drop from $4.90 to $4.45 for the first minute. The standard additional minute price and economy price are unchanged. AT&T said the proposal also calls for a 20 percent price increase on calls to Romania, Suriname and Macao, for both the initial minute and additional minutes during all time periods. AT&T proposed the changes in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission. The domestic changes are expected to become effective Wednesday, November 29; the international changes Saturday, December 30. # # # Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ Subject: Latest in Junk Calling Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 20:26:11 -0500 From: gonzalez@bbn.com I am a couple of digests behind, so please forgive me if someone has already mentioned this one. I just received a pre-recorded call from some organization announcing a drawing for a free trip to Hawaii. In order to find out more, all I have to do is call 1-900-999-4500. The recording stated that call will cost me $5.97, and that I can enter the sweepstakes by sending a postcard to suite address in California (sorry, I didn't write it down :-). Neat way to defray solicitation costs. Jim Gonzalez ARPA/UUCP: gonzalez@bbn.com BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. Cambridge, Massachusetts TEL: 617-873-2937 ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular Pagers From: "Eric M. Carroll" Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 21:30:12 EST I just aquired a nifty Page Canada cellular pager. It does not seem from inspection to have a transmitter in it. So how does it identify itself to the cell? Page Canada claims coverage over most of southern Ontario and roamability over most major metro areas in Canada. How is roaming accomplished? At CDN$150 its paid for itself in the first month of use. Eric Carroll Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #517 *****************************   Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 23:52:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #518 Message-ID: <8911172352.aa16388@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Nov 89 23:50:26 CST Volume 9 : Issue 518 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: ATTMAIL Access? (John R. Levine) Re: ATTMAIL Access? (Daniel M. Rosenberg) Re: ATTMAIL Access? (Dave Levenson) Re: Phones in the Movies (Shyue Chin Shiau) Re: Phones in the Movies (David Lesher) Old Style Rural Number on Sitcom (was: Phones in the Movies) (Dave Fiske) Re: Calling Card Tones (Joel B. Levin) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Dave Levenson) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Lars J. Poulson) Re: What Happened to the EOBS Book? (Bernard Mckeever) Re: Home KSU ??? (Macy Hallock) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: ATTMAIL Access? Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 17 Nov 89 13:32:17 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: >I have an aquaintance who works at the Shreveport, LA AT&T location. >When we meet (in person) he gave me the following email address >"attmail!sp3ba!wcseal". As you can see I am on BITNET. I also have >INTERNET access. Is there a way to get a message to him? Probably not. AT&T Mail looks to the outside world like a giant uucp site. One can either dial in to an AT&T Mail machine as a user, as one does to MCI Mail, Telemail, and most of the others, or else have mail delivered via uucp to one's Unix machine. For this reason, there are lots of people in the uucp community who have links to AT&T Mail. Unfortunately, AT&T Mail charges for each incoming message from a site whether the site is sending it itself or relaying it for someone else, so you can understand why there are no publicly available attmail relays. Now that Compuserve and MCI Mail are relaying to the Internet directly without charge, and Telemail has a kludge interface that is also free, it would make sense for AT&T to reconsider their charging policy. Unless they can distinguish between uucp mail coming in from subscribers (charged) and uucp mail coming in for subscribers (no charge) I can't see how they can technically do it. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts." ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: ATTMAIL Access? Date: 17 Nov 89 20:53:42 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. UCHUCK@unc.bitnet (Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134) writes: >My local email guru told me to try "sp3ba!wcseal@attmail.att.com", below >is the result of that attempt. > > The error message was: > > destination unknown or forwarding disallowed Stuff sent to host.att.com currently goes through att.arpa, aka research.att.com. Soon this will be inet.att.com. AT&T doesn't want to forward to machines outside of AT&T, and the error message you got here indicates that even for attmail, which is significantly enough outside of the AT&T machine network. I'd expect you could bounce this off of uunet: e.g., attmail!wcseal@ uunet.uu.net. So, with that answer, I have a question: just who the heck is UUNET and why do they let us bounce all our mail off of them? # Daniel M. Rosenberg // Stanford CSLI // Eat my opinions, not Stanford's. # dmr@csli.stanford.edu // decwrl!csli!dmr // dmr%csli@stanford.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: ATTMAIL Access? Date: 18 Nov 89 04:36:42 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , UCHUCK@unc.bitnet (Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134) writes: > I have an aquaintance who works at the Shreveport, LA AT&T location. > When we meet (in person) he gave me the following email address > "attmail!sp3ba!wcseal". As you can see I am on BITNET. I also have > INTERNET access. Is there a way to get a message to him? AT&T Mail is a service you buy. If you get a subscription to it (for $30 per year, I think, plus usage-sensitive fees) then you can send and receive e-mail. It is gatewayed to Usenet. You can use a dumb terminal (or a PC emulating a dumb terminal) or you can register a UNIX machine as an AT&T Mail node. The transport mechanism, in the latter case, is uucp. You can also send text to fax machines, and you can listen to your mailbox using a voice telephone, using their text-to-speech capability. To subscribe, or to get more information, call 1-800-672-MAIL. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Shyue Chin Shiau Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: 17 Nov 89 22:29:40 GMT Reply-To: Shyue Chin Shiau Organization: Excelan, Inc., San Jose, Califonia Regarding to the "picture phone with CRT", I'm collecting information about this so called "video phone". Information about: technology vendor research Or video message compression or anything which you think is useful. Thx. UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}!excelan!shiau Chin Shiau BARRNet/Internet: shiau@xlnvax.excelan.com ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 17:38:53 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Anyone remember the 'Hot Line' in the "FLINT" movies? Flint had a special phone, typically shaped as a Texas steer, (hint--guess who was President) to call 'upstairs'. When it rang, it had a great sound that defies description. Wish I had that for a common ringer on my key system. A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Old Style Rural Number on Sitcom (was: Phones in the Movies) Date: 17 Nov 89 21:32:12 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY Nickelodeon is showing the early episodes of Green Acres. The Douglases just got their phone installed (basically a test set mounted at the top of a pole) the other night, but before that one of Oliver's former law partners had tried to call him from New York. The number they had the operator call was Hooterville 297 Ring 2. (Apparently their calls had to go to the Shady Rest, since Uncle Joe, movin' kinda slow, answered it.) Anway, I thought telecom readers would appreciate the number popping up in a sitcom. "CROOK ROBS 16 BANKS -- Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WITH A CUCUMBER" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Calling Card Tones Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 16:58:45 EDT >From: Bernard Mckeever >Some future capabilities >1. Using a single nationwide number to reach a function. >What this feature allows you to do is reach the nearest location of >the group you were trying to contact. The applications listed >included government functions, as you would expect, but also retail >outlets. This already exists in the world of 800 numbers. At least in AT&T, a company can opt to have an 800 number go to the nearest branch office of the company. I have been bitten by this; the 800 number for my insurance company is the same around the country, but when I dial it from work I reach the Boston area office, while my records are in the Manchester, NH office; the Boston people always have to tell me the "real" number to call to reach Manchester. Nets: levin@bbn.com | or {...}!bbn!levin | POTS: (617)873-3463 | ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Date: 18 Nov 89 03:32:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , johnl@esegue.segue. boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > Nope, you never need an area code to make a local call in NJ. NJ Bell > seems to feel very strongly like that. I grew up in Princeton... > .... I bet when they split 201/908 you'll be able to dial across > that boundary with seven digits, too. That's not what they're telling us. Here in Warren Township, we will be in 908. The next C.O. north of us will remain 201. We are told by the Newark Star-Ledger (and _they_ know it all, don't they?) that we'll be dialing local calls to nearby points on the other side of the line with eleven digits. The line between the Millington CO (201-647, 201-580) and Bernardsville CO (201-204, 201-221 and others) will, apparently, become part of the border line between 908 and 201. The folks in the Southern half of the town of Basking Ridge have 647 or 580 numbers today. They'll apparently be using eleven digit dialing to call their neighbors in the same town who have 221 or 766 numbers. If they didn't do this, the area-code split wouldn't be nearly as useful in saving numbers, as they'd have protected prefixes all along both sides of the entire border. (But then, the Star-Ledger has been wrong before... Does anybody know for sure?) Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Reply-To: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 20:09:54 GMT >In article , peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net >(Peter da Silva) writes: >> After all the exchanges are on NXX, and after we've used up the NXX >> exchanges, then what's the plan? 8- or 9- digit local numbers, or >> 4-digit exchanges, or partitioning Zone 1, or what? In article , nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes (in response to a question from Peter da Silva): >[Even after all NPA have switched to NXX exchange codes, the remaining > NPA codes will be exhausted around 1995.] The >plan then is to go to interchangeable NPA codes -- so that the syntax >for a phone number will be NXX-NXX-XXXX. That will provide for 640 >new NPA codes, whereas there are currently 152 available N{0/1}X NPA >codes available. That should keep things quiet for some time, >considering there will be (approximately -- I haven't removed codes >like N00 and N11) 6.4x10^9, or 6.4 billion phone numbers available in >North America. Can this be accommodated without taking the whole system to ESS ? I would expect that when this happens, you will ALWAYS need to dial the area code, even for a local call. (Even though this may be handled by your instrument by then). / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: Re: What Happened to the EOBS Book? Date: 17 Nov 89 20:45:31 GMT Reply-To: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The question was asked. > AT&T Bell Labs used to publish a book called Engineering and >Operations in the Bell System, known among Bell Labs employees as >"EOBS". Does anyone know if any revised copies were printed/published >after 1983? If so, does anyone know how to obtain this book? Thanks. The answer is, alas, NO. Only two issues were available, and both used very different formats. My favorite is still issue I. The Foreword to issue II states that because of divestiture ...etc this is the final edition. The following information may be of some help if you are looking for a copy. International Standard Book Number 0-932764-04-5 Library of Congress Catalog Number 83-72956 AT&T Customer Information Center Select Code 500-478 As mentioned in Issue II the book was intended for new members of the Bell Labs technical staff, but it also served as a general reference for a much wider audience. ------------------------------ From: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Home KSU ??? Date: 15 Nov 89 21:06:09 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article djb@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Dave Brightbill) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 509, message 4 of 13 >Recently, someone wrote about an electronic KSU which allowed the use >of PVP's (plain vanalia phones). I've called around to several of the >1-800 phone suppliers (OAI, Commonwealth, etc.) and they all denied >such a beast exists. I have need for a system with 2 CO lines and 6 >or 8 extensions. Suggestions welcome. Try the Panasonic KX-T308 Key System. You will need one of their KX-T30830 phones to program it. Try the mail order discounters (Many are in New York City) for this. Still can't find it? E-mail me and I will help. ON this same note: A gentlemen from St. Louis asked me to assist him with these same units, and I lost his mail in a system upgrade (?) here. Please e-mail me again...sorry for the inconvenience... Gee, I mention these Panasonic systems to so many people, I wish they would give me a kickback, but I'm only a local dealer/installer of them. But I sure like to sell them around here... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #518 *****************************   Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 0:52:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #519 Message-ID: <8911180052.aa31300@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Nov 89 00:50:00 CST Volume 9 : Issue 519 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Need Information on "Bit Slippage" (Richard H. Gumpertz) Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore (David Lewis) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Joel B. Levin) Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate (Fred Goldstein) Re: Beeps During Conversation Recording (Dave Levenson) Re: Help - Modem Info Needed (Dave Levenson) Re: Help - Modem Info Needed (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: NYC Time and Weather (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard H. Gumpertz" Subject: Re: Need Information on "Bit Slippage" Date: 17 Nov 89 05:49:17 GMT Reply-To: "Richard H. Gumpertz" Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas In article johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 509, message 3 of 13 >A coworker is experiencing a problem while using a 1200-baud dialup >modem, where he is seeing periodic "}" symbols, and characters 0x255 >and 0x251. >When I was having a similar problem at another company, the phone >gurus there told me this was a phenomenon known as "bit slippage", >whereby two switches were losing sync on the digital connection >between them. I have also seen such problems when working with a PBX. The problem was that the trunk-card in the PBX was set for 600 ohm hybrid termination when 900 ohm was needed. Unfortunately, the manufacturer's testing sequence tested 900 first and then 600 so all trunk-cards were shipped in the 600 ohm position. The manufacturer's engineer said he had been trying to get the test sequence reversed because 900 is generally a better match. =============================================================================== | Richard H. Gumpertz rhg%cpsolv@uunet.uu.NET -or- ...uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg | | Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749 | =============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore Date: 17 Nov 89 17:36:08 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , w_smith@wookie.enet.dec. com (Willie Smith, LTN Components Eng.) writes: > I got the Bellcore Technical References (thanks to the reader who > sent in the pointer!) for: > CLASS (SM) Feature: Calling Number Delivery TR-TSY-000031 > which is the technical spec on how CND (widely discussed in > TELECOM as Calling Line ID) works, and; > SPCS/Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface TR-TSY-00030 > which is the low level details of how the data gets over the > phone lines from the telco to your house. One thing to keep in mind is that Bellcore TRs are essentially written to the industry to provide requirements for manufacturers; the manufacturers are free to implement products in exact compliance to the Bellcore TRs or not, as they see fit. In other words, the TRs specify how Bellcore says the product/service/system *should* work, which may or may not be the same as the way it *does* work. > They are about $25 each from Bellcore (201) 699-5800 [there's also a > toll-free number, but I don't seem to have it handy] 1-800-521-CORE (2673) > and are well > worth the price, as they answer a lot of the questions that come up in > this Digest. Gosh, it's nice to know someone appreciates us... > 3) CND (CLID) is available in two different flavors, "subscription" is > the usual one, where you sign up for it once, CND is used for all > calls into your house, and you are billed (I assume) monthly. The > other option is "usage-sensitive", where you still have to sign up > for the service (and I imagine pay a connection fee), but you can > turn it on and off at will by dialing *65 or *85 (on and off > respectively, numbers may vary in your area). This service appears > to be billed on a 'number of CNDs sucessfully delivered'. Why would > anyone use the "usage-sensitive" option? This is one place where the above comment comes in. Bellcore wrote the requirements to permit either subscription or usage-sensitive billing. Equipment vendors may or may not have built their products to permit either subscription or usage-sensitive billing; I don't honestly know. The local telco then has the option to sell the service as either subscription or usage-sensitive; I don't know if any telcos have offered it as usage-sensitive. The point of the requirements is to define the technical capabilities which should be available, not the choice of how to sell them -- which is a business decision, which Bellcore emphatically does *not* recommend anything about. (In fact, we have standard disclaimer notices which say, essentially, "we have nothing to do with decisions about pricing, sales, or anything else that could draw out the nasty C-word, collusion...") > 5) Here's an interesting option I don't remember hearing discussed. The > calling party can dial a 4-digit (or longer) PIN that will be displayed > instead of the calling DN. Again -- this is in the TR, but may not be implemented currently or offered currently. Calling Number Delivery Blocking is also in the TR, but I don't know if any telco is offering it. > 6) Another neat future use mentioned in passing is an interface to directory > assistance or another database to provide calling party name instead of > calling DN. Ditto above. > 7) The requirement for a customer initiated testing number is "desirable". > This would allow the customer to dial a special number, hang up, and > get a series of test transmissions (display each digit in each > position, etc). Do any of the CND trials out there provide such a > service? Things which are "desirable" are even less likely to have been implemented than things which are "required"... > Anyway, they seem to have thought this all out pretty carefully, and > it's a very well written set of documents, so if you have more > questions, you can try Emailing me, but the definitive answers are > directly available. Kind of pricey if you get all the associated > documents, but that's life. Gee thanks... And just think -- every dollar you pay Bellcore for documents is one dollar less that has to come out of various people's phone bills to pay my salary!! > I called New England Telephone to try to figure out when this feature > would be available in my area, but the customer service rep didn't > know what I was talking about. In fact, references to Bellcore didn't > seem to ring any bells with her either (sorry :+). Hey, don't sweat it -- some telco people don't even know (or particularly care) which holding company they're owned by... > This has nothing to do with my employer! It does, however, have everything to do with mine... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 17:05:05 EDT >Here in Massachusetts, though, if you live in Lexington and want to >make a free local call to neighboring Concord you dial 1+508+NXX-XXXX. >I suppose it'd have come to that sooner or later anyway, but it's >interesting to see the differences among the former BOCs. On the other hand, in the same New England Telephone Company area I can sit in my New Hampshire house (in 603-880) and dial Tyngsborough, Mass. (was 617-649 and is now 508-649) with seven digits. When I lived in the 617-649 I could dial all the Nashua NH telephones (including 603-880 and several others) the same way. This is across NPA, LATA, and state boundaries. Nets: levin@bbn.com | or {...}!bbn!levin | POTS: (617)873-3463 | ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: TCP/IP over ISDN Basic Rate Date: 17 Nov 89 17:30:20 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article , zweig@brutus.cs.uiuc. edu (Johnny Zweig) writes... >I can whip up a SLIP at 64000bps that will make me happy if I have a >line that takes 8000 bytes every second and hands them to whoever I >called. Routing and other considerations are research-problems and >belong in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. I just want as many bytes/second as >I can squeeze out of the wire. SLIP is a framing-protocol, so forget >HDLC. I promise to be the only one using the bits. If you are happy using SLIP then you have other problems to worry about! :-) SLIP is NOT a valid data link protocol. While it provides framing (as do HDLC, DDMCP, etc.), it provides NO error detection, let alone recovery. So you trust the weak checksums in TCP and IP to detect line noise. From a data integrity point of view that's seriously bad. (That's a general-purpose anti-SLIP diatribe, btw.) >I just don't get this business of taking a byte-stream protocol and >layering a bit-stream protocol on it (lowering the bandwidth available >to payload), and then putting a byte-stream on that (using, say, >bit-stuffing and further lowering available horsepower). Could >someone please explain? It seems dumb. You don't lose much with HDLC, about 1/63 to the bit-stuffing, and with only one flag at each end of the frame, it's probably comparably efficient to SLIP. You gain pretty good (not great) error detection (CRC_16), and optional hop-by-hop error recovery (I vs. UI frames). Since HDLC is used on the D channels already, it's built into ISDN chips, making it cheap. fred ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Beeps During Conversation Recording Date: 18 Nov 89 03:44:03 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , kanner@apple.com (Herbert Kanner) writes: > It is interesting to note, in view of the above, that of the following > list of machine brands that I have owned (and in most cases returned > to the store) only the Panasonic emits the beep. > AT&T top of the line machine > Northwest Bell machine with time/day stamp > Cobra with time/day stamp > Record-a-Call (model over five years old) > Panasonic with time/day stamp It would be interesting to learn why Herb returned so many machines to the store. The Panasonic unit I bought was very user-friendly -- it had one button that is used to play back all of the messages. But it only plays each message exactly once. No backspace, no save it for later. No listen again to get the number down. That's why I returned it (sorry, I don't remember the model number, but it was a two-line model). I recently brought home the AT&T 1330 (from Sears). This is an answering machine with an LCD display, solid-state storage of the outgoing announcement, and a single-cassette. The LCD displays the current time, or the time the message you're hearing was recorded, or soft labels for the five pushbuttons you use to administer the machine (I think it has more customer-administerable options than some AT&T business telephone systems!) It also voice time-stamps the messages on playback, in case you can't see the display. I think I'll keep this one. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [Moderator's Note: Well, as for me and my household (self, brother and his wife), we use voice mail from Centel....and love it. And they have a method of billing on miscellaneous accounts for non-Centel (phone) customers such as myself. So if you would like a 'presence' in the new 708 area code, and are willing to spring for $4.95 per month (ten messages, thirty seconds each; thirty second outgoing message) then contact Ms. O'Keefe, in the Business Office of Centel, 2004 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016. Phone 708-391-6536. You will get direct access to your mailbox with a number of the form 708-518-6xxx. For a demo of the system, call 708-518-6000. PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Help - Modem Info Needed Date: 18 Nov 89 04:32:04 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , CFWPM@ecncdc.bitnet (Bill McGown) writes: > I just got a "gift" of a 30 Universal Data Systems Modems(?), made by > Motorola. Why the question mark behind the modems? Well they look > like modems and have all the other physical characteristics, but no > manuals :-( ! Does anyone have any info on these critters. The model > number is a 201B. Many thanks. Bill: The UDS 201B is a 2400bps half-duplex synchronous modem, suitable for leased-line or dial-up service with other 201-style equipment. (Some models will support full-duplex synchnonous service using 4-wire leased lines. All are half-duplex on dial-up lines.) They're usually used between IBM 3270-series cluster controllers and remote host system channel adaptors. Probably not very useful in the world of asynchronous full-duplex service we tend to use with Unix. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Help - Modem Info Needed Reply-To: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 04:05:11 GMT In article CFWPM@ecncdc.bitnet (Bill McGown) writes: >I just got a "gift" of a 30 Universal Data Systems Modems(?), made by >Motorola. Why the question mark behind the modems? Well they look >like modems and have all the other physical characteristics, but no >manuals :-( ! Does anyone have any info on these critters. The model >number is a 201B. Many thanks. The 201B is a 2400 baud modem. Half-duplex on dial-up lines and Full duplex on (4-wire) leased lines. Motorola bought Universal Data Systems (Huntsville, AL) and Codex (Atlanta, I think) some years ago, and sort-of merged their product lines. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: NYC Time and Weather Date: 18 Nov 89 05:07:43 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , techwood!johnw@gatech. edu (John Wheeler) writes: > Of course for the ultimate in accuracy, you can call the National > Bureau of Standards's WWV at (303)499-7111. > [Moderator's Note: And if it is 1200 baud ASCII you prefer from the > NBS, dial 303-494-4774. To get the same thing from NAVOSBY, dial > 202-653-0351 at 1200 baud. PT] These 1200 baud services are exceedingly handy. My computer has a crontab entry to call NAVOSBY twice a week to set its clock. For many months now it has been wonderful to not have to think about checking the damn time in the computer. About six months ago, some company in Fremont (I forget the name) contacted me concerning their network time standards that would keep computers in a network set to the correct time using WWV. I was mildly interested until I found out that the price was somewhere around $600. It was then that I pointed out that I got a pretty good substitute for about $1 a month by calling NAVOSBY. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #519 *****************************   Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 0:10:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #520 Message-ID: <8911190010.aa05268@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Nov 89 00:10:00 CST Volume 9 : Issue 520 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: ATTMAIL Access? (Steve Bellovin) Re: ATTMAIL Access? (Steve Dyer) Re: ATTMAIL Access? (Bill Fenner) Re: ATTMAIL Access? (Adam V. Reed) Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore (Allen Nogee) Re: Caller-ID and Blocking (Peter da Silva) Re: Caller-ID and Blocking (Charles Buckley) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Dave Levenson) Re: Phones in the Movies (Mark Robert Smith) Re: Phones in the Movies (Paul Krzyzanowski) 800 rates (eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com) Forest Park Hum ?? Fact or fiction? (Ted Koppel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: smb@hector.att.com Subject: Re: ATTMAIL Access? Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 11:02:19 EST >From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" >Stuff sent to host.att.com currently goes through att.arpa, aka >research.att.com. Soon this will be inet.att.com. AT&T doesn't want to >forward to machines outside of AT&T, and the error message you got >here indicates that even for attmail, which is significantly enough >outside of the AT&T machine network. Not quite. Arpa.att.com is indeed the mail gateway for AT&T right now. It will soon be retired -- it's heavily overloaded -- and will be replaced by a new machine which may retain the old name as an alias. Inet.att.com, though it exists now, will be a special-purpose gateway; only a few research organizations within Bell Labs will use it. The rest of the company will use the general gateway. The difference is unimportant to anyone on the outside; MX records will be used to select the proper gateway for any inbound mail. Attempts to manually-route mail will likely fail; inet, at least, will be unable (and not just unwilling) to handle such mail, I believe. At the present time, neither machine will accept mail for ATTMAIL. ATTMAIL is a commercial service; there are many non-AT&T users of it. It is not possible to distinguish on the basis of hostname which recipients are or are not AT&T employees. Also note that ATTMAIL charges for messages sent. >So, with that answer, I have a question: just who the heck is UUNET >and why do they let us bounce all our mail off of them? UUNET is a non-profit corporation founded by Usenix to act as a mail and netnews hub. You're supposed to pay for their services, too... I doubt very much that they'd forward to ATTMAIL for free, especially since ATTMAIL would charge them for doing so. Speaking unofficially, --Steve Bellovin smb@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 14:32:06 EDT From: Steve Dyer Subject: Re: ATTMAIL Access? Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Last January or thereabouts I constructed and sent off via the Internet an email message with the headers: To: dispatcher@attmail.att.com Default-Options: /receipt Paper-To: Stephen P. Dyer
Needless to say, it worked! I received a confirmation receipt in return mail via the Internet, and several days later I received a copy of the letter in my mailbox. I immediately sent mail to postmaster@attmail warning them of the loophole, which now appears to be closed. Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu [Moderator's Note: Not only that, but some people were sending mail to user !telex at ATTMAIL, and sending telex messages everywhere with the bill going to no one in particular, and eventually being written off by ATTMAIL. I mentioned this flaw to them myself. The delivered telex messages contained curious remarks as to their origin. PT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: ATTMAIL Access? Date: 19 Nov 89 00:42:37 GMT Reply-To: Bill Fenner Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University In article dmr@csli.stanford.edu (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes: |I'd expect you could bounce this off of uunet: e.g., attmail!wcseal@ |uunet.uu.net. |So, with that answer, I have a question: just who the heck is UUNET |and why do they let us bounce all our mail off of them? UUNET *is not a general-purpose forwarder.* Remember that. UUNET forwarding will go away just as soon as they decide that too many people are using them as a miscellaneous site to bounce everything off of. UUNET exists for their customers, and may become like AT&T, in that if you're not mailing to one of their customers, you can just bugger off. Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ ------------------------------ From: Adam V Reed Subject: Re: ATTMAIL Access? Date: 18 Nov 89 21:54:10 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , UCHUCK@unc.bitnet (Chuck Bennett writes: > I have an aquaintance who works at the Shreveport, LA AT&T location. > When we meet (in person) he gave me the following email address > "attmail!sp3ba!wcseal". As you can see I am on BITNET. I also have > INTERNET access. Is there a way to get a message to him? > My local email guru told me to try "sp3ba!wcseal@attmail.att.com", below > is the result of that attempt. Remember domain addressing? "sp3ba" is in the att.com subdomain, so you can mail to your friend without going through ATTMAIL. Just use wcseal@sp3ba.att.com. Or you can use his name @ ATT.com. Adam_V_Reed@ATT.com ------------------------------ From: Allen Nogee Subject: Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore Date: 17 Nov 89 15:11:45 GMT Organization: gte In article , w_smith@wookie.enet. dec.com (Willie Smith, LTN Components Eng.) writes: > 1) The basic interface is a 1200 baud FSK data stream between the first and > second rings. The interface is not supposed to work in an off- > hook state, though it might be interesting to see if they really > work that way. All kinds of spoofing might be possible if the > box depends on the fact that the CO will not send data when the > phone is off-hook... The hardware I designed for our switch (GTE) does work on or off hook. So do the boxes I've tested. Whether the software will allow it is another question. I guess it all depends if you mind hearing FSKT tones in your ear if you pick up your phone too fast. > 6) Another neat future use mentioned in passing is an interface to directory > assistance or another database to provide calling party name instead of > calling DN. Yes the low level spec will pass ASCII, do any of the > current boxes allow display of alphanumerics? The future for ASCII is there but the boxes I've tested couldn't do it. I fact, The AT&T box I tested couldn't even display more than 7 digits. The only message type supported at present is 4, digits only. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Blocking Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 9:29:06 CST From: Peter da Silva Well, no. I wouldn't anticipate using the anonymity very often. But then I'm not one of those folks who have a fit when a telemarketer calls them. And I'm not into telephone harassment. And like I said, you can always ignore calls with no ID. (though a while ago I was getting harassed by someone, and when I called them back I got their boss, who wanted to know why I was harassing his employees!) `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 11:38:08 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: Caller-ID and Blocking >From: peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) >Date: 13 Nov 89 18:55:21 GMT >Unblockable Caller-ID is, on the balance, a bad development. >I wish some of the people out there would campaign to fix it, rather >than tear it down. Sigh. A really simple solution presents itself, which is to have certain target numbers, available through simple application, which cannot make use of caller id - calls to these numbers will be guaranteed anonymous, and it would be a federal felony to have such a service be available on a line so advertised. The police department anonymous tips line could be one of these, as well as the crisis lines for battered women, and other places where it seemed to the subscribers applying to be a good idea. The existence of these would justify making anonymous-out numbers as difficult to get as they currently are, since normally non-anonymous-out callers could still call those willing to interact with them anonymously as before. Such numbers would carry a small symbol after their listings, and on advertisements, etc. which means that this number is anonymous. It should be something with good icongraphic significance, but typable using typewriters (and computer equipment) that everyone has. I like ][, which looks like a little barrier, or maybe nnn-nnnn@#, where @ is replaced by < overstruck with /, which is harder to type, but more symbolically laden. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 18 Nov 89 17:28:30 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: (... regarding interchangeable NPA codes...) > Can this be accommodated without taking the whole system to ESS ? I > would expect that when this happens, you will ALWAYS need to dial the > area code, even for a local call. (Even though this may be handled by > your instrument by then). No, you won't ALWAYS need an area code. What you will ALWAYS need is what you already need in some parts of the US: you'll need to dial a leading 1 before an area code, and you'll never need a leading 1 for intra-npa calls. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: 18 Nov 89 18:38:49 GMT Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey I think Panasonic has introduced a slow-scan, non-continuous video phone that works over current phone lines. I think it's Panasonic, I'm not sure. I saw a demo last night at Fortunoff's. You normally get a mirror of your own camera, unless you or the other guy press the send button. The send button sends your current camera to the other guy's screen. There is also a recall feature that seems to recall the last 4 pictures you received. It was $299 each set, as I remember. Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ From: Paul Krzyzanowski Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: 19 Nov 89 01:51:51 GMT Organization: Bell Telephone Labs In article , ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@ bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) writes: > I seem to remember Arthur C. Clarke, or Stanley Kubrick, or someone > (my brain-grep comes up with Clarke's _The Odyssey Files_ book on the > making of 2010, but I'm not certain) saying that "the only thing > that's out of date in _2001_ is the Bell System logo on the phone in > the space station." [paraphrase]. Incidentally, the Bell System Picturephone in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was designed with the help of John R. Pierce of Bell Laboratories, who designed the Telstar satellite. It looks rather formidable; there seem to be two keypads and a whole slew of instructions below the screen (16 bullet items!). ------------------------------ Subject: 800 Rates Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 08:11:03 -0500 From: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com Do all carriers charge in .1 second increments for 800 numbers? I just got my first 800 bill from US Sprint -- half of the calls were for 1 cent or 4 cents! It's cheaper to call cross-country with their 800 service than it is to dial in-state with NYNEX, at least for short calls, which I often do to check voice mail. ------------------------------ From: Ted Koppel Subject: Forest Park Hum?? Fact or Fiction? Date: 17 Nov 89 01:43:42 GMT Organization: CARL -- Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries I was just talking to my sister and brother-in-law who live 'just over the line' in Forest Park, Illinois. There exchange prefix is 708 (formerly 312) 771. They have a computer and have just acquired a modem; they have had no luck connecting to Compuserve or any of the local BBS systems. They had a different phone problem yesterday, and an Illinois Bell (?) (what are they these days??) tech came out to fix the problem, which was in the box handing from the pole, and not in their house. However, they asked the tech why they were unable to sustain a modem connection. His response was that they were victims of the 'Forest Park Hum'. He described it as a well known phenomenon in which there is too much (something) which causes hum on the lines to the point of inabaility to transmit data. He said that they could buy a conditioned line or something else very expensive to be able to use a modem. Is this for real? Is there any way around it? Is there any pressure that my sister can place on anyone at Illinois Bell to improve matters? And so on ... Thanks... Ted Koppel CARL - Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries = BITNET: TKOPPEL@DUCAIR UUCP: uunet!isis!tkoppel or tkoppel@du.edu [Moderator's Note: I have never heard of such a thing; that is, an entire community with noisy lines. How does the telepone man think the half dozen BBS lines in Forest Park operate presently? All with dedicated, clean lines? And how do the rest of us in Chicago reach BBS lines in Forest Park? Can your relatives use 300/1200 baud, if not necessarily 2400? Is it possible the modem unit itself is faulty? When in a voice connection, do they get an unusual amount of hum, buzz, clicking or popping? Sorry to say, there are some IBT employees who for whatever reason are very antagonistic toward modem usage, dislike the use of computers by people at home, and say *whatever* in response to questions such as posed. They'd love to sell a conditioned line for the extra bucks per month. I highly doubt it is needed. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #520 *****************************   Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 2:35:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #521 Message-ID: <8911190235.aa10473@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Nov 89 02:35:12 CST Volume 9 : Issue 521 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Telephone Network in East Germany (Wolf Paul) The Use and Abuse of UUNET (was ATTMAIL Access?) (Christopher K. Davis) CLI or CND: What Is Actually Displayed? (Anthony Lee) Book Review: "The Matrix" by John Quarterman (Michael A. Patton) E-Mail to the UK (Glenn P. Hoetker) When We Run Out of NXX Area Codes (Peter da Silva) Trivial Ring Detection? (Ken Harrenstien) ISDN Tariffs (Alex Beylin) Re: T1 vs T2; and Info (Michael A. Patton) TELECOM Glossary and Acronym Files Now Available (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wolf paul Subject: Telephone Network in East Germany Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 9:30:54 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria The following article was taken (without permission) from the Friday, Nov. 17, issue of the Vienna newspaper "Der Standard". Translation from the German by Wolf Paul. NO FREE PHONE LINES FOR INTER-GERMAN COMMUNICATION by Standard correspondent Werner Stanzl in Munich Bonn's Secretary of the Chancellery, Rudolf Seiters, who will initiate a round of German-German talks in East Berlin next week, was briefed by telecom experts from Siemens Munich about the state of the East German telephone network. The expansion of inter-German telecommunications is one of the first items on Bonn's and East Berlin's joint agenda. All expectations that this can be accomplished soon by investing large amounts of money are utterly unrealistic, according to the experts. In the opinion of the engineers at Siemens, the telecommunications infrastructure in the GDR is so hopelessly out-of-date that it cannot possibly be used as the backbone of a modern communications system. It will rather be necessary to construct an entirely new network from scratch. Originally, the German Federal PTT had hoped, that with the disappearance of political hindrances, telephone traffic between the two German countries could be increased at the push of a button. For this purpose, the West German PTT has built into its telephone system a capacity reserve of 300 percent for connections to the other Germany, which can be increased even more in a short time. In East Germany, however, even an increase of peak traffic by a few percent would lead to a collapse of the network, which largely dates back to the time before WWII and is in worse condition than the phone networks of most Third World countries. This applies not only to technical standards, but also to the ratio of population to the number of telephones. While West Germany has 40 million telephones for a population of 60 million, East Germany only has four million phones for a population of 17 million citizens. If a connection can be established at all, the quality is abominable. Rain water penetrates the rotted cables and causes shorts. If one capitulates in the face of a poor connection and hangs up in the hope of getting a better one, one might as well give up altogether: a second attempt usually does not succeed. Important messages for business partners in West Germany are passed via third parties in Stockholm or Paris, since there are only 48 direct-dial lines to West Germany. Western businesses which are planning joint ventures with East German partners have to plan for several years of communications difficulties. Modern services such as Fax, Teletex or high-speed leased lines are virtually unknown in the "other Germany" -- with the exception of two government-owned hotels which have direct wires to the Federal Republic. The PTT Ministry in Bonn is now looking into the possibility of creating a temporary communications system via the West German PTT satellite "Kopernikus". --------end of article-------- Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: (Office) [43] (2236) 71521-465 (Home) [43] (1) 22-46-913 UUCP: uunet!mcvax!tuvie!iiasa!wnp DOMAIN: iiasa!wnp@tuvie.at [Moderator's Note: My special thanks for passing this along, and making the translation for us. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 06:56:39 EST From: Christopher K Davis Subject: The Use and Abuse of UUNET (was ATTMAIL Access?) >>>>> On 17 Nov 89 20:53:42 GMT, dmr@csli.stanford.edu (Daniel M. >>>>> Rosenberg) said: Daniel> X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 518, message 2 of 11 Daniel> I'd expect you could bounce this off of uunet: e.g., attmail!wcseal@ Daniel> uunet.uu.net. Daniel> So, with that answer, I have a question: just who the heck is UUNET Daniel> and why do they let us bounce all our mail off of them? DISCLAIMERS: This is from memory. I have no affiliation with UUNET. UUNET is a not-for-profit company that supplies forwarding service for UUCP mail and news to their customers. As part of that, they have hellishly well-maintained mailers, and can often get through when you (generic, plural you) can't. This has led many people to use them as the "smart bomb" of mail routing problems. Unfortunately, this costs them. And, more than once, they've been tempted to just start bouncing anything that's not for one of their customers (the same way AT&T does, which is why Daniel suggested using UUNET in the first place [!]). Basically, they let us bounce mail off of them because it hasn't cost them "too much" yet. May I make a plea to all TELECOM Digest (and comp.dcom.telecom) readers not to use UUNET as the "magic solution" -- but to do a bit of research and get the approved mail-exchangers or mail paths? Hint: Either use nslookup or mail to the SH.CS.NET info-server to get the proper Internet MX records. I'm willing to help folks try to iron out mail problems if it'll take some load off UUNET. [Responses to me, please--this has gone fairly far out of the TELECOM topic. --ckd] ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: CLI or CND: What Is Actually Displayed? Date: 19 Nov 89 04:04:01 GMT Reply-To: anthony%batserver.cs.uq.OZ@uunet.uu.net I was wondering with the Call Line Identity or the Calling Number Delivery service, what is actually displayed on the callee's telephone. Is it just the caller's number? Surely this wouldn't be very helpful. I mean the telephone book is indexed on surnames so wouldn't it better if the surname and initials of the caller be displayed? cheers Anthony Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:(+617) 3712651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (+617) 3774139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia [Moderator's Note: But you see, names are not unique to their users. Telephone numbers are. If my caller-ID box says 'John Smith', am I to look through a couple pages of the Chicago alpha directory at the hundreds of people in Chicago named 'John Smith' to find my caller? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 01:08:13 EST Subject: Book Review: "The Matrix" by John Quarterman From: "Michael A. Patton" There have recently been several questions about getting electronic mail to/from somewhere or getting network connections. As a general suggestion for anyone who deals with this on a frequent basis, let me suggest a book by John S. Quarterman entitled "The Matrix" and subtitled "Computer Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide" (published by Digital Press, ISBN 1-55558-033-5, it can be ordered direct from DEC, order # EY-C176E-DP). The book is a fairly recent (it's copyrighted 1990) and very comprehensive discussion of the various networks around the world with many details on how to get mail between them. It also includes an overview of the general topics of networking and Computer Mediated Conferencing (CMC). For most of the specific networks it also has contacts for info or setting up connections. Since my copy arrived about 10 hours ago, I haven't had time to really look it over (it's over 700 pages) I have glanced through it and it lives up to John's reputation. It is an expansion of several articles he wrote in 1986/1987 for CACM and UNIX Review (possibly others). As to the specific question that triggered this about connections in Rome (and specifically the Vatican), the book lists four "Continental European Networks" all of which reach Italy as well as INFNET and a BITNET node under the specific "Italy" heading. Which of these you want to look into would depend on the specific services you wanted and what level of support (money) you could provide. If you require specifically Internet access (as specified in the message) you are out of luck, these are all based on protocols other than TCP/IP. __ /| /| /| \ Michael A. Patton, Network Manager / | / | /_|__/ Laboratory for Computer Science / |/ |/ |atton Massachusetts Institute of Technology Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are a figment of the phosphor on your screen and do not represent the views of MIT, LCS, or MAP. :-) ------------------------------ From: gphg1125@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Glenn P Hoetker) Subject: E-mail to the UK Reply-To: gphg1125@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Glenn P Hoetker) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 20:29:24 GMT I would be very grateful for any advice on how to send e-mail from the U. S. (either Internet or Bitnet) to someone on the JANET network in the U.K. I know its possible, but have incredible amounts of trouble trying to do it. Thank you very much. ------------------------------ Subject: When We Run Out of NXX Area Codes Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 9:38:55 CST From: Peter da Silva In my previous message, I mixed up exchanges and area codes. Let's run this through again: What happens when we run out of 3-digit area codes? Do we go to 4-digit area codes, 8- or 9- digit local numbers, or split Zone 1? (And, again, I know this will take a while.) `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 18:11:49 PST From: Ken Harrenstien Subject: Trivial Ring Detection? Here's a simple problem: I'd like to put together a system such that when a telephone call arrives, specific light fixtures will flash throughout the house. What's the most elegant solution? A few small companies oriented to the hearing-impaired make stuff for this purpose, but it tends to be suboptimal in several ways (incompatible, expensive, hard to find, and hard to fix), so I'm trying to use more common off-the-shelf components. So far my best idea involves using the BSR X10 power controller system (recently taken over by Radio Shack, which calls it their "Plug 'n Power" system -- sigh) and hooking a ring detector to an R.S. Universal Interface (often used as a burglar alarm). I'm not quite sure how to rig up the detector, though; nothing seems quite elegant enough. If anyone can think of a trick that will avoid the need to touch a soldering iron, I'd be delighted. --Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 15:10:36 EST From: Alex Beylin Subject: ISDN Tariffs Reply-To: alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI As a continuation of the ISDN thread, what kinds of tariffs are there already to cover ISDN related services. I remember there was a filing a while back, but can't recall seing any kind of details. Will providing residential ISDN service require a separate filing from commercial service filing? Anyone has any guesses on prices? Alex Beylin, Unix Systems Admin. | +1 313 948-3386 alexb%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | Chrysler Financial Corp. sharkey!cfctech!alexb | MIS, Distributed Systems ATT Mail ID: attmail!abeylin | Southfield, MI 48034 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 01:39:23 EST Subject: Re: T1 vs T2; and Info From: "Michael A. Patton" Just a bit of additional info on the subject of "T1 required for connection to Internet". In actual fact, "The Internet" is not a monolithic entity. It is a large collection of networks all speaking the same protocols and with agreements to pass each others packets. This means connecting to "The Internet" is a matter of connecting to one of these networks. In my area (New England), this would most likely be done through NEARnet (the New England Academic and Research network, almost called New England Research and Development network, the acronym is left as an excercise for the reader :-). The current NEARnet fee schedule provides for connection speeds of 9.6k bps, 56k bps, 500k bps, T1 (1.5M bps), and 10M bps. We expect to try out T3 (45M bps) as soon as someone wants it bad enough. In New England it is certainly not the case that you need T1 to connect to the Internet. In all cases the "service" that NEARnet provides is a connector (on the back of a NEARnet-owned router) into which you plug a cable from a drop off your local Ethernet (or whatever, various are supported). The actual details of dealing with the T1 line, or whatever, is handled by NEARnet. __ /| /| /| \ Michael A. Patton, Network Manager / | / | /_|__/ MIT Laboratory for Computer Science / |/ |/ |atton [NEARnet technical group] Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are a figment of the phosphor on your screen and do not represent the views of MIT, LCS, or MAP. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 2:02:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Glossary and Acronyms Files Now Available I was very pleased to receive a note this past week from Dave Padgitt sending along a glossary of telecommunications terms. In addition, another reference file of acronyms has been made available. The first file has been placed in the Telecom Archives entitled, 'glossary.txt'. It is a semi-large file, in excess of 60,000 blocks, so you will want to have room to accomodate it when you capture it using ftp. To obtain your copy: 'ftp cs.bu.edu' login 'anonymous' and issue a non-null password. 'cd telecom-archives' 'get glossary.txt' 'get glossary.acronyms' I'd like to make this a continuing project: As you review it, if you think of other telecom terms which ought to be listed, send them to me here, and please ** use the same format and same editing style as the existing work. ** The reason is, I will take all the additions eventually received and edit them into a revised glossary.txt. I'd rather not have to do a lot of extra editing work to make them conform. A companion file is entitled 'glossary.acronyms', and I hope you will take a copy of it also, and review it in the same way: with the intent of adding new acronyms used in the telecommunications industry. This file is not exclusively telecom-related acronyms, but quite a few of them are. It was presented to the Telecom Archives by Michael A. Patton. This file is about 8400 blocks. If you cannot fetch your copies using ftp -- and your address will tell me if this is the case or not -- then write and ask me; I will send a copy from here. My thanks to Dave and Mike for their valuable additions to the Telecom Archives. You can thank them personally by writing to: Dave_Padgitt@um.cc.umich.edu map@lcs.mit.edu Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #521 *****************************   Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 0:29:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #522 Message-ID: <8911200029.aa19386@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Nov 89 00:24:08 CST Volume 9 : Issue 522 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Billing Problems With PC Pursuit (Roger Preisendefer) Telenet Replies to Mr. Preisendefer (Dave Purks, responding for Telenet) Calling Cards (Pete Holsberg) Amazing, but True (John Higdon) UK STD codes (Nigel Whitfield) Cellular Recommendation Wanted (Stan Voket) Fretters and Ameritech: Cellular Ripoff (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: portal!cup.portal.com!rwp@apple.com Subject: Billing Problems With PC Pursuit Date: Mon, 13-Nov-89 17:52:58 PST A word of warning to all current and potential PC Pursuit subscribers. I cancelled my account on May 31, in writing, and they are STILL billing me! The account was definitely cancelled. I tried it two weeks into June, and it was closed. However, the bills kept coming. When PC Pursuit raised the rates, they sent out a card for everyone to sign, authorizing them to bill a credit card account. I did not return this card. I specifically withdrew authorization to debit my credit card when I cancelled my account (also in writing.) I gave them until two months after the cancellation date to clear up any outstanding charges. The date passed, but the bills keep coming! I sent them a registered letter explaining the situation, and again denied them authorization to debit my account. They ignored the letter. This month, I got my account statement, and lo and behold, another $30 charge from PC Pursuit! The credit card company marked the first two charges as disputed, and I assume they will so mark the third when I notify them tomorrow. I am also going to have them treat it as a stolen card and change the account number. This will not get the $90 back from Telenet, however. Making charges to a credit card account without the owners consent is theft through credit card fraud. After all of the correspondence (registered and otherwise) I can only assume that it is deliberate, with criminal intent, or a result of extreme incompetence. Are the savings in connect charges (much less after the rate hike and cap) worth giving your credit card number to thieves or, at best, incompetents? I doubt it. Before you sign up for PC Pursuit or recommend it to someone, consider the risks. You may end up paying more in the long run! Roger Preisendefer [Moderator's Note: When Mr. Preisendefer first sent this note to me, I told him I would make inquiries in his behalf from Telenet. I asked Dave Purks, a representative of Telenet/PC Pursuit to investigate the complaint, and seek a resolution. Mr. Purks' findings and resolution are in the message which follows, which has been forwarded to Mr. Preisendefer. PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Purks Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 11:01:43 EST Subject: Response to Mr. Preisendefer Patrick: In response to the message I forwarded from you, the Product Manager for Outdial Services writes: "The price change this past summer included a complete replacement of the PC Pursuit Billing system. As would be expected, such a complete change over, which included new account IDs, resulted in numerous adjustments and addressing of customer concerns. This put a significant strain on our Billing department. Additional resources have been made available and the backlog has been reduced so that current calls to Billing are now being processed in a timely manner. Calls into Billing have also gone down as questions and concerns have been addressed. The new Billing system is working consistently and quite well." "As to the particular customer concern raised, that will be resolved within days, if it hasn't already been corrected." The Director of Revenue Systems (Billing) has informed me that the account was cancelled in early October and a $90.00 credit was processed with the November data. That credit should be posted to his account within 2 to 3 weeks and will show up on his bill on the next accounting cycle (each credit card company is different so it's difficult to say when he'll actually get a statement showing the credit). When we implemeneted the new billing system earlier this year, we sent credit card debit authorizations to all existing customers. The enclosed letter indicated that we would cancel anyone who did not return the authorization. Telenet has been slow to take action against the people who did not return the form so that we do not cancel a customer who has just forgotten to return it or returned it only to have it lost in the mail. Some customers have complained at the delay in receiving credits to their bills. Much of that is due to the fact that we are not directly connected to the credit card company. Our accounting cutoff is around the 5th of a month. If a customer calls in and is issued a credit after the cutoff, it is not sent to the company that processes the card transactions for us until the end of the next billing cycle. It takes them about two weeks to post the transactions. If that posting happens to fall just after the end of the credit card company's billing cycle, there will be a delay of several more weeks before the customer sees the credit appear on their bill. I hope that this addresses the various concerns you and other customers have raised. If there are any further questions, please feel free to forward them to me and we'll try to get them addressed as quickly as possible. Dave Purks Telenet Communications Corp ..!uunet!telenet!dkpurks ------------------------------ From: Pete Holsberg Subject: Calling Cards Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route 1 Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 15:52:46 GMT I've looked at the small print but still can't tell the difference between my AT&T Calling Card and my NJBell IQ card. Could someone please explain? (Forgive me if this has been answered before.) Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800 [Moderator's Note: It has been asked before, and you are forgiven. :) The difference is, as any business office service rep would tell you, is you take your AT&T card out of your wallet and examine it when entering the numbers for interstate long distance calls. On the other hand, you look at your NJB card when charging local calls. See the difference? Actually, AT&T and the Sisters Bell have yet to separate the calling card data base which they used in common for so many years. When they do, one or the other will give you a different number, or at least a different PIN. In any event, it is the computers at NJB which administer it now for both companies. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Amazing, but True Date: 19 Nov 89 18:44:46 GMT This is a story that could only take place in the '80s. Yesterday while picking up incidentals to install my KX-1232 (had to get that in), I had occasion to call a business associate in Victorville. Got off the bike, reached into the saddlebag and used the trusty handheld. When I was finished I put it back, apparently forgetting to turn the unit off. After that call, I went to the hardware store, an electronics store, etc., etc. Then I decided to hit the expressway to go to the office to pick up the mail. The trip is about 8 miles on a big freeway-like road but with traffic lights. When I arrived, I checked my pager (looked at the display) since I can't hear it over the noise of the motorcycle. The number of Mr. Talbot in Victorville was on the display so I went upstairs a gave him a call. He was having trouble containing himself. It seems that he had, about twenty minutes earlier, received a strange call. It was a big noise. There were sounds of the phone jostling around, as well as car noises. There were sounds of speeding up and slowing down, as if driving from one light to another. Then the DTMF came. Single tones and tone bursts, as if from someone's speed dial. Among one of the bursts was what Mr. Talbot recognized as his own number! It was a cellular phone! But whose? He tried yelling to get the caller's attention, but no luck. Then while this was going on the noise on the line suddenly went away and he received a call via call waiting. It was the wayward mobile again, using three-way! Finally figuring out whose cellular phone was calling him, Mr. Talbot called my mobile number. He call-waited into his own auto-harassment call, already in progress. Then he paged me. After splitting my sides over his account of the previous twenty minutes, I went down to my bike and checked the phone. In the cold saddlebag, the unit was warm to the touch (and very much on). So trust me folks. Whenever you drop your handheld in the saddlebag, make sure it's off. You'll be glad you did. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 16:51:27 GMT From: Nigel Whitfield Subject: UK STD codes In a recent Digest message, someone asked what the UK 0831 code was used for; according to the 'Mercury 2300 coverage and charges' leaflet that I received this week, 0831 is an additional code for the Racal Vodafon cellular network. Also, the prefix 0839 _is_ used - according to the same document it is 'Information Services', ie the same sort of thing as the 0898 prefix - similar to 976 (is that the right one?) but charged at 0.740 pence per minute less than 0898. Incidentally, the Sunday Correspondent magazine today carried the statistic that there are more than 700,000 cellular telephone operating in this country. I can't remember the exact number, but it's something around that. | Nigel Whitfield, | n.whitfield@cc.ic.ac.uk | | Community Radio Association. | poet@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk | | Internet: n.whitfield%cc.ic.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu | | BITNET: n.whitfield%cc.ic.ac.uk@UKACRL | | UUCP: ...!cernvax!cc.imperial.ac.uk!n.whitfield * NOT via ukc * | ------------------------------ From: asv@gaboon.UUCP (Stan Voket) Subject: Cellular Recommendation Wanted Date: 18 Nov 89 16:43:56 GMT Organization: gaboon, UNIX 386 System, New Fairfield, CT I recall seeing someone's favorable review of a handheld/portable cellular telephone here some time ago. I'm now shopping for one. Any pointers on this subject will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for taking the time! :-) +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | - Stan Voket, asv@gaboon - OR - ...uunet!hsi!stpstn!gaboon!asv | | Land Line: (203) 746-4489 TELEX 4996516 - | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 23:13:00 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Fretters and Ameritech: Cellular Ripoff I've never been in a rush to own a cellular phone. I've never had a real need for one. I have a phone glued to my ear all day, I walk three blocks to/from my apartment to my place of employment, and I don't own a car. In fact, I don't even know how to drive a car. Most of my transportation around Chicago is by taxi, and about half the cabs in Chicago have cellular phones for rent to passengers at the rate of $1 per minute. If I need to make a call enroute somewhere, I use the one in the cab. Still, the ads are tempting -- very tempting, and the prices are getting lower by the month, it seems. So when the ad for Fretters last week offered Novatel transportables for $137, and very handsome looking handheld units for about $300, I figured 'now is the time' and went to the local Fretters in Evanston to decide what to do once and for all. Like Mr. Voket (in previous message), I really wasn't certain what phone and service package would be best for me. The whole visit turned out to be a nightmare. First, the salesman tried to tell me the sale started on Friday (I was there Thursday evening.) I had to go get a copy of the [Sun Times] from the garbage bin next to the store and rip out the ad and bring it back in with me to show them plainly it said 'Thursday/Friday/Saturday'. That done, they led me to a cabinet and said there they are, look at them. I asked them to take one out of the cabinet to show me.... "Oh, we can't do that, people steal them." "How am I to decide what I want? How do I find out simple things like the weight, the type of handset, the way it feels, etc?" "Well, I will answer any questions." "You mean I have to simply take your word for all this, I am not allowed to actually touch or feel or use the instrument without putting down the money first?" "Its against our policy to allow customers to make test calls." (Me, in a somewhat louder voice) "Get the manager out here, or someone who has been trained to wait on customers." The manager appeared, we discussed it; and he apologized and got a couple different units which were on sale for me to examine. I finally decided on the Novatel unit for $177, plus a battery pack for $99. He shoved a contract under my nose, and started rattling off the various service options. The one I selected was $10 per month plus 10 cents per minute of calls in off-peak times and 65 cents per minute in other times. *Then comes the clincher, the real scam*, when he said, "Ameritech requires a $1000 dollar advance payment on service. Before we go further, I have to get $1000 from you for the Ameritech part of the transaction." (me) "But the minimum service requirement is for three months. How much service do you think I could use in three months?" "Well, that is the way Ameritech has it set up on this offer." "Why no mention of it in your advertisements?" "There is not enough room to mention everything in our ads." "You would think a demand for $1000 'advance payment' would be an important thing to mention in the ads." "Well, they prefer we only discuss it with customers once they have made their selection." "So you are telling me Ameritech wants an advance payment five times greater than the phone itself is worth? And at ten dollars a month and ten cents per minute of calling, how long would it take me to use up that advance payment?" "Well, if you'll give me your credit card number, I'll see if Ameritech would be willing to accept that instead." "My credit card number, you say? What kind of a fool do you think I am, that I am going to provide you or Ameritech with a credit card number when you have just made such preposterous demands and already have me signed up on your contract, which you had me sign *before* you explained this little formality?" I tore up the contract in about twelve pieces and handed it back to him and left. The next day I called Ameritech and asked for an explanation of this. After quite a bit of mumbo-jumbo, the answer I finally got was that Ameritech was discounting those units so heavily that they were detirmined to lock in customers as long as possible. Heck, at the rate I would use the unit, they'd have me 'locked in' (or should I say suckered in) for a couple years! Not true, said the Ameritech rep: they assume the customer will use that much in 3-4 months. All I can say is if they expect someone to use that much in such a short time, then what they are essentially doing is giving away cell phones 'almost free' to people they perceive are their better customers. So if you see ads saying 'minimum service commitment to Ameritech' when you purchase at Fretters, remember that Ameritech and Fretters have some sort of very cozy deal where the telco heavily discounts the units in return for a captive (very captive!) customer. I think their ads are misleading at best. I might add the salesman and his manager at Fretters could give me NO names of anyone at Ameritech. "They don't give us their names when we call...." Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #522 *****************************   Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 1:23:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #523 Message-ID: <8911200123.aa04819@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Nov 89 01:20:41 CST Volume 9 : Issue 523 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (David Lewis) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Jim Gottlieb) Re: 800 Rates (John Higdon) Re: CLI or CND: What Is Actually Displayed? (John R. Levine) Re: Datacomm Book Wanted (Joel M. Snyder) Re: Delay in Accepting 708! (Tad Cook) Re: Trivial Ring Detection? (Bill Fenner) Information Needed On Z-Tech (Lee C. Moore) Re: Forest Park Hum (Peter da Silva) Telecom*USA Wants Your Local Area Calls Also (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lewis Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 19 Nov 89 19:41:08 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: ] In article , ] nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes (in ] response to a question from Peter da Silva): ] >[Even after all NPA have switched to NXX exchange codes, the remaining ] > NPA codes will be exhausted around 1995.] The ] >plan then is to go to interchangeable NPA codes -- so that the syntax ] >for a phone number will be NXX-NXX-XXXX. That will provide for 640 ] >new NPA codes, whereas there are currently 152 available N{0/1}X NPA ] >codes available. That should keep things quiet for some time, ] >considering there will be (approximately -- I haven't removed codes ] >like N00 and N11) 6.4x10^9, or 6.4 billion phone numbers available in ] >North America. ] Can this be accommodated without taking the whole system to ESS ? I ] would expect that when this happens, you will ALWAYS need to dial the ] area code, even for a local call. (Even though this may be handled by ] your instrument by then). Two questions here: (1) Can interchangeable NPA codes be implemented without replacing SXS and crossbar switches with ESS (stored-program control) switches? (2) When interchangeable NPA codes are implemented, will you always need an area code, even for a call in the same NPA? Question 1 I honestly don't know the answer to, although I would *suspect* the answer is "yes". _Notes_ (*) talks around the subject without coming out and saying it: "The cost of such conversion [accepting NXX codes as NPA codes] is largely a function of the type of switching systems involved. For example, electromechanical systems are generally more expensive to convert than electronic switching systems. The replacement of electromechanical switching systems will have a favorable impact on the cost..." For question 2, I can safely say the answer is "no". I don't want to quote two pages of text and two pages of tables (for those of you who are interested, it's sections 3.03 to 3.13 and Tables 3-C and 3-D of _Notes_...) to explain, but I'll try to summarize... The recommended standard dialing procedure for NPAs which have implemented interchangable CO codes, and for the NANP when the cutover to interchangeable NPA codes takes place, is called the "prefix method". The prefix method "... is to have the callers provide a positive indication of their intention by dialing '1' in front of the area code on all 10-digit (and only 10-digit) calls." In other words, 1+NXX indicates that the NXX is an NPA code, and NXX alone indicates that the NXX is a CO code in the same NPA. Therefore, an area code is only required, preceded by a '1', for calls outside the home NPA. (*) Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks -- 1986. TR-NPL-000275, Issue 1, April 1986. My favorite reference... NPA = Numbering Plan Area, or area code. NANP = North American Numbering Plan NXX = NANP syntax for a three-digit string, {[2-9],[0-9],[0-9]} CO = Central Office. In a phone number, e.g. 765-4321, 765 is the CO code. ESS = Electronic Switching System. A switch in which the switch fabric is centrally controlled by a computer. SXS = Step by Step switch. Anyone that doesn't know what BOC means hasn't been paying attention for the past six years... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Date: 20 Nov 89 00:45:03 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article nvuxr!deej@bellcore. bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: >there are questions surrounding an eight-digit "phone number". >Like, where do you put the eighth number? Is it part of the CO code >(NXX) or part of the station code (XXXX)? Here in Tokyo they have decided to go with 4-digit CO codes. Presently, both 7-digit and 8-digit numbers (the 8-digit ones all begin with '5') are being assigned. The other day I spotted a billboard as I was riding a streetcar. It announced that as of 02:00 on Jan. 1, 1991, all telephone numbers in the area code of 03 (Tokyo-to inside the 23 ku) will change to 8 digits. All 7-digit numbers will have 3 prepended to them. The sign showed "3XXX-XXXX". However, Japan uses the European style of flexible area code and number lengths so changing to 8-digit numbers in one area code will not be a technical problem. 03-XXXX-XXXX will still be within the maximum length of numbers allowed (Kawasaki-city is 044-NXX-XXXX). On an unrelated subject, NTT has been running lots of ads lately informing people that they no longer need to dial an area code to reach Directory Assistance for numbers in other area codes. Now, a simple call to '104' can get you a number for any place in the country. I guess their DA is now computerized :-). As far as whether the U.S. should "bite the bullet" now and convert to 8 digits, I would think it will be even easier in the future when more and more of the country will be served out of SPC switches. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: (011)+81-3-239-7453 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-944-6221 ID#82-42-424 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: 800 Rates Date: 19 Nov 89 18:21:41 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , eli@ursa-major.spdcc. com writes: > Do all carriers charge in .1 second increments for 800 numbers? I > just got my first 800 bill from US Sprint -- half of the calls were > for 1 cent or 4 cents! It's cheaper to call cross-country with their > 800 service than it is to dial in-state with NYNEX, at least for > short calls, which I often do to check voice mail. The smallest increment in billing that I have ever heard of is .1 minutes, or six seconds. My full state 800 number with AT&T bills in this manner. As far as the amazement goes about calls across the nation costing less than calls across the state, Californians have been up in arms about this fact of life for decades. As far as I can determine, the most expensive call in the US is one from San Diego to Crescent City. It matters not which carrier you select, they all charge some ultra-rip-off rate. This is our great Public Utilities Commission at work. The only benefit an intra-state call enjoys is that the "night" rate applies all day on Sunday, even after 5 PM. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: See the final message in the Digest today regarding '700 Intra-Area Code' service from Telecom*USA. This may be a way for some people to save on some intrastate calls. PT] ------------------------------ From: "John R. Levine" Subject: Re: CLI or CND: What Is Actually Displayed? Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 17:15:29 GMT In article our moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: But you see, names are not unique to their users. >Telephone numbers are. ... Unless, of course, the phone happens to be shared by several people on a hall. Or someone's calling from a friend's house, or calling one client from a second client's office. Or calling from a 5,000 line PBX which always gives the main number as the calling number. Or using a payphone. Or, if the caller's more serious, tapping someone else's line in an unlocked phone closet in order to masquerade as them. Caller ID doesn't conclusively identify the caller any more than getting a car's license number conclusively identifies the driver. It's a strong hint, but hardly the iron-clad identifier that some people wish it were. Think of it like the signature on electronic mail, not too hard to fake out if you really want to. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts." ------------------------------ From: jms <@cs.arizona.edu (jms@mis.arizona.edu):jms@mis.arizona.edu> Subject: Re: Datacomm Book Wanted Date: 20 Nov 89 00:32:02 GMT Reply-To: "Joel M. Snyder" Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't The "never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon" is an old quote. The most recent usage I've seen is in Tanenbaum's "Computer Networks." Even if you're looking for something else, the 2nd Edition of Tanenbaum is one of the best I've ever seen in it's area. It is almost encyclopaedic in coverage, yet is well written and easy to read. I have used it for several classes, and the students almost always react favorably (something NOT true with Stallings' 1st edition of his similar book). jms ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Delay in Accepting 708! Date: 20 Nov 89 03:28:27 GMT Organization: very little David Bernholdt had some questions about the 708/312 split, and a delay in accessing 708. I found that from the 206/881 exchange (Redmond, WA) I was able to access 708 the day BEFORE the split! This really surprised me, as sometimes in the past there was a delay before the local toll tandem switch had been programmed with all of the allowable NNX codes after a split. If David was getting blocking, my guess it was at the local tandem switch which handles toll calls from his CO. For some reason they do this in GTE which serves my office, but I have never encountered this from US West, where I live. Of course, I make hundreds of times as many toll calls from work. But I always thought that call attempts to illegal NNXs were blocked at the end office in the NPA being called. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: Trivial Ring Detection? Date: 19 Nov 89 18:07:14 GMT Reply-To: Bill Fenner Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University In article KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) writes: |(often used as a burglar alarm). I'm not quite sure how to rig up the |detector, though; nothing seems quite elegant enough. If anyone can |think of a trick that will avoid the need to touch a soldering iron, |I'd be delighted. Well, my favorite ring-detection costs about $3... get a 120v relay and hook it in series with a capacitor. I made one of these for a friend who had a modem which did not detect ring so had no auto-answer; we hooked it up to his (atari 800's) joystick port. So the BBS program checked the joystick button, if it was "pressed", send the answer command to the modem. Of course, if you want to do this *right*, you need to touch a soldering iron, but not for too long... Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 89 12:37:04 PST (Saturday) Subject: Information Needed on Z-Tech From: Lee_C._Moore.WBST128@xerox.com Has anybody heard of a company called "Z-Tech" of Menlo Park, California (USA)? They sell a small PBX that I am considering for home use. One of the attractions of this unit is that it has direct inward dialing (DID). Another is that it doesn't need any special key stations (it seems that the Panasonic needs one). I want the DID so that I can call home and select to talk to different devices without them fighting over the line(s). Thanks, Lee Lee Moore -- Xerox Webster Research Center -- +1 716 422 2496 UUCP: {allegra, decvax, rutgers}!rochester!rocksanne!lee Arpa Internet: Moore.Wbst128@Xerox.Com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Forest Park Hum Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 18:23:39 CST From: Peter da Silva Sounds like they have a leak in one of their dialtone containers. `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 0:56:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too Telecom*USA claims they are now in a position to be your carrier for phone calls within your own area code as well as interstate. In a brochure entitled, "Dial 700 For Convenience and Savings", Telecom*USA states, "You've always been able to access the quality and savings of Telecom*USA service for your long distance calls outside your area code. Now we are making it easier for you to place calls .. [emphasis is theirs]. "If you are an equal-access dial one-plus customer of Telecom*USA, you can enjoy these benefits: Easy Dialing: Dial 1 + 700 + 7 digit number within your area code. Billing Convenience: Now, calls made within your area code will appear on your Telecom*USA bill with 700 dialing. Volume Discounts: These calls may contribute toward, and receive volume discounts, depending on your Telecom*USA plan of service. This may result in additional savings for you. "By using 700 Dialing, you will enjoy Telecom*USA digital quality and convenience on calls that may otherwise be carried and billed by your local telephone company. "Dialing to locations your area code has not changed. Just dial 1 + Area Code + Number. [their emphasis] "If you have any questions about this convenient dialing method, call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-728-7000 or 1-319-366-6600." ========================================= Why yes, I do have a couple questions: What could possibly be more convenient about dialing eleven digits to reach a Chicago number when I presently can dial seven? What difference could the 'digital quality' of Telecom*USA's network possibly make when I call from here to my office, or for that matter, to the other side of Chicago? And I am sure the rates would not be any cheaper! Five cents more or less per minute is pretty cheap. I'm sure Telecom*USA would charge more. It may be however that their plan is a good one in places where a single area code covers an entire state and long distance charges are incurred on such calls, at the notorious rates allowed on intrastate calls by some state regulators. If anyone thinks it is worth looking into, give them a call at the number mentioned above. I have my two lines both default to the Mother Company, although for the life of me there are times I wonder why I remain loyal. I only use 10835 on an occassional basis, and as such, am not eligible for the 700 intra-area code plan, which as mentioned, is worthless to me anyway. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #523 *****************************   Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 14:56:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #524 Message-ID: <8911201456.aa12083@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Nov 89 14:55:36 CST Volume 9 : Issue 524 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Messages Lost During Maintainence (TELECOM Moderator) Re: E-mail to the UK (Macy Hallock) Re: Phones in the Movies (Tad Cook) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Linc Madison) Re: Calling Cards (Thomas Narten) Re: Wireless PBX Developments (Macy Hallock) Re: Need Information on "Bit Slippage" (Bernard Mckeever) Answering Machine Override (John McHarry) Re: When We Run Out of NXX Area Codes (Macy Hallock) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 14:25:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Messages Lost During Maintainence I am sorry to report *several* messages sent to the Digest Monday were lost during the time some maintainence work was going on in the telecom account. The '.maildelivery' file instructs the system how to deliver incoming mail. It says who should be issued an auto-reply, who should be forwarded to the telecom-request file, etc. At one point the file was incorrectly installed, and the system sent out auto-replies, then promptly tossed out the mail undelivered. The trouble with this machine is it does what I tell it -- not what I want! If your message is not printed in the Digest by Tuesday, or your list request is not handled by then, please assume it was lost; accept my apologies and resubmit it. *Ignore any auto-reply you may have received Monday as evidence of delivery*. Only go by what you see here Monday/Tuesday or what action was taken on your request by the same time. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: E-mail to the UK Date: 20 Nov 89 16:18:18 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article gphg1125@uxa.cso.uiuc. edu (Glenn P Hoetker) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 521, message 5 of 10 >I would be very grateful for any advice on how to send e-mail from the >U. S. (either Internet or Bitnet) to someone on the JANET network in >the U.K. I know its possible, but have incredible amounts of trouble >trying to do it. Thank you very much. One source for network routing information I have not yet seen mentioned is Nutshell's new book on the topic. I won't get commercial here, but if this book is as good as the others from this publisher, it's worthwhile. They have an 800 number or try uunet!ora!sales (they also publish several other good books on Unix and Usenet related topics) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: 20 Nov 89 03:33:28 GMT A friend who works at KOMO Radio in Seattle told me that their air traffic guy during drive time was told by THE FCC to stop using a cellular phone from his small plane. They said it was ILLEGAL! It had nothing to do with interfering with the operation of the plane. I understand that they are worried about a strong signal from up high being picked up by many cells, and making that frequency unavailable over a wide area. I can see the technical problems with this, but had no idea that it was illegal! The traffic reporter's name is Ted Potter. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 03:54:02 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article you write: >[Moderator's Note: It used to be quite common that prefixes were never >duplicated in neighboring area codes; i.e. nothing in northern Indiana >was ever used in Chicago or Illinois suburbs, etc. 312-396 was never >used here since folks in Antioch, IL had seven digit dialing to their >neighbors in North Antioch, WI (414-396). Illinois Bell quit worrying >about it years ago as the reserve of prefixes ran short. PT] A friend of mine who lived in Chicago about five years ago (+/- ??) had a number in 312 that duplicated the number of a popular resort hotel in 414 (Chicago and Wisconsin, respectively). He frequently got phone calls from people asking to make reservations. My friend patiently explained that the number they wanted was in 414. One guy was so insistent, though, that he had the right number, that my friend finally gave in and let him give the info, told him he had a confirmed reservation, and let him take his chances when he arrived at the hotel. Of course, being secondhand, the above anecdote should be treated as little more than urban lore. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Calling Cards Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 07:16:40 -0500 From: Thomas Narten There is a slight difference between AT&T calling cards and those issued by your local carrier. According to AT&T, the local card is only good for US long distance calls, whereas the AT&T card can be used for international calls as well. At least, that's what they told me when I was trying to determine which of my two cards was more useful. Thomas Narten ------------------------------ From: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Wireless PBX Developments Date: 20 Nov 89 16:01:00 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article 76703.407@compuserve. com (HamNet) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 506, message 8 of 10 >I'm looking for information about development activity that might be >underway for wireless PBX's. Rumors abound on this subject, but hard info is tough to find. Motorola is said to be working on a cellular based PBX for on site use of standard cellphones Mitsubishi/Astrocom (Astronet?) is said to be doing the same. Ditto Ericsson. All sell standard cellular systems now, with the last two successful in the smaller systems sizes, primarily. I seem to recall reading an article in Telephony or TE&M last year about a smaller company that had already developed a small cellular switch, but they were having FCC trouble, or something. I don't have that issue anymore... I talked to my contact in GTE Mobilnet engineering, and he is unaware of their being apporached by any potenial vendor, but he's heard rumors, too. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: Re: Need Information on "Bit Slippage" Date: 20 Nov 89 12:37:55 GMT Reply-To: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories [Moderator's Note: I am rather confused by this message which arrived here from Mr. McKeever with a different title, and was signed by John Kennedy of Annapolis, MD. I assume McKeever wrote to Kennedy, who then replied to him? But no introduction or cover note came with what follows below. PT] I hope this provides several answers. >Several questions: >1) Does the problem I described seem like a fair diagnosis? Very close. Most likely you are experiencing frame slips on the/a digital facility. A slip happens when both ends of a synchronous [as opposed to asynchronous] facility are not operating at the same average clock rate. If one terminal runs slow the buffer will overflow and a full frame of information will get tossed. If the same terminal is running fast not enough information is available so the last frame is repeated. >2) Where is this "slippage" problem occur - between the subscriber > and the switch, or between the two switches? Several possibilities here. If the trouble is between digital switchs both should have alarms. Slips do not have a noticeable affect on VF so the alarms are shut off. The slips can be caused by one switch free running [stratum 3] and the other timed from a standard. [stratum 1] If the trouble is between the station and the CO it could be a SLC system with a direct digital interface not being looped timed. [My first choice] Other equipment may also cause this problem if the Telco is sloppy with timing distribution. >3) Can this problem be addressed by doing something with the subscriber's > interface to the local switch? No. All you can do is install a modem with excellent error correction. >4) What can the subscriber do about it? Does he have the > right to have the problem corrected? Would ordering a so-called > "conditioned line" either correct the problem or give the subscriber > a right to have the problem corrected? In order, pray, no, yes. >5) Are the local telco's sympathetic to residential customers' data > problems? Not only no, but @$$# NO. Your best bet is to look around for somebody that knows what is going on, is in a position to do something about it THEN BEG. >6) Is there someone to ask for in a local office, if the usual > customer assistance people are unable to help? Try to get the repair supervisor if you have SLC systems to the CO, or the CO analyzer if you don't. The trouble can be any place in the network. Thanks, John Kennedy johnk@opel.uu.uunet Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 20 Nov 1989 12:54:53 EST From: John McHarry Subject: Answering Machine Override A couple weeks ago there was some discussion here of how to force an answering machine off the line when another extension is picked up. There was mention of a device from DAK that will do the trick, putatively using some sort of thyrister device. A simple resistor- capacitor circuit was also contributed. My circuit is even simpler than the RC solution, and has some slight advantage. All that is necessary is to hook a 9 volt, 1 watt zener diode in series with the answering machine, or other device one wants to be able to over-ride. This works because phones drop somewhat less than 9 volts when off hook, effectively shutting off the zener. My answering machine tends to continue to blare until it has finished its announcement: The turned off zener provides enough isolation that it cannot be heard from the far end, and you have to listen for it on the other extension. Of course, there are a couple of caveats: If you are on a very long loop, this may not work due to the extra 9 volts drop across the zener. Also, some electronic phones drop close to 9 volts themselves. In that case, a 10 volt zener might do the trick. Also, I think it was stated that you can cascade the DAK devices: I don't think that would work well with zeners as the voltage drops would add, but the zeners are less than 50 cents each. I guess you get what you pay for, at most. The usual disclaimers: This is my own hack, and not endorsed by my employer or anyone else. Also, I'm not Drano: Your pipes are on their own! *************************************************************** * John McHarry (703)883-6100 M21198@MWVM.MITRE.ORG * *************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: When We Run Out of NXX Area Codes Date: 20 Nov 89 17:04:11 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 521, message 6 of 10 >What happens when we run out of 3-digit area codes? Do we go to >4-digit area codes, 8- or 9- digit local numbers, or split Zone 1? As I understand it, Bellcore has decreed that NNX type area codes will be assigned sometime as of 1995. This opens up several hundred new area codes, and will effectively make the North American Numbering Plan ten digits for all numbers. I'm sure that at some point we may find ourselves dialing a ten digit number for any and all North American calls. With the current trend of measured services even for local calling areas (the demise of flat rate calling plans), the day may not be too far away when 1+ will lose its familiar designation of toll calling, as well. The real question is: when will we have a uniform dialing plan for the world? The CCITT cannot even agree on uniform city coding... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #524 *****************************   Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 1:16:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #525 Message-ID: <8911210116.aa17525@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Nov 89 01:15:37 CST Volume 9 : Issue 525 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too (John Higdon) Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too (Linc Madison) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Linc Madison) Re: 800 Rates (Linc Madison) Re: E-mail to the UK (Ole J. Jacobsen) Re: Fretters and Ameritech: Cellular Ripoff (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID Device (Dan Senie) Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore (Scott Barman) Re: Trivial Ring Detection (Macy Hallock) Cost of Intrastate Calls (David Lesher) Using a DS0 For Data (Derrick Rowlandson) [Moderator's Note: As mentioned in issue 524 Monday afternoon, in the process of re-organizing the .maildelivery file here Monday morning, some Digest submissions and list administration messages were lost and not delivered, *although the senders recieved a receipt for same*. If your submission mailed Sunday night or Monday has not been published, or your list request not acted on, please resubmit it. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too Date: 20 Nov 89 20:41:35 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > "If you are an equal-access dial one-plus customer of Telecom*USA, > you can enjoy these benefits: > > Easy Dialing: Dial 1 + 700 + 7 digit number within your area code. This can't work here. The San Francisco LATA is comprised of three area codes: 415, 707, and the very northern part of 408. Most of 408 is in another LATA. I have local calls that require dialing 415, and inter-LATA calls that are seven digits. Most numbers in 408 are either purely local (zone 1) or inter-LATA. So how would one dial intra-LATA calls from my 408 phone to 415 and 707 telephones using "1 + 700 + 7 digit number"? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Actually, I guess you wouldn't make much use of it there, any more than I would here in Chicago calling a few blocks away to a place in 708. I think the 700 plan is only beneficial where all or a large part of a state is in the same area code. It would probably be beneficial in places like Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, etc where there is much empty space and relatively small local calling areas. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 19:01:40 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article you write: >Telecom*USA claims they are now in a position to be your carrier for >phone calls within your own area code as well as interstate. > "If you are an equal-access dial one-plus customer of Telecom*USA, >you can enjoy these benefits: > Easy Dialing: Dial 1 + 700 + 7 digit number within your area code. > ========================================= >Why yes, I do have a couple questions: >And I am sure the rates would not be any cheaper! Five cents more or >less per minute is pretty cheap. I'm sure Telecom*USA would charge more. >It may be however that their plan is a good one in places where a >single area code covers an entire state and long distance charges are >incurred on such calls, at the notorious rates allowed on intrastate >calls by some state regulators. Hmm. The other question is, is it legal? In some areas, such as our own wonderful state of California, Pacific*Bell has a legal monopoly on all intra-LATA traffic. No one else is allowed to offer service. The Telecom*USA service would clearly violate this provision. As for the rates being cheaper, I often use my MCI card for intra-LATA toll calls, because it is often much cheaper than using my Pac*Bell card. First of all, I don't have to pay a $0.40 surcharge (if I'm calling from anywhere in my home area code), and secondly the per- minute charges are often lower than Pac*Bell's. I can call Los Angeles on any LDC cheaper than Pac*Bell to Santa Cruz, 5 times closer. Of course, New York is cheaper still. When I use the MCI card, though, I have to dial 32 digits instead off 7, although I only use it when the alternative would be to dial 25 (0+415+number; Calling Card). Hope that makes sense. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 19:10:16 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Ed Sachs writes: >How about this as an alternative for local calling: >[dial the last digit of area code + 7-digit # for local calls, for > a total of 8 digits; e.g., (31)2-NXX-XXXX and (70)8-NXX-XXXX in the > Chicago area.] >This could even be extended to >those parts of the Chicago LATA that are in 815 and 219, and would >also work for other multi-area code areas, as long as the final digit >of the area codes are distinct and not 1 or 0. Interesting idea, but there are lots of areas where it wouldn't work, such as here in the S.F. Bay Area (splitting 415 to add 510) and N.J. (201) and Maryland (301). Also, it seems to go against the grain of the whole NANP. Speaking of which, another message mentioned that you will not have to dial the area code for calls within your NPA. That's the Bellcore recommendation, but Texas is an exception: within 214 (and 903 when it comes into being, and 512 soon I'd guess) you must dial the area code for all toll calls, even if it's the same. In Texas, it has NEVER been possible to dial any toll call without dialing 1 or 0. So in Texas, you will have to dial 11 digits for all long-distance calls after Time T. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 19:23:47 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: 800 Rates Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article John Higdon writes: >As far as the amazement goes about calls across the nation costing >less than calls across the state, Californians have been up in arms >about this fact of life for decades. As far as I can determine, the >most expensive call in the US is one from San Diego to Crescent City. >It matters not which carrier you select, they all charge some >ultra-rip-off rate. This is our great Public Utilities Commission at >work. Ah, John, have you tried calling Crescent City yourself?? I believe you will find that it is even MORE expensive from your location than from San Diego, since Pac*Bell's intra-LATA rates are even higher than the LDCs' inter-LATA rates for the same distance. Perhaps even worse than Santa Cruz-to-Crescent City would be Los Angeles to the northeastern tip of Area Code 619 (south of Lake Tahoe), within the L.A. LATA. Yes, here in California we have a very logical system: toll call charges vary inversely with distance.... Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon 20 Nov 89 19:53:51-PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Re: E-mail to the UK JANET is connected to the Internet via a gateway which used to be at the University College London (UCL), but is now at a different location in London (ULCC, I think). The name of the gateway host is still NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK. Your mailer should be smart enough to recognise addresses of the form: user@someplace.ac.uk. Please note that the domain ordering is "backwards" (they think it is "the right way round" and there are arguments which support their claim, but let's not get into that...). You may therefore be given addresses of the form: user@uk.ac.someplace and you'll have to reverse it before composing your message. Good luck! Ole ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Fretters and Ameritech: Cellular Ripoff Date: 20 Nov 89 20:25:39 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > So if you see ads saying 'minimum service commitment to Ameritech' > when you purchase at Fretters, remember that Ameritech and Fretters > have some sort of very cozy deal where the telco heavily discounts the > units in return for a captive (very captive!) customer. GTE Mobilnet in San Francisco has a deal that requires a minimum commitment of one year, but it works somewhat differently. Normal service is $45/month and .45/.20/min. (peak/offpeak). If you commit to a one year (no advance payment required) contract, you get service for $39/month, same per minute charges, and all custom calling features including voice mail thrown in for free. After you sign up, you get a one-time credit of 33 minutes of on-peak airtime. There is no equipment involved with this deal. I have noticed that ads on the radio for cellular phones now have the following disclaimer: "Service activation not required, but service is available on...". I think the PUC cracked down on these deals that were tied in to service kickbacks. BTW, service on GTE Mobilnet is outstanding. They would be well advised to drop the "GTE" from their name. It would help business. I believe Cellular One (PacTel) has some similar plan, but they don't discount the monthly rate, offer the free air time or have as many custom calling features, nor is the system as large. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dan Senie Subject: Re: Caller ID Device Date: 20 Nov 89 21:43:53 GMT I just returned from COMDEX. The people who put out the ZOOM modems have come out with a box which will do a whole mess of things, including outputting Caller ID info to your computer (via RS-232). [Moderator's Note: Can you give us any further information on COMDEX and the exhibits? PT] ------------------------------ From: Scott Barman Subject: Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore Date: 20 Nov 89 21:51:02 GMT Reply-To: Scott Barman Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (NAS Development Project) Duluth, GA In article nvuxr!deej@bellcore. bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: >One thing to keep in mind is that Bellcore TRs are essentially written >to the industry to provide requirements for manufacturers; the >manufacturers are free to implement products in exact compliance to >the Bellcore TRs or not, as they see fit. In other words, the TRs >specify how Bellcore says the product/service/system *should* work, >which may or may not be the same as the way it *does* work. Caveat on the above (since we've been through these problems here): If you are with a company wanting to do business with the RBOCs, then you should really consider implementing your product/etc. to as close to exact compliance as possible. The question will come up asking if your product is not only Bellcore compliant but even certification of that compliance may be required. If you are not Bellcore compliant, then you will need to demonstrate a clear path for that compliance. I know that we lost a sale to (among a few other things) to a slight lack of Bellcore compliance. Now if you are dealing with some of the smaller carriers, this is not as much of an issue as long as you are willing to comply to their requirements and come close to the Bellcore standards. Sometimes, if you can come up with something unique and first (like a 3/1 cross-connect switch), you can get away with not being exactly Bellcore compliant (however, we still have to show a plan for future compliance). Based on things I've heard, I would suggest that if you are designing a product, the physical standards are very important--especially for the RBOCs. Standards like rack sizes and depth are very important because of the floor plans of many of the central offices already in existance. DISCLAIMER: I am not in charge of compliance here, nor do I speak for the company and I am NOT an expert on Bellcore compliance. What I present here are just impressions while working on a product to be sold to the telecom industry. scott barman {gatech, emory}!nastar!scott ------------------------------ From: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Trivial Ring Detection? Date: 20 Nov 89 16:28:12 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 521, message 7 of 10 >I'd like to put together a system such that when a telephone call >arrives, specific light fixtures will flash throughout the house. Radio Shack makes a couple of items: 43-177 Phone Flasher (switches up to 300 watts of 120VAC) $14.95 43-178 Phone Flasher II (has 120VAC strobe) $29.95 These are good out of box solutions. (Thanks to Steve at the Radio Shack franchise in Medina, Ohio for his help on the numbers.) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Cost of Intrastate Calls Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 18:08:24 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher I heard several years ago of a LA firm that saved money by installing a Las Vegas FX line, solely for calls to other CA locations. A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ From: Derrick Rowlandson Subject: Using a DS0 For Data Date: 20 Nov 89 18:56:13 GMT Organization: Athabasca University Excuse the ignorance, but I am merely fumbling my way thru this stuff. My understanding of T1, and it's associatted DS0's, is that a 56K channel will carry a 56Kbit stream of traffic in *one* direction only. Most communications devices that may use, say HDLC, as a Link access protocol expect a full-duplex channel don't they? By this line of thinking, we would need two DS0's to carry a full-duplex 56K connection (example remote ethernet bridges). So what is the scoop? Are 2 DS0's needed, or do most WAN devices use a single DS0 in a half-duplex manner (if so can it still be HDLC)? Would someone be as kind to point out where I am going wrong here. Thanks, Derrick Rowlandson - Computing Services - Athabasca University ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #525 *****************************   Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 12:47:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #526 Message-ID: <8911211247.aa09177@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Nov 89 12:45:05 CST Volume 9 : Issue 526 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Thanks, AT&T (John Higdon) $500 Reward For A Working REMOB (Harry Helms, Umbra et Lux via Havana Moon) Re: The Pinnacle of Telephone Service (Edward Greenberg) Re: Trivial Ring Detection (Ken Harrenstien) Re: When We Run Out of NXX Area Codes (David Lewis) Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes (Carl Moore) Re: Amazing, but True (Joe Talbot) Re: Help - Modem Info Needed (Gary Segal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: Thanks, AT&T Date: 21 Nov 89 05:17:58 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows AT&T's successful "anti-dumping" suit has finally struck. This weekend, I installed my KX-T1232 as a residential PBX. One key item, the "doorphone", had yet to be obtained. Today, I discovered that there are no doorphones left in the known world. As soon as the ridiculous tariffs on Japanese telephone equipment were announced, shipments of Panasonic PBX components were halted. There will be no further shipments until next year, when the new plant (not located in Japan) begins operation. Now isn't that silly? AT&T, a multi-national corporation takes on Matsushita Electric, another multi-national corporation, because they claim that Matsushita's off-shore-made product unfairly competes with AT&T's off-shore-made product. AT&T claims dumping. However, the Panasonic PBXs are not sold in Japan, so how can AT&T claim that the pricing is below cost? What can they base that on? So here I, a frustrated user, sit until Matsushita can move things around to circumvent the silly new governmental restrictions. AT&T's historical contributions to telephony may be vast, but lately it seems that AT&T is more interested in protecting its investors at the general industry's expense. The long and the short of it is: If you want to get a Panasonic 308|616|1232, you had better grab fast, or you may be stuck with a Merlin. Trust me; you don't want that! And besides, you probably can't afford it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Havana_-_Moon@cup.portal.com Subject: $500 Reward For A Working REMOB Date: Mon, 20-Nov-89 20:11:36 PST This article originally appeared in the 11/89 Edition of the Umbra et Lux Newsletter. It appears here with the permission of the author, Harry Helms. ============================================================================= $500 REWARD FOR A WORKING REMOB -- THIS IS NO JOKE!! REMOB is an acronym for 'remote observation.' Supposedly this is a facility of certain telephone networks which allows instant eavesdropping on any telephone in the system. To use a REMOB, one reportedly calls the REMOB number, enters certain access codes, and the number of the telephone one wishes to listen to. One is then supposed to be able to listen to both sides of all calls to and from the telephone being targeted. Numerous qualifiers were used in the preceding paragraph because there is no hard evidence that there is such a thing as REMOB. With the advent of electronic switch signaling (ESS) in the US, a REMOB is certainly within the realm of possibility. (Another feature of ESS is the ability to track every digit dialed from a phone - even calls to discontinued numbers or a single digit dialed!) There are plenty of stories going around about 'some- one' who knows 'someone' who 'knows' about a working REMOB or two, but I've yet to see any firm evidence that any REMOBs are in use now or even that REMOBs exist at all. That's why I've decided to offer a $500 reward to anyone who can furnish me with the number of a working REMOB and the correct access codes. The conditions for this reward are that I must be able to use the REMOB number and access codes to listen in on my home telephone from a remote telephone. The REMOB will be verified in a test where all parties making the calls involved will be aware that they may be eavesdropped upon and consent to the monitoring. So if you know of anyone who claims they know someone who knows something about REMOBs, tell them it's put up or shut up time. $500 in nice cold cash awaits a real REMOB. And even if you don't have a working REMOB handy, I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who knows anything more about any purported REMOB. ============================================================================ Copyright 11/89, Umbra et Lux. All rights reserved. ============================================================================ Umbra et Lux continues to be available for the asking and a #10 SASE from the following address: Umbra et Lux Department U/KK/R 10606-8 Camino Ruiz, Suite 174 San Diego, CA 92126 ============================================================================ [Moderator's Note: I've had some difficulty with return mail to the sender of this item. If the address shown above does not work, try addressing to 'havana-moon-conference@cup.portal.com'. The arrangements discussed in Mr. Helms' presentation are not all that uncommon in private organizations, particularly in telemarketing firms or places where large ACD (Automatic Call Distributor) systems are in service to hand out thousands of calls per day to agents. It is quite common for supervisors to have the ability to punch in some code followed by the desired extension and silently monitor the call. I believe the law requires that persons subject to monitoring *for other than technical reasons relating to line quality, etc* be notified of this capability. Telcos can of course do this monitoring *legally* for the purpose of network maintainence and employee training. In any case, there is a legal prohibition against divulging what was overheard, as with radio scanners. I doubt there is any way to gateway into this equipment from outside the premises of the subscriber who uses it or the central office where it is used for testing of lines, etc. PT] ------------------------------ From: Edward Greenberg Subject: Re: The Pinnacle of Telephone Service Date: 20 Nov 89 20:45:14 GMT Reply-To: Edward Greenberg Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175} >........... Second, I dialed a couple of numbers at random and got the >"number you have reached..." recording in a man's voice. Third, >dialing the prefix plus "4411" netted an answer (in the same man's >voice) "Good evening 'Information'. May I help you?" Oops! Sorry wrong >number! >Do you suppose that was Mr. Bryan himself? > > John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 > john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! The intercept recording is definitely Mr. Bryan. I wouldn't be surprised if "information" was too. I have scrupulously resisted the temptation to "experiment" with Mr. Bryan's telephone exchange. Since they were so nice to me, I didn't think it was a "nice." The "test" you chose is precisely the one I would have done though, so I'm kinda glad you did. Now: Please, Kiddies, Please... let's all be adult here (and I don't mean to single you out John. Your experiment was certainly benign) I won't say "Don't call the Pinnacles exchange" since we certainly enjoy freedom of phone service here in the USA. Lets just remember that (a) these are real folks out there. It's not a faceless corporate hierarchy. (b) When I called Pinnacles, they could have as easily told me to go to hell. Instead, they let me into their home and central office. Let's not make them sorry they did. I could have held back the prefix, or even the name of the company, but I have respect for the quality of our readers. Ed Greenberg uunet!apple!netcom!edg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 02:31:23 PST From: Ken Harrenstien Subject: Re: Trivial Ring Detection More than one person has suggested the following: 43-177 Phone Flasher (switches up to 300 watts of 120VAC) $14.95 43-178 Phone Flasher II (has 120VAC strobe) $29.95 I appreciate the responses but I'm afraid I erred on the side of being overly concise. My question was specifically worded "throughout the house"... that is, in several rooms. I already have a couple of flashers (telco-provided and otherwise) which do the same thing as the above devices, but to accomplish the "throughout" would either require running a modular cord to multiple devices, or multiple AC power cords to each room. Ugh. The popular X-10 home control system seems like a much more elegant and flexible method of distributing the signal, which is why I'm attracted to it -- but the Radio Shack catalog, at least, appears to offer no off-the-shelf way to tie a ring detector into an X-10 controller. No light sensors (even for the "home security" aspect). If any of the flasher devices used an all-purpose relay instead of an resistive-only triac I could at least invent a Rube Goldberg arrangement that repeatedly bashed at a controller button... :-) Ken ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: When We Run Out of NXX Area Codes Date: 21 Nov 89 14:29:04 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In my previous message, I mixed up exchanges and area codes. > Let's run this through again: > What happens when we run out of 3-digit area codes? Do we go to > 4-digit area codes, 8- or 9- digit local numbers, or split Zone 1? > (And, again, I know this will take a while.) Um, "a while" is somewhat of an understatement. NXX-NXX-XXXX has on the order of 6.4x10^9 (okay, 6.27x10^9 if you exclude N11 codes) available permutations. That, by my count, is over 6 billion possible phone numbers. Put another way, that's over 15 phone numbers for each person in North America. I don't know what the growth rate is for phone numbers, but we can do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. (Hey, I'm a systems engineer, what other kind of calculations do I do?) As of April '86 there were 14 available NPAs of the format N[0/1]X, and they were estimated to run out in 1995. That's 9 years for 14 NPAs. Err on the side of conservativism and say 2 NPAs per year. Interchangeable NPA codes will give 640 new codes, which should last on the order of 300 years. So by about 2300 we'll run out of NPAs. Hell, I have trouble getting funding to plan for 1995 -- and you want me to plan for 2300?? :-) Seriously, I feel fairly confident that by the time we run out of NPA codes, we'll have gotten ourselves to some sort of Universal Portable Communications -- a person has a single phone number which follows her/him around (or maybe two or three phone numbers -- one home, one work, one private or something). Which makes the whole problem irrelevant... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 11:44:48 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 8-Digit Phone Numbers vs. More Area Codes Dave Levenson writes: > (... regarding interchangeable NPA codes...) > you'll never need a leading 1 for > intra-npa calls. Yes in New Jersey. But in Maryland and in area 703 in Virginia, direct-dialed long-distance intra-NPA is 1+NPA+7D (had been NPA+7D from the DC area, 1+7D elsewhere). But leading 1 means that what follows is area code (same as what New Jersey now has). Delaware still has 1+7D for toll calls within it. Presumably this must change to 7D or 1+NPA+7D when N[0/1]X area codes run out. I no longer recall where I saw this (N.Y.Times?), but there was some mention in print of proposed borough code for calls within NYC. This was rejected, and you must instead use the area code on calls across what be- came the 212/718 border. I guess a reason to reject 8-digit numbers is the problem of explaining it to people from outside the area? ------------------------------ From: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: Amazing, but True Date: 21 Nov 89 10:20:23 GMT Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca I received this strange call while working on a strange project involving sending a phone line (PBX station) to an FM radio station transmitter site by microwave and SCA, I had my test phone all set up, connected to my Panasonic, when the phone rang. The experimental phone wasn't quite up to par yet, so I wasn't suprised when all I heard was funny noises. I flashed and put the weird caller on hold and went to pick it up in another room, and I found that it sounded the same as on the experimental phone, RF fading and touch-tones and traffic sounds in the background. At first the tones were random, then I heard patterns that I recognized including my own number. OK, I thought, It's a cell phone, but whose? I put it on the speaker and listened until I heard a call waiting tone, so I flashed to answer it and got the same noises! Then all at once it came to me, handheld phone, motorcycle noises, three way calling, and the call had stayed up for quite some time (about 20 minutes). Since the call was long and uninterrupted, it couldn't be from the Pac*Tel system in LA, it's just not possible. The Pac*Tel system didn't offer three way calling, so, it must be John. Only in the 80's. joe@mojave I finally changed my dumb signiture. People were always telling me what a great signature I had. ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: Help - Modem Info Needed Date: 21 Nov 89 16:10:05 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division >In article CFWPM@ecncdc.bitnet >(Bill McGown) writes: >Motorola bought Universal Data >Systems (Huntsville, AL) and Codex (Atlanta, I think) some years ago, >and sort-of merged their product lines. Codex is based out of Mansfield, Massachusetts, while UDS is out of Huntsville Alabama. As far as I can tell, their product lines have not been merged. Obviously, there is some overlap in their prodcuts, and they sometimes work together on special projects, but they do have distinctive market identities and differences. Gary Segal, Motorola C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!segal Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. +1 708 632-2354 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #526 *****************************   Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 0:52:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #527 Message-ID: <8911220052.aa24105@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Nov 89 00:50:43 CST Volume 9 : Issue 527 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Key System Units, Hybrids and Small PBXs (Hector Myerston) Routing / Fast Busy (Dan Meyer) Picture Phones (Ron Schnell) Use of Cellular In The Air (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Calls, Too (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Re: $500 Reward For a Working REMOB (Randy King) Internet/UUCP Mail and Mailing (Robert Michael Gutierrez) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 21 Nov 89 08:52 PDT Subject: Key System Units, Hybrids and Small PBXs Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Several articles have appeared recently on this topic not all of which have been particularly enlightening. This is an attempt to clear some of the fog. o Key Systems (KSUs, ETKTS, etc) are devices which allow X number of users access to Y number of "outside" lines. Initially this was done electro-mechanically by various systems of which the AT&T 1A2 (the famous 6 button sets) is the best known. Like many AT&T gear, the design was made public and many others, notably ITT manufactured 1A2 besides Western Electric. 1A2s are still around, particularly in Defense-related "secure areas" were changes take forever (but that is another story). Electronic KSUs today do the same functions as the 1A2 (plus many others) but use "skinny wiring" (one or two twisted pairs) where the traditional 1A2s used 25 pair "fat" wiring with Amphenol connectors. MOST Key Systems require a central controller (the Key System Unit or KSU) and special propriatary sets. MOST Key systems have direct trunk access (to grab a line you punch a button). Key systems use standard (1MB) business lines as trunks. o Hybrids are a sub-category of Key Systems which typically permit use of standard sets and substitute centralized trunk selection for direct trunk selection (Dial 9 for an "outside line", the switch selects which one to give you). Many hybrids provide for both methods depending on the set used. o Small PBXs do exactly the same thing as a hybrid KSU. Rumor has it that, in some jurisdictions, calling a box a KSU or Hybrid lets you use 1MBs for trunking, call it a PBX and you have to order more expensive PBX trunks (to the CO they are the same, to the Business Office they are not. o Key System have model numbers in the form AAABBB where AAA is the number of trunks it can handle and BBB the number of inside lines. Some come fully equipped for AAA lines and BBB trunks out of box. Others require additional cards to reach full capacity. o Further blurring the Key Sys/Hybrid line is the fact that many Key Systems can handle a limited number of "plain" sets with special cards while many Hybrids require at least one propriatary set to program. o Modern Key Systems can do almost anything a PBX can. The list of features available is almost mind-boggling. Now the REAL issue. There are over 100 brands of KSUs out there. They range from semi-PBXs to a two line, four extension model (Panasonic PA 20810, around $270). Another big deal is how they distribute. Many (Toshiba, Iwatsu) will only sell to interconnects who, in turn, want to do only Turn-Key installations. Others (Panasonic, Southwestern Bell, Inter-Tel) will sell through wholesale outlets and parts houses like Graybar, Anixter etc. Here in CA wholesale outlets mean they will sell one in onesis and twosis if you have a resale license. ProcComm in San Diego and Tele-Com Products in LA are two I have dealt with and had excellent results re: prices, shipping etc. Another complicator. AT&T who makes very nice and frightfully expensive KSUs (Spirit and Merlins) went after the Japanese manufacturers (TIE, Intertel, Extrom, Panasonic etc) for dumping. They won their case and there is now a >> 130 to 180% << import duty on Japanese KSUs. Korea got a 6 to 9% duty. As a result many Key Systems are in short supply while the japanese shift production to other places including Europe and the US. Before this you could get a good 6 X 16 hybrid system for around $700. Hope this helps. ------------------------------ From: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) Subject: Routing / Fast Busy Date: 21 Nov 89 00:45:06 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN. Question set up: I had trouble once calling a friend of mine who lives across town. I recieved the classic "Fast Busy" several times. Knowing that fast busy means nasty things, I called the operator in hopes of finding out what the trouble was. Instead of the operator telling me the problem, I was immediatly connected! BTW, I am in Minneapolis, 835 exchange, my friend was in the 496 exchange. Questions: I thought that there were many many different routings available for inter-CO calls? Am I mistaken? Where can I find out the what the various tones (busy signals, ringing tones, and the like) mean. Thanks Dan Meyer UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!rambler ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!rambler@nosc.mil INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org ------------------------------ From: "Ron Schnell (IBM-LCC" Subject: Picture Phones Date: 21 Nov 89 21:32:24 GMT Reply-To: "Ron Schnell (IBM-LCC" Organization: UCLA SEASnet I just bought two of the SONY still image transceivers. They seem to work really well. I like the fact that they have both a video out and an audio out (both serve to record IMAGES). I am looking for information about compatibility between different vendors of the phones. Someone said that the Mitsubishi is compatible with Sony, is that true? Is the Panasonic also compatible? Are they all? What kinds of experiences have others of you had with the phones? I think that there may be a market for a mechanical device which allows one to stand back and remotely tell it to "send". They current design forces you to be within an arms reach of the unit (or within the reach of something strong enough to press the button which is connected to your arm). #Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 10:53:28 -0800 From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Use of Cellular In The Air In article you write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 524, message 3 of 9 >A friend who works at KOMO Radio in Seattle told me that their air >traffic guy during drive time was told by THE FCC to stop using a >cellular phone from his small plane. They said it was ILLEGAL!..... This brings up a point with what radio-bandwith to use for traffic reporting. With the banning of (obviously) useful Celluar in airplanes and restrictions on using a VERY narrow spectrum in regular 2-way radio, what are they left with. Is Airphone developed enough to use in small planes, or are they allowed to use it at all??? A traffic monitoring company in Los Angeles got busted ("fined") by the FCC for using regular business-band radios to do traffic reporting. They complained that there was no other way to report traffic since they had (just back then) banned celluar in airplanes, and the 2-way radio space allocated for that purpose was hopelessly overcrowded. --------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 10:53:28 -0800 From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Re: TELecom USA In article you write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 525, message 1 of 11 >In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu >(TELECOM Moderator) writes: >> "If you are an equal-access dial one-plus customer of Telecom*USA, >> you can enjoy these benefits: >> Easy Dialing: Dial 1 + 700 + 7 digit number within your area code. >This can't work here. The San Francisco LATA is comprised of three >area codes: 415, 707, and the very northern part of 408........... Actually, this CAN work here in the Bay Area. Remember, 700 is just an entry in the local telco route table directing the call to the default IXC (L.D. carrier). The L.D. carrier would then see the incoming ANI, and the switch would just translate 700-NXX-0000 to ANI/NPA-NXX-0000. You would still have to dial NPA-NXX-0000 for other A/C's. This though, leads to other problems, in that the L.D. carriers are screaming that when intra-lata competition comes around, the LEC's (local telco's) want 10XXX dialling, but the L.D. carriers want something more simpler. Remember, 700-NXX-XXXX is the only area code that does automatic routing to a L.D. carrier *right now* (other than standard inter-lata NPA's). MCI uses their 700#'s for their virtual private network ("VNET"), but all that is is a fancy telephone number translator (2 of them to be precise, in West Orange, NJ. and Richardson, TX). Each MCI switch has to poll those places (they're VAXes) to translate the incoming 700# to either a POTS (regular) telephone number or a switch-location and trunk. (Then Linc observed) >Hmm. The other question is, is it legal? In some areas, such as our >own wonderful state of California, Pacific*Bell has a legal monopoly >on all intra-LATA traffic. No one else is allowed to offer service. >The Telecom*USA service would clearly violate this provision. Not for long. Part of Pac*Hell.....uhhh, Pac*Bell's 3-part plan of de-tarriffing services is in Plan 3, "they" will allow intra-lata competition from other carriers, like MCI, Sprint, etc. This is supposed to be next year sometime??? >As for the rates being cheaper, I often use my MCI card for intra-LATA >toll calls, because it is often much cheaper than using my Pac*Bell >card....... This is true ONLY because the L.D. carriers dont have the facilities to implement routing-tables to block intra-lata calls. The problem is you have to set 2 tables, a look-up for origination and destination. Those tables HAVE to be local to the switch, there's no way a switch is going to poll some overloaded computer at a remote location for the look-up tables, especially is you call is speeding through a DMS-250 in milliseconds. You'd slow down your traffic by 30-40 percent. A good batallion of lawyers would have any PUC decision to block such calls overturned faster than you can dial 976-STUD. >...... First of all, I don't have to pay a $0.40 surcharge (if I'm >calling from anywhere in my home area code), and secondly the per- >minute charges are often lower than Pac*Bell's.......... Exactly. You're taking advantage of 2 things. One, that MCI has lower rates to begin with, and 2nd, that MCI has that "Around-Town" feature which makes your call look like a direct-dialed call. Pac*Bull...uhhh (sorry), Pac*Bell charges you station-to-station for coin calls, or surcharges you for card calls. Remember though, MCI can *NOT* refund intra-lata calls. Many people have tried to using courts-lawyers-PUC's-etc, but this is the only rule nobody (right on up to CEO Bill McGowan) can bend. The only time it can happen is if a Customer Service rep is brand new, and doesn't see the "*Intralata Call - MCI May Not Serve*" warning on the pricing screen on her terminal. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 16:34:33 CST From: Randy King Subject: Re: $500 Reward For A Working REMOB Well, this is a topic that has come up again and again throughout the life of my interest in telecommunications. Actually, the system is called REMOBS, which does stand for REMote OBservation System and it is manufactured by Teltone corporation. They do exist. I personally have never run across one but I've received this company's literature on the unit. The topic has been covered in a couple of places that I've seen in the "underground" newsletters, including issue 14 of Phrack Inc. Newsletter as well as the most recent edition of 2600 Magazine (Volume Six, Number Three, Autumn, 1989) which has a brief summary of how to operate the things. Also, if memory serves, TAP Magazine also ran an article on the topic way-back-when which (I think) also summarized how to use them. Randy C488869@UMCVMB (Bitnet) C488869@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 12:13:36 -0800 From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Internet/UUCP Mail and Mailing. In article you write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 524, message 2 of 9 >In article gphg1125@uxa.cso.uiuc. >edu (Glenn P Hoetker) writes: >>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 521, message 5 of 10 >>I would be very grateful for any advice on how to send e-mail from the >>U. S. (either Internet or Bitnet) to someone on the JANET network in >>the U.K. I know its possible, but have incredible amounts of trouble >>trying to do it. Thank you very much. >One source for network routing information I have not yet seen >mentioned is Nutshell's new book on the topic. Nutshell's book is very good. It describes all the networks that are interconnected or reachable through Internet. That's how I found out that you can use real names to MCI-Mail instead of just their mailbox numbers . The descriptions also show the gateways used to get to those networks. It is called: !@%:: A Directory of Electronic Mail and Addressing & Networks By Doanld Frey and Rick Adams ISBN: 0-937175-93-0 302 pp. $26.95 The "!@%::" is exactly the name of the book! The plan to upgrade @6-8 months. You'll be able to get the updates at a discount (actually, a whole new book, not insertable updates). You can call 1-800-338-6887 (NUTS) except in Calif, which is 1-800-533-6887. They take fax orders at 707-829-0104 (credit card only on fax orders). Mail orders are at: O'Reily & Associates 632 Petaluma Ave. Sebastopol, CA. 95472 (Don't forget to allow for Tax in CA and MA, and UPS (2 lbs) ground shipping) I am not a representative of O'Reilly & Assoc, just a satisfied reader. Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Operations -- NASA Ames Research Ctr. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #527 *****************************   Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 19:27:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #528 Message-ID: <8911221927.aa21038@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Nov 89 19:25:22 CST Volume 9 : Issue 528 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Calling Cards (Bruce J. Miller) Re: Fretters and Ameritech: Cellular Ripoff (Edward E. Wells Jr.) Re: Forest Park Hum?? Fact or Fiction? (Paul Fuqua) Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Dave Horsfall) Re: 800 Rates (John Higdon) Re: Response to Mr. Preisendefer (Dr. T. Andrews) Re: Telephone Network in East Germany (George Horwath) Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too (John Cowan) Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too (Joel B. Levin) [Moderator's Note: Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving Day. Please take a moment to reflect on the many good and positive things in your life, and how fortunate you are. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bruce J. Miller" Subject: Re: Calling Cards Date: 21 Nov 89 21:32:25 GMT Reply-To: "Bruce J. Miller" Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa Although MCI is my primary LD carrier, I have ATT and Bell of PA credit cards from the pre-breakup days. These cards bear the same number. If I charge a call to this number, the billing comes from ATT for an out-of-state call, or Bell of PA for a call within Pennsylvania (actually different sections of my Bell of PA bill). I recently received a Bell of PA *IQ* Card which bears the same number as the old cards. The paperwork accompanying it claims that it may be used at any phone in the US regardless of the LD company servicing the phone, with billing handled by Bell of PA. It is also stated that I must use the area code of the called phone, even if it is the same as the AC of the phone I am calling from. (This is not required now). What has changed? Has something new been implemented, or has the nationwide capability (i.e. to place a call with specifying a carrier) be there all along? And why must I enter the AC at all times? Comments would be appreciated. Bruce Miller (miller@gvlv3.gvl.unisys.com) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Fretters and Ameritech: Cellular Ripoff Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 17:09:28 EST From: "Edward E. Wells Jr." I'd be damned if I'd put up with your situation. If you were hooked into that ad and the ad mentioned nothing about that $1000 deposit, I'd take it to court with a good lawyer. I've heard of a salesman "puffing", but this is rediculous and you may find that you could have a judge force them to sell you a $177 phone with no strings attached. I'd also file with Better Business and Consumer Protection. This may also fuel your lawsuit if you choose this path. I'd like to hear that you got yourself a $177 phone (with no service commitments). Crap like this angers me also. ========================================================================= Edward E. Wells Jr., President Voice: (215)-943-6061 Wells Computer Systems Corp., Box 343, Levittown, Pa. 19058 {alba2l,dsinc,francis,hotps,mdi386,pebco}!wells!edw Specializing in Unix/Xenix development, prototype systems development, firmware/hardware programming, operating systems, software drivers, communication systems, and specialized database designs since 1979. [Moderator's Note: Well, the ad *did* mention 'activation through Ameritech is required'. It just did not say to what extent the activation would go. Legally, they are probably off the hook. Ameritech has smart mouthpieces working for them, you know, as does Fretters, I'm sure. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Monday, November 20, 1989 11:09am (CST) From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: Forest Park Hum?? Fact or Fiction? > Date: Thursday, November 16, 1989 7:43pm (CST) > From: isis!isis.UUCP!tkoppel at eecs.nwu.edu (Ted Koppel) > Subject: Forest Park Hum?? Fact or Fiction? > Is this for real? Is there any way around it? Is there any pressure > that my sister can place on anyone at Illinois Bell to improve > matters? And so on ... > [Moderator's Note: I have never heard of such a thing; that is, an entire > community with noisy lines. I have; I live in one (far Northeast Dallas). In my case, the problem is that I'm just over the hill from the KMEZ-FM transmitter, and the radio signal interferes with the modem. Codex and Microcom modems wouldn't operate in the area unless some simple filtering circuitry was added. My modem is issued by my employer, so they were not only familiar with the problem, but also had a modified modem handy; I'm told the Microcom, at least, now includes the filter in their modems. Good thing it could be solved by a modem swap: given the horror stories about SWBell charging business rates for modem use, I wasn't about to call them and ask for help. I don't know how to check for a similar condition in Forest Park. The technician I talked to here just had an inspiration when I told him that the problem started when I moved to a new apartment. 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 [Moderator's Note: Come to think of it, I have too. Please see the article in the Digest from earlier this year on the situation in Hammond, IN, where radio station WYCA-FM blasts everyone within a few miles range of their transmitter in Burnham, IL. PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Date: 22 Nov 89 03:32:33 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article , rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: | Oy! I found that surprising, since in Australia the digit to dial for | calls outside a Centrex or similar system is "0" instead of "9" in | U.S. Thus, a call to the U.S. from an Australian Centrex is | 0-0011-1-etc. To then have "000" as emergency seems it could have | high potential for misdials. "Emergency? No, I'm trying to reach | France!" Doesn't seem to be that much of a problem. The mis-dial would only occur if you were dialing from home, or from a direct line in an office. You would be alerted by the fact that there was no secondary dial-tone after the first "0". In many PABX's, you must wait for this (outside) dial tone - they don't buffer the digit string. Besides, ISD calls are usually only available to the elite few :-) By the way, "9" seems to be pretty universally used (in Australia) to get the switchboard operator on a PABX. Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: 800 Rates Date: 22 Nov 89 09:04:22 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , rmadison@euler. berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > Ah, John, have you tried calling Crescent City yourself?? I believe > you will find that it is even MORE expensive from your location than > from San Diego, since Pac*Bell's intra-LATA rates are even higher than > the LDCs' inter-LATA rates for the same distance. Perhaps even worse > than Santa Cruz-to-Crescent City would be Los Angeles to the > northeastern tip of Area Code 619 (south of Lake Tahoe), within the > L.A. LATA. Good point. This silliness is even more apparent in my full-state 800 bill. Off-peak (the only kind of calling I do) is divided into intra-lata (Pac*Bell) and inter-lata (AT&T). Intra-lata is $8.60/hr and Inter-lata is $6.00/hr. Which brings up an interesting on-going problem. The sole reason for having my 800 number is for cheap communications with southern California. I receive NO calls from anyone north of Bakersfield. About two years ago, my bill started showing up with about 60% of the traffic on the intra-lata column. For two years they have been unable to find out why that happens, but each month I get a call from the business office and they tell me what the credit will be for the month. Initially they were very surprised that I could catagorically state that there was NO intra-lata traffic. Most businesses would never notice anything like that, but as an individual, I have total knowledge of who calls on that line. The total hours are correct (which would cause any SMDR I, or a business, might be using to jibe with the bill), but the disbursement is wrong. If one didn't know better, one might think that this is intentional. Not only do they get more money from intra-lata, they don't have to share it with AT&T. Now how many businesses are out there that have no idea that this could be going on? This is no itemization. > Yes, here in California we have a very logical system: toll call > charges vary inversely with distance.... Amen, brother! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Preisendefer Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 6:51:04 EST From: "Dr. T. Andrews" Organization: CompuData, Inc. (DeLand) Yes, I sure recognize a form letter when I see one. Mr. Purks: ) "As to the particular customer concern raised, that will be resolved ) within days, if it hasn't already been corrected." In fact, his description of the installation of the new billing system and the handling of "customer concerns" sounds like so much double-speak. Did these folks formerly work for the government? It was not, however, the service that caused us to turn off the PC-P account. It was simple economics: $1/hour for a link able to push 70-80 cps is not fairly dear compared to $7/hour for a blazer link about to push about 1000 cps and gives us better odds of connecting. ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner or... {allegra attctc bpa gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ From: George Horwath Subject: Re: Telephone Network in East Germany Date: 22 Nov 89 19:30:55 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hts, IL Last year (Sept. 88) I was in East Germany visiting a relative. I found out two things of interest while I was there regarding the DDR's telephone system. First, my relative lives in a fairly large city and she has been waiting 12+ years for a telephone. She claims that she could have gotten one after about 10 years if she had gone to the telephone company and complained every week. Since she hasn't been very vocal about it, she is still on the waiting list. I took a side trip to Dresden, which is a large city in the DDR. At the hotel I was at, I attempted to place a call home. (This was NOT a hotel reserved for Western visitors, but was mainly for citizens of East Germany.) The person at the front desk had to place the call for me and (she said) had to go through East Berlin. After the number was given to the operator, the operator said she would call back when the connection went through and it would take about 30 minutes. Sure enough, a half hour later, the phone rang and the call was placed. I'd compare the quality of the voice to a poor rural line here - not the best, but it worked. After the call, the operator called back with the charges which I had to pay immediately. It was around 35(!) East German marks for a 25 minute call. At the official exchange rate (1 East German mark = 1 West German mark) that was roughly $18! ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 17:33:39 GMT In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Telecom*USA claims they are now in a position to be your carrier for >phone calls within your own area code as well as interstate. > "If you are an equal-access dial one-plus customer of Telecom*USA, [omitted] >you can enjoy these benefits: > Easy Dialing: Dial 1 + 700 + 7 digit number within your area code. > Billing Convenience: Now, calls made within your area code will > appear on your Telecom*USA bill with 700 dialing. [omitted] >Why yes, I do have a couple questions: What could possibly be more >convenient about dialing eleven digits to reach a Chicago number when >I presently can dial seven? What difference could the 'digital >quality' of Telecom*USA's network possibly make when I call from here >to my office, or for that matter, to the other side of Chicago? The "convenience" referred to is billing convenience -- all toll calls on one bill -- not dialing convenience. >And I am sure the rates would not be any cheaper! Five cents more or >less per minute is pretty cheap. I'm sure Telecom*USA would charge more. >It may be however that their plan is a good one in places where a >single area code covers an entire state and long distance charges are >incurred on such calls, at the notorious rates allowed on intrastate >calls by some state regulators. Exactly. California area codes are typically immense, and intrastate calls there are exorbitant. However, the betting is that Telecom can't legally offer the service intrastate without local PUC recognition. That isn't to say that they can't >do< it, just that they may find themselves in trouble later. >I only use 10835 on an occassional basis, and as such, >am not eligible for the 700 intra-area code plan, which as mentioned, >is worthless to me anyway. Probably the system will work fine if you dial 10835 + 1 + 700 + NXX-XXXX. As far as I can tell, LD carriers simply don't know whether you come in with 1+ or 10XXX + 1 +. ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 14:18:40 EST >From: Robert Michael Gutierrez >Actually, this CAN work here in the Bay Area. >Remember, 700 is just an entry in the local telco route table >directing the call to the default IXC (L.D. carrier). The L.D. carrier >would then see the incoming ANI, and the switch would just translate . . . >in that the L.D. carriers are screaming that when intra-lata >competition comes around, the LEC's (local telco's) want 10XXX >dialling, but the L.D. carriers want something more simpler. Remember, >700-NXX-XXXX is the only area code that does automatic routing to a >L.D. carrier *right now* (other than standard inter-lata NPA's). I'm not quite sure what this means. 700 goes to an IXC (or IEC or IC or OCC or L.D.carrier) just the same as any other NPA does except 800 and (I think) 900. It's just that the LD company gets to use it for its own special purposes instead of as a destination designator. ATT uses it, among other things, to give callers access to conference calling facilities. All carriers use 700-555-4141 for carrier identification. 700 acts just like any standard NPA in the presence or absence of a 10XXX code; you can allow selection of your default carrier, or you may specify any carrier that supports 700. Nets: levin@bbn.com | or {...}!bbn!levin | POTS: (617)873-3463 | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #528 *****************************   Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 20:57:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #529 Message-ID: <8911222057.aa12603@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Nov 89 20:55:01 CST Volume 9 : Issue 529 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Dialing Away US Area Codes (Telephony Magazine, via John Desmond) Panasonic Doorphone (John Higdon) Cellular Telephones in Australia (U5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au) Bellcore Requirements (was Re: Calling Number [...] Bellcore) (David Lewis) BOING! (Ed Lewis) Break-out Box Info Needed (Adam Moskowitz) Re: Trivial Ring Detection? (Doug Davis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Desmond Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 9:15:19 EST Subject: Dialing Away US Area Codes [Moderator's Note: This was forwarded to me from the Net Exchange BBS, the service offered by PC Pursuit to its subscribers. TELECOM Digest is available for reading on that system in the files section. PT] >From: John Desmond >Subject: Area Code Article Patrick, I just came across this in my new issue of [Telephony] and thought it would be of interest to the Telcom Digest group. In my opinion it is a very well written article. There is a lot of interesting information in this short article. John Desmond US West Communications Network/Switching, Minneapolis, MN CIS 70725,1175 w) 612-378-1587 Packet Radio K0TG @ WB0GDB PC Pursuit Net Exchange ============================================================ DIALING AWAY U.S. AREA CODES from Telephony Nov. 13 1989 Used without permission Laura O'Brien Assistant Editor The current endangered species in the news may not be an animal at all. The number of available area codes in the United States is dwindling rapidly. Chicago consumed a new code Nov. 11 and New Jersey will gobble up another one on Jan. 1. There are only nine codes left, and they are expected to be used up by 1995, said Robert McAlesse, North American Numbering Plan administrator and member of Bellcore's technical staff. "In 1947 (Bellcore) started with 86 codes, and they projected exhaustion in 100 to 150 years. They were off by a few years," McAlesse said. When the 152 available codes are exhausted, Bellcore will use a new plan for creating area codes. A total of 138 codes already are assigned. Five of the remaining 14 codes are reserved for service access codes, and 9 are for geographic area codes. Under the current plan, a 0 or a 1 is used as the second digit while the first and last digits can range between 2 and 9. Under the new plan the first digit will be between 2 and 9 and the following two digits will be numbers between 0 and 9, McAlesse said. The new plan will create 640 potential area codes, he said. Bellcore isn't predicting when the newly created codes will run out. "The growth in new services and increase in the number of telephones are exhausting the codes. The biggest [increases] are cellular telephones, pagers, facsimile machines and new services that can have more than one number," McAlesse said. The current unassigned codes include 210, 310, 410, 706, 810, 905, 909, 910 and 917. The Chicago area took the 708 code, and New Jersey will take 908. In the Chicago metropolitan area, the suburbs were switched from the 312 area code to the new 708 code. Residents and businesses within the city limits retained the 312 code. Illinois Bell started preparing for the change two years ago with the announcements alerting business customers to change stationary and business cards, said Gloria Pope, an Illinois Bell spokeswoman. Now the telco is targeting the residential market with billboard reminders and billing inserts. The cost of technically preparing for the new code, including labor, is expected to reach $15 million. But Pope said that does not include mailings, public relations efforts and business packages designed to smooth out the transition. The telco will absorb the cost with budgeted funds, and no rate increase is expected, she said. Modifying the network to recognize the new code started about six months ago with translation work. Every central office in the Chicago Metropolitan area was adapted with a new foreign-area translator to accept the new code and route the calls correctly, said Audrey Brooks, area manager-Chicago translations. The long distance carriers were ready for the code's debut. AT&T, US Sprint and MCI changed their computer systems to recognize the new code before the Chicago deadline. "We are anticipating a pretty smooth transfer," said Karen Rayl, US Sprint spokeswoman. Businesses will need to adjust their PBX software, according to AT&T technical specialist Craig Hoopman. "This could affect virtually every nationwide PBX," he said. Modern PBX's will take about 15 minutes to adjust while older switches could take four hours. In many cases, customers can make the changes themselves, he said. [END] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Panasonic Doorphone Date: 22 Nov 89 07:51:04 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In a previous post, I railed about AT&T's part in keeping me from obtaining a Doorphone for my Panasonic PBX. Since then I have received E-Mail and even a phone call giving me suggestions on places to try. I appreciate that very much. However, I have already tried all of them, including the most widely-mentioned place, ProCom in San Diego. It was a lady there who brought up the AT&T business as an explanation concerning why that item was so hard to get. Necessity being the mother of invention, I proceeded to analyze the output of the doorphone adaptor, did a little breadboarding, and faster than you can say "trade embargo", I now have a working doorphone installed. The circuit and transducers fit nicely in an intercom door box. Technology IS power, after all! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Cellular Telephones in Australia Date: 22 Nov 89 22:21:38 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne In Australia the Mobile Telephone service is supplied as a monopoly by Telecom Australia. You can buy a phone unit from anyone, but TA links you to the PSTN. The phone numbers of mobile phones all begin with a pseudo area code 018. The next digit reflects the area code of the home area eg Melbourne is 03, so a mobile phone from Melbourne is 018 3xx xxx. Since TA monopolises the PSTN for the whole of Australia, roaming is no problem, except in remote and rural areas which are not covered by the cellular network. I don't know the rental on the service, but call rates are as follows: All charges are paid by the caller, whether to or from a mobile phone. All calls are charged at the same rate as a normal long distance call, but with a minimum calling distance of 745km ( 465 miles ). Distance 1-745km > 745 km Time 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 39c 57c 6pm-10pm Mon-Fri 26c 38c 10pm-8am Mon-Fri 6pm Sat-8am Mon 15c 23c Like all calls in Australia the charges are made in multiples of $0.21, which is the minimum charge per call. How do these charges compare with those elsewhere in the world, given AUD$1.00= USD$0.77 and AUD$1.00 = 48 pence? Daniel U5434122@ucsvc.melbuni.edu.au (Melbourne University) ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Bellcore Requirements (was Re: Calling Number [...] Bellcore) Date: 22 Nov 89 17:46:36 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , nastar!scott@gatech.edu (Scott Barman) writes: > In article nvuxr!deej@bellcore. > bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: > >One thing to keep in mind is that Bellcore TRs are essentially written > >to the industry to provide requirements for manufacturers; the > >manufacturers are free to implement products in exact compliance to > >the Bellcore TRs or not, as they see fit. In other words, the TRs > >specify how Bellcore says the product/service/system *should* work, > >which may or may not be the same as the way it *does* work. > Caveat on the above (since we've been through these problems here): If > you are with a company wanting to do business with the RBOCs, then you > should really consider implementing your product/etc. to as close to > exact compliance as possible. The question will come up asking if > your product is not only Bellcore compliant but even certification of > that compliance may be required. If you are not Bellcore compliant, > then you will need to demonstrate a clear path for that compliance. I > know that we lost a sale to (among a few other things) to a slight > lack of Bellcore compliance. Please excuse me for dragging out a topic that very few people probably care about, but I can feel lawyers breathing down my neck... I feel compelled (by those lawyers breathing down my neck) to note that, while the above may very well be true, the decision about whether or not to purchase a given product is a decision made by a Regional Company and/or an Operating Company, most emphatically *not* by Bellcore. Conformance to requirements is one factor which the Regional or Operating Company uses to make its purchasing decisions. Bellcore provides the requirements and performs technical analysis of products to determine their level of compliance with the requirements; this information is very sensitive and provided to our clients on a need-to-know basis only. The information can be used by our clients as input to their decision-making process -- and, I grant, compliance with requirements is often a large factor -- but I want to make very clear that Bellcore does not in any way, shape, or form consult with the Regional or Operating Companies on their purchasing decisions. We now return you to our regularly scheduled Digest. > DISCLAIMER: I am not in charge of compliance here, nor do I speak for > the company and I am NOT an expert on Bellcore compliance. What I > present here are just impressions while working on a product to be > sold to the telecom industry. My disclaimer: I just work here; I'm not a lawyer and am not exceedingly familiar with the procedures for technical analysis; but, I am sufficiently aware of Bellcore's position in the regulatory and legal arenas that if a Bellcore lawyer thought I so much as implied that Bellcore helps our clients make their purchasing decisions, he'd fry my fingers and I'd never type again. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Ed Lewis Subject: BOING! Date: 21 Nov 89 20:03:05 GMT Reply-To: Ed Lewis Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization A few months I read an article in .telecom where the author described the BOING tone used by AT&T. I had our SA mount the .telecom archives but I couldn't find the article. Would someone please repost either the details of the BOING tone or the Bellcore spec number so that I can look it up. EMail: elewis@telesci.uucp Phone: 609-866-1000 Ext. 250 Snail: TeleSciences CO Systems, 351 New Albany Road, Moorestown, NJ 08057-1177 ------------------------------ From: adamm@necis.UUCP (Adam Moskowitz) Subject: Break-out Box Info Needed Date: 22 Nov 89 19:40:38 GMT Organization: NEC Technologies, Boxborough, MA I'm looking for a break-out box with a rather specific feature: a "pulse trap". More specifically, the ability to detect and display that a given signal has gone either "high" or "low". It's usually set-up by connecting a jumper from the desired signal's break-out pin to the trap pin. However, any other scheme is acceptable. I know this feature exists in low- to medium-cost BOB's as I once had one. However, I don't work for that company any more and they've gone out of business so I can't call them. I've checked all the usual sources so I'm turning to the net for help. If you have a BOB with this feature, or you have a catalog that lists such a beast, would you please send me any/all info you have? The more info the better. Email is preferred as I don't read these newsgroups very often. Of course, I'll summarize to the net if I get any responses. Thanx in advance. Adam S. Moskowitz ...!(backbone)!{necntc,encore}!necis!adamm "Bon-hommy," went on Eeyore gloomily. "French word meaning bonhommy," he explained. "I'm not complaining, but There It Is." ------------------------------ From: Doug Davis Subject: Re: Trivial Ring Detection? Date: 20 Nov 89 04:55:32 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lawnet.com Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. In article KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) writes: >Here's a simple problem: >I'd like to put together a system such that when a telephone call >arrives, specific light fixtures will flash throughout the house. >What's the most elegant solution? The most elegant solution is to go back to radio shluck and purchase one of the following: o 43-177 Fone Flasher 14.95 o 43-178 Fone Flasher 2 29.95 o 43-149 Mini Fone Flasher 8.95 The "Fone Flasher" provides a current limited 110 vac switch that is activated itermittently when the phone rings, this can be used to "flash" a light (flash timed to ring pulse) or with the help of a 110v SPDT relay cut the output from a set of speakers. The FF2 has a Xenon strobe and a 85db noise maker in it, Lastly the MFF is a NE2 wired across tip and ring. Oh, yeah, take your BSR alarm module set the switch to trigger on contact closure. Wire the contacts together and plug it into the 43-177. I'm guessing that there is enough time for the BSR signal to get out before the ring pulse falls (closing the internal relay). Otherwise a 110vac SPST relay will solve the problem, tie the coil side to the 110ac output on the 43-177 and the NO (normally open) contact side to the "trigger" connections on your BSR alarm module. If you opt for the second solution, remember to insulate the terminals on the relay from your fingers, it's best to put the whole thing in a box and wire a single wall plug out of it. This keeps the curious and the adventurious from hurting themselves. Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740 {texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug "Act first, solve problem, appologize for the mess later." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #529 *****************************   Date: Fri, 24 Nov 89 0:23:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #530 Message-ID: <8911240023.aa17177@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Nov 89 00:20:27 CST Volume 9 : Issue 530 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Another Acronym File Archived (TELECOM Moderator) Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (Alex Beylin) 2-to-4 Wire Hybrid (Marc Boucher) Calls With Area Code Prefixes (David Cantor) Re: E-mail to the UK (Kevin Hopkins) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Jay Maynard) Re: Use of Cellular In The Air (John Higdon) Re: Use of Cellular In The Air (Mark Laubach) Re: Trivial Ring Detection (Ken Harrenstien) Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Calls, Too (Tad Cook) Re: Thanks, AT&T (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 21:19:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Another Acronym File Archived A few days ago I received another excellent file for the TELECOM Archives from Randy Tischler. This is a large file of strictly telecom-related acronymns which appeared in Phrack, Volume 2 #20. Randy obtained permission to pass the file along to us for the archives. This is a 40 K file....and I might add due to a typo I gave you the wrong size for the 'glossary.txt' file the other day, which is 67 K. This new addition to the archives is filed as 'phrack.acronyms', in the usual place. I suggest you ftp over to cs.bu.edu and get your copy. If you have requested a manual transmission of the glossary from me, I have been including the 'phrack.acronyms' file for the past few days. If you are one of the few (early) respondents who received glossary.txt and glossary.acronyms but did *not* recieve phrack.acronymns, then please ask again for this one item only. Thanks go to: c488869@umcvmb.bitnet . Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Alex Beylin Subject: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Reply-To: alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI A few month ago I bought a replacement for my old Panasonic answering machine. I was very happy with the last one, so I bought another Panasonic. This time it is a KX-T1740 with two line capability. A few weeks after connecting it up I noticed that time to time I get a message that consists of a few clicks and nothing else. Then I started getting complaints from people that they leave me messages and I do not call back. Finally I connected the two. Most of the time when someone complains about me ignoring a call, I have gotten a "click-click" message. I returned this machine to the store and got a new one in exchange. Same thing - some messages disappered. It also seems that some people are subject to this phenomena more then others, though it is rare and so hard to duplicate that I would not want to bet on that statment. One day I walked-in just as the machine picked up a call. I heard what sounded like my answering machine flashing the hook and playing with call-waiting. The line is a normal CO line with touch-tone and call-waiting. The switch is 5ESS. Before I go and cancel my call-waiting service or send my machine to Panasonic for more testing, thought I'd bounce this one from telecom readers. Anybody with a similar experience or with Panasonic answering machines on a line with call-waiting? Ideas, suggestions, etc. would be appreciated. Alex Beylin, Unix Systems Admin. | +1 313 948-3386 alexb%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | Chrysler Financial Corp. sharkey!cfctech!alexb | MIS, Distributed Systems ATT Mail ID: attmail!abeylin | Southfield, MI 48034 ------------------------------ From: Marc Boucher Subject: 2-to-4 Wire Hybrid Date: 23 Nov 89 22:51:13 GMT Organization: Clik Telematique Inc., Montreal, QC I am building a circuit based on one of these single chip Bell 103 FSK modems. I am having trouble with the 2-to-4 wire hybrid part though.. could someone send or post schematics? Thanks.. Marc Boucher, sys/netadm @ CLIK Telematique Inc - marc@clik.qc.ca 5144668932_home 5149337161_clik 5149332164_fax - Postmaster@clik.qc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 19:00:36 PST From: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Calls With Area Code Prefixes Can anyone tell me exactly how calls with area code prefixes are handled? Previous messages on the handling of 700 calls left me with some questions unanswered. I think that there are basically 4 cases: 1. 1-800 prefix 2. 1-900 prefix 3. 1-700 prefix 4. All other prefixes Basically, the question is: "How are each of theses handled?" In other words, how does the local telco (GTE in my case) decide what to do with 800 numbers? 900 numbers, etc. Why couldn't US Telecom just have you dial 11+local number if 1+ calls (other than 10+ calls) all go to it? Is there some requirement that exactly 10 digits follow the initial 1? and couldn't that be handled by having the customer dial dummy 1's either at the beginning (say 1111) or at the end of the number (111) at the end? When equal access "choice" took place a couple of years the telco literature (Sadly, I didn't save it. Now, because of some serious problems, I save it all) stated (as I recall) that I was choosing my "default" long-distance carrier, specifically, the one who would handle 1+area-code long-distance calls. Now it appears that other long-distance carriers handle some 1-800 prefixes (this I don't care about) and some 1-900 prefixes (this is the problem in my case). dgc ------------------------------ Subject: Re: E-mail to the UK Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 15:51:52 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins In his message of Mon 20 Nov 89 19:53:51-PST in v09i525 "Ole J. Jacobsen" mentioned: > JANET is connected to the Internet via a gateway which used to be at > the University College London (UCL), but is now at a different > location in London (ULCC, I think). The name of the gateway host is > still NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK. The location is correct but the name isn't. You should use nsfnet-relay.ac.uk. The old name of nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk *may* still be left around as an alias, but as the name changed about a year ago I doubt it will be around for much longer, if it still exists at all. Also, you will only be able to get mail to the AC.UK subdomain through that gateway due to the way the Computer Board (government agency) funds it. For the rest of the UK (and AC.UK if you want) its down to bang addresses of the form ..!mcsun!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins, and this route is charged to the UK user on send and receive. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcsun!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: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Date: Wed, 22 Nov 89 15:45:12 GMT In article rmadison@euler. berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: >A friend of mine who lived in Chicago about five years ago (+/- ??) >had a number in 312 that duplicated the number of a popular resort >hotel in 414 (Chicago and Wisconsin, respectively). He frequently got >phone calls from people asking to make reservations. Sounds like an expoerience I had several years ago. My work phone was 978-2xxx. A medium-sized engineering company was 782-xxx0. I'd get calls all the time asking for the engineering company, and each time, I'd patiently explain that they didn't need to dial 9 before making an outside call from the phone they were using. Some folks couldn't understand how I knew that. One person was adamant about the need to dial 9 first, and it took me 10 minutes - on his third call - to convince him otherwise. I sure was glad when the engineering company moved... Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- _free press_, n.: 100 men imposing their prejudices on 100 million. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Use of Cellular In The Air Date: 23 Nov 89 07:36:46 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , gutierre@nsipo.arc. nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) writes: > A traffic monitoring company in Los Angeles got busted ("fined") by > the FCC for using regular business-band radios to do traffic > reporting. They complained that there was no other way to report > traffic since they had (just back then) banned celluar in airplanes, > and the 2-way radio space allocated for that purpose was hopelessly > overcrowded. There is a small number of two-way channels that are permitted to be used for "on-air" feeds. In metropolitan areas these channels are so scarce that broadcasters have "frequency coodinating committees" made up of station representatives so that maximum use can be made of the limited resources. It has been recognized that traffic reporting services somehow need to be included in the allocation considerations for these auxillary broadcast channels. Unfortunately, at least from the meetings that I have attended and been told about, the traffic reporters are incredibly arrogant and make excessive demands concerning the use of these channels. In the San Francisco area, there are two traffic services (Traffic Central and Metro Traffic--are there others?) who seem to feel that their business takes precedence over normal broadcast licensee use of these bands. In any event, it has long been understood that under no circumstances can cellular phones be used for this purpose. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Mark Laubach Subject: Re: Use of Cellular In The Air Date: 23 Nov 89 01:05:38 GMT Organization: HP Information Architecture Group - Cupertino, CA You may want to check archives for rec.aviation for more detail on this one. Basically, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) specifically prohibit the use *any* passenger-carried electronic devices aboard an aircraft, except for a limited few things, like electric shavers, tape cassette players, etc. Anything that receives and/or transmits is deemed to be a possible source of interference for the sensitive navigation and communication systems on board the aircraft. I don't have the FARs handy or I would quote the section for you. Mark Laubach Hewlett-Packard, and Private Pilot ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Nov 89 16:45:51 PST From: Ken Harrenstien Subject: Re: Trivial Ring Detection > Oh, yeah, take your BSR alarm module set the switch to trigger on > contact closure. Wire the contacts together and plug it into the > 43-177. I'm guessing that there is enough time for the BSR signal to > get out before the ring pulse falls (closing the internal relay). If you know that the FF (43-177) is powered by telco current rather than house current, and consequently doesn't need to be plugged into 120VAC, that might work. Otherwise won't this method end up frying the unsuspecting alarm module? (btw, a complete X-10 message takes 183ms) > Otherwise a 110vac SPST relay will solve the problem, tie the coil > side to the 110ac output on the 43-177 and the NO (normally open) > contact side to the "trigger" connections on your BSR alarm module. Yeah, this was what I had been thinking of doing, if no other ideas came along. Unfortunately, it now looks as if the RS "Universal Interface", aka BSR "PowerFlash" burglar alarm, may not be useful after all. The instructions I dug from an opened box for the latter seem to imply that once triggered, things remain active until a reset button is manually pushed. In other words, if you forget to disconnect it before going out of the house, you could return to find that a random call had left the entire place blinking on and off all day (or week). Not so good. Unless I discover that the RS version has a modification to track the input signal instead of triggering on it, or an automatic reset timeout, it looks like the "technology store" is going to come up short. Ken ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Telecomm*USA Wants Your Local Phone Calls, Too Date: 24 Nov 89 03:07:21 GMT Organization: very little Regarding Telecom USA's deal of selling long distance service within your local NPA, I got a similar offer from a Portland, Oregon based carrier called Call US. For calls within my area code, I dial 10212 then 1+7digits. It saves a little bit over what US West charges me for intra-LATA toll calls. I think the calls all go from my home in Seattle to Call US's switch in Portland, then via AT&T circuits (which they resell) back into the 206 area code. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Thanks, AT&T Date: 24 Nov 89 03:16:51 GMT Organization: very little Here is a possible solution if you cannot get a door phone for your Panasonic system, and you have an extra CO line port on the key system. Get a Proctor 46220 ringdown circuit, and put it between the unused CO port and a dial-less wall phone by the door. When someone lifts the phone, it will ring into the phone system. Proctor is at 206-881-7000, or 800-824-9719. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #530 *****************************   Date: Sat, 25 Nov 89 11:26:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #531 Message-ID: <8911251126.aa15546@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Nov 89 11:25:35 CST Volume 9 : Issue 531 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Call for Papers: Audiovisual Services (Jean-Jacques Quisquater) Re: Trivial Ring Detection (Scot E Wilcoxon) Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation (Dik T. Winter) Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (Chuck Forsberg) Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (Lars J Poulsen) Re: Telecom*USA Wants Your Local Calls (A. Alan Toscano) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 89 12:09:27 +0100 From: jjq@prlb.philips.be Subject: Call For Papers: Audiovisual Services CALL FOR PAPERS First international seminar CONDITIONAL ACCESS FOR AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES ACSA '90 June 12-14, 1990 --- Rennes, France - Programme committee: Jacques Poncin (CCETT), chairman Michel Ayel (RPIC) Joseph Blineau (Thomson CE) Louis Guillou (CCETT/EPT) Joseph Hascoet (MatraCommunication) Marc Lassus (Gemplus) Jean-Francois Latour (France Telecom STI) Mark Medress (General Instrument Corporation) Graham Mills (BT Vision) Bjorn Persson (Scansat) Jean-Jacques Quisquater (Philips Research Lab) Charles Sandbank (BBC Research) Kjell St\ahlbom (Nokia Luxor) Michel Ugon (Bull CP8) - Organising committee: F. Scarabin (CCETT) --- V. Michon (CCETT) Tel.: +33 99 02 41 98 Fax: +33 99 02 40 98 Telex: 740284 F - Presentation: The use of new broadcasting media as demonstrated in Europe by the launching of direct broadcasting satellites and the ever-increasing number of cable sockets is leading more and more operators to offer new television channels. Yet there is no guarantee that these channels will be able to maintain a financial balance between production and broadcasting in the future if their income is based solely on traditional sources of revenue such as advertising and licence fees. ``Conditional access'' mainly used for pay per view now appears to be a major element in these services and a vital future development for the audiovisual sector. Its development depends partly on new signal processing and encipherment techniques. Scrambling, MAC/packet, cables, broadcasting satellites, decoders and smart cards are the keys to these new television services in Europe and the world at large. ACSA '90 is the first international seminar totally devoted to this subject. It is being organised by CCETT, under the patronage of FRANCE TELECOM and TDF. The aim of the seminar is to bring together researchers, engineers, industrialists, network operators, and programme providers so that they can debate current questions and attempt to find a response through the papers delivered on this occasion. Subject matter will centre on systems and tools being developed at the present time and on future perspectives for Conditional Access Television. - Call for papers: The international programme committee is looking for papers dealing with conditional access to broadcasting networks and indicating the technical progress made on all the resources involved viz: - system architecture, - protocol hierarchy, - marketing methods for receivers and services, - industrial developments and integrated circuits, - man/machine dialogue, - perspectives for the development of pay per view television services including legal context evolution. Papers are also requested on the following subjects: - recent encipherment techniques as applied to conditional access, - security elements for pay per view television services, - security microprocessors used to build smart cards and security modules. Finally, the position of programme providers is included in the seminar themes. Papers could, for example, present their requirements and reactions given the proposals being put forward at the present time. The various positions will be examinated during a special panel. - Schedule: Deadline for receiving abstracts: Jan. 15, 1990 Notification of international programme committee decisions: Feb. 26, 1990 Deadline for receiving complete texts: Apr. 30, 1990 - Guidelines for authors: Seven copies of abstracts of original papers corresponding to one or several themes for for the seminar should be sent to the seminar secretariat before January 15, 1990. Abstract should be written either in French or in English on at most three typewritten pages. They should be accompanied by a fact sheet indicating the following: --- title of the paper with the relevant seminar theme(s), --- name of the author(s) with affiliation, address, phone and fax numbers, e-mail. All abstracts will be submitted to the International Programme Committee for reviewing. Authors will be personally advised of the Committee's decision before February 26, 1990. Four copies of the complete paper (maximum length 5,000 words i.e. approximately 15 sheets of A4) should be sent to the seminar secretariat before April 30, 1990 at the latest. Accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings distributed to participants at the opening of the seminar. - Working languages: The working languages for the seminar will be English and French. A simultaneous translation service will be provided during the sessions. - Informations: For any further information on the seminar, please address all correspondance to: Secretariat ACSA '89 CCETT 4, rue du Clos Courtel --- BP 59 F-35512 Cesson-Devigne Cedex --- FRANCE - For organisational reasons, any person interested in presenting a paper or attending the seminar is advised to return the enclosed fact sheet as soon as possible. A preliminary programme and the registration form will be forwarded by the end of February 1990. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | | I intend to take part in the seminar and would like to receive the programme and registration form. | | I intend to submit a paper. Theme(s): ............................................................... Provisional title: ...................................................... Author(s): .............................................................. First name: ........................... Surname: .............................. Affiliation or Company: ....................................................... Address: ...................................................................... Zip: ......... City: ........................... Country: ..................... Phone: ................ FAX: ................... E-mail: ...................... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Scot E Wilcoxon Subject: Re: Trivial Ring Detection Date: 24 Nov 89 05:00:29 GMT Reply-To: Scot E Wilcoxon Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN OK, how about this: Get the Radio Shack Fone Flasher which flashes external lights. Plug a 120 VAC to low voltage DC converter in as if it is a light. Connect a resistor (limits current) in series with a relay to the DC. Connect the relay contacts to an X-10 alarm contact module (if you can't find one, get the newest DAK catalog). Connect the desired lights to respond to the X-10 code generated by the alarm module. Any X-10 experts know if there's any problem with having a light module listen for the alarm module signal? The above has the advantage of mostly using off-the-shelf components which are probably all UL-listed. Soldering is minimal. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. ------------------------------ From: "Dik T. Winter" Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA Calls and Number Conservation Date: 24 Nov 89 22:45:02 GMT Reply-To: "Dik T. Winter" Organization: CWI, Amsterdam In article Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard writes: > My work phone was 978-2xxx. A medium-sized engineering company was > 782-xxx0. I'd get calls all the time asking for the engineering > company, and each time, I'd patiently explain that they didn't need to > dial 9 before making an outside call from the phone they were using. > Some folks couldn't understand how I knew that. One person was > adamant about the need to dial 9 first, and it took me 10 minutes - on > his third call - to convince him otherwise. A very good reason for the system as used in a lot of countries: if you want to dial outward, you first dial the digit to get the outward line and then have to wait for dial-tone again. In that case you immediately know whether you have to dial an additional leading digit or not. BTW this explains also why there is no confusion in Australia where the general alarm number is 000, the code to get to the US is 0011 and the digit to get an outside line is 0. In a previous digest there was a question whether it would be confusing that to dial to the US from a phone that requires a leading digit for an outside number you started with 000. The answer is: no; you dial 0 wait for dial tone and follow with 00... Also in a number of countries you have to wait for dial tone after dialling an area code, as in the Netherlands. Autodiallers are not allowed here unless they are able to do that. dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland INTERNET : dik@cwi.nl BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax ------------------------------ From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Date: 24 Nov 89 21:40:39 GMT Reply-To: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) Organization: Omen Technology Inc, Portland Oregon I have a Panasonic KX-T2420 answering machine/dialer which also appears to have a bug. I have been unable to enter a short phone number into one of the memory locations which used to have a long dialing sequence. The extra digits in the original number just won't go away. My workaround was to fill up the memory with Nathan's, which are all sent long before U S West and their usually lethargic DMS-10 switch finally get around to connecting me. ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Fri, 24 Nov 89 23:56:31 GMT In article alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) writes: >One day I walked-in just as the machine picked up a call. I heard >what sounded like my answering machine flashing the hook and playing >with call-waiting. We have heard recently here on Telecom about some ACD (Automatic Call Distributor) systems hanging up briefly before passing a call to an attendant in order to get rid of calls that have been abandoned while on-hold. I can imagine an over-engineered answering machine doing the same thing. After all, it is not uncommon for callers to abandon the call while the answering machine is delivering the outgoing message. If so, there is an obvious conflict with call waiting. And if this feature is not documented in the user handbook for the device, it probably cannot be switched off. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 89 15:19 EDT From: "A. Alan Toscano" <0003382352@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Telecom*USA Wants Your Local Calls, Too Previously in this thread, it's been mentioned that Telecom*USA's offering of 1-700 dialing for intraLATA/intraNPA calls offers only pricing convenience, and not dialing convenience. I must suggest that in some areas, it may offer both... If Telecom*USA were to offer 1+ service from my area (they don't), and, of course, I had selected them as my primary carrier, I would now be able to make intraLATA long distance calls over my primary (normally interLATA only) carrier by dialing only a one or two digit Speed Calling code. My local switch (a #1A ESS, I believe) will not store 10XXX prefices, but will happily store an entire 1-700 number. My LATA (#566) resides entirely within the 512 NPA, so the intraLATA/interNPA restriction wouldn't apply here. A. Alan Toscano Voice: 512 696 0307 MCI Mail: ATOSCANO P. O. Box 290008 Telex: 6975956AAT UW CIS: 73300,217 San Antonio, TX 78280-1408 0003382352@mcimail.com Plink: ALANT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #531 *****************************   Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 19:49:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #532 Message-ID: <8911261949.aa24447@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 26 Nov 89 19:47:55 CST Volume 9 : Issue 532 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Anachronistic Rip-off (John Higdon) A 900 Scam; and Inappropriate Activities by AT&T (Ken Jongsma) Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland (Pat Stephenson) Who is the Top Telco? (Tony Harding) Comms Program Needed (Tony Harding) Phone Rates (was Re: Telephone Network in East Germany) (Matthias Urlichs) National "Phone Book" Available, on Line? (Bill Nickless) Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (Jerry Durand) Re: Home KSU ??? (Cyril Bauer) Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: Anachronistic Rip-off Date: 26 Nov 89 18:50:00 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows I have been approached by a local company that offers long distance service. They are very agressive and have been in the area for some time. BizTel's sales force has been trying to convince me that their rates are substantially lower than any of the "big boys", and that my clients are losing money hand over fist every minute that they are not making calls with BizTel. The catch: Their service is entirely through FGA. When you sign up, they come out to your premesis and install magic Mitel dialers on each of your outside lines. When I found this out, I told them that there was no way I would even consider their service. End of discussion. In case you are approached by a similar operation, here's why the discussion ended: Problem #1 FGA uses ordinary dialup lines to place calls, similar to MCI in the old days. You dial a local number, get a tone, enter your authorization code, area code, and number. While the dialer does this for you, it still requires a call to a *charged* number. In this area, a local call during business hours is $.05 first minute, $.01 each additional. And remember, that's whether your call is completed or not. Every call attempt costs money, and if you have some aggressive person in your office that is frustrated by someone's busy signal, the cost could be significant. Problem #2 FGA has no answer supervision. When I confronted them with this, they claimed that their "time before answer assumption" was very generous and worked in the customer's favor. Hogwash! You should be charged for an answer and not charged otherwise. Period. Problem #3 Since they program the dialers, they have the ability, unbeknownst to the customer, to siphon off not only intralata calls, but local calls as well. Not only would you pay Pac*Bell for the local call to their switch, but they would charge you for the call as well. Do they ever do this? You bet. In talking to some of their past customers, this was the number one reason they switched to another long distance company. Problem #4 The dialers are a heap-o-trouble. I remember when my company had customers that had dialers between their switch and the CO lines, there was constant "trunk" trouble, and the long distance company always blamed the switch, even when time after time it was proved to be the dialer's fault. Avoid any long distance company that wants to install dialing equipment at your location. In 1989, it is as necessary as a separate bell box down on the wall. Tell them to take a hike. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: MCI also was installing those dialers about twelve years ago when everything of theirs went through dialups. And it was MCI's failure to calculate the cost of local calls to the dialups (or at least their failure to inform prospective customers of those charges) which led me to file a formal complaint with the FCC in 1979. MCI kept rattling about their 'big savings over AT&T' all the while large companies who opted for their service in those days were paying for thousands of (probably unnoticed) extra local units. My article in [Telephony Magazine] and my subsequent filing with the FCC forced MCI to begin advising prospects -- at least in tiny print at the bottom of the page -- of those charges. Remember, in those days we paid but one phone bill, to the local telco, and 'savings' in long distance offset by increased charges in local calling were no savings at all! PT] ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: A 900 Scam; and Inappropriate Activities by AT&T Date: Sat, 25-Nov-89 12:26:23 PST A couple of interesting items appeared in the mail this week: I received a yellow postcard with the words "Gift Notice" in bold letters apparently from a firm called Gift Hot Line in Irving, Texas. The card stated that I was eligible to receive two of the following: $5000 in cash, $2500 in cash, or a $1000 Discount Coupon. All I had to do was call 1-900-988-7654! At least there was fine print: The odds of getting actual cash was 1 in a million. The prizes were not mutually exclusive, so I could expect 2 coupons. The discount coupon had to be used on items in their catalog and each item had a discount limit. If I wanted to use that $1000 coupon towards a single item, I'd have to come up with a bunch of cash. Oh. The phone call cost $3.98. I could _mail_ the card in, but that might take up to 12 weeks before I could get my gift. The second item was a lot less sleazy, but curious just the same. In my United Airlines Mileage Plus statement, their was a small catalog from AT&T. In this catalog were things like coffee pots, musical keyboards, calculators, watches and oh yes, a couple of telephones. The attached note said that AT&T had selected these items out of their Consumer Direct catalog as excellent values. My question is, "What is AT&T doing hawking mail order merchandise?" Me thinks they ought to be thinking about their basic business. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 14:15:47 EST From: Pat Stephenson Subject: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland Reply-To: pat@cs.cornell.edu I'm thinking of taking a cordless phone from the US to my parents in Dublin, Ireland. I have two questions which Digest readers may be able to answer: 1) Will it work (ie are signal levels compatible) 2) How do I connect it? My parents do not have modular sockets. The phone line is terminated in a black box about 3" by 3" by 1". The cord from the P&T supplied telephone terminates in what looks like an oversize headphone jack that is plugged into this black box. It appears to carry 4 connections (three signals and ground, I presume). (I'm pretty sure that the Irish phone system will use the same signal levels, etc. as the British one.) Any advice or hints that people have to offer would be appreciated. Pat Stephenson PS Yes, I realise that I'll need a 220->110 transformer. ------------------------------ From: UKTONY@cup.portal.com Subject: Who is the Top Telco? Date: Sun, 26-Nov-89 03:59:20 PST British Telecom (BT) keeps telling its staff that it is striving to become "TOP TELCO". This implies that it is not top telco yet. SO......... Just who is the world's top telco? AT&T??? following the break up? NTT in Japan?? Cable & Wireless ??? Tony Harding MNEMATICS lamont!mneuxg!6675 CIS 71330.2266@compuserve.com Dialcom 82:TSG630 BIX uktony BBS 0489 583232 ------------------------------ From: UKTONY@cup.portal.com Subject: Comms Program Needed Date: Sat, 25-Nov-89 14:43:14 PST Have you seen the new PORTFOLIO computer from ATARI? The PC you can put in your pocket. I have one on order. I also want a Serial interface for it. But this is Atari and they don't have any yet. When I have the interface I want to run a modem on it. The trouble is that it comes with 128K of RAM. This can be expanded to 640K, when Atari have the bits. So does any one know of a Comms program that runs in 128K? I have KERMIT 2.32 but I cannot see in the docs if it will run in 128K. The program does not have to be up to Procomm standards just work the modem and get the incoming data onto the screen. Any comments welcome. Tony Harding MNEMATICS lamont!mneuxg!6675 CIS 71330.2266@compuserve.com Dialcom 82:TSG630 BIX uktony BBS 0489 583232 ------------------------------ From: Matthias Urlichs Subject: Phone Rates (was Re: Telephone Network in East Germany) Date: 25 Nov 89 20:48:46 GMT Reply-To: Matthias Urlichs Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG In comp.dcom.telecom motcid!horwath%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (George Horwath) writes: < [ calling the US from East Germany ] After the call, the operator called < back with the charges which I had to pay immediately. It was around < 35(!) East German marks for a 25 minute call. At the official exchange < rate (1 East German mark = 1 West German mark) that was roughly $18! (The inofficial rate is about 1:10 now, which makes that $1.80.) So what? If you had called from West Germany, you could have dialled direct, the line would have been somewhat better, and you would have paid DM 84 for these 25 minutes, or about $40. Which tells you something about the (West) German Bundespost. Side remark: Suppose it's 11:00 here in Karlsruhe, Germany. What is cheaper: Call me from Munich (200 miles) or San Francisco (a whole lot of miles)? You guessed right; the intra-German call will be about $28/hour. :-( :-( :-( Next time I have to call someone in the US, I'll do it from East Germany, that way it will be cheaper. ;-) ) Matthias Urlichs, Humboldtstrasse 7, 7500 Karlsruhe 1, FRG urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de ------------------------------ Subject: National "Phone Book" Available, on Line? Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 14:14:31 EST From: Bill Nickless Is there a nationwide "telephone book" service available? Something that the local BOC's would forward their (published?) subscriber lists to and would be made available either in complete form or via some reporting strategy? Here is the application: My uncle is involved in genealogical research of the Nickless family, which goes back (as far as we can tell) only to 1810-1820 or so. He would like to be able to find certain Nicklesses but does not know where they may have moved to. I noticed that the Milnet NIC had something like this for their users; I was wondering if the telephone system has anything similar. Please mail me any information you may have. Thanks! Bill Nickless | bnick@andrews.edu or 71640.2533@compuserve.com Andrews University | sharkey!aucis!bnick or uunet!zds-ux!aucis!bnick Computer Science Department |------------------------------------------------ Unix Support Group | "Help! I'm locked up in a .signature factory!" ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!JDurand@apple.com Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Date: Sat, 25-Nov-89 10:44:32 PST Alex Baylin comments: >One day I walked-in just as the machine picked up a call. I heard >what sounded like my answering machine flashing the hook and playing >with call-waiting. >The line is a normal CO line with touch-tone and call-waiting. The >switch is 5ESS. What is happening is while one person is trying to leave a message, a second person calls. The loud click you hear before and after a call waiting tone is really a loop current drop. Loop current is only dropped on a normal phone call when the calling party hangs up. Your machine is seeing this drop and assuming the calling party has hung up. The fix is simple, turn off call waiting except when you are personally using the phone. Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. jdurand@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: You refer to this as simple? How do you 'turn off call waiting except when you are personally using the phone'? Please explain this. I don't know how it can be done. Call waiting is programmed in the CO; you can turn it *off* when you are using the phone with *70; but it comes back on when you disconnect. You can never turn it *on*, except by default when you replace the receiver. PT] ------------------------------ From: cy@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Cyril Bauer) Subject: Re: Home KSU ??? Date: 22 Nov 89 16:45:05 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN. I would sugest the 616. I don't know if panasonic left is alone but the one that I bought 3 years + ago doesn't need any special phone to program it. This made it about the same price as the 308 and gave me 6 lines and 16 stations. Has worked out great for me. UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!cy ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!cy@nosc.mil INET: cy@pnet51.orb.mn.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 18:49:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (A comment to an advice columnist in the [Chicago Sun Times] on Tuesday, November 21, and the columnist's reply.) Dear Zazz: My husband and I keep track of our child through a wireless Radio Shack intercom. We leave this baby monitor on all the time. Now we have learned that a neighbor in our apartment building brags of how he enjoys violating our privacy. He has a radio scanner that enables him to listen to our intercom. Supposedly, he can hear everything said in our apartment. He also listens to the conversations of neighbors who use cordless telephones. We have stopped using the intercom. Should I confront our neighbor about this? Signed, Bugged Dear Bugged, I spoke to folks at Radio Shack, who confirmed that someone with a scanner could pick up the soundtrack of life in a nearby apartment. (A scanner isn't even necessary. I've picked up another baby in my neighborhood -- a real screamer -- on my baby's monitor.) For safety's sake, don't stop using your monitor. These intercoms can be lifesavers, letting you know if your child is in trouble in another part of the house. But do consider confronting your neighbor. In most communities, peeping toms can be prosecuted. If you could prove to police and a court that your neighbor is maliciously using electronic equipment to keep tabs on your private lives, you might be able to file charges. In any case, confronting him could scare him into cutting it out. How might you confront him? One day, lean into your baby's monitor and say, "Hey, buddy, this message is for you. If you don't get your ears out of our home, and your nose out of our business, we're going to try our best to get you put in jail." ========= End of Columnist's Remarks ========= What a laugh! All I can say is if the average member of the public knew as much about cordless phones, cellular phones and sundry 'wireless intercoms' as the readers of TELECOM Digest they would *never* use such devices with any expectation of privacy; recently passed and poorly thought out federal laws not withstanding. And if our dear advice columnist -- he was hired when Ann Landers left to go to the [Chicago Tribune] -- had any brains, he would not make the suggestion that the Chicago Poh-leece and our courts have the time or inclination to give an iota about such wickedness by the neighbor. I hope your Thanksgiving holiday was as pleasant as mine. What a pity Monday is coming around , and another work-week is starting. See you tomorrow! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #532 *****************************   Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 23:52:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #533 Message-ID: <8911272352.aa16460@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Nov 89 23:50:48 CST Volume 9 : Issue 533 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Dan Sahlin) Re: Forest Park Hum (John Boteler) Re: Phones in the Movies (David A. Cantor) Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore (Marty Schulman) Re: Dialing Away US Area Codes (Carl Moore) Re: Calls With Area Code Prefixes (Fred Goldstein) Re: What Happened to the EOBS Book? (Randolph J. Herber) Re: Calling Cards (Steve Howard) Re: Coordinate Tape Info Request (Dave Esan) Re: Home KSU ??? (Hector Myerston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Sahlin Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 16:25:30 GMT This is a summary and some conclusions to answers to my question: "Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US?" John R. Levine came with the only relevant answer: > Actually, 00 is your long-distance company operator. The traditional AT&T > way to get international directory assistance is to call the operator, > hence dial 00 (or, I suppose, 10288-0). As no other numbers start with 00, it would be very simple in the US to start using it as the international prefix. Just like for numbers starting with 0, a timeout could be used to distinguish between calls to the long-distance company operator and the international prefix. Thus the US could then follow the international recommendations for international prefix (i.e. 00), instead of having 010 which is not used anywhere else in the world. I am dreaming the day when I can pick up a telephone anywhere in the world and dial home, always using the same number. Now many people avoid international calls because of all irregularities. I think the international traffic would increase, making all changes in the network quite worthwhile for the telephone companies. Dan Sahlin, dan@sics.se Sweden ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Forest Park Hum Date: Sat, 25 Nov 89 10:53:04 EST From: John Boteler ...they asked the tech why they were unable to sustain a modem connection. Ted Koppel writes: >His response was that they were victims of the 'Forest Park Hum'. He >described it as a well known phenomenon in which there is too much >(something) which causes hum on the lines to the point of inabaility >to transmit data. He said that they could buy a conditioned line or >something else very expensive to be able to use a modem. >[Moderator writes: I have never heard of such a thing; that is, an entire >community with noisy lines. How does the telepone man think the half >dozen BBS lines in Forest Park operate presently? All with dedicated, >clean lines?... >Sorry to say, there are some IBT employees who for whatever >reason are very antagonistic toward modem usage, dislike the use of >computers by people at home, and say *whatever* in response to >questions such as [that] posed. They'd love to sell a conditioned line for >the extra bucks per month. I hardly think this is the case here. Most likely, the man on the pole knows more about the condition of the local cable to that section of the community in which Ted's relatives live than anybody else, especially the business office. Perhaps he knows of a chronic problem with an ancient cable run which is leaking water internally, causing a ground, which in turn causes hum. This type of hum is caused by the difference in potential between the CO ground and the ground at that one point. If it is bad enough, it is possible that high speed modem connections could suffer. I find it doubtful that a lineman has any serious motivation for selling services which the business office probably can't even sell properly! Bote NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 18:42:36 -0800 From: "David A. Cantor 26-Nov-1989 1345" Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies In TELECOM Digest Volume 9 : Issue 518, David Lesher , asks >Anyone remember the 'Hot Line' in the "FLINT" movies? Flint had a >special phone, typically shaped as a Texas steer, (hint--guess who was >President) to call 'upstairs'. When it rang, it had a great sound >that defies description. Wish I had that for a common ringer on my >key system. I'm 99.44% sure that the sound was the TouchTone keys 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-*-0-# in progression. Dave C. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 07:28:26 EST From: Marty Schulman Subject: Re: Calling Number Delivery According to Bellcore Regarding Incoming Caller Identification (or whatever you call the service that transmits the number of the originating telephone between the 1st and 2nd rings): 1. Could somebody offer a brief list of telephones which will *not* be reported correctly (i.e. will people using PBX's have their number displayed properly? What about people calling long distance through various long distance companies? Are there other exceptions within the local dialing area? And do I get just the last seven digits, or area code too?) 2. With Call Waiting, my phone conversations are interrupted with two brief beeps when somebody's trying to call me. Suppose the telephone company wanted to replace those smooth-sounding beeps with FSK data bursts containing the number of the person calling. Would it entail an extensive modification to their equipment? Given the amplitude levels required by the decoding equipment, would the new "beeps" be too loud or "rude"? And if I was in the middle of a sentence when the FSK tones arrived, would the decoder be able to read them? Just curious. Thanks for any and all responses. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 11:46:45 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Dialing Away US Area Codes Comments (yes, I know these were copied from an article, so that "you" refers to the article's author): > ...152 available codes... > The current unassigned codes include 210, 310, 410, 706, 810, 905, > 909, 910 and 917. The Chicago area took the 708 code, and New Jersey > will take 908. How do you arrive at 152? There are 160 N0/1X numbers (eight N00 and eight N11 among them; also, 610 is not listed as available). As has been noted in this digest previously, there will be 903 in Texas and 510 in California. > Under the current plan, a 0 or a 1 is used as the second digit > while the first and last digits can range between 2 and 9. NO -- last digit can be 1; also there's upcoming 510. [Moderator's Note: I am still curious to find out the use of 710. This one is listed with the cryptic notation 'special goverment services' or 'government special services' with no further information posted in the listings of same. Does anyone have any ideas? PT] ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Calls With Area Code Prefixes Date: 27 Nov 89 16:59:42 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article , dgc@math.ucla.edu writes... >Can anyone tell me exactly how calls with area code prefixes are >handled? Previous messages on the handling of 700 calls left me with >some questions unanswered. I think that there are basically 4 cases: >1. 1-800 prefix Two answers on 800 service. Today, they use the "NXX" method. Each of the NXX codes (i.e., 800-221, 800-222, etc.) belongs to one or another LD carrier. The local telco simply hands it off. Each RBOC owns a few of its own, too, for intra-LATA use. "Tomorrow" (R.S.N.), there may be a huge telco-owned collective data base indicating which carrier carries each 800 number. So you will be able to switch carriers without changing 800 numbers. The problem is delay: There's a finite time it takes the telco to send the lookup request through the SS7 network to the data base engine (SCP). It delays call processing by a few seconds. Other than that, the technique works well. >2. 1-900 prefix Like 800 service today, each 900 prefix is handed off to an LD carrier. I don't think there are plans to change it. Note that the caller's default carrier is not meaningful for these SACs, since they're destination-selected. The list of who owns which was posted in this Digest a couple years back. Note that these are not area codes but service access codes. >3. 1-700 prefix This means "carrier specific number", so it's handed off to the default or selected carrier. Each carrier has its own 700 number space to do with as they see fit. >4. All other prefixes If it's intra-LATA, the telco just routes it. If it's inter-LATA, it goes to the default or (10xxx) selected carrier, who figures out what to do with it. >Why couldn't US Telecom just have you dial 11+local number if 1+ calls >(other than 10+ calls) all go to it? Is there some requirement that >exactly 10 digits follow the initial 1? and couldn't that be handled by >having the customer dial dummy 1's either at the beginning (say 1111) or >at the end of the number (111) at the end? The RBOCs are under no obligation to provide "equal access" for intra-LATA calls; that's their own bailiwick. If they did provide it, they'd have to do it equally, like for inter-LATA calls. The numbering plan only has room for so many hacks. It does involve digit counting, etc. fred ------------------------------ From: rjh@yclept.chi.il.us (Randolph J. Herber) Subject: Re: What Happened to the EOBS Book? Date: 18 Nov 89 18:00:59 GMT Reply-To: rjh@yclept.UUCP (Randolph J. Herber) Organization: Leptons and Quarks, Winfield, IL 60190-1412 In article jimmyk@dasys1.UUCP (James Kirchner) writes: > AT&T Bell Labs used to publish a book called Engineering and >Operations in the Bell System, known among Bell Labs employees as >"EOBS". Does anyone know if any revised copies were printed/published >after 1983? If so, does anyone know how to obtain this book? Thanks. I know that it was reprinted as late as 1986 -- I have a copy so dated. The book is Select Code 500-478. It is ordered via the AT&T Customer Information Center. > Call 1-800-432-6600 (U.S.A, maybe Canada), or 1-800-255-1242 (Canada). Write AT&T Customer Information Center P.O. Box 19901 Indianapolis, IN 46219 Randolph J. Herber, Computer Polymath, @ home: {att|amdahl|clout|mcdchg|laidbak|obdient|wheaton}!yclept!rjh, rjh@yclept.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 89 22:24:41 EST (Sun) From: Steve Howard Subject: Re: Calling Cards In article , narten@cs.albany.edu (Thomas Narten) writes: > There is a slight difference between AT&T calling cards and those > issued by your local carrier. [other stuff deleted] There is one other difference.... AT&T will NOT bill you for calls from an AOS with certain AT&T cards. I got a little pamphlet explaining this "feature" with my bill several months ago. There was a little note at the bottom that said that this only applied to card numbers beginning with 677-1 and a few other prefixes. (I'll see if I can find the pamphlet if anyone wants more information about it.) ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: Coordinate Tape Info Request Date: 27 Nov 89 20:03:03 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY This followup to an article bounced back here. I'll try again. In article you write: >Well, it is my understanding that the units in the V&H master database >are miles. This allows the milage based costing of the phone company >services to be calculated using the simple distance formula: >sqrt( (x1- x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2 ) >although the phone companies really use the following formula: >sqrt( ( (v1 - v2)^2 + (h1 -h2)^2 )/10 ). V and H coordinates are points on a grid spread over North America. Being points they will be dimensionless. One can calculate the distance between any two points using the V and the H coordinates and simple geometry - eg the distance is sqrt( (x1- x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2 ), as noted above. But this will be wrong. The Earth is round, and this distance will not be correct. There is a distance method given in FCC #10, page 13. Basically it is as follows: 1. Calculate the difference in V coordinates, and H coordinates. 2. Divide each by three. 3. Square the numbers and add them. 4. If the sum of the square is > 1777 go to step #2. (Forgive me for using a goto statement.) 5. If the sum of the square is < 1777 multiply it by a fudge factor based on the number of divisions done. 6. Take the square root of the product, and round up. Of course, if it is zoned city you have to worry if the distance is < 40 miles, in which case you have to recalculate using the zones coordinates rather than the master coordinates. Unless of course, this distance is greater than 40 miles, in which case you use the regular calculation. The distance between coordinates is supposed to be about 180 yards. (Maybe 173 yards = 1/10 mile?). The point (0,0) is someplace in the Atlantic. Unlike ATT which calculates that cost of a call to Puerto Rico based on 3 costing bands, Sprint calculates the mileage using a fake coordinate that has a negative H component. --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 27 Nov 89 09:13 PDT Subject: Re: Home KSU ??? Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Panasonic did "improve" the 616 as Cyril Bauer mentions. The new model is the 61610 which is improved by: o Being able to use 616XX phone which look like normal Key Sets (and require 4 wires) o Deleting the very useful 25-pair connector on the 616 o Requiring at least one 616XX with LCD set to program o Adding an option card which supports 2 doorphones Either is a great buy if you can find one. Several I have installed have been humming away for 4 or 5 years with 0 trouble. You could probably cost-justify one every six months vs Merlin. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #533 *****************************   Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 21:11:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #534 Message-ID: <8911282111.aa03773@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Nov 89 21:10:14 CST Volume 9 : Issue 534 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (Ed Ravin) Bell Canada to Offer CLASS (Ken Jongsma) The Comp.Dcom.Telecom Gateway Has Moved (Chip Rosenthal) Reorder Tone With Sprint (Roger Clark Swann) Multi-Point Signaling Systems? (Stuart Friedberg) NJ A/C Split and Cellular (Louis J. Judice) How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (S. M. Krieger) Do Modem Users Congest the Phone Network? (Joe Wells) Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (Cyril Bauer) Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (Herbert Kanner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) Subject: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? Date: 26 Nov 89 23:29:52 GMT Organization: The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game In New York From recent postings in comp.dcom.telecom, it appears that many colleges and universities have become the telephone company for their students living in on-campus housing. The recent nasty example was Columbia, who charges $5 for each collect call to a student, turns off an account if the long distance bill exceeds $100, provides service to the students via a Rolm switch that forces them to pay extra for data connections (sorry, no modems), charging for incomplete calls, and more. Similiar insensitive behavior has been reported at the University of Stony Brook, including insufficient trunk allocation (the cheapskates don't buy enough incoming trunks so every phone on campus appears busy during peak periods). Why aren't these local telephone service providers (for, in essence, that's what they are) regulated by their respective state public service commissions? If Columbia is adding $5 to the cost of a collect call, they should have to file a tariff with the state first. I strongly urge students at any school with an attitude like Columbia's to write to their state's public utilities commission documenting abuses that no ordinary telephone company could get away with and asking for relief. The address to complain to should be near the front of your local telephone directory (the real one, not the one provided by your school). Send copies of your letters and responses to comp.dcom.telecom. Colleges and universities can only get away with this crap if their students and staff let them! Ed Ravin | hombre!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing (BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| eravin@dasys1.UUCP | to waste-- boycott TV!" Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article. ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Bell Canada to Offer CLASS Date: Mon, 27-Nov-89 16:03:16 PST Bell Canada is planning to offer CLASS services throughout Canada within the next 5 years. Ottawa will be first to get CLASS, including the CallerID function, in May of 1990. Montreal gets it in February of 1991, followed by the rest of the country. A few differences between the US RBOCs and Bell Canada: Bell Canada will lease a phone with the display feature built in, rather than make it's users buy a separate unit. (Presumably subscribers will have the option of buying a box officially or unofficialy - I can't see the interface being unique to Bell Canada). No objections have been raised by Canadian civil rights groups to the CallerID feature. The consensus being that the rights of the called party are as important as those of the calling party. Bell Canada will not enable selective blocking of the CallerID feature. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: The Comp.Dcom.Telecom Gateway Has Moved Date: 28 Nov 89 06:05:05 GMT Reply-To: chip@chinacat.lonestar.org Organization: this space for rent Due to a job change, vector.dallas.tx.us is no longer available to gateway the TELECOM Digest into USENET. As of issue 532, the gateway now resides on chinacat.lonestar.org. For better or worse, I am still administering the gateway, and hopefully the only visible change will be a different originating site name in the article headers. However, please bear with me the next issue or two just in case. Something about expecting the unexpected and Murphy's Law... Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Chinacat will be crated up at some point to be hauled across state. At that time, another move of the gateway will be necessary. ptownson, jsol, and myself (as well as folks at eecs.nwu.edu) are planning this transition, so hopefully all these changes will occur smoothly. Although several folks are working to make this happen without interruption, to date it's been my fingers doing the changes, so all gripes and flames should be directed to me. Chip Rosenthal // chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG // texbell!chinacat!chip Someday the whole country will be one vast "Metroplex" - Zippy's friend Griffy [Moderator's Note: Of course, there is no change in message handling here at the Digest itself. All cussing and discussing, hate messages, love letters, etc. should be sent as always to 'telecom@eecs.nwu.edu', 'telecom@ nuacca.bitnet', 'telecom@hogbbs.fidonet.org', or from a Fido site, write to 'Telecom Digest 129/87'. PT] ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Reorder Tone with Sprint Date: 28 Nov 89 17:10:57 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA I ran into a strange one last evening trying to call across state (area 206 to area 509). I was using Sprint by dialing the prefix 10333 as I have done many times in the past and got a reorder tone ( fast busy ) immediately after the final (eleventh) digit. I of course assumed user error and re-dialed. Same thing again. Used the redial key ten or so times with the same result. I then thought that all the trunks are busy for some reason, so maybe I could get around this by using my FON card and its 800 access number. To my surprise, I got the same re-order tone after dialing the 800-877-8000 access ???? Tried this several times with the no success. I was ready to give up and try ATT when the computer BUZZ tone came one the line... dialed the number and the account number and the call went right through. I have never had this happen to me before and don't recall anyone here on telecom making a reference to something like this. And yes the number I was calling is on my frequently dialed list and I have used ATT, MCI and Sprint to make the call in the past. Again, strange... Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ From: Stuart Friedberg Subject: Multi-Point Signaling Systems? Date: 29 Nov 89 00:58:14 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Friedberg Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept I'd like references to signaling systems for multi-point telecommunications. I know what the current state of "internet multicasting" is, and am trying to learn what the CCITT and friends do in this area. I am interested in present (conference calls) and proposed (ISDN multipoint) systems, standard or otherwise. Stuart Friedberg (stuart@cs.wisc.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 06:59:13 -0800 From: "Louis J. Judice 27-Nov-1989 0951" Subject: NJ A/C Split and Cellular Of course the fun thing about the impending A/C split here is how it will confuse cellular users... It will be almost mandatory to use at least 10-digit dialing on most calls. Along the 201/908 border it's fairly hilly, and the location of most of the cell sites. What A/C you're synched up with will be virtually random - in fact I live on a hill in Somerset County, and it's almost hit or miss when dialing near the house whether I end up on a Bernardsville cell or the Trenton cell (40 miles south - in 609 area code). And just to keep it interesting, my cellular phone is assigned a Newark exchange in 201, while I live and work in 908. The annoying thing about all of this is that it's all interesting and fun for we enthusiasts, but it will be a nightmare for the general public. Regarding Dave Levenson's comments taken from the Newark Star Ledger... Dave, all of Somerset County will be in 908 (including all of Basking Ridge [really Bernards Twp].) I would tend to believe that 11 digit dialing will eventually be needed throughout the state. The 908 section is all of Somerset, Middlesex, Monmouth, Hunterdon and Warren, and the southermost section of Morris County, and the little slice of Ocean now in 201 (Lakewood Area). Lou Judice Digital Equipment Corporation Piscataway, NJ 201-562-4103 (but not for long!) ------------------------------ From: S M Krieger Subject: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Date: 27 Nov 89 14:29:28 GMT Organization: Summit NJ Since my LATA and area code (201) are one and the same, it's easy for me to know when I am making an inter-LATA call. But, how does LD carrier selection and inter-LATA dialing work when an inter-LATA call is within the same area code (such as between the Atlantic coast and Delaware River valley LATAs of area code 609)? Here are a few specific questions that I have: 1. Can just the 7 digit number be used to call across LATA boundaries within the same area code? 2. If someone wants to use an alternate LD carrier, is it necessary to dial 1+a/c+7 digits after 10xxx or just 10xxx and 7 digits? 3. Is there anything else I should be asking but am not? Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ From: Joe Wells Subject: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Date: 29 Nov 89 01:52:24 GMT Organization: Boston University Computer Science Department [Moderator's Note: The original message, noted by reference here, was in the comp.unix news group. It was transferred here to promote discussion of the topic by TELECOM Digest readers. PT] In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. If 20% of households were simultaneously engaged in any kind of calls, large sections of the phone system would be hopelessly bogged down. If they were all long distance calls, it would be even worse. Modem use isn't necessary for the calls to hurt phone system performance. Joe Wells jbw%bucsf.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu ...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsf!jbw ------------------------------ From: cy@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Cyril Bauer) Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Date: 27 Nov 89 21:45:08 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN. I have a Panasonic but don't have the same set-up as you. My past recorder was a Panasonic too. Let me know what you find out, I've always had good luck with them -- 6 years plus service. cy UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!cy ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!cy@nosc.mil INET: cy@pnet51.orb.mn.org ------------------------------ From: Herbert Kanner Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Date: 28 Nov 89 18:47:02 GMT Organization: Development Systems Group, Apple Computer In article alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 530, message 2 of 11 >A few month ago I bought a replacement for my old Panasonic answering >machine. I was very happy with the last one, so I bought another >Panasonic. This time it is a KX-T1740 with two line capability. >A few weeks after connecting it up I noticed that time to time I get a >message that consists of a few clicks and nothing else. Then I >started getting complaints from people that they leave me messages and >I do not call back. Finally I connected the two. Most of the time >when someone complains about me ignoring a call, I have gotten a >"click-click" message. >I returned this machine to the store and got a new one in exchange. >Same thing - some messages disappered. It also seems that some people >are subject to this phenomena more then others, though it is rare and >so hard to duplicate that I would not want to bet on that statment. >One day I walked-in just as the machine picked up a call. I heard >what sounded like my answering machine flashing the hook and playing >with call-waiting. >The line is a normal CO line with touch-tone and call-waiting. The >switch is 5ESS. >Before I go and cancel my call-waiting service or send my machine to >Panasonic for more testing, thought I'd bounce this one from telecom >readers. Anybody with a similar experience or with Panasonic >answering machines on a line with call-waiting? Ideas, suggestions, >etc. would be appreciated. I have a one-line Panasonic machine which I think has the same logic as your two-liner. It's model number is 1470. There is a switch, referred to in the instructions, which has to do with automatic detection of a hang-up by the caller. This hang-up produces a momentary voltage drop on the phone line, and unfortunately call waiting does the same thing. The answering machine detects this drop and disconnects. The purpose was to avoid getting about seven seconds worth of blank tape when your caller hangs up; you see, the answering machine will also disconnect after enough seconds of silence. The instruction book said that if you had call waiting, you should flip that switch on the answering machine and disable this rapid disconnect feature. You would then have to put up with these tape trailers after your caller stops talking and hangs up. Personally, I wouldn't have call waiting if they offered it to me for free. Herb Kanner Apple Computer, Inc. {idi,nsc}!apple!kanner kanner@apple.com [Moderator's Note: Funny you should mention it. Illinois Bell had a recent promotion in which they *did* it away free to new users who bought other custom calling features. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #534 *****************************   Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 0:54:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #535 Message-ID: <8911290054.aa26413@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Nov 89 00:50:55 CST Volume 9 : Issue 535 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (TELECOM Moderator) Wrong Numbers From Directory Assistance (Henry Mensch) My First Experience With Stupid LD Carriers (Bill Fenner) Re: Comms Program Needed (Richard S. Walker) Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland (Lars J. Poulsen) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (John Higdon) Re: Who is the Top Telco? (G. Ahrendt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 0:16:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA I never cease to be amazed at the careless and sometimes ignorant handling of international calls for directory assistance by AT&T Operators. Maybe Chicago is an exception to the rule. Maybe every other city in the USA with an AT&T Operating Center has nice, pleasant, well-trained operators with good diction and an understanding of international telephone customs. Is there anyone here besides me old enough to remember White Plains, NY and the well-trained operators who handled international traffic in the 1950 - 1960 period? At my place of full time employment, I work for a firm of attornies, or else they all work for me, I forget which. I talk to clients of our firm around the world almost every day. When the difference in times is too dramatic, i.e. Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and India -- ah yes! -- India! -- I take the file home with me, set my alarm clock for 0300 hours, get out of bed, go sit in my office at home and call India or wherever, to exhort and harangue people in far away places to pay their bills or settle whatever grievance our client may have with them. **Getting the phone number is ninety percent of the battle!** Directory Assistance in some countries -- India comes to mind -- is the absolute pits. Compound that with what passes for an AT&T Operator these days, and thirty minutes can easily pass just getting the number! No two operators handle it the same way: some insist on making twice the work, by requiring me to give them all the details of the person or business I am trying to reach. I have to spell it two or three times for them. Then, and only then, they try to reach Delhi, only to dial three times, and three times in a row get the response, 'your international call cannot be completed at this time in the country you are calling', meaning all circuits busy. So we have wasted five minutes because the operator was never trained as in the olden days to do what is called 'overlap'; that is, set up the connection to DA and collect the information from the caller while waiting for Delhi to respond. Tuesday night I spent 27 minutes, with *seven different attempts* trying to get DA in Delhi. One operator attempted six times, and six times in a row got intercepted with 'your call cannot be completed as dialed', which she insisted to me meant all circuits were busy. When another operator did finally get a circuit to Delhi, and had collected all the information from me after several painful attempts, she sat there screaming at Delhi to the point it became an embarassment to me: 'Hello New Delhi! This is the United States!!!! We want Directory Assistance!!!!! Hello, can you hear me!!!!!!!!!!!!' Her ethnic accent was terrible, her diction very poor, and the poor operator in Delhi kept screaming back that she could not understand what it was we wanted. The AT&T Operator was spelling the name wrong, mispronouncing the section of of the city, and not letting me get a word in edgewise. Finally, Delhi abandoned the call, my operator tried again, got an NC condition four times in a row and told me to try some other time. And this is not a rare occurance. It is a daily thing for me. AT&T wants to be a leader in international calls, yet there is no provision for direct-dial directory assistance; many operators are very poorly trained, and the customer is always wrong and knows nothing of what he speaks. Do any operators speak a second language? No! Do any realize how phone systems work in other countries? No! Apparently AT&T quit training their operators with anything other than a simple knowledge of how to press a few buttons sometime around thirty years ago. Why did they get rid of the White Plains international operators several years ago? Why did they dispense with Pittsburg a few years ago? And if I wrote a letter of complaint tomorrow to the Chairman I would receive back a reply in a few days; not from the Chairman, mind you, but from some highly-placed flunky authorized to respond in his name, thanking me and apologizing. And what would change? Nothing! Yet AT&T keeps wondering why their long-time customers are abandoning them in droves. Maybe they could reverse the trend if they would take the people in the front ranks -- the people who deal with customers day in and day out -- the operators and service representatives -- and train them properly. At least that would be a start. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 21:20:10 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Wrong Numbers From Directory Assistance Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu If you get a wrong number from Directory Assistance, is there any point in calling them and letting them know, or do they just bitbucket this information and keep giving out the wrong number? # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / [Moderator's Note: They will start giving out a different number when the data-base lists a different number, and not before. That's because computers don't make mistakes and customers never know anything. I suppose you could call the business office to report your finding, some day when you have ten minutes to kill listening to muzak-on-hold. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 21:51:26 EST From: Bill Fenner Subject: My First Experience With Stupid LD Carriers I had my first experience with call supervision problems today. But first, a little history. When I ordered my telephone line, I was too young (or something) to have the service billed in my name (no proof of ability to pay). So I took care of ordering service, and my father called them to just say "Yes, it's OK." They asked me which long-distance carrier I wanted: ITT or AT&T. Well, I chose ITT, just for the heck of it; I never expected to make many long distance calls. The line was for my computer, which was running a BBS, and why in the world would a BBS make outgoing calls? That, of course, was before I discovered FidoNet. Now my BBS makes several long-D calls a month. I always got my ITT bill as part of my Bell of PA bill, but it was about 3 months delayed. I wondered why in the world it was always 3 months late, but didn't bother to do anything about it; I figured ITT was just lazy. So I open the mail this morning and find a quarter-inch thick phone bill. When I came to, I took a look at it. 580 one-minute calls to Texas. Hmm. So I called the number that was on the bill, and got a Bell of PA rep. He said "Oh, ITT bills if you let it ring more than 45 seconds." I said "*WHAT???* That's hardly fair. How am I supposed to know that?" He mumbled something about he wasn't told it himself; he found it out during an investigation of another problem. Like we weren't supposed to know. So he conferred with his supervisor, and said "Ok, we'll take the charges off this month's bill, but that's it, you have to fix your computer not to let it ring for 45 seconds." I said "Wait, they're billing me 3 months behind, what if there are more of these calls?" He said, "Well, you should have set up an account with ITT to get your bills quicker." Again, "Nobody told me that!". So he said he'd take any one-minute calls to that number off my bill up to today (11-28-89). I said I was satisfied with that, and then he transferred me to ITT to set up an account. First, no one answered the main number after about 20 rings, so he went and looked up another number and got a representative. She took the phone number I was calling about, and a phone number to reach me at, and said that the person who is in charge of adding accounts was busy and I would get a call back in 15 minutes. I was around for several hours afterwards and did not get a call. I could also not get anyone to answer on their main number. So I finally managed to get the Bell of PA rep to get me what I wanted, although it took a bit of prodding and 3 or 4 consultations with his supervisor. ITT's customer service seems to be nonexistent, so far. The practice of charging after 45 seconds of ringing is pretty ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. Do other carriers do this? As far as I can tell, ITT's rates are about 2/3 of AT&T's, at least for the calls that I have been making. Anyone have another carrier to suggest? Relatively inexpensive, doesn't do stupid things, etc. Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ ------------------------------ From: "WALKER,RICHARD S" Subject: Re: Comms Program Needed Date: 28 Nov 89 22:56:16 GMT Reply-To: "WALKER,RICHARD S" Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology There is an old PD program called Omega Term that was written is assembler. The program is very fast and very similar to an older version of QMODEM or ProComm. I have a copy archived somewhere. It should fit within the memory limitations as I once had it running on a PC Junior. There is also a program called Tiny Talk (about 11K) that will give you basic communications. Let me know if I can help. Richard S. Walker Georgia Tech Research Institute GA Tech Box 35302 swalker@gtri01.gatech.edu (vm) Atlanta, GA 30332 swalker@vms62a.gatech.edu (vms) CIS: 177000, 647 gt5302b@prism.gatech.edu (unix) (404) 894-7162 !{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5302b The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect that of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 17:11:14 GMT In article pat@cs.cornell.edu writes: >I'm thinking of taking a cordless phone from the US to my parents in >Dublin, Ireland. > 1) Will it work (ie are signal levels compatible) Undoubtedly. Telephone systems are pretty universal; actually they may be the most standard technology around. The biggest question is pulse dialing: - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA. I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect. In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses. In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses, and so on, until "9" which is ten pulses. To find out the status of this, ask your parents to look at the dials on rotary telephones. If "0" is to the left of "9" rather than to the right of "1", then dialling in pulse mode may require translation of the keys. This is usually not convenient for older people. - Tone dialing is the same. But Ireland may not have universal tone service. (UK has a large percentage of pulse-only lines; would expect Ireland to be in the same boat.) > 2) How do I connect it? My parents do not have modular sockets. The >phone line is terminated in a black box about 3" by 3" by 1". The >cord from the P&T supplied telephone terminates in what looks like an >oversize headphone jack that is plugged into this black box. It >appears to carry 4 connections (three signals and ground, I presume). >(I'm pretty sure that the Irish phone system will use the same signal >levels, etc. as the British one.) Probably the lines are two-wire service. The third non-ground is probably only used on feature-rich business lines. What I have done in a similar situation a few years ago was to buy a modular phone extension cord (cord and coupler) and buy a extension cord; then cut both in the middle and splice with a soldering iron and electrician's tape. Wherever the phone company has a monopoly on Customer premise Equipment, this is the only simple and legal way to get a connector. >Any advice or hints that people have to offer would be appreciated. >PS Yes, I realise that I'll need a 220->110 transformer. I would try to discourage you from doing this. A cordless phone includes two radio transmitters, and all European PTTs take a VERY dim view of unlicensed broadcasting. If a cop picks your parents' phone up on a scanner and tracks them down, they would be liable to a fine of about $2500 to $5000 and forfeiture of the equipment. Plus the phone company might decide to terminate their service. Does the Irish PTT offer cordless phones ? If so, there would be much less danger of being caught. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 29 Nov 89 04:13:37 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , telecom@eecs.nwu. edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > What a laugh! All I can say is if the average member of the public > knew as much about cordless phones, cellular phones and sundry > 'wireless intercoms' as the readers of TELECOM Digest they would > *never* use such devices with any expectation of privacy; recently > passed and poorly thought out federal laws not withstanding. One of those "poorly thought out federal laws" concerns the monitoring of cellular traffic. Scanners are blocked from receiving the 800 MHz cellular band and I've heard that you can get at least a slap on the wrist for violating these provisions (listening to cellular calls). From where I am sitting at the keyboard, I can see two communications receivers that I use in conjunction with my work. Both are perfectly capable of tuning from low band VHF right on through UHF and everything in between. Are these radios now clandestine? Am I OK as long as I don't saunter over and turn one on and tune it to a cellular frequency? And if I do, who is going to know? What are the detection and enforcement provisions of the cellular privacy law? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: munnari!vaxa.uwa.oz.au!G_AHRENDT@uunet.uu.net Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 10:11:48 wst Subject: Re: Who is the Top Telco? Siemens is the TOP TELCO. [Moderator's Note: Oh yeah? Informal poll time. What say you others? Send in replies; if I get enough I will make a Digest out of them. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #535 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 0:52:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #536 Message-ID: <8911300052.aa22944@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Nov 89 00:51:01 CST Volume 9 : Issue 536 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (Larry Rachman) Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (Edward Greenberg) Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (John Higdon) Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Piet van Oostrum) Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (John Owens) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (Ed Greenberg) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (John Higdon) Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (John Higdon) Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (Karl Denninger) Re: Calling Cards (John Owens) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 89 08:22:15 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? In a recent article, Ed Ravin laments about the abuses College Telcos perpetrate upon students, and calls for more PSC involvement. I'm not sure what its like today, but in 1976, in New York, there was a section of the Public Service Commission Tarrifs dealing specificly with so-called "Centrex Dormitory Service". Among the features of this "service" were: If you wanted a phone, it was your only option. You took the number they gave you, even if it was subject to crank and abusive calls. They wouldn't sell you Touchtone, even though (at Stony Brook - #5 XBAR) it worked by default on about half the lines. Intercept messages for disconnected lines would not be provided. Your had no choice of equipment (this was back when TELCO provided it). ...and so forth. On the up side, there was a clause about how the University Centrex attendants would provide. "...all Centrex services" for dormitory customers. This raised quite a few eyebrows when I read it to the Telecom manager, and did result in an end to the policy of refusing to transfer student calls. The problem is that a student body is by nature a transient population, and really can't make much of an impact on a regulatory body that takes years to make a change. The only solution that comes to mind is the possibility of bypassing the whole mess, via an infra-red (or microwave) link to a private house down the block. Larry Rachman ------------------------------ From: Edward Greenberg Subject: Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? Date: 29 Nov 89 19:38:34 GMT Reply-To: Edward Greenberg Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175} In the State of New York, Dormitory Service was a tarriffed item, back when it was provided by the Telco. I'm reminded of a student (I think this was Larry Rachman, another reader of the digest who may post in response, if he has anything to add) who successfully challenged a campus policy disallowing call transfer from dorm phones. The problem may be that the law (or the PSC/PUC) doesn't consider a residence provider to be a telecom provider as well, treating it like hotel service instead. -edg Ed Greenberg +1 415-694-2952 (day) uunet!apple!netcom!edg edg@cso.3mail.3com.com 76703,1070 on CompuServe ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? Date: 30 Nov 89 04:00:20 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) writes: > Why aren't these local telephone service providers (for, in essence, > that's what they are) regulated by their respective state public > service commissions? Simply put, they are not a common carrier or a utility. It is a private phone system in which they happen to have a means of billing associated users for their calls. This is not unlike a business keeping SMDR records and then billing its employees for suspected personal calls. If the university owns the system, it has the right to do with it what it pleases. As a student, you are not "the public". You are a "client" of the organization. Even if the school hires an outside firm to administer the operation, it is still considered a "closed system". > I strongly urge students at any school with an attitude like > Columbia's to write to their state's public utilities commission > documenting abuses that no ordinary telephone company could get away > with and asking for relief. Sorry, but I really don't think they will be interested. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Date: 29 Nov 89 11:22:25 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht, Holland In article , dan@sics (Dan Sahlin) writes: `This is a summary and some conclusions to answers to my question: `"Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US?" `As no other numbers start with 00, it would be very simple in the US to `start using it as the international prefix. `instead of having 010 which is not used anywhere else in the world. The UK also has 010. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31-30-531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31-30-513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Date: 29 Nov 89 10:15:19 EST (Wed) From: John Owens On Nov 26, 4:25pm, Dan Sahlin wrote: > Thus the US could then follow the > international recommendations for international prefix (i.e. 00), > instead of having 010 which is not used anywhere else in the world. We would still need a way of distinguishing between calls billed to the calling number and operator-assisted or calling-card billing. We dial 011+country+city+number for a direct-billed station-to-station call, and 010+country+city+number to get person-to-person calls and credit-card, collect, or third-party billing. (I've seen 01 used in place of 010, but I believe that both are accepted.) I suppose we could use 00 for direct calls (which seems to be the international standard) and 000 for operator-assisted calls, but given the use of 00 for an LD operator (which is obscure enough alone that few people understand it), this seems like it would confuse things even further. John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Edward Greenberg Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Date: 29 Nov 89 19:46:31 GMT Reply-To: Edward Greenberg Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175} In article smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: (Asks some questions about interlata dialing in the same area code.) Here in San Jose, I am in the 408 area, which is split between two LATA's. North of "the summit" which is the hills south of San Jose, we're in the San Francisco LATA, which stretches to the Oregon border. South of that, they're in the Monterey LATA. >Here are a few specific questions that I have: > 1. Can just the 7 digit number be used to call across LATA > boundaries within the same area code? YES. It's transparent to the user. The default LD carrier is chosen. > 2. If someone wants to use an alternate LD carrier, is it > necessary to dial 1+a/c+7 digits after 10xxx or just > 10xxx and 7 digits? Just 10288+7digits works fine. > > 3. Is there anything else I should be asking but am not? > The meaning of life, perhaps? (sorry.) Actually, mileage on this may differ around the country, but here in 408 land, it's all pretty well laid out. At least where Pacific Bell is concerned. P.S. Hi Stan. I'm used to seeing you in another newsgroup. Glad to see you here. Ed Greenberg +1 415-694-2952 (day) uunet!apple!netcom!edg edg@cso.3mail.3com.com 76703,1070 on CompuServe ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Date: 30 Nov 89 04:07:37 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: > But, how does LD > carrier selection and inter-LATA dialing work when an inter-LATA call > is within the same area code (such as between the Atlantic coast and > Delaware River valley LATAs of area code 609)? Here in Backwardtelephoneland, it is very simple. You dial the seven-digit number, or if you are LD shopping, dial 10XXX + seven-digit number. The northern part of 408 is in the San Francisco LATA, while the rest of the area code serves the Monterey LATA. To call a number in Monterey, I just dial the number (no area code). BTW, it costs much less to call Monterey than to call San Francisco, which is closer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Date: 30 Nov 89 04:25:08 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , jbw@bucsf.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes: > In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: > I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above > consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they > usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an > estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, > the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. Even walking in in the middle of this discussion, it is apparent that the issue involves some phone company or another wanting to soak customers extra for using modems on the line. This has been popping up from time to time since modems have been in general use by the public. As anyone reading this knows, what noise goes over a line has no effect on how much it costs the telco to carry the call. So the other issue appears to be amount of use. This, too, is a crock. Presumably, someone with a modem might find himself logged into a service or bbs for hours at a time. What about families with teenagers who also park on the phone for hours at a time? Also, this is off-peak use. It would be very amazing if residential users could, during evening hours, present anywhere near the load that commercial customers do during business hours. Also, penalizing modem customers across the board is somewhat unfair. My home computer has four phone lines, two for UUCP and two for users. The UUCP lines have Telebit Trailblazers on them and the resultant "conversations" are very short, on the order of a couple of minutes at the most. Usage on these lines is probably somewhat less than if each served a house with school-aged children. Why should a premium be charged there? Remember, if the telco network can handle the business-day load, residential traffic is a walk in the park, no matter what they're up to. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 19:35:18 GMT In article jbw@bucsf.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes: >In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: > I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above > consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they > usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an > estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, > the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. >If 20% of households were simultaneously engaged in any kind of calls, >large sections of the phone system would be hopelessly bogged down. If >they were all long distance calls, it would be even worse. Modem use >isn't necessary for the calls to hurt phone system performance. That may be true, but the contention that all modem users are pigs and sit online for hours while no one else does is ludicrous. Some modem users use the modem to get their information and then sign off. Some stay online. Some voice users use the phone to get their information and hang up. Some, like the teenagers I know, call sit and talk for literally HOURS at a time, every day! I have a few friends who have a teen, and they are on the phone more than I am with my modem - - yet I am a >heavy< modem user! There isn't a difference here. When the FCC surcharges all families with a teen in the house (on the premise that some teens will abuse the phone network with multi-hour long calls) then I will accept that modem users should be subjected to the same thing. Not until then. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: Re: Calling Cards Date: 29 Nov 89 10:07:41 EST (Wed) From: John Owens On Nov 19, 3:52pm, Pete Holsberg wrote: > I've looked at the small print but still can't tell the difference > between my AT&T Calling Card and my NJBell IQ card. [and a number of responses indicate that there is no real difference] There is one difference I have noted: the AT&T card-reader phones won't take the Bell cards, but will take the AT&T cards, even though the numbers are the same. Also, the one or two card-reading Bell-owned payphones that I've used won't take the AT&T card, but will take the Bell card (and will also take MCI and Sprint FON cards). Apparently, you can get cards from AT&T that are not in any Bell database, and which AOS's cannot use; they start with a number which is not a valid NPA. If I were to give our number to anyone except myself and my wife (like a kid away at school or something), I'd get one of these to avoid accidental AOS charges. John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #536 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 2:02:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #537 Message-ID: <8911300202.aa03620@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Nov 89 02:00:19 CST Volume 9 : Issue 537 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (Daniel M. Rosenberg) Re: Home KSU ??? (Bob Clements) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA Date: 29 Nov 89 16:27:05 GMT Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office Patrick Townsend, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >I never cease to be amazed at the careless and sometimes ignorant >handling of international calls for directory assistance by AT&T >Operators. [...] >Is there anyone here besides me old enough to remember White Plains, >NY and the well-trained operators who handled international traffic in >the 1950 - 1960 period? I remember them from a call to Italy in 1974. Wern't they around as recent as 1983? I seem to remember a call attempt through a local TSPS operator who called N.Y. to attempt also. > **Getting the phone number is ninety percent of the battle!** >Directory Assistance in some countries -- India comes to mind -- is >the absolute pits. Compound that with what passes for an AT&T Operator >these days, and thirty minutes can easily pass just getting the >number! >No two operators handle it the same way: some insist on making twice >the work, by requiring me to give them all the details of the person >or business I am trying to reach........... I think that was courtesy of us at MCI who also used AT&T to reach Intl. DA. As a matter of fact, we had 'special lines' to do that with. 'Special Lines' meaning that we had some local POTS lines with AT&T as the primary carrier, so that some TSPS/TOPS operator didn't ask the usual 'Is AT&T Your Primary Carrier???' when our number displayed on her console with the notation that we otherwise would have dialed via 10288+ >times for them. Then, and only then, they try to reach Delhi, only to >dial three times, and three times in a row get the response, 'your >international call cannot be completed at this time in the country you >are calling',............ I do remember it was amusing that when MCI got so-called 'World-Wide Calling', I would get AT&T's tandem recording ('415-4T') when the call would not make it. We were told that we were using Megacom lines to pass international traffic that we didn't have direct or transit lines for, but our customers didn't know that! >Tuesday night I spent 27 minutes, with *seven different attempts* >trying to get DA in Delhi. One operator attempted six times, and six >times in a row got intercepted with 'your call cannot be completed as >dialed', which she insisted to me meant all circuits were busy........ You HAVE to remember the country that you're calling!!! Even when we got transit lines to India (through Italy, I think), it was still the same, 90 percent blockage and the worst lines I could ever think of. I thought FTS lines without echo-cancellers were bad, but try to do international lines with no E/C's!!! Like talking into a 1000 mile tin can........ (FTS = Federal Telecommuncations System) >another operator did finally get a circuit to Delhi, and had collected >all the information from me after several painful attempts, she sat >there screaming at Delhi to the point it became an embarassment to me: >'Hello New Delhi! This is the United States!!!! We want Directory >Assistance!!!!! Hello, can you hear me!!!!!!!!!!!!'......... I have nothing but sympathy for you. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life in India. >And this is not a rare occurance. It is a daily thing for me. AT&T >wants to be a leader in international calls, yet there is no provision >for direct-dial directory assistance;.................. I thought I'd NEVER see the day I'd be defending AT&T, BUT GUESS WHAT..... How CAN you have direct dial Intl DA??? For maybe a few countries that could handle the traffic, fine. But then you have the problem of the other countries that cannot speak good English, have poor lines (which would cause the customer to hang up and re-try, causing more congestion), callers who just want some number with no intention of calling the number in question, etc. You just can't do it right now. Now, if you had an electronic database available between telcos/post offices, this conversation would be moot. >.................................... many operators are very poorly >trained, and the customer is always wrong and knows nothing of what he >speaks. Do any operators speak a second language? No! Do any realize >how phone systems work in other countries? No! Right on the mark. But remember your key words there: "Very poorly trained"..... Where do you think the cutbacks started when AT&T started losing the market??? It's really didn't take that much to learn a TSPS position, and now the new TOPS positions, everything is available on the keyboard in front of the operator. At least this was probably the thinking when the training budgets were chopped..... >Why did they get rid of the White Plains international operators >several years ago? Why did they dispense with Pittsburg a few years >ago? When I worked the 4 short (fortunately!) months at MCI customer service in San Francisco, one of the first things I did was to compile a list of the other countries DA numbers, and call them directly, and I didn't interrogate the customer first for name, rank, and serial number. Even though I did hate customer service, it was no reason to take it out on the callers, and nosy supervisors made sure of that. >And if I wrote a letter of complaint tomorrow to the Chairman I would >receive back a reply in a few days; not from the Chairman, mind you, >but from some highly-placed flunky authorized to respond in his name, >thanking me and apologizing. And what would change? Nothing! For the average person, unfortunately, yes. You, on the other hand, should know by now that probably he's on attmail somewhere, just like Bill McGowan is on MCI Mail, and probably US Sprint's CEO is on Telemail. >Yet AT&T keeps wondering why their long-time customers are abandoning >them in droves. Maybe they could reverse the trend if they would take >the people in the front ranks -- the people who deal with customers >day in and day out -- the operators and service representatives -- and >train them properly. At least that would be a start. I believe that is not only a start, it should not have gotten to this point to begin with. Remember, that when you get an AT&T operator on line, and the operator has an attitude problem, he/she is representing AT&T, and I would take it as the actual attitude of the company he/she is representing, and a letter so worded to the local Customer Service Director or VP would probably be listened to a lot more closely (with CC:'s noted in the letter to the usual telco publications like Communcations Week). Remember, CEO's are only worried about the future of the companies, but local Directors/VP's are more worried about day-to-day operations and looking good to get out of those positions (ie: Promotions). Can You Say 'Disclaimer'??? I knew you could...... I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF!!! | Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Ops Center | | NASA Science Internet Project, Bldg 233-8, Moffett Field, CA. 94035-5000 | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"I want some......I need some......Emotion.....And More........" (a song) | [Moderator's Note: Thank you for your remarks. A brief response is in order: Like Oscar Wilde, I could care less what is said about me in the [electronic] papers as long as they spell my name correctly. It suffixes with 'son'; not 'send'. The way to implement and administer DA on an international basis is the way it is done here in the USA: Dial country code + city code + 555-1212. Let the gateway switches translate that into an actual number, just as '6ll', '411', '911' and '800-xxx-yyyy' are presently translated into whatever number(s) they ring into. Overseas points with 800 service from the USA are handled this way. Somehow the other end even overcomes the language barrier when speaking with Americans. To prevent abuse, bill these calls like any other DA: Allow one or two free each month or allow the DA call free if an actual call is made to the same country and city code within the same billing cycle. To further prevent abuse, when answer is detected at the distant end, play a recorded message at the operator, first in English and second in the predominant language of that country: 'Operator, United States calling for Directory Enquiry Only! Do not extend the caller! Do not connect the caller!' Charge for anything over the free allotment of DA calls. MCI screwed up the concept of free long distance DA in this country, AT&T might as well charge for overseas DA as well after the freebies are used each month. Generate an Exceptions Report for review in the Security Department of international DA calls lasting over two or three minutes, or maybe over ten minutes in the case of India, Hong Kong and a couple others. You tell me why it wouldn't work. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA Date: 29 Nov 89 20:35:17 GMT Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >I never cease to be amazed at the careless and sometimes ignorant >handling of international calls for directory assistance by AT&T >Operators. >Maybe Chicago is an exception to the rule. Maybe every other city in [nightmare DA stories deleted] Maybe it is just the way AT&T works out here in Northern California, but the few times I have tried, the AT&T operator asks for the country/city, calls it up, and hands me over to them without any further ado. It has been up to me to handle any language difficulties, but the AT&T operator doesn't bug me. # Daniel M. Rosenberg // Stanford CSLI // Eat my opinions, not Stanford's. # dmr@csli.stanford.edu // decwrl!csli!dmr // dmr%csli@stanford.bitnet ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Home KSU ??? Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 12:33:12 -0500 From: clements@bbn.com Following the thread on the Panasonic KX-T61610 small PBX... I have had mine for a week now. Mostly it's real neat. > The new model is the 61610 which is improved by: > [...] > o Deleting the very useful 25-pair connector on the 616 I haven't seen the older model, but I agree it is a pain getting those 22 modular connectors wired over to a 66-block. I bought out my local Radio Shack's supply of crimp-on modular connectors. > o Requiring at least one 616XX with LCD set to program It gives you a sort-of menu based input system using the text LCD on that phone. But I can't see any good reason for not supporting programming via a 2500 set. It won't do it, though. I finally gave in to the urge to look inside it last night. The technology is impressive. Two pretty-high tech PC boards, one with all the line interface logic and one with the controller/touch-tone and switching matrix. Lots of very dense ASICs with all those tiny tiny legs :-) The processor looks like a fairly standard member of the Hitachi 6300 family, with a 7.6 MHz crystal. It looks as though the program is in an external masked ROM, the only socketed chip in the system. I wonder whether I'll get carried away and try to disassemble the code to fix some features. [An aside: The last major disassembly I did was the code in my Atari "Superman" pinball machine. I was real impressed. I found a true multitasking real-time operating system with process spawning and run queues AND a pseudo-code interpreter for a pinball-oriented instruction set with recursion and conditionals. There are "instructions" like "Turn on lamp N", "Test rollover contact M" and "Make noise X" as well as "start subprocess" and "wait for subprocess". I had to teach my disassembler this new pseudo-code instruction set.] Features I would change if I could: . There is an "Executive Barge-In" function, but you can only do it from the custom phone sets, not from a 2500 set. And you can only force a conference, not a disconnect. Since the "people" I want to barge in on are things like computers and answering machines, I want to be able to disconnect them, not conference with them. The Panasonic answering machines drop off the line when another extension is picked up. But with the PBX, they don't see the line characteristics change when a conference call is started, so they don't drop off. This is the most serious backward step I observed when switching to the PBX from ordinary multi-line phones. . Some commands can only be done from the master extension (Extension 11. Ext numbers are 11 thru 26.) I would remove this restriction. I would also beef up the programming to allow a 2500 set to program all features. These two changes would allow external control by a computer through a modem or Watson interface. Alternatively, use the RS-232 port, but that would be a lot more work since that is just an output device now (except for Xon/Xoff for flow control). . To program system functions, you have to run down to the basement and set a "Program" switch and then go back to extension 11 and enter commands. Probably they did this for security, so you could have the box in a locked closet. I would add an "Enter programming mode" and "Leave programming mode" function. I wonder whether the gentleman who was controlling his 61610 with a PC Watson board would be willing to share his PC code. I tried to send email to him but I don't think it got there (or the answer didn't get back). I'm interested in doing the same thing. Enough for now. Maybe we need a 61610-hackers mailing list :-) Bob Clements, K1BC, Clements@bbn.com, [w](617)873-3612 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #537 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 20:58:37 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #538 Message-ID: <8911302058.aa11207@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Nov 89 20:55:26 CST Volume 9 : Issue 538 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Doug Davis) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (William Mihalo) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Ken Levitt) Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (Jim Budler) Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) Re: Thanks, AT&T (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (John Boteler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Davis Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 29 Nov 89 16:30:55 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lawnet.com Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >One of those "poorly thought out federal laws" concerns the monitoring >of cellular traffic. Scanners are blocked from receiving the 800 MHz >cellular band and I've heard that you can get at least a slap on the >wrist for violating these provisions (listening to cellular calls). This is incorrect, some scanner manufacturers voluntarily limit some frequences 46-49mhz and 820-860mhz, Uniden comes to mind, However most do not, Radio Shack comes to mind, actually in the current RS catalog they all but advertise the fact their scanners can "eavesdrop" on the cellular band. At least some of the newer phones are starting to include something to the effect that since the telephone is a transmitter it is possible for someone to listen into your conversation. I think this is done more as a CYA for the company rather than trying to be informative. Anyway about 7 or so years ago I got into some legal action in a case where one neighbor in a rival company was allegedly listening into another neighbor's phone conversations. This was (again allegedly) done by unplugging the base unit of the telephone and then turning on the handset. This was done back in the days where there were no digital out of band signaling for base activation, or security codes. The handset just blasted out a tone which the base was listening for, after which if the handset had carrier on whatever frequency was appoperate it would turn on it's audio amp and supposably you were connected to "your" base. (But I'm deviating from the point.) Anyway the story goes the first neighbor thought he was being clever and bragged about being able to listen into the second neighbors phone conversations. Eventually his kids picked up on it and bragged about it to the second neighbors kids. The story finally made it back to the second neighbor who proceeded to feed the first neighbor his telephone. The whole thing wound up in court where all the charges were dropped against the first neighbor even after it was proved that yes you really could listen into other peoples convesations via many means. The judge ruled that there was no way to prove the first neighbor was actually listening in since the second neighbor was unable to provide witnesses that actually saw the alledged easedropping. Just that he had the "means" to listen in. The second neighbor however had to pay a small fine for assualt. This was one of the cases that lead the FCC to rule that "easedropping" itself was a bad thing, but possession of monitoring equipment didn't necessarily prove intent. >everything in between. Are these radios now clandestine? Am I OK as >long as I don't saunter over and turn one on and tune it to a cellular >frequency? And if I do, who is going to know? Your okay to possess the equipment as long as you do not use it to "easedrop" on conversations. BTW, most older T.V.s can tune a good portion of the cellular band, it's right above channel 82, just don't listen into anything you might hear. >What are the detection and enforcement provisions of the cellular >privacy law? Probably similar to the same laws that prevent you from receiveing scrambled satellite signals and decoding them. Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740 {texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 09:04 CST From: William Mihalo Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX I'm surprised that somebody would be so outraged about eavesdropping. The purpose of a baby monitor is to listen to the slightest sounds in a baby's room. Most monitors only have two frequencies (A or B), therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that someone else in your neighborhood can listen in. Incidentally, a couple of years ago my wife and next door neighbor did the following: house 1 house 2 transmitter a freq transmitter b freq receiver b freq receiver a freq The above arrangement established a "full duplex" speakerphone system using baby monitors. Whenever our kid was next door we would power-up the system. The nice thing about this, is you could talk to your kid if he was starting to get out of hand at the neighbor's house and vice versa. Also my wife and the people next door could talk to each other without using the standard telephone. I wonder if the above arrangement violated any existing telephone regulations. Bill Mihalo chinet!calumet!wem (uucp) or chinet!mihalo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 17:11:20 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping I came across the following message in a FidoNet echo and thought that it might be of interest to Telecom readers. ============================================================ From: Dave Minor @ 930/1 To: Cliff Peterson Cliff, I wanted to add a committ about the privacy of common carrier communcations. I work for a long distance company and you are correct, there is nothing illegal about encrypting communcations. In fact, we provide that service for some of our customers. To tell a quick story about privacy, years ago a technician was checking a problem with a line. In his efforts, he came accross a private conversation between two individuals negotiating a contract to have someone murdered (no lie!)! What this tech was supposed to when checking a line was if he heard any conversation AT ALL he was to IMMEDIATLY move to another circuit and wait till the needed circuit was clear. Instead, he listened to the conversation, took notes, and reported it to his supervisor. Expecting to get an "attaboy" for saving a person's life, he got fired for violating the individual's privacy! Needless to say, there is nothing illegal about encryption and common carriers are considered PRIVATE communcations! # Origin: Horizon RBBS 214-881-9346 & 214-424-3831 HST (8:930/1.0) * Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8) Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 09:07:24 GMT jbw@bucsf.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes: } In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: } I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above } consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they } usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an } estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, } the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. } If 20% of households were simultaneously engaged in any kind of calls, } large sections of the phone system would be hopelessly bogged down. If } they were all long distance calls, it would be even worse. Modem use } isn't necessary for the calls to hurt phone system performance. Both right. *Interactive* modem calls, as opposed to others like "ATM calls for data" modem calls or "grocery store sends day's data to central" can last hours. Teenagers talking on the phone can last hours. Either can cause the problem. Salesmen used to spend hours on a single call, FAX has reduced that. New technology, like the FAX, will eliminate some of the problem (ISDN?). The question is: Will new technology be in place, and in use, before the expansion of the current usage expansion (interactive modem sessions or teenagers) overburdens the current technology? People (companies?) such as Southwestern Bell (see alt.cousard) have attempted (stupidly?) to stem the tide by rate adjustments (prohibitive) and legislation. This is unrealistic. Modern usage of BBS, and I include Dow Jones News Service, Compuserve, Delphi (both the telecommunication and database services of the same name), GEnie, etc., are growing. Everyone who owns a PC (PC, Mac, Atari, etc) thinks about, or gets, a modem. Once they have them they will use them. The problem will exist. Legislation and rules cannot solve it, only technology. So again, the question is will the technology get there in time. We have time. Despite all the people reading this being modem users in one sense or another, the interactive usage is still under a 1 digit percentage TODAY. Jim Budler jim@eda.com ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim compuserve: 72415,1200 applelink: D4619 voice: +1 408 986-9585 fax: +1 408 748-1032 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Reply-To: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, NY Date: 30 Nov 89 03:00:41 EST (Thu) From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: > I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above > consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they > usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an > estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, > the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. I don't believe this is true anymore. Let's just take UUCP traffic as an example-- the modems being used are now becoming faster and cheaper (thanks Telebit, and others). Most of my modem traffic generally lasts less than a minute... I'm starting to see this as the rule rather than the exception lately. Exceptions to this rule are BBS users... Somehow, though, I can't see modem users connected to a BBS longer than 13-year-old Suzie is on the phone with her friend gossiping about person X, Y, and omega at school. :-) On a side note...has anyone in the NY Metro area seen the tariff proposal to the FCC about increasing the rate for residential phone service, and decreasing the discount after 11PM from 60% to 50%, and the discount after 9PM from 35% to 25%? Where would be the best place to write to protest this (PSC?)? If NYNEX saved all the money they spent in the useless tons of mass-mailings to attempt to persuade people to pay for wire maintenance, they wouldn't need a rate-increase or a discount-decrease! | Gil Kloepfer, Jr. | ICUS Software Systems | ...ames!limbic!gil ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Thanks, AT&T Date: 30 Nov 89 07:13:26 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >AT&T claims dumping. However, the Panasonic PBXs are not sold >in Japan, so how can AT&T claim that the pricing is below cost? What >can they base that on? I believe that AT&T complained of the products being sold at "below fair market value", obviously defined as AT&T's inflated price for inferior gear. By the way, none of Panasonic's equipment with model numbers beginning "KX-" are available in Japan. These are produced by a division of Matsushita called "Kyuushuu Matsushita" and they are not allowed to sell in the domestic market. This is really a shame, as I feel that some of Panasonic's best products come from the KX people. At the recent Tokyo Data Show, I noticed that the laser printer they were using was a Canon. Also on the subject of Kyuushuu Matsushita (pronounced maht-SOOSH-ta), a few months back I had the pleasure of spending a Saturday morning with Mr. Hashimoto, the patent holder (at least in Japan) for the answering machine. I saw all the latest KX- answering machines sitting in his workshop. He said that they ask him to check all of their answering machine products (as do other comapnies). (It seems to be common practice in Japan to hire respected elders as consultants like this, though in reality I see no real use in having Mr. Hashimoto check answering machines.) Anyway, when I mentioned that I thought Kyuushuu Matsushita makes the best answering machines, he said that they account for his biggest royalty payments, at about 500,000 units per month. For all his claimed expertise in the field though, he seemed to be relatively lacking in knowledge of modern systems such as voice mail. He also claimed to have the patent for a display that shows both the number called and the CLID at the same time. So be careful: If you make them both show up on your computer screen at the same time, you could owe a royalty :-). >So here I, a frustrated user, sit until Matsushita can move things >around to circumvent the silly new governmental restrictions. And they will. They are supposedly setting up a plant in the U.K. to produce these things. I must admit my bias here: I am a devout fan of Matsushita's products. They always seem to turn out at the top of Consumer Report's repair-infrequency tables, and they always seem to have just what the consumer wants, at a price that's right. When a choice of product comes down to seemingly equal products from several manufacturers, I always opt for Matsushita, though this means knowing, for example, that VCRs labled "Magnavox" or "GE" are made by them, just like their own brand names of National (not used much in the U.S.), Panasonic, Technics, and Ramsa. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: (011)+81-3-448-0878 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-944-6221 ID#82-42-424 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 2:14:27 EST From: John Boteler Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Alex Baylin comments: >>The line is a normal CO line with touch-tone and call-waiting. The >>switch is 5ESS. portal!cup.portal.com!JDurand@apple.com replies: >What is happening is while one person is trying to leave a message, a >second person calls. The loud click you hear before and after a call >waiting tone is really a loop current drop. Loop current is only >dropped on a normal phone call when the calling party hangs up. Your >machine is seeing this drop and assuming the calling party has hung >up. >The fix is simple, turn off call waiting except when you are personally >using the phone. If Mr. Baylin indeed is served by a 5ESS switch, then the loop current is NOT interrupted to provide a call-waiting indication. In a 1ESS they couldn't figure out how to put tone plant on an off-hook line without the battery going berserk, so the interruption was necessary on those switches. The #5 doesn't exhibit this behavior; the transition is smooth and almost unnoticeable. Feature or bug: you be the judge. Notwithstanding all the suggestions, I maintain that the best solution to any call-waiting problem is to CANCEL the damned 'feature'! Bote NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #538 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 21:36:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #539 Message-ID: <8911302136.aa19583@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Nov 89 21:35:17 CST Volume 9 : Issue 539 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage levels in Britain/Ireland (John Weston) Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland (Kevin Hopkins) Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland (Julian Macassey) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (J. Levine) [Moderator's Note: A special edition of TELECOM Digest will be distributed over the weekend. Entitled 'Telephone Privacy in the 1990's', this special issue will present a transcript of an address given September 13, 1989 by Marc Rotenberg, director of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, to the United States Telephone Association meeting in Washington, DC. Watch for it in your mailbox most likely Sunday. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 09:35:33 -0800 From: John Weston Subject: Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage levels in Britain/Ireland Referring to item in Digest, Vol 9 issue 535 Response to item by: Lars J Poulsen >>I'm thinking of taking a cordless phone from the US to my parents in >>Dublin, Ireland. >> 1) Will it work (ie are signal levels compatible) >Undoubtedly. Telephone systems are pretty universal; actually they may >be the most standard technology around. The biggest question is pulse >dialling: I must disagree. There are differences in signal level and telephone performance parameters between the UK/Ireland telephone networks and those in the USA. Typically US phones will appear to have a low level. You may also find the ringer doesn't work. > - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA. > I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect. > In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses. > In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses, > and so on, until "9" which is ten pulses. To find out the status > of this, ask your parents to look at the dials on rotary telephones. > If "0" is to the left of "9" rather than to the right of "1", > then dialling in pulse mode may require translation of the keys. > This is usually not convenient for older people. Again, I must disagree. Have you checked your facts? The UK/Ireland pulse dial is identical to the USA and to the "rest of Europe" , with 1 pulse for 1 through to 10 pulses for 0, arranged 1 through 0. It has always been that way, having been based on the Strowger system. The only common systems where there is a mismatch between number and pulses is where the pulses are regenerated, as in countries having long subscriber loops. In these, 1 pulse will cause the regenerator to step in 1 and output 10 pulses, 2 outputs 9, etc. Think of it as an 11 position uniselector. In these systems, the dial appears backward. > - Tone dialling is the same. But Ireland may not have universal tone > service. (UK has a large percentage of pulse-only lines; would > expect Ireland to be in the same boat.) Here, I do agree. There was to be a different tone system but, thanks to international standards work, this was changed, before it hit the market, to the Bell system. Also, due to the installed base of pulse based systems that have still some life left, you will not find the same proportion of tone dialling installations as in the USA. However, it is coming up fast, in both countries. >> 2) How do I connect it? My parents do not have modular sockets. The >>phone line is terminated in a black box about 3" by 3" by 1". The >>cord from the P&T supplied telephone terminates in what looks like an >>oversize headphone jack that is plugged into this black box. It >>appears to carry 4 connections (three signals and ground, I presume). >>(I'm pretty sure that the Irish phone system will use the same signal >>levels, etc. as the British one.) >Probably the lines are two-wire service. The third non-ground is >probably only used on feature-rich business lines. What I have done in >a similar situation a few years ago was to buy a modular phone >extension cord (cord and coupler) and buy a choice> extension cord; then cut both in the middle and splice with a >soldering iron and electrician's tape. Wherever the phone company has >a monopoly on Customer premise Equipment, this is the only simple and >legal way to get a connector. The answer simply is don't. Even though the jack plug (4-way) is quite straightforward to wire, especially for a single phone, (No, there are no "feature rich business lines" using this jack - the other poles are used for simple ringer continuity) you will quite definitely incur the wrath of the P&T. They, or a designated test house, have to test and approve all instruments types as meeting the *country* standards before they can be connected to the country network. Such approved instruments can then be rented or purchased locally. Note also that, in many areas in Ireland, they have replaced the jack with what looks like the USA style modular jack. Don't think this allows the simple connection of US phones. Some will work, most don't. There are European wide standards (NETs) being introduced that are producing a European (at least EEC) wide telecommunications equipment environment. There was no goal in drafting these to harmonise Europe with the USA. We just take what is best and ignore the quirks :-) >>Any advice or hints that people have to offer would be appreciated. >>PS Yes, I realise that I'll need a 220->110 transformer. >I would try to discourage you from doing this. A cordless phone >includes two radio transmitters, and all European PTTs take a VERY dim >view of unlicensed broadcasting. If a cop picks your parents' phone up >on a scanner and tracks them down, they would be liable to a fine of >about $2500 to $5000 and forfeiture of the equipment. Plus the phone >company might decide to terminate their service. Does the Irish PTT >offer cordless phones ? If so, there would be much less danger of >being caught. This is sound advice. Do not try to use US equipment using inbuilt transmitters as they may interfere with local emergency services, etc.. Europe uses different frequency allocations, although there are moves towards harmonisation, at least within Europe. If you go ahead and your parents get caught, the authorities will throw the book at them. Also, the Customs authorities have been briefed to look out for, and confiscate unapproved electronic equipment when you try to import it. I believe locally available, approved devices can be obtained that can be serviced locally. They may be more expensive, due to the relative market size, but it isn't worth the hassle trying to save a few dollars. Why not phone Telecom Eireann in Dublin and ask them for their recommendations? John ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 12:10:13 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins Lars J Poulsen wrote: -> Undoubtedly. Telephone systems are pretty universal; actually they may -> be the most standard technology around. The biggest question is pulse -> dialing: -> - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA. -> I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect. -> In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses. -> In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses, -> and so on, until "9" which is ten pulses. To find out the status -> of this, ask your parents to look at the dials on rotary telephones. -> If "0" is to the left of "9" rather than to the right of "1", -> then dialling in pulse mode may require translation of the keys. -> This is usually not convenient for older people. Incorrect. The UK uses the normal pulse dialling system: 1 = 1 pulse, 2 = 2 pulses, ..., 9 = 9 pulses and 0 = 10 pulses. The only countries which use a different system might be New Zealand and some of the Scandinavian countries, as discussed here a long time ago. Ireland and the rest of Europe uses the same pulse system as the UK. On the dial of my parents phone (which is pulse) the numbers run 1, 2, ..., 9, 0 anticlockwise from NNE and I thought this was the same on all phones that used the above pulse system. I don't understand the bit about the 0 being next to the 9 implies 1 = 2 pulses, ..., 9 = 10 pulses and 0 = 1 pulse. Surely that's the case if the dial runs 0, 1, 2, ..., 8, 9 ? -> - Tone dialing is the same. But Ireland may not have universal tone -> service. (UK has a large percentage of pulse-only lines; would -> expect Ireland to be in the same boat.) Ireland has one of the most widespread digital phone networks in the world. This is due to that fact that they have only moved to subscriber dialling in the whole of the country in the last 5 to 10 years. Up until then only the major urban areas (Dublin, maybe Cork, Limerick and Galway) had subscriber dialling, and I'm not sure if that included inter-urban area dialling. All other calls had to go via the operator. I suppose this means Ireland is in the weird position of having a phone system where all the rural areas have digital, as they have only recently had their exchanges installed, whilst some of the urban areas still only have a pulse capability because they were the first areas to have subscriber dialling and are using older exchanges. The UK is moving quickly over to tone dialling (System X digital exchanges) but all the new exchanges won't be in place until around 1995. Most, if not all, of the major trunk lines (between major towns and cities) are digital so a fair percentage of the UK calls are digital end to end. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcsun!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: julian macassey Subject: Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland Date: 30 Nov 89 17:37:10 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article , lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: > In article > pat@cs.cornell.edu writes: > >I'm thinking of taking a cordless phone from the US to my parents in > >Dublin, Ireland. > > 1) Will it work (ie are signal levels compatible) > Undoubtedly. Telephone systems are pretty universal; actually they may > be the most standard technology around. The biggest question is pulse > dialing: > - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA. > I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect. > In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses. > In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses, > and so on, until "9" which is ten pulses. To find out the status > of this, ask your parents to look at the dials on rotary telephones. > If "0" is to the left of "9" rather than to the right of "1", > then dialling in pulse mode may require translation of the keys. > This is usually not convenient for older people. > - Tone dialing is the same. But Ireland may not have universal tone > service. (UK has a large percentage of pulse-only lines; would > expect Ireland to be in the same boat.) > The UK has the same pulse plan as the US. Now Denmark has an added pulse and Sweden has the 0 where everyone else has the 1. But the UK is the same. As I recall, the Make/Break ratio is different. Looking at my 1982 copy of BS 6305. The specs for "Loop-disconnect signalling" are: 10 PPS + or - 1, 67% break + 5 or -4%. And finally: BS 6305 British Standard Specification for General requirements for apparatus for connection to the British Telecommunications public switched telephone network. 4.4.2 (d) Coding. For transmitted digits 1 to 9, the basic network loop shall be interrupted and restored for a number of times that equals the value of the digit sent. For digit 0, the number of times shall be 10. End of extract. So, yes, US pulse dials will work, so will Touch Tone dials (Called MF in the above spec - yes I know that means something else in the US). The transmit level of US phones can sometimes be a tad low. The rest of what Lars said was pretty much right on, including visits of the local if you transgress the transmitter laws. Chances of detection are not so high though. Best way to find the "right" wires is touch your phone on sundry wires until you get dial tone. First guess on old lines is the blue and white wires. On newer lines British Telecom is now using the US wiring color codes and white/bluestripe and blue/whitestripe should do the trick. I find the best gift is a Panasonic featurephone with dialer, LED and speakerphone. Pulse/tone switchable and known to work on UK lines. I have been told that Eire (Irish Republic) phone specs are the same as UK with the same equipment. Yours Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian n6are@k6iyk (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 30 Nov 89 17:55:33 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: >But, how does LD carrier selection and inter-LATA dialing work when an >inter-LATA call is within the same area code ? I often call between my beach house and ny parents' house, both in 609 but in different LATAs, so I guess I'm an expert. > 1. Can just the 7 digit number be used to call across LATA > boundaries within the same area code? Yes. The only way to tell if it's an intra- or inter-lata call is to look up the prefix in a suitable table. As I've mentioned in other messages, from Princeton NJ it is possible to dial local intra-lata, local inter-lata, toll intra-lata, and toll inter-lata calls all using just 7 digits. It's very hard to tell how much a call will cost. > 2. If someone wants to use an alternate LD carrier, is it > necessary to dial 1+a/c+7 digits after 10xxx or just > 10xxx and 7 digits? 10xxx + NNX-XXXX is adequate. I haven't tried dialing a redundant area code. > 3. Is there anything else I should be asking but am not? How many multi-lata area codes are there other than 609? I know that 914 in New York is one, as is 408 in California. Are there many others? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #539 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 22:47:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #540 Message-ID: <8911302247.aa10749@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Nov 89 22:45:02 CST Volume 9 : Issue 540 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Edwin R. Carp) Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (Fred Goldstein) Re: Calls With Area Code Prefixes (800 in particular) (David Lewis) Get Aquainted With COSUARD (Steve Nuchia) Re: My First Experience With Stupid LD Carriers (John Higdon) Documentation on ISDN Needed (Steve Aukstatakalnis) Disconnecting A Call (James S. Burwell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: erc@khijol.UUCP (Edwin R. Carp) Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 29 Nov 89 17:51:44 GMT Organization: Deadly Force, Inc., aka Clint Eastwood School of Diplomacy In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > What are the detection and enforcement provisions of the cellular > privacy law? In my opinion, none at all. The Communications Act of 1934 says that the FCC has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over communications in the US. That means police scanners, radar detectors, everything (Virginia | Vermont, are you listening?). It doesn't mean jack what the local yokels say (although it could get nasty until the Feds agree with you). I'm not sure that the privacy law would stand up to the Supreme Court and the Act. Ed Carp N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) erc@khijol Austin, Tx; (home) (512) 445-2044 Snail Mail: 1800 E. Stassney #1205 Austin, Tx 78744 ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? Date: 30 Nov 89 16:40:38 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article , eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) writes... >From recent postings in comp.dcom.telecom, it appears that many >colleges and universities have become the telephone company for their >students living in on-campus housing.... >Why aren't these local telephone service providers (for, in essence, >that's what they are) regulated by their respective state public >service commissions? If Columbia is adding $5 to the cost of a >collect call, they should have to file a tariff with the state first. Because they aren't telcos. A telco, in the legal sense, is "certificated" by the state to provide exchange service on a monopoly basis to a defined area. In Columbia's case, f'rinstance, New York Telephone is certificated. A student wanting direct outside telephones would call NYT, not, say, ConTel (who is certificated for different parts of NY State). Columbia is a reseller. That's a separate legal class. Under FCC regs, resellers may exist without regulation (technically, I think, the FCC regulates them in forebearance). They can resell INTERSTATE calls with impunity. That's what makes the AOS sleazebuckets possible. In theory, they don't have a monopoly like telcos. (You can drive down the road to the next pay phone. In some cases, you can legally demand access to the LD carrier of your choice and pay that carrier's rates.) Now if your landlord tries to impose a monopoly by limiting the telco's right to serve you directly, that would be a local contract/housing matter, not within their bailiwick. (Reality and law diverge a bit here.) States have the right to regulate INTRASTATE calls, including resale. So if NY State chose to, they could regulate Columbia's in-state rates. But if the call came from New Jersey or Fiji or anyplace outside NY State, the NY PUC would have no jurisdiction. This has worked with some AOSs, btw; if you get zinged on an in-state call, the state PUC or Attorney General can scare them off. fred ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Calls With Area Code Prefixes (800 in particular) Date: 30 Nov 89 17:53:13 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , goldstein@delni. enet.dec.com writes: > In article , dgc@math.ucla.edu > writes... > >Can anyone tell me exactly how calls with area code prefixes are > >handled? Previous messages on the handling of 700 calls left me with > >some questions unanswered. I think that there are basically 4 cases: > >1. 1-800 prefix > Two answers on 800 service. Today, they use the "NXX" method. Each > of the NXX codes (i.e., 800-221, 800-222, etc.) belongs to one or > another LD carrier. The local telco simply hands it off. Each RBOC > owns a few of its own, too, for intra-LATA use. "Tomorrow" (R.S.N.), As soon as 80% of BOC end offices are connected to the Signaling System 7 (common channel signaling) network. At least, that's the latest FCC ruling. > there may be a huge telco-owned collective data base indicating which Oh, please don't say "collective" in the same breath as "telco". That always makes people think of the other word that starts with "coll" -- "collusion". A more accurate description of 800 Database Service (800 DBS) is that there will me 800 databases owned by each telco, with the appropriate information duplicated. > carrier carries each 800 number. So you will be able to switch > carriers without changing 800 numbers. The problem is delay: There's > a finite time it takes the telco to send the lookup request through > the SS7 network to the data base engine (SCP). It delays call > processing by a few seconds. Other than that, the technique works > well. If your phone subtends an end office which is SS7-connected, the delay is actually less than a second. Delays only really pile up if the end office can't send a query directly to the database, but has to hand off the call to a tandem via MF (Multi-Frequency -- inband) signaling. Then, it gets really bad. That's one large reason why the FCC mandated that the BOCs can't switch from the NXX method to 800 DBS until 80% of end offices (actually, it may be 80% of end office lines, but the economics fall the same way) are SS7-connected. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Steve Nuchia Subject: Get Aquainted With COSUARD Date: 30 Nov 89 01:05:32 GMT Reply-To: Steve Nuchia Organization: Houston Public Access [Moderator's Note: Cross-posted from comp.unix.wizards as a means of introducing this news group to readers of the Digest. PT] In article <128505@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> henry%angel@Sun.COM (Henry McGilton -- Software Products) writes: >This thread doesn't belong in this forum, but while it's >here, this is my contribution: Indeed. Alt.cosuard is one forum, appropriate for the political and legal aspects. I'd suggest comp.dcom.telecom for purely technical discussion. I have three points to make that may interest comp.unix.wizards readers -- what is cosuard, why the technical arguments are irrelevant, and why hobby data communications is worth protecting. COSUARD is the Coalition Of Sysops And Users Against Rate Discrimination, a group formed to combat a unilateral move by Southwestern Bell to "correct" the long-standing de-facto tarrif interpretation by which private hobby BBS's were classed and billed as residential service. The case is in the final stages of attempted negotiations toward a settlement, in my personal view it is likely to go to "trial" before the Texas Public Utilities Commission in the next few months. * COSUARD has a bulletin board with all the legal documents and a lot of discussion of the case if anyone wants to catch up. I don't have the number of the main board, which has been down lately anyway, but the board at (713) 787-5454 should have the important stuff. It is important to remember that the local phone companies in the U.S. are public utilities. They are government sponsored and regulated, privately owned monopolies. The services they offer and the rates they charge for those services are set by legislation (perhaps indirectly through a commission or other regulatory body). Therefore the question of what rate a customer should be charged is an equal protection question, not a supply-and-demand question. The legislation and administrative law that regulate the phone companies in most states is designed to further a public policy objective of universal access, and conciously sacrifices "fair" allocation of costs to do so. In Texas the applicable regulations essentially state that lines run to residences and not singled out by a list of special rules for business rates are to be charged the subsidized residential rates. The special cases basically reduce to business operation, generally conforming to what a reasonable layman would expect the term to mean (including organized non-profit activity as businesses). Southwestern Bell, which has a history of back-door maneuvering to the detriment of modem users in Oklahoma, has decided that ALL BBS's are actually businesses in disguise. Enough of that here, we can discuss it until the cows come home in alt.cosuard. Suffice it to say that, at least in the Texas case, line usage patterns are not the issue. This is true from a legal theory standpoint and has been stated on several occassion by representitives of SWB. Finally, why should you care what rate BBS operators are charged? Because the data communications hobby is an important source of innovation and practical experience in the technical aspects of the art, it serves to empower the handicapped, it has the potential to become a medium for democracy at a time when traditional media are abdicating the role, and it serves as a good-will ambasador for the industry, giving thousands of people a pleasant and meaningful introduction to computers. I like to draw an analogy between the data communications hobby of today and the ham radio hobby in its early days. In short, I stongly believe it is worth protecting, and it is vulnerable to economic pressure of the kind we are discussing. Many boards in Texas shut down when it looked like they might have to pay only about $15 more per month -- most boards operate on a very thin budget. Steve Nuchia, member of the board of COSUARD * -- COSUARD is not a party to the pending legal action (nor am I), but has a close cooperative relationship with the parties. Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services (713) 964-2462 "Man is still the best computer that we can put aboard a spacecraft -- and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor." - Wernher von Braun ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: My First Experience With Stupid LD Carriers Date: 30 Nov 89 06:29:41 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , wcf@hcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes: > They asked me which long-distance carrier I wanted: ITT or AT&T. Well, > I chose ITT, just for the heck of it; I never expected to make many long > distance calls. The line was for my computer, which was running a BBS, > and why in the world would a BBS make outgoing calls? That, of course, was > before I discovered FidoNet. Now my BBS makes several long-D calls a month. > [story of major billing errors and screwups, deleted] Let your story be a lesson for those who agonize over selecting a long distance carrier when, in fact, they make few long distance calls. The first question that comes to mind is, "Was the savings provided by ITT over AT&T worth what you ended up going through with all your billing hassles?" Yes, AT&T is probably not the cheapest LD carrier available, but it is certainly one of the best and most trouble-free. If you make few long distance calls, I can't imagine what would prompt you to use someone else. > I said I was satisfied with that, and then he transferred me to ITT to > set up an account. After being put through that kind of ringer, why on earth would you want an account? So you could get all that erroneous billing more quickly? > The practice of charging after 45 seconds of ringing is > pretty ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. Do other carriers do > this? Not any more. If this is your calling pattern, it would seem that ITT is not going to work for you. All of the major carriers now have answer supervision. > As far as I can tell, ITT's rates are about 2/3 of AT&T's, at > least for the calls that I have been making. Anyone have another > carrier to suggest? Relatively inexpensive, doesn't do stupid things, > etc. 2/3 of AT&T's Reach-out America plan, for instance? If your traffic wouldn't warrant any such plan, then savings from a cheap-tone long distance company aren't going to be really significant anyway. This is not a personal attack, but I am constantly amazed when people automatically go for an "alternate" LD carrier 'cause it's cheaper and then are dumbfounded when they find that the product is inferior. "Cheap" long distance will frequently net you erroneous billing, poor customer service, poor connection time, and sometimes bad tranmission. One of my UUCP neighbors and I did a little experiment. We tested a number of LD carriers for throughput. The Telebit Trailblazer will automatically send at a rate commensorate with the quality of the phone line. To make a long story a little shorter, it came out something like this: AT&T and Sprint were about neck and neck (Sprint just a bit faster) and Telesphere consistently had less than 50% of the data rate. Rates on Telesphere are about 2/3 AT&T. In this instance, which is the better deal? Price isn't everything. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 15:32:36 -0800 From: simstim@milton.u.washington.edu Message-Id: <8911302332.AA21250@milton.u.washington.edu> Subject: Documentation on ISDN Needed Pat, I need to ask if you know where I can come up with documentation on ISDN. I have the intro-to-ISDN, but I need more. Can you dorect me to a source? Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Steve Aukstakalnis Human Interface Technology Lab University of Washington, Seattle simstim@milton.u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: Jim Burwell Subject: Disconnecting A Call Date: 30 Nov 89 05:40:35 GMT Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ Hi.. Do any of you knowlegable telecom people out there in net land know of a way to disconnect a local phone call with another phone off hook ? Is there a tone one can send down the line to cause the switching equipment at the telco to drop the connection ? Bye. James S. Burwell UUCP: ...!rutgers!faatcrl!jimb Internet: jimb@faatcrl.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #540 *****************************   Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 23:35:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #541 Message-ID: <8911302335.aa21975@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Nov 89 23:34:30 CST Volume 9 : Issue 541 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson ISDN International (Josephine E Niccoli) Pulse Dialling in US, UK, and Elsewhere (Wolf Paul) Another Thought on 8-digit Phone Numbers (Dean Sirakides) Phone Solicitation (Again) (Bill Parrish) 1-800-LAW For Sale! (Edward Vielmetti) 976 Scum (Brian Kantor) More On Calls With Nobody There (Sharon Fischer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Nov 29 18:59:21 GMT 1989 From: Josephine E Niccoli Subject: ISDN International CHICAGO -- Andersen Consulting today became the first customer to use Illinois Bell's ISDN services and AT&T public switched 56Kbps international service to link its offices in Chicago and Tokyo. The services included in this link are Ameritech's ISDN Centrex, AT&T's Switched Digital International (SDI) Service, KDD's (Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co., Ltd.) International ISDN Service and NTT's (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone) INS-Net Service. In a historic call from Andersen Consulting's headquarters in Chicago to its Tokyo offices, Andersen Consulting partner Cory Van Wolvelaere initiated a voice and video conference as well as a Group 4 fax transaction -- the first such international call using the public switched ISDN access from a local Bell Company. The call was completed to Tokyo via AT&T, the Japanese international long distance provider KDD, and NTT, which provided the local ISDN connection in Japan. Illinois Bell is providing ISDN access to both Andersen Consulting, which helps clients apply technology for competitive advantage, and Arthur Andersen, which provides audit, tax and financial consulting services. Illinois Bell Telephone General Manager of Major Business Markets Tom Potrykus explained, "Illinois Bell has been a primary force behind ISDN, paving the way for practical applications of this technology in the workplace. Our customers are demanding broader access to international destinations." "What makes today's call unique is that it is not unique," emphasized Fred Topor, AT&T Network Systems vice president of sales. Today's call is placed over tariffed services that are available today. "Once a customer has subscribed to these services, all he or she has to do is dial a standard international call. Customers can use this service on an as-needed basis. So, the point is that access to these international video calling and fax services is practically as easy as calling in to order a pizza." Although Andersen uses leased facilities for videoconferencing with its Chicago, New York and London offices, the cost of adding the Tokyo office to the video network via leaded lines is prohibitive. Using the public switched network, the firm is exploring the benefits of reduced travel time and costs and better quality decision-making as a result of face-to- face discussions and shared documents. "We have a long-standing commitment to applying telecommunications technologies and applications to provide total solutions to the ever-growing needs of our clients as well as our international organizations," said Cory Van Wolvelaere, the partner who oversees Andersen Consulting's Telecommunications Group. "As a leader in serving businesses in the Asia-Pacific region, we are always looking for ways to enhance our services," said Lyle Ginsberg, partner in charge of Andersen's Japan Telecommunications Group. "We are now supplementing our telecommunications presence in Tokyo by relocating telecommunications key experts in the region. Our effective use of advanced communications intelligence will allow for the critical exchange of information between our core group in Chicago and the organization in Tokyo," Ginsberg said. During Tuesday's video conference call, Andersen Consulting's Chicago and Tokyo offices discussed the firm's well-known and proven project methodology that will be used to complete a potential client project. Demonstrating a multi-vendor application, the equipment used to provide the service included Canon's L3100 Group 4 Facsimile Machine with an AT&T 7500 Terminal Adapter, and PictureTel's V3100 Videoconferencing System with a Fujitsu SRS-410 Terminal Adapter to provide 112Kbps over a single ISDN line. "Andersen Consulting is committed to the research and development of advanced technologies and applications. We currently have an ISDN lab in Chicago where industry-specific applications systems are being developed to provide strategic advantages to our clients," said Andre Hughes, a manager in the Telecommunications Group. "Illinois Bell continues to achieve landmarks in the use of ISDN by providing practical applications that can make ISDN more cost effective and efficient," Potrykus added. "Voice, videoconferencing and Group 4 fax applications will make it easier for Andersen Consulting to conduct project meetings and training sessions between international points."international points." Andersen Consulting has helped organizations apply technology for competitive advantage since 1954, when it installed the first computer for commercial use. The practice provides business, industry and technology skills, and the services necessary to integrate complex business systems. The practice's worldwide client base has access to 18,000 highly trained professionals. The Arthur Andersen Worldwide Organization operates through member firms in 54 countries. With more than 51,000 personnel, the organization provides professional services globally, in 243 locations, through two business units: Arthur Andersen (accounting, audit and tax services) and Andersen Consulting (information consulting services). Arthur Andersen & Co., Societe Cooperative, the worldwide organization's coordinating entity, has offices in Geneva, Switzerland, Chicago and New York, Businesses interested in exploring the feasibility of subscribing for international ISDN should contact their local operating company and/or AT&T. Illinois Bell's toll-free numbers are 1-800-428-4111 in Illinois and 1-800-428-5111 outside of Illinois. AT&T's toll-free number for SDI service is 1-800-448- 8600. ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Pulse Dialling in US, UK, and Elsewhere Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 9:35:26 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM Digest 9/535 Lars J Poulsen writes: > - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA. > I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect. > In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses. > In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses, > and so on, until "9" which is ten pulses. To find out the status > of this, ask your parents to look at the dials on rotary telephones. > If "0" is to the left of "9" rather than to the right of "1", > then dialling in pulse mode may require translation of the keys. > This is usually not convenient for older people. I am quite sure that this is not a problem in the UK. All UK phones I have seen (different models and vintages) have exactly the same dial as US phones, or Austrian and German phones, for that matter, as far as the arrangement of the numbers is concerned. Of course, the UK and US use slightly different assignements of letters to numbers, and on the continent, they have long abandoned the idea of letters on the phone dial. I have an old Radio Shack Duofone Pulse Keypad phone, which was bought in the UK (still with the old red "Do not connect to BT lines" sticker on it) which works in the UK, in Austria, and in the US\, with no key translation. I know. I used it myself. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: (Office) [43] (2236) 71521-465 (Home) [43] (1) 22-46-913 UUCP: uunet!mcvax!tuvie!iiasa!wnp DOMAIN: iiasa!wnp@tuvie.at ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Another Thought on 8-digit Phone Numbers Date: 29 Nov 89 21:19:43 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I know there has been alot of discussion on the net of new area codes vs. 8 digit phone numbers in the wake of the Chicago split to 708...but I would like to touch the subject once again. The idea of switching to 8 digit phone numbers was brought up several times, but always quickly dismissed as impractical. The problem cited usually involves the older (ancient!) switches still in use being unable to handle eight digits. I do not doubt this as I have seen at least one Latch Bar switch in operation, but what if we did this: Switch all US phone numbers to eight digits by adding a '0' to the end. Now, in large metro areas, the ESS's would be adapted to route the 8 digit calls (hopefully as a matter of new software). This would free up alot of numbers in the congested areas. Now, to call an area served by a non-adaptable switch (which I agree would be most areas due to the expense), you still dial eight digits, but the eighth digit simply goes unnoticed by the target system. In other words, all numbers in these areas would end in a zero. This scheme would add numbers to the large areas, and still maintain a seven digit pattern in less congested areas. Any thoughts? Dean (uunet!motcid!sirakide) P.S. I concede the major implications of changing the many databases and application programs that exist, but hey, continual area code splits aren't the greatest either. ------------------------------ From: Bill Parrish Subject: Phone Solicitation (Again) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 9:34:59 PST I thought I had heard it all about the various ways phone solicitors can cause grief by calling at inconvenient times, being obnoxious, not seeming to understand the meaning of "no", and so forth. Well, here's a new one. A couple of weeks ago, my wife was assisting in a birth at a local hospital. In the labor rooms, they have telephones, (since mothers- giving-birth aren't ALWAYS having contractions they can sometimes talk on the phone). Anyway, the phones are on CENTREX, and can receive incoming calls. The mother, in this case, didn't speak much English, and she answered the phone.... then got a confused look on her face and said something like "this guy says I can make a lot of money... but I can't understand what he's talking about". My wife took the phone, and heard the end of a recorded pitch selling investments. Apparently a recording machine then takes over and trys to get your name/number, etc. to call back later. My wife left some choice words on the machine and hung up. My feeling is that this kind of thing is gettiing out-of-hand and will have to be dealt with just because of the volume of junk calls. If a woman in labor can't even be free of this kind of peskiness, something legislative is probably called for. Bill Parrish / Hewlett Packard/ Roseville CA (Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers). ------------------------------ From: Edward Vielmetti Subject: 1-800-LAW For Sale! Date: 29 Nov 89 16:04:31 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. Just saw a little ad in the Wall Street Journal that 1-800-529-xxxx numbers were 'for sale'. The ad pointed out that 529 spells 'LAW', 'LAX', 'LAY', etc. I don't have the phone # handy, but if you want to be 1-800-LAWYERS this is your chance! Questions: Who sells the rights to these things? Where does the revenue go ? What fraction of the 1-800 number space is already spoken for ? How much does a 1-800 number of your own cost ? Just curious, Ed [Moderator's Note: I'll answer just the first and last questions. The seller would have to be the person or communications company which has the right to use or assign the number. Whatever telco has the right to use or assign 800-529 would be the people who benefit from special monetary compensation for assigning the number to someone. The revenue goes in their corporate pockets. Question three: $2.75 per month plus the cost of calls received if you get it from Telecom*USA. I do not know the correct answer to question two. PT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: 976 Scum Date: 30 Nov 89 21:22:25 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. The latest 976 scam is taking place here in San Diego; on the way to work this morning I noticed several of those hardware-store type "HOUSE FOR RENT" signs tacked up on phone poles around the neighborhood, with 976-5222 as the number to call. Yup, there's some scum running a rental referral agency with a 976 number. Now understand that in California (or San Diego, at least) a rental agency must maintain a list of referrals available at no charge as well as any fee-for-info lists they sell. So having a number that automatically charges for rental listings is very probably illegal. And the signs were tacked onto phone poles, an act which is itself a misdemeanor. I am not an attorney, but in a case like this, since Pac Bell is in some way acting as the collection agent of the 976 service provider where the very act of collecting the money is what is illegal, could not they also be charged in any criminal action? Perhaps there is some exemption in the law somewhere. I wonder if Pac Bell's legal department knows about this? Or cares. - Brian ------------------------------ From: Sharon Fisher Subject: More On Calls With Nobody There Date: 29 Nov 89 20:00:10 GMT Organization: The Asylum, Belmont, CA A couple of months back, I posted a message explaining that, in my new apartment, I'd had a number of calls with nobody there. These calls came early in the morning, one after another, etc. The consensus I received here was that the callers thought I was a modem or a fax machine. I called up the phone company's harrassment number and they suggested that perhaps I had too much equipment on the line and that when they tested it, that made the phone ring. I was dubious but tried unplugging things. True, I didn't get the calls. But I hadn't been getting them anyway; this was the third week in October and San Francisco had had an 'event' the week before. I continued to not get the calls for a couple of weeks, but as of a couple of weeks ago, they've started again. But a very interesting thing happened. Yesterday morning I got called at 6:30 am. Instead of hanging up once I'd said 'Hello' a couple of times with no response, I kept on, yelling 'Hello?' for a while. Then someone came on the line! (I've sometimes heard background voices on the calls before.) He asked me who I was. I said, "I don't know, you called me!" [Yes, I know who I am. I was sleepy, okay?) But instead of waiting so I could explain that they'd called me a lot, and maybe fix the problem, he hung up. When the phone rang a couple of minutes later, I tried hanging on again, but the phone got hung up. So, with this new information, anybody got any ideas about what's happening and how I can stop it? Thanks. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #541 *****************************   Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 0:39:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #542 Message-ID: <8912010039.aa16487@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Dec 89 00:35:05 CST Volume 9 : Issue 542 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell (Edward Greenberg) NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls (Lenny Tropiano) Pay Phones in National Airport (Va., Near DC) (Carl Moore) ECPA (Was: Neighbor Bugs Family by Eavesdropping) (John Stanley) Re: The Use and Abuse of UUNET (Was: ATTMAIL Access?) (Paul Chisholm) Announcements (TELECOM Moderator) Two Lines From a Twisted Three (Christopher Owens) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Greenberg Subject: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell Date: 29 Nov 89 20:00:51 GMT Reply-To: Edward Greenberg Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175} Last month, my phone bill advertised a little service called Intercom Plus. Being the phone junkie I am, I called up the business office and ordered it right up. I'll spare you the details of how the business office didn't understand this, or what I went through to get it, and tell about the service. I'll describe the service in technical terms rather than marketing fluff. 1. You pick up the phone and dial one of three codes, and hang up. The phone rings back, and when you pick up you get talking battery. 2. You're talking to somebody and want to signal somebody else in the house to pick up. You flash, dial one of the three codes, and hang up. The phone rings back and you wait until the other party picks up. (Then you optionally pick up too, depending on whether you wanted to continue to participate.) For the above two services, the codes are: *51 short-short *52 short-short-long *53 short-long-short 3. Extension hold. You want to put a call on hold. You flash, hit *54 and hang up. Your call sits until picked up or the other party hangs up. 4. Three way calling. Since the service requires the ability to flash, it requires Three Way calling. They bundle three-way in, so if you had it before, you stop paying for it separately. Pacific Bell sells this for $4 per month. -edg Ed Greenberg +1 415-694-2952 (day) uunet!apple!netcom!edg edg@cso.3mail.3com.com 76703,1070 on CompuServe ------------------------------ Subject: NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls Date: 28 Nov 89 22:25:17 EST (Tue) From: Lenny Tropiano With my telephone bill this month I got one of NY Telephone's "Hello" announcements entitled, "New automated service: for handling your collect calls and calls billed to third number". [Gee, this would have helped things during the strike :-)] They should go to automated information (555-1212, 411) Or at least information type service where a PC user could dial in... :-) Here's a bit of the news ... "Starting in November and continuing through early next year, we are introducing new technology that automates the handling of collect calls and calls billed to another telephone number within your New York Telephone Regional Calling Area. Here's what to expect... As you do today, to make collect calls and calls billed to a third number you will dial "0", an area code (if required) and the number you want to reach. Then, you'll hear a tone and an automated voice will help you complete your call through a series of recorded announcements. The automated voice will ask you to indicate the type of call you want to make by dialing a number with your touch-tone phone. It will also ask you to state your name. Then, the automated system will call the person to be billed for the call, announce your name and ask if the charges will be accepted. Depending upon the response, the system either completes the call or informs you that the charges have been refused. Things to remember ... o Automated service for collect calls and calls billed to a third number will be available from touch-tone phones. This includes many New York Telephone public phones, as well as home and business phones. o Your call will not be voice automated if you're calling from a rotary phone, or from a push-button phone that doesn't provide tones when you dial. In these cases, after the initial recorded announcement you will be connected to an operator. o The new automated service will have no effect on how you use your NY Telephone Calling Card. o Automated service for collect calls and calls billed to a third number will be introduced in Nassau and Suffolk counties starting in November. It will be introduced from December through early 1990 for all other areas served by New York Telephone. ================================================ My comments are, I wonder if this voice-response system, which is getting more common, does actual voice recognition for the response given for accepting or rejecting the charges. Doubtful, but interesting nevertheless. Most likely it will expect touch-tone replies from the person to be billed, assuming that person has touch-tone too. I wish they wouldn't charge the money for for touch-tone, since today it's easier (or just as easy) to detect tones than pulses. I suppose the answer is revenue. Lenny [Moderator's Note: Can't you *just imagine* the fraud with this new toy? On being asked to record their name, caller responds: 'Meet me at the airport at seven'; 'Call me back at acc-xxx-yyyy'; 'I do not have change, but I'll be home soon.'; or a whole variety of messages to which the callee can refuse to accept charges. Is telco going to keep track of all the 'names' (heh-heh!) that callers use when placing collect calls? If telco thinks they have a hard time now keeping people from talking around the operator to deliver quickie messages think how much harder it will be now. If telco thinks they have a problem now with people using coded names to deliver unpaid messages under the pretense of a collect call, wait until complete automation! People won't even have to make pretenses; they can just say something to the tape, let the other person hear it and decline to 'accept the charges'. How many school kids in NYC will bother to pay for local calls to tell their parents they will be home late once they figure this one out? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 14:52:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Pay Phones in National Airport (Va., near DC) In October, I visited National Airport and looked over the pay phones, of various types. (Area code 703, in an area still reachable via 202.) Most were on 486, 684, 685. I think I saw one phone on 548 (old-town Alexandria prefix), and I saw at least 4 AT&T green-video-display-screen phones on 271 (a new prefix in Crystal City area). A 0+ call I made from 271 resulted in "703-271 Alexandria" on my phone bill (Alexandria/Arlington is lumped together in the call guide, but I consider it a bit of "noise" to display 271 as Alexandria; Crystal City/Columbia Pike exchanges are, strictly speaking, Arlington). Instruction cards have not changed, and 7D for ALL local calls is still valid (this excludes extended-area calls to Prince William and local calls from some Md. points to 301-569). However, these phones apparently already have the calling scheme described earlier in Telecom (7D for local calls NOT crossing NPA line, NPA+7D for local calls crossing NPA line, 1+NPA+7D elsewhere). NPA+7D for local calls NOT crossing NPA line is valid! (does this simplify the programming of the equipment?) Lastly, 202+7D is valid only for calls to DC proper. (Just south of there, across 4 Mile Run, between the George Washington Mem. Pkwy. and the Potomac, is an area which includes a marina, and the pay phones there are all old-town Alexandria.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 10:58:55 EST From: John Stanley Subject: ECPA (Was: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping) Reply-To: stanley@stanley.UUCP (John Stanley) Organization: New Methods Research, Inc. In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >One of those "poorly thought out federal laws" concerns the monitoring >of cellular traffic. Scanners are blocked from receiving the 800 MHz >cellular band ... The poorly thought out law is the result of massive lobbying from the Cellular and TX companies. Instead of actually providing privacy (by using "scramblers" or digital audio) they wanted to legislate it. > From where I am sitting at the keyboard, I can see two communications >receivers that I use in conjunction with my work. Both are perfectly >capable of tuning from low band VHF right on through UHF and >everything in between. Are these radios now clandestine? Am I OK as >long as I don't saunter over and turn one on and tune it to a cellular >frequency? Radios that can receive CMT are not illegal to own nor to manufacture. Only radios whose primary function is to receive CMT (or the other off-limits transmissions) are illegal. It is illegal to USE a legal radio to listen to the prohibited transmissions. It is interesting to note that scanner manufacturers disable CMT freq's not because they have to, but because a CMT company MIGHT sue them anyway. It is even more interesting to note that the prohibited ranges can be re-enabled by usually nothing harder than clipping a diode. This is probably because nobody would buy the radio unless CMT were included. > ... And if I do, who is going to know? >What are the detection and enforcement provisions of the cellular >privacy law? The only one who needs to know is you. If you unwisely spread the information you glean from CMT then whomever you tell will also know. The FCC is overloaded enough now that they certainly can't send out detector vans like they do in England for TV service theft. Of course, if you tell someone else what you hear, you violate the old Communications Act, which said you could listen to anything you wanted, but couldn't spread it around. nn m m RRR i John Stanley n n m m m R R New Methods Research, Inc. n n m m m RRR i 719 East Genesee Street n n m m m R R i Syracuse, NY 13210 n n m m m R R i (This space reserved for electronic addresses, #include when I finally figure out what they are.) ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: The Use and Abuse of UUNET (Was: ATTMAIL Access?) Date: 29 Nov 89 06:41:00 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories *sigh* Does anyone want to compile a list of "Frequently asked Telecom Digest questions"? In article , UCHUCK@unc.bitnet (Chuck Bennett 919-966-1134) writes: > I have an aquaintance who works at the Shreveport, LA AT&T location. > When we met (in person), he gave me the following email address: > "attmail!sp3ba!wcseal". As you can see, I am on BITNET. I also have > INTERNET access. Is there a way to get a message to him? First off, not all AT&T e-mail is AT&T Mail. Try wcseal@sp3ba.att.com; it may not work ("sp3ba" sounds like a 3B2, a small system, and may be in a subdomain), but it's the logical thing to try. Now for the recitation-of-the-month: AT&T Mail is a commercial e-mail service. There is *no* gateway between the AT&T Mail service and the Internet. It's not a technical problem (AT&T Mail talks uucp, and so do several gateways), but a billing question. Any system that acted as a gateway would be billed by AT&T Mail for all messages it passed on, and of course wouldn't have reliable way of passing the bills along to the systems it served; as a result, no one wants to be a gateway. (The same logic applies to Bitnet et al.) Yes, it would be nice if there was a gateway. Yes, there are gateways to MCI Mail and CompuServe. I know it. AT&T Mail management knows it. As of right now, there isn't one. This is going to sound silly, but . . . Every time I post a message along these lines, I get about half a dozen polite replies, saying, "Thank you very much for your informative article. I read it carefully, and with great interest. Can you tell me how I can get from the Internet to AT&T Mail?" You can't, okay? On 17 Nov 89 20:53:42 GMT, dmr@csli.stanford.edu (Daniel M. Rosenberg) said: > I'd expect you could bounce this off of uunet: e.g., attmail!wcseal@ > uunet.uu.net. (BTW, there is no !wcseal account on AT&T Mail.) In article , ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@ bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) writes: > UUNET is a not-for-profit company that supplies forwarding service for > UUCP mail and news to their customers. As I've mentioned in several previous articles (including one recent one), if uunet forwarded messages to the AT&T Mail service, AT&T (which is a for-profit company) would bill uunet. uunet could bill *its* direct customers; but if they were passing traffic through from elsewhere, who could *they* bill? I've talked with Rick Adams (postmaster@uunet), and with AT&T Mail management, about this. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. [Moderator's Note: Sorry, but I have to differ with you on the 'no gateway to attmail' statement. TELECOM Digest is sent to a few people who recieve it in their attmail boxes at their request. I send control copies of the Digest to my own attmail box from time to time to test the link. And what about inbound telex to attmail? Who pays for that? What about inbound to attmail from Telemail, or FAX? I think the main complaint of attmail managment was people who were inbound to them and using premium services outbound, like people who would write to !telex and leave attmail with no one at the gateway to bill. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 23:33:37 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Announcements 1) I want to welcome a new telecom user/discussion group to the Digest family of readers. The New York City Board of Education operates a computer message system called NYCENET. The system operator there is Mr. Buzz Robbins. Each issue of the Digest is now available for users of the NYCENET machine, in the telecom discussion group. Mr. Robbin's network address is 'buzz@nycenet.nycboe.edu'. Welcome! 2) A special edition of the Digest will be published this weekend and put in your mailboxes probably on Sunday. Entitled 'Telecommunications Privacy in the 1990's', this Digest will be the transcript of an address given by Marc Rotenberg to the United States Telephone Association on September 13, 1989 in Washington, DC. Mr. Rotenberg is a director of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. 3) As you have probably noticed, mail volume was *exceptionally heavy* in the telecom mailbox the past two days....and there is still a backlog of several messages in the queue. Multiple Digests will be issued from now through the weekend until the backlog is ended. There has been about a two-day backlog, which is gradually being reduced. 4) Twice in the past two days, readers have submitted excellent items from recent issues of the [Wall Street Journal]. One was an excellent and very unbiased discussion of your favorite subject and mine, Caller ID. Regretfully, Dow Jones and Company does NOT take a very tolerant view of reprinting their stuff, even admittedly 'without permission' as is the custom on Usenet. Most papers and magazines say nothing at all about reprints here, but DJ & Co. did force the removal of an item in the Telecom Archives nearly a year ago, as some of you will recall. Please, no WSJ or DJ & Co. articles without their written consent. Thanks. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 12:21:40 CST From: Christopher Owens Subject: Two Lines From a Twisted Three? I want to bring a second phone line into my apartment, which is in a 1920's highrise in Chicago. There is no problem getting the second pair to the terminal block across the hall from my apartment, but there the fun starts. Running from the terminal block to my apartment is an old-style twisted-3 -- apparently once upon a time subscriber lines required three conductors: tip, ring, and a third line that played some role in kicking the switch gear into action. (Was sleeve extended all the way to customer premises?) From the junction box to my apartment is only a run of about 25 feet, but the twisted three shares a conduit with two other twisted threes serving two other apartments. The installer said the cable was stiff and brittle, and that there was no way to pull new cable without pulling new cable for all three apartments at once. This is estimated to be about $300 in labor. I don't feel like paying to upgrade service to apartments I don't inhabit, and the building doesn't want to pay either. Anybody have a suggestion? One thought was to use the extra wire of my three with an extra wire taken from somewhere, but there really is nowhere. I can't get to any of the other wires from my apartment. I've been told there is a way to use some kind of bridge circuit at each end of a 3-conductor wire to enable two phone lines to be run over the wire. Does anyone know about this. If they exist, where can one get them? This didn't sound like any kind of fancy multiplexing, just a bridged circuit of some kind. Would it leave me with a clean line and full bandwidth? How would it interact with a high-speed modem on one of the lines? Thank you. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #542 *****************************   Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 1:33:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #543 Message-ID: <8912010133.aa00949@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Dec 89 01:30:49 CST Volume 9 : Issue 543 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Portable Phone Ad (Will Martin) Phones on Board Airplanes (William Payne) A Little of Everything (Bernard Mckeever) Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*) (Robert Virzi) Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International D.A. (John R. Covert) Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International D.A. (Berlin S. Moore) Lighter Side: An Unusual Story (Anton C. Shepps) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 16:05:53 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Portable Phone Ad The following ad for a portable phone appears on page 85 of the November '89 issue of SEA TECHNOLOGY magazine (a publication about marine electronics and naval weapons and sensors); I don't normally see this magazine so I have no idea if this is something that is new or has been advertised this way for years... (Italics in the following indicated by leading and trailing _underlines_ like that. The whole ad looks like a "bad example" in a desktop publishing course... :-) For Your BOAT _NON-CELLULAR_ ULTRA LONG RANGE Portable Telephone [The above in a mixture of 5 different typefaces... Yuck!] [The following text surrounds a picture of a hand holding what looks somewhat like a regular bulky portable cell-phone but with fewer buttons showing -- only the standard touch-tone pad. Emerging from the top is a rubber ducky antenna (short enough to be for 800 MHz) and some partially- visible switches and knobs.] "This is _not short range cellular_. GCS portable telephones operate from _Ultra Long Range_ Non cellular services provided by over 1600 stations nationwide, for the ultimate in long range. No need to register or sign in when moving from area to area, town to town, or state to state. You automatically receive a nationwide number at the same low monthly price of a local number. DIRECT DIAL any telephone world-wide from any state. * Make and receive calls to and from anyone, anytime * make calls to other GCS portables, business, & home telphones, or mobile units anywhere * Includes GCS Hi=Max extended long range portable antenna, automatic battery charger, incredible high powered portable unit, and all necessary accessories. * No installation. * International models avail. Distributorships avail. U.S. and worldwide. * Delivery could take more than 30 days." (714) 852-8888 GCS Electronics Inc. 18200 Von Karman Ave. Seventh Floor Irvine, CA 92715 ***End of Ad*** Well, what I am wondering is just what sort of thing this phone is. Is it a maritime mobile unit being advertised for illicit ground-based use? Even though the headline says "for your boat", the text implies the owner can use it anywhere. Or is it a VHF-type traditional mobile phone? The knobs and junk on the top make it look like a hand-held radio with a phone glued on the front. The "1600 stations" should be a clue -- are there that many marine operator nodes? I didn't think so... Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 17:39:59 CST From: William Payne Subject: Phones on Board Airplanes I flew on Continental from Dallas to Pensacola over the Thanksgiving holidays. They have GTE "public phones" in the planes on which I flew. I used them going and coming (the return was delayed due to fog AFTER everyone was on board and the phones were great for arranging to be picked up at the airport). The cost was about two dollars per minute (well, I'm waiting for the bill and that's all I hope it will be). The transmission quality ranged from very good to very bad. The flight from Dallas had glossies behind the seats with a general explanation... ground stations around the States...but no details. I thought this might tie in with discussion about using mobile phones inside airplanes. The phone base stations were about the size of a pay phone and took a number of flavors of credit cards. The handset was portable and meant to be used from your seat. There were two phones per plane (one behind the cockpit, one just on front of the rear lavatories). The phones got quite a bit of use on the delayed flight. I might add that during the two hours spent waiting for the fog to lift, the phones were useless. Anyone know details of this system? Bill Payne DSC Communications Plano, TX (okay...Dallas) attctc!digi!wpayne ------------------------------ From: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever) Subject: A Little of Everything Date: 29 Nov 89 13:45:17 GMT Reply-To: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Let's see now. Who uses more bandwidth, a voice call or a modem call? If both calls are direct dialed [not private line] the useable frequency range of the voice signal is approximately 250 Hz to 3500 Hz. If this voice signal is sent over digital facilities, both signals require one time slot, or 64 Kbs. It is possible to use ADPCM to reduce the required bit rate to 32 Kbs, but this is not often used in the "public" network. At one time, the Bell System would support data rates of 4800 baud over switched facilities and 9600 baud over private lines. Today, you can order service that allows 56 Kbs of switched digital data over a portion of the public network. Next. Special Access Code 710 was used for 4 row TWX in the NE portion of the US of A. The last I knew all the old TWX codes except 610 were to be recovered and used as Area Codes and/or Central Office codes. White Plains. Boy do I remember that place. I worked in a class 3/4/5 office across the river from them and you had to feel sorry for anybody who worked in a complex with several hundred switchmen. The place was a mad house. Can't say much about international DA but can vouch for the language problem. An office I worked in took all repair calls for the state after the repair bureaus closed. 611 was the valid repair number for many outstate offices and 116 was the inward international code used to reach the Lakewood IOC. Several times a night we would answer what looked like a repair call and wound up with an operator from overseas who spoke English as a third language. My vote for the best TELCO....No comment but some of the smaller ones have great names. [Moderator's Note: I know what code 710 *was* used for. But what is it used for *now*? Harry Newton in [Teleconnect Magazine] said it is now assigned for 'Government Special Services'. What does that mean? PT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Virzi Subject: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*) Date: 30 Nov 89 18:48:39 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA On a topic slightly different than visual indication of a ringing phone, I would like a box that indicated that the phone connected to it has rung (past tense). Here's why: We have an automated answering service at work. This service picks up after a certain number of rings or on busy. The caller can leave a message, which is then placed in the called parties mailbox. The standard dialtone is then changed to stutter dialtone, to indicate a waiting message. So upon return to my office, I have to pick up the phone (and login to a unix machine and check the lan-based mailer and ... )-: ) to see if I have any messages pending. Naturally, I don't always remember to do this so I am occassionally later in returning calls than I would like to be. However, if their were a box next to my phone that lit up on a ring, and *stayed lit up* until reset, I would have a better chance of noticing and retrieving my messages in a timely manner. My first question is, does such a box exist as an off-the-shelf item? If not, does anyone have a circuit that would do this? Perhaps a mod to the various boxes suggested for visual ringing indication??? Better yet, does anyone know of a box that would periodically check my phone line and light up on detection of stutter dialtone? This would be the preferred solution as it would (a) not have to be reset manually, (b) would not false alarm if no message were left, and (c) would also catch those messages left on busy (when I'm already on the phone). Ideally, I would like to be able to set the frequency with which the line is sampled for stutter dialtone. Bob Virzi | Innuendo ... rv01@gte.com | ...!harvard!bunny!rv01 | ... and out the other. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 00:59:14 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 30-Nov-1989 0343" Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International D.A. >The way to implement and administer DA on an international basis is the way >it is done here in the USA: >Dial country code + city code + 555-1212. Let the gateway switches >translate that into an actual number, just as '6ll', '411', '911' and >'800-xxx-yyyy' are presently translated into whatever number(s) they ring >into. >You tell me why it wouldn't work. PT] I'd like to have direct access to international D.A., but there are a number of problems, many of which are not under the control of any single body: 1. Country code + city code + 555-1212 isn't always available. In Sydney, Oz, it happens to be someone's valid phone number. This is certainly true in many other places. 2. Sometimes it's too long. The city code for Rimpar, Germany, is 9365. +49 9365 555-1212 is more digits than our local exchanges can handle. The above two problems could be handled by some other numbering scheme. As I said, I'd like to see direct access, but that's not the end of the story. 3. We can't force our culture on other countries. D.A. operators there do not expect calls from customers. They are in the business of only supporting other operators. We're lucky in the U.S. that AT&T will even call overseas to get local assistance. In Europe, international D.A. (and national D.A. for that matter) is provided by centralized operating centers (which often take a _loooong_ time to answer). They have telephone books (really, I kid you not) for almost the whole world. Only when they don't have the book (no matter how out of date the one they have is), do they _maybe_ make the call for you. By international agreement, these operators only accept calls from other operators, who are _supposed_ to be trained to speak carefully, to ask only the pertinent questions, to have all the information available when the operator answers, to use phonetic alphabets when necessary, and all sorts of things that you or I would do, but not Joe Sixpack. Our directory assistance system is much better. But it's our system, not theirs. 4. More culture problems. D.A. operators in some countries will extend the call to the called party after providing the number. Remember, they are used to an operator being on the line. We can't change the culture in other countries. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 15:56:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Berlin S. Moore" Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International D.A. As a former AT&T International Operator, I would like to respond to your article. One reason that the operators here take the caller's information and pass it to the foreign operator is that frustrated American customers have a tendency to be abusive to the foreign operators. Once you get them mad, they become very uncooperative to all Americans. Given that, then, it makes sense to take all the details before trying to establish the connection with directory assistance. You can't hold up an international circuit while an American operator gets the details from the local customer. If you have been having a particularly hard time obtaining a number, ask your operator for the service assistant. Sometimes they can expedite things for you. Also ask for the service assistant when you have a particularly incompetent operator on the line. That operator can be singled out for special training. On the other hand, don't forget to ask for the service assistant to commend an operator when you get particularly good service. Pittsburgh International Operating Center is still alive & well, but they mainly only handle difficult calls now that the local operators can't handle, such as High Seas calls, & calls to hard-to-reach places like Afghanistan. Berlin (Bonnie) Moore PPP RRR EEEE PPP User Consultant P P R R E P P PREPnet NIC PPP RRR EEE PPP 530 N Neville ST P RR E P Pgh, Pa. 15213 P R R E P 412-268-7873 P R R EEEE P net bm24@andrew.cmu.edu Pennsylvania Research & Economic Partnership Network ------------------------------ From: Anton C Shepps Subject: The Lighter Side: An Unusual Story Date: 29 Nov 89 17:32:03 GMT Reply-To: "Anton C Shepps (Tony" Organization: TeleSciences, Moorestown, NJ [Moderator's Note: We've run this story before, at least a couple times, but it is always fun to repeat now and then; especially since so many new readers in recent months probably have not seen it before. PT] The stuff one finds when looking through old disk files! AN UNUSUAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CALL This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual telephone service call he handled while living in England. It is common practice in England to signal a telephone subscriber by signaling with 90 volts across one side of the two wire circuit and ground (earth in England). When the subscriber answers the phone, it switches to the two wire circuit for the conversation. This method allows two parties on the same line to be signalled without disturbing each other. This particular subscriber, an elderly lady with several pets called to say that her telephone failed to ring when her friends called and that on the few occations when it did manage to ring her dog always barked first. Torn between curiosity to see this psychic dog and a realization that standard service techniques might not suffice in this case, Pat proceeded to the scene. Climbing a nearby telephone pole and hooking in his test set, he dialed the subscriber's house. The phone didn't ring. He tried again. The dog barked loudly, followed by a ringing telephone. Climbing down from the pole, Pat found: a. Dog was tied to the telephone system's ground post via an iron chain and collar. b. Dog was receiving 90 volts of signalling current. c. After several jolts, the dog was urinating on ground and barking. d. Wet ground now conducted and phone rang. Which goes to prove that some grounding problems can be passed on. This anecdote excerpted from Syn-Aud-Con Newsletter, Vol4, No 3, April 1977. Anton Shepps - ashepps@telesci.uucp - "Get back to work, you!" -M.Groening - [Moderator's Note: Thank you, Anton, for thinking of us and digging out this oldie-but-goodie. Speaking of party line phones, the system where the bells in each phone on the line had different impedances was fun to defeat. Many an old biddie, with nothing better to do than spy on her party-line neighbor knew just what to do: set the phone inside a galvanized washtub or similar. When the other party got a call, their phone would ring, but your phone would have (ordinarily) a barely audible 'click' due to the deliberate impedance mismatch. With the phone sitting on something designed to make noise, the click was loud enough the old biddy could be out on the back porch and hear the rattle....and coming running in quickly and silently lift the receiver and listen to the others talk. No one could ever keep secrets from their party-line neighbor. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #543 *****************************   Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 0:01:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #544 Message-ID: <8912020001.aa08754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Dec 89 00:00:17 CST Volume 9 : Issue 544 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Trival Ring Detection (Todd Inch) Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems (Dave Levenson) Re: NJ A/C Split and Cellular (Dave Levenson) Re: More On Calls With Nobody There (Rich Gopstein) Re: NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls (Colin Plumb) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (Carl Moore) Re: Phones in the Movies (Dave Fiske) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off Date: 1 Dec 89 02:52:02 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >The catch: Their service is entirely through FGA. When you sign up, >they come out to your premesis and install magic Mitel dialers on each >Problem #3 >Since they program the dialers, they have the ability, unbeknownst to >the customer, to siphon off not only intralata calls, but local calls >as well. Not only would you pay Pac*Bell for the local call to their >switch, but they would charge you for the call as well. Do they ever do >this? You bet. You bet! I can't believe the number of offices I wander into where they are using autodialers or PBXs set up to just send all 1+ calls to the alternate carrier. Here in L.A. (well, over there in L.A.) many 1+ calls are local so these companies are paying local call + OCC charges to call local and message unit (ZUM) numbers which would otherwise be very cheap. A few years back I was working for an interconnect and upon going out to a customer's site, discovered that their NEAX 2400 was programmed to do this. I mentioned the problem to the programmer, and told him that it needs to be programmed by prefix, not just by 1+: Him: "Do you know what an "if statement" is?" Me: "Yeah." Him: "It would require too many if statements." I felt that after the customer had paid over $100,000 for a phone system, they deserved better than this. So I told the customer what was happening and told them to demand that it be fixed. Of course I was promptly fired, but I still have no regrets. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: (011)+81-3-448-0878 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-944-6221 ID#82-42-424 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Trival Ring Detection Date: 30 Nov 89 10:00:08 PST (Thu) From: Todd Inch In-Reply-To: volume 9, issue 526, message 4 of 8 In article KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) writes: >If any of the flasher devices used an all-purpose relay instead of an >resistive-only triac I could at least invent a Rube Goldberg >arrangement that repeatedly bashed at a controller button... :-) The simplest, cheapest way I've found to get a relay-type ring detector is to use the existing phone guts and ringer and replace the core of the ringer's electromagnet with a reed switch. Specifics: Use the network and ringer from any common, old-fashioned, non-electronic phone (e.g. 500 or 2500 series) with a mechanical bell. Unscrew the two screws which attach the electromagnet's core to the ringer frame. Slide the core (several layers of sheet iron about 1/4 inch wide and about 2 inches long) out of the electromagnet and re-secure it to the ringer frame so you can put it back together later if you want. Now you've got the electromagnet coil still wired to the phone set's network. Just insert a reed switch in the hole left by the removed core and you've got a controller-button-basher, or use it for whatever else you could connect to a relay. You could leave it inside an existing in-use phone set and connect the reed switch to the unused (yellow and black) phone cord pair. Some considerations: The phone cord can't handle the current of a table lamp if you want a Flasher, so use a heavier cable. If you do connect this to a digital wireless-type power controller (BTW, DAK has 'em on sale in the December catalog), you may need a shielded cable running to the reed switch and you may need to keep the cable short to avoid introducing noise into the controller circuits. You may even need to shield the switch inside the coil. Since the original electronics is unmodified, I would think that the FCC approval for the ringer (phone set) would still be valid, if anybody cares. Since the electromagnet has been physically modified, this might change the ringer equivalence a little, I suppose. The "reed switch": For those unfamiliar with this, it's a small, sealed glass tube with two iron "leaves" inside which (for a normally open switch) overlap but don't quite touch each other. Short wires stick out either end which you solder (sorry Ken) wires to. The iron leaves attract each other and act as closing switch contacts in the presence of a magnetic field. Where to get a reed switch: Radio Shack used to sell them in a pack of 5 or 10 assorted, but I don't see them in the new catalog. I'm sure someplace like Edmond Scientific has 'em. If you're in a hurry or lazy like me, RS has a couple of reed relays which could be taken apart to salvage the switch (pg 132 in 1990 catalog). Most burglar alarm door sensors (such as RS #49-495, 49-496, 49-503) also contain them. If the sensor is small enough (49-496?), it will fit in the coil as-is. Some of these (49-496) have wires attached and are insulated, so no soldering. Disclaimers: This info is just from my own personal phone phreking. I don't even like Radio Shack, but they're handy. Phone lines'll shock you good when they're ringing! Sorry about my verboseness. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu "You are the booger in the nose of my life." - My wife, to me. (Jokingly?) Disclaimer: My boss will read this while checking up on me and will disagree. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machine Problems Date: 1 Dec 89 04:36:00 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , portal!cup.portal. com!JDurand@apple.com writes: > Alex Baylin comments: ... > >The line is a normal CO line with touch-tone and call-waiting. The > >switch is 5ESS. > What is happening is while one person is trying to leave a message, a > second person calls. The loud click you hear before and after a call > waiting tone is really a loop current drop. Loop current is only > dropped on a normal phone call when the calling party hangs up. Your > machine is seeing this drop and assuming the calling party has hung > up. This is true in 1ESS and 1A-ESS. Moreover, on these switches, you can get a loop-drop even if you don't have call-waiting. If the party you're conversing with on an intra-office call has call-waiting and gets beeped, you get a loop interruption while he or she gets beeped. But on 5ESS, you get a beep, the other end gets nothing, and nobody gets an open-loop. Either the switch is not a 5ESS, or the problem isn't call-waiting. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: NJ A/C Split and Cellular Date: 1 Dec 89 04:54:23 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , judice@sulaco.enet. dec.com (Louis J. Judice 27-Nov-1989 0951) writes: > Of course the fun thing about the impending A/C split here is how it > will confuse cellular users... > It will be almost mandatory to use at least 10-digit dialing on most > calls. Along the 201/908 border it's fairly hilly, and the location > of most of the cell sites. It shouldn't be all that confusing... I routinely travel from my place of business, in what is currently 201 but will soon be 908, across 212 and 718 and into 516 land (I have a customer in Islip, NY). It doesn't matter what area code I'm driving in or where the cell site is (or whether it's MetroOne or CellularOne) the originating area code is stored in eprom in my mobile set, not in the cell site transmitter station. The dialing procedure, for subscribers of MetroOne, is uniform throughout 203, 914, 212, 718, 516, 201, 609, 215, and is determined by the home areacode assigned to the individual subscriber. I, too, have a 201 mobile number (in Hackensack) and I'm planning to ask for a number-change to a Somerset County exchange -- both to save on toll charges when the office is calling the car, and to make the home area code for the cellular set match the home area code for the wired sets. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Rich Gopstein Subject: Re: More On Calls With Nobody There Date: 1 Dec 89 14:25:04 GMT Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Somerville, NJ In article , sharon@asylum.sf. ca.us (Sharon Fisher) writes: > Yesterday morning I got called at 6:30 am. Instead > of hanging up once I'd said 'Hello' a couple of times with no > response, I kept on, yelling 'Hello?' for a while. In my last NJ Bell phone bill there was a new "call tracing" feature described. After an offending phone call, you can dial some sequence of digits, and NJ Bell will note the origination of the last incoming phone call you got. They mention that they won't give you the info -- the police must ask for it. You might check with your local phone company. They might have a similar service. Rich Gopstein ..!rutgers!soleil!gopstein ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls Date: 1 Dec 89 16:43:47 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario >[Moderator's Note: Can't you *just imagine* the fraud with this new toy? >On being asked to record their name, caller responds: >'Meet me at the airport at seven'; 'Call me back at acc-xxx-yyyy'; 'I do >not have change, but I'll be home soon.'; or a whole variety of messages >to which the callee can refuse to accept charges. Is telco going to >keep track of all the 'names' (heh-heh!) that callers use when placing >collect calls? >If telco thinks they have a hard time now keeping people from talking >around the operator to deliver quickie messages think how much harder >it will be now. If telco thinks they have a problem now with people >using coded names to deliver unpaid messages under the pretense of a >collect call, wait until complete automation! People won't even have >to make pretenses; they can just say something to the tape, let the >other person hear it and decline to 'accept the charges'. How many >school kids in NYC will bother to pay for local calls to tell their >parents they will be home late once they figure this one out? PT] Just one suggestion: if you're going to bother using coded names, don't use collect calls, call person-to-person. You usually expect a collect call to succeed, and the telco may notice a lot of refused calls to a certain place. But you bother calling person-to-person when you expect difficulty getting through (it's a *great* way to bypass n layers of secretaries!), so the usage patterns aren't as suspicious. It's quite possible the telco will listen in and keep track of numbers with lots of refused collect calls, although I don't know what they can do about it after the fact. Theoretically, they could intercept those lines to human operators, but it's an awful lot of work, and won't help if the problem becomes sufficiently widespread. At least around here, "operator-assisted" is a flat fee, so if I'm making a collect long-distance call, I often ask for a specific person. -Colin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 13:26:21 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? I think Maryland (area 301) is split among at least 3 LATA's. There's 1 on the Eastern Shore, 1 including Baltimore, and 1 including Washington, DC (and another one in western Maryland?). Also, most but not all of 215 area (in Pa.) is in the Philadelphia LATA, which includes Delaware. But 215-445 Terre Hill is not in that LATA; I placed a call from there to Wilmington, Del., and it was billed as inter-LATA. ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: Phones in the Movies Date: 1 Dec 89 21:43:22 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , cantor@proxy.enet. dec.com (David A. Cantor 26-Nov-1989 1345) writes: > In TELECOM Digest Volume 9 : Issue 518, David Lesher > , asks > >Anyone remember the 'Hot Line' in the "FLINT" movies? Flint had a > >special phone, typically shaped as a Texas steer, (hint--guess who was > >President) to call 'upstairs'. When it rang, it had a great sound > >that defies description. Wish I had that for a common ringer on my > I'm 99.44% sure that the sound was the TouchTone keys > 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-*-0-# in progression. Sorry, but I don't think that's right. I was fascinated with the sequence as a boy, and remember it pretty clearly. Unfortunately, I'm not a musician, so I can't provide the correct note values, but the following represents the notes relative to each other. (Read across from the left. The small dee's are staccato, and the big DEE's are a tad longer in duration.) DEE DEE dee dee dee dee dee dee DEE DEE dee dee dee DEE dee dee dee dee dee dee Also, I don't remember that they sounded particularly multi-frequency. I think they were just single tones, but I could be wrong on this. "CROOK ROBS 16 BANKS -- Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WITH A CUCUMBER" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #544 *****************************   Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 0:40:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #545 Message-ID: <8912020040.aa26468@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Dec 89 00:40:12 CST Volume 9 : Issue 545 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Bob Goudreau) Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland (Lars J. Poulsen) Re: Phone Solicitation (Again) (Wolf Paul) Re: Phone Solicitation (Again) (John Higdon) Re: 976 Scum (John Higdon) Re: Do Modem Users Congest the Phone Network? (Eli Levine) Re: Wireless PBX Developments (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 13:39:31 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article dan@sics.se (Dan Sahlin) writes: >This is a summary and some conclusions to answers to my question: >"Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US?" >John R. Levine came with the only relevant answer: >> Actually, 00 is your long-distance company operator. The traditional AT&T >> way to get international directory assistance is to call the operator, >> hence dial 00 (or, I suppose, 10288-0). >As no other numbers start with 00, it would be very simple in the US to >start using it as the international prefix. >Just like for numbers starting with 0, a timeout could be used to >distinguish between calls to the long-distance company operator and >the international prefix. Thus the US could then follow the >international recommendations for international prefix (i.e. 00), >instead of having 010 which is not used anywhere else in the world. Actually, 010 is the international prefix in the UK, not the US. Here in the North American Numbering Plan, we use 011. And is it actually true that someone (presumably CCITT) officially *recommends* using 00 as the prefix? >I am dreaming the day when I can pick up a telephone anywhere in the >world and dial home, always using the same number. Now many people >avoid international calls because of all irregularities. I think the >international traffic would increase, making all changes in the >network quite worthwhile for the telephone companies. > Dan Sahlin, dan@sics.se > Sweden As someone has already pointed out, there are a lot more people and phones here in the NANP (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) using 011 as the prefix than there are in Europe using 00 as the prefix. If such a change is really needed (and I don't agree that it is), it sounds like *you* should change to conform to the majority, not us. (And no, I'm not advocating such a change, I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the rationale.) Americans are often accused of being rude and provincial, of lacking respect for the peoples of other countries simply because those others do things in different (read "wrong") ways. But lately, I've observed the opposite phenomenon in this forum: the bashing of things American just *because* they're American. That kind of behavior is just as bad as "ugly American" behavior. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 19:31:55 GMT Lars J Poulsen wrote: >-> - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA. >-> I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect. >-> In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses. >-> In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses, In article K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk writes: >Incorrect. The UK uses the normal pulse dialling system: 1 = 1 pulse, >2 = 2 pulses, ..., 9 = 9 pulses and 0 = 10 pulses. The only countries >which use a different system might be New Zealand and some of the >Scandinavian countries, as discussed here a long time ago. Ireland >and the rest of Europe uses the same pulse system as the UK. I should have checked my archives (or let a UK person deal with this). I posted before my second cup of coffee... But in the back of my mind is a memory that the emergency number in England used to be "9-9-9", and I was told that this was because 9 was the longest pulse train; that using "0-0-0" as on the continent would not have worked because "0" was at the head of the dial, and false 0's were common due to bouncing hook switches. Guess I must be getting old and forgetful. > I don't understand the >bit about the 0 being next to the 9 implies 1 = 2 pulses, ..., 9 = 10 >pulses and 0 = 1 pulse. Surely that's the case if the dial runs 0, 1, >2, ..., 8, 9 ? In the fog of morning, it seems I expressed myself backwards. Thanks to Kevin Hopkins for a most informative article about Irish telephony. I really appreciated the bit about old exchanges in the cities and all-digital in the rural areas. And I can reinforce the warning about customs. Two years ago, my wife and I spent Christmas with my family in Copenhagen. The customs officials clearly had been instructed to be on the lookout for US electronics products (VCRs, telephone equipment etc). They had a hard time believing that a whole suitcase of presents would not involve any contraband and were almost ready to start opening gift packages when we showed them the itemized list and offered them to select one or two packages for verification. If they really want to throw the book at you, there are lots of ways: a. US bought equipment of course will not carry the type-approval of the local PTT. b. Cordless phones are radio transmitters and violate radio licensing rules. (Same for baby monitors). c. Electrical equipment purchased in the US typically will not carry the electrical safety approval stamp of the European country. (Though identical equipment sold in Europe may; in most cases, though, the US version will have deleted the 220V option). d. Most European countries have fairly high VAT (value-added sales tax) (on the order of magnitude of 20 %) and consumer electronics products are subject to luxury taxes (usually a wholesale level sales tax of another 10% - 25%) and sometimes an import duty of 10% or so on top of that. In those cases, taking such products into the country without paying these taxes is of course illegal. But technically, it usually works. When I first moved to the US, I kept my account with the Copenhagen phone company when they disconnected my phone line (because paying half of the monthly fee while not having any line for a year was cheaper than terminating service and opening new service a year later. They told me to keep the instrument until I got reconnected. So I took it with me, and impressed the heck out of my US friends with my Scandinavian designer telephone with the inverted keypad. Worked just fine. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 11:10:32 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM Digest 9/541, Bill Parrish discusses Phone Solicitation in a hospital labor room and goes on to comment: > My feeling is that this kind of thing is getting out-of-hand and will > have to be dealt with just because of the volume of junk calls. If a > woman in labor can't even be free of this kind of peskiness, something > legislative is probably called for. The reason she can't be free from this kind of peskiness is the way this industry works. A friend of mine who complained at being called at an inopportune time and wanted to be excempted from future calls was told that they just call numbers in sequence, without even knowing in advance what type of subscriber is on the other end -- a residence, a business, a hospital, etc. And that is the thing which needs to be outlawed -- it should be prohibited to place calls to random numbers. If the direct marketers want to use the telephone, let them research their prospective customers, and call only numbers where they know at least the name of the private individual (if that's their target) or business (another legitimate target) who happens to be the subscriber. Hospital patient lines are not legitimate targets, nor are payphones in high schools, etc. -- there are certain groups of people, and certain environments, which should be protected from this nuisance. And it should be possible to get one's name struck from the lists of phone subscribers thus compiled. But I suspect that this is all to idealistic, and nothing will happen to change the way the marketing industry works. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: (Office) [43] (2236) 71521-465 (Home) [43] (1) 22-46-913 UUCP: uunet!mcvax!tuvie!iiasa!wnp DOMAIN: iiasa!wnp@tuvie.at ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phone Solicitation (Again) Date: 2 Dec 89 05:22:55 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , bparrish@hprnd.hp.com (Bill Parrish) writes: > [Story of woman receiving junk call while giving birth, deleted.] > > My feeling is that this kind of thing is gettiing out-of-hand and will > have to be dealt with just because of the volume of junk calls. If a > woman in labor can't even be free of this kind of peskiness, something > legislative is probably called for. > Please do not feel the the following remarks indicate a lack of sympathy for a woman being harassed by junk call while having a baby. I would say the matter was handled very well on the spot, and without having our local, state, and federal legislators meddle in matters that they know nothing about. Any time something annoying happens there is that irresistable tendancy to say, "There ought to be a law..." But really, does everything need to be legislated? In the case of junk phone calls, for any legislation to be effective it would have to be at the federal level. States have absolutely no legal control over messages originating from outside their jurisdiction. And who is going to enforce all of these federal "phone etiquette" regulations and investigate violations? The FBI? Our police, courts, and other enforcement agencies are overloaded already. The best and cheapest way to handle junk calls? Utter a few choice words and hang up the phone. And remember, if all this phone soliciting doesn't utimately pay off for those engaged in it, they'll cut it out. It's the American way. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: 976 Scum Date: 2 Dec 89 05:36:21 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > I am not an attorney, but in a case like this, since Pac Bell is in > some way acting as the collection agent of the 976 service provider > where the very act of collecting the money is what is illegal, could > not they also be charged in any criminal action? Perhaps there is > some exemption in the law somewhere. > I wonder if Pac Bell's legal department knows about this? Or cares. The only thing Pac*Bell seems to care about these days when it comes to their 976 services concerns whether the program is G-rated or not. Who cares if someone is bilking the public at large, their only worry is whether little Jimmy can dial into some boring or laughably silly sleaze recording. Seriously, though, I doubt that Pac*Bell could be brought into any liability, criminal or otherwise. I would assume that many crooks use the telephone in the commission of crimes and I have yet to hear of any agency going after any telco as a co-participant. In fact, the only violation Pac*Bell would be concerned about is the lack of any mention of how much the call costs, which is required in all 976 advertising. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: eli@robechq.UUCP ( Robec Corporate Office) Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Date: 1 Dec 89 17:15:53 GMT Reply-To: eli@robechq.UUCP (Eli Levine - Robec Corporate Office) Organization: Robec Distributors, Inc. Ohh, I'll probably get my head handed to me on this one, since I'm not really sure what I'm talking about, but I thought the reasoning behind added charges for modem usage were because modems take up greater bandwidth, in fact the bandwidth of several voice calls. Is this true? **************************************************** Eli Levine Robec Distributors rutgers!bpa!temvax!robechq!eli **************************************************** ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@hal.gatech.edu Date: Fri Dec 1 14:16:59 1989 Subject: Re: Wireless PBX Developments Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article you write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 524, message 6 of 9 >In article 76703.407@compuserve. >com (HamNet) writes: >>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 506, message 8 of 10 >>I'm looking for information about development activity that might be >>underway for wireless PBX's. >Rumors abound on this subject, but hard info is tough to find. A Follow-up on this topic: There is an article in the most recent issue of _Telephony_ (29 Nov 89) concerning the mobile telephone "revolution" under way in Europe. One of the topics discussed is short range mobile telephones and their possible use in wireless PBX's. Not a geat deal of information, but names of a couple manufacturers are given. The problems of multiple standards and rapid changes in politics, tarriffs and technology are the primary focus of the article. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #545 *****************************   Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 14:38:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #546 Message-ID: <8912021438.aa28145@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Dec 89 14:35:46 CST Volume 9 : Issue 546 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (Kim Greer) Re: Who is the Top Telco? (Pete French) Re: Another Thought on 8-Digit Phone Numbers (Ihor J. Kinal) U.K. "Personal Cellular Networks" in the U.S.? (nomdenet@venera.isi.edu) Caller*ID and *69 (Dave C. Henry) How Do You Access Various Carriers? (Michael Gersten) 10XXX from Pay Phones (Eric Swenson) Long Ago Memories of Telex/TWX Calls (Perry Mathis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA Date: 1 Dec 89 11:53:53 GMT Reply-To: klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC >>.................................... many operators are very poorly >>trained, and the customer is always wrong and knows nothing of what he >>speaks. Do any operators speak a second language? No! Do any realize >>how phone systems work in other countries? No! For people griping about operators not speaking a second language, please remember: In India alone (where the complainer was complaining about) there are literally scores of _spoken_ languages. It is unrealistic to expect the local or the remote operator, picked essentially at random, to be fluent in your specific one. (Granted: English is widely spoken in India). >>speaks. Do any operators speak a second language? No! Take a poll: How many people on the street in the US speak a second language well enough to tell a non-English speaking operator what phone services they would like? I think you will find there are not many, percentage-wise. Operators are not language junkies; they are (educationally) ordinary people for the most part. >>speaks. Do any operators speak a second language? No! Which ones would you like them to speak: English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch, Portuguese, Chinese (lots of dialects), Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Hindi, Urdu, Serbo-Croatian, Hungarian, Farsi, Russian (lots of variants), Italian, Turkish, Gaelic, Tamil, [lots of Papua-New Guinea variants], Greek, Arabic, Swahili, ... ? Another "Granted": English is widely spoken throughout the world (though not necessarily with an accent easily understandable to many Americans) __BUT__ English is not spoken by the majority of the world's inhabitants. Don't expect instant, unscheduled translation services for the cost of Int. DA. ------------------------------ From: Pete French Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 09:36:59 GMT Subject: Re: Who is the Top Telco? >British Telecom (BT) keeps telling its staff that it is striving to >become "TOP TELCO". >This implies that it is not top telco yet. >SO......... >Just who is the world's top telco? Exactly what we asked ... and there doesn't seem to be a definate answer. How do you measure "success" anyway - profit/market share/size of network ???? This Digest has a wide readership - how about someone from every country posting stats on their PTT and getting someone to compile tables so that we can come up with an answer to this one for a few categories. Anyone volunteering to collate results ? When this subject was first brought up I think that the answer most generally agreed upon was that Erricsson were probably top at the moment. Any comments anyone ? -Pete French. | "The rhythm's gone, British Telecom Research Labs. | The radio's dead. Martlesham Heath, East Anglia. | And the damage done, All my own thoughts (of course) | Inside my head." ------------------------------ From: Ihor J Kinal Subject: Re: Another Thought on 8-digit Phone Numbers Date: 1 Dec 89 21:48:54 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Somewhere I was told that the phone company [MA BELL] did studies in the distant past, and found that people remember 7 digits much better than 8. Consequently, any conversion would have to take that into account. {Although SSNs are longer, how many people have memorized more than one ?? [e.g., their spouses]. Whereas I can easily recite several phone numbers. } Ihor Kinal cbnewsh!ijk ------------------------------ Subject: U.K. "Personal Cellular Networks" in the U.S.? Date: Fri, 01 Dec 89 19:16:28 PST From: nomdenet@venera.isi.edu In the Thursday, November-16th, Wall Street Journal was an article on the possible appearance in the U.S. of the Personal Cellular Network now seeing some use in Great Britain, and discussed here in Telecom. Millicom, a communication company that is among the cellular-telephony pioneers, and which has a stake in cellular telephony in Great Britain, in early November asked the FCC to set aside frequencies for PCN service. Wednesday, November 15th, the FCC invited public comment -- in effect deeming the petition worthy of further study. One FCC staff engineer is quoted as saying "We think there may be some merit to it." The political fighting could be long and intense, but "a lot of people" at the FCC think the Millicom proposal "is the reasonable thing to do." Millicom's chairman, J. Shelby Bryan, says PCN can reduce prices and improve cellular service, especially in crowded, urban markets where service and reception often are poor. He also says that PCN frequencies are higher and so can accommodate more customers, that PCN phones would be smaller ("belt-buckle size"), or would have longer-lasting batteries, and would also offer many new services. Skeptics say there are many problems: Even if PCN were allowed, existing cellular-phone companies would be entrenched by then. These companies won't be standing still, either; they could upgrade existing services or apply for PCN licenses themselves. There also isn't much spectrum available, though the FCC seems to lean toward sharing or releasing government-reserved ("warehoused") regions; in an apparently unrelated move, Congressman John Dingell has introduced a bill mandating this. Much of the WSJ article discussed the effect of possible competition from PCN on cellular-telephone companies' stocks -- potentially very bad. Investors quake at the thought of going from the present "blessed duopolies" to a market shared by 3-5 providers, even though such increased competition may be years off. Almost no cellular companies are profitable yet; their stocks are valued on the basis of what they might earn in the future. In June of this year Britain's government announced plans to license two or three PCN operators to compete with existing cellular firms, and the value of one provider's shares fell 32%. "The current wisdom on Wall Street" is that cellular users will rise to 5% (from 1.25% now) of the population in five years, and that prices won't fall too far if duopolies continue; now, the average subscriber pays $110 per month. ====================================== [Moderator's Note: The above is one of the items which was submitted earlier this week intact from the WSJ, and I extend my thanks to our reader for taking the time to summarize the article and send it back in to the Digest summarized. PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave_C_Henry@cup.portal.com Subject: Caller*ID and *69 Date: Fri, 1-Dec-89 16:13:58 PST I heard today that Bell of PA is now offering the Caller*ID feature for $6.50 per month + $50-$80 for the actual device which displays the number of the person who is calling you. I may order this service but I have a few questions first: 1) What areas do the incoming calls have to come from for the number to be displayed? Do they have to be local, from within PA, from an area that also has Caller*ID, or will every number show up? What about long distance numbers? I get most of my calls from Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Boston. I'm in Philadelphia. 2) Are there many phones on the market that will display Caller*ID information? If possible, I'd like to get a phone that would display the number rather than adding a separate box. I'd also like some information about another feature, the one which will call back the last person who called you when you press *69. How much does this cost? For some reason, I have this feature installed on my phone, yet I didn't order the service. I found out about it by accident. What kind of numbers will this service work with? (again, within the same state, local,etc.) Thanks, Dave Henry D.G.S. daveh@cup.portal.com / MCI Mail:366-2375 ------------------------------ From: Michael Gersten Subject: How Do You Access Various Carriers? Date: 2 Dec 89 07:01:31 GMT Reply-To: Michael Gersten Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, +1 213 397 3137 What is the proper way to access various carriers? I know that you can dial 10xxx to talk to different carriers. My questions are: Which ones must accept your call (other than the one you have as default for that line, i.e., are all equal access companies in your area required to accept it)? Can they charge a surcharge for this? What if you have several lines connected together (rotory)? Can you switch between the carriers on those lines without problems? Finally, a recent message said that ITT charges after 45 seconds, not after call connections. Is this true everywhere, or only in that particular place? (I know the local company gives connection information to long distance carriers over here). Also, is there any requirement that long distance companies bill you on time? i.e., can a company get away with a 3 month delay forever? In my case, I have ATnT, ITT, MCI, and Sprint on 4 lines. They each have some calls that are cheaper and some that are expensive. I'd like to be able to select between them regarless of which line I'm calling but on at a given time. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 13:30 EDT From: Eric Swenson <0003962594@mcimail.com> Subject: 10XXX from Pay Phones If I walk up to a pay telephone and want to make a call (local or otherwise, same area code or different) without depositing coins, shouldn't I be able to dial 10777-0-[AC]-XXX-XXXX, get a BOING, and, assuming I have a U.S. SPRINT FONCARD, be able to dial my FONCARD number and complete my call? (I use US SPRINT as an example because this is, in fact, what I want to do, but I suppose my question could be generalized to refer to any 10XXX prefix). Isn't this part of what equal access was supposed to provide? (I've tried it, and after getting a BOING, before all 14-digits of my PHONECARD number are entered I get a recording saying that an invalid calling card number was used. I *CAN* make calls dialing US SPRINT's 1-800-877-8000 number and using the same 14-digit FONCARD number. I take it there is a difference between the two kinds of calls?) I believe it does work from my home phone (I have US SPRINT as my long distance carrier) to use 10288-0-[AC]-XXX-XXXX to select AT&T for a particular call, but what about pay phones? ------------------------------ From: "Guru's Inc." Subject: Long Ago Memories of Telex/TWX Calls Date: 2 Dec 89 07:29:40 GMT Organization: CENTEL Federal Systems, Reston, VA. 22091-1506 >From article , by cmoore@brl.mil > [Moderator's Note: I am still curious to find out the use of 710. This > one is listed with the cryptic notation 'special goverment services' > or 'government special services' with no further information posted in > the listings of same. Does anyone have any ideas? PT] This reply to PT on use of 710 "area code" (Warantee: The following fine details from remote memory not CRC protected!) Back in the 70's when Western Union Telex was growing and AT&T agreed to sell their TWX system to Western Union I remember the 710 and 810 codes were used by the TWX teletypes. At that time twenty years ago there were two different teletype exchanges. WU Telex, a 5-bit (baudot code) 3 row teletype machine runing at 75 baud, (100wpm) over 20 millampere dc legs toward the telex switch. Of course, 20 75 baud circuits could be muxed onto a single VF circuit. Mechanical 202 relays (20mil to 60mil interface to type 60 and 70 carrier equipment (FSK)) were becoming solid state in 1969. Our telex machine in Hawaii was served by the Oakland Calif. switch. WU computers were being used to store and forward telex traffic between these two systems. The WU Telex machine had a rotary dial and 4 lighted pushbuttons, "Start; Dial; Connect; Disconnect." Numbering plan was variable length. 05xxxx, 098xxxx etc. DA was 018. You pressed Start and Dial would light if the switch answered, then you dialed the number. If the remote machine answered, Connect came on, the motor started and answer backs were exchanged. If not Disconnect occured. After sending text from either keyboard or from punched paper tape you pushed Disconnect when finished. The Bell System TWX machines were ascii code 4 row machines and also they had 3 row baudot ones that ran at a slightly different rate from the WU ones. Within Bell these two different teletypes talked to each other thru code and speed converters in the TWX CO. The 4 row keyboard machine also had a dial unit with a half of a handset, just a receiver. These machines when you pushed a start button went off hook with dial tone. You dialed a 10 digit number. The receive was so you could hear the state of call progress, (sorry wrong number.. etc..) 710-xxx-xxxx was the slower speed network, 810-xxx-xxxx the ascii other speed network. The TWX machines used the telephone network for switching, and by nature each teletype call used a VF switched trunk. Now 710 and 810 could not be called from any regular phone, only from TWX. A 710 machine could DDD any other 710 machine on the same or another switch. The same for an 810 machine to another 810 machine. I can still see vividly the Bell description and diagrams on the TWX exchange. For a 710 machine to talk to an 810 machine or vice versa, on another switch or the same switch the codes 710 or 810 were flipped to signal code conversion equipment required. i.e. 017, or 018. The codes may pass thru more than one switch to the destination CO. The destination switch made the speed change, flipped the codes 017 / 018 back over to 710 / 810 for normal number processing. IF the destination number was on the same switch, that switch called out on special trunks back to itself thru the code/speed exchanger equipment. When WU aquired TWX from Bell, WU intergrated it into the Telex network with a main computer in Mawah NJ. Did the speed/code conversion, provided store and forward services, international interfacing. Infomaster Services came out of Middletown Va. One could book a single message to multiple addresses. And that's the way I remember it so long ago ___ [Perry Mathis, Centel Federal Systems, 11400 Commerce Park Dr. Reston Va. 22091 703 758-7000 ] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #546 *****************************   Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 16:40:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #547 Message-ID: <8912021640.aa15485@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Dec 89 16:40:04 CST Volume 9 : Issue 547 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (Macy Hallock) 908 Area Code Beginning to Function (Louis J. Judice) Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell (John Higdon) Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three? (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off Date: 1 Dec 89 21:40:36 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >I have been approached by a local company that offers long distance >The catch: Their service is entirely through FGA. When you sign up, >they come out to your premesis and install magic Mitel dialers on each >of your outside lines. When I found this out, I told them that there >was no way I would even consider their service. End of discussion. In >case you are approached by a similar operation, here's why the >discussion ended: >FGA uses ordinary dialup lines to place calls, similar to MCI in the >old days. You dial a local number, get a tone, enter your >authorization code, area code, and number. While the dialer does this >for you, it still requires a call to a *charged* number. In this area, >a local call during business hours is $.05 first minute, $.01 each >additional. And remember, that's whether your call is completed or >not. Every call attempt costs money, and if you have some aggressive >person in your office that is frustrated by someone's busy signal, the >cost could be significant. First: many carriers are continuing to use Feature Group B (950-XXXX) access which does not incur a local calling charge. Feature Group A (std. phone number) is fast fading, but always incurs a local charge. Are you sure its FGA and not FGB? And I have seen numbers that look like FGA but do not incur a local message charge. Best way to tell: get the access number from the technician and call it from a telco provided paystation. If you can get through and touch-tone into the switch without dropping the quarter, its free. (Note: I have seen telcos that require a quarter even on FGB calls, so even this is not foolproof.) There are sound reasons to use FGB and not FGD: access cost from the phone co. to the carrier is about half that of FGD on both the setup and per minute transport elements. Important if the savings are to be passed on to the customer. >FGA has no answer supervision. When I confronted them with this, they >claimed that their "time before answer assumption" was very generous >and worked in the customer's favor. Hogwash! You should be charged for >an answer and not charged otherwise. Period. Hold it. Answer supervision is not the issue on the orginating end of the call. For the carrier to bill the call most accurately, answer supervision on the terminating end of the call is a must, so the ticketing equipment can determine when and if the call was answered. You cannot assume that just because the orgination is FGA or FGB that no answer supervision is in use. Answer supervsion is available to the carrier on terminating trunks provided by the telco on all FG's: A,B,C and D. Its just that the carrier has to order and pay for the feature on FGA and B trunks, but its usually standard on FGC and D terminating trunks. Now, the question is: does the carrier have it and use it? And the only way to know is ask someone knowledgable, like the people who manage the carrier's switching systems. The sales and cutomer service people sure don't know, they'll just repeat the carrier's standard line. >Since they program the dialers, they have the ability, unbeknownst to >the customer, to siphon off not only intralata calls, but local calls >as well. Not only would you pay Pac*Bell for the local call to their >switch, but they would charge you for the call as well. Do they ever do >this? You bet. In talking to some of their past customers, this was the >number one reason they switched to another long distance company. Do not assume dialers are automatically programmed incorrectly. Do you have good reason to believe this company is less than reputable? Sure, they can abuse you. That's what contracts are for: to define the services to be provided. The sales literature is part of the contract, and you must instruct the carrier as to what you really want. In Writing! And you must confirm it. And nail the SOB's who lie and cheat! At the very least don't pay the bill. I've caught Bell, GTE, ATT, MCI, SPC and others in improper billings, service errors, tariff violations and (on rare occasion) in outright lies. You must always protect your own interests...no matter who you are dealing with in this industry. There is enough complexity that anyone, be they BOC, OCC, CPE vendor or consultant can mislead, omit details, or confuse you. Don't let them win by default. Spell out what you think you are getting, and be sure you are getting it. I have seen many instances where sending the intra-LATA calls thru the carrier is advantageous to both the carrier and customer. Check the rate tables...often the cost is the same, but the addtional dollar volume will move the discount they offer on the bottom line up a notch. >The dialers are a heap-o-trouble. I remember when my company had >customers that had dialers between their switch and the CO lines, there >was constant "trunk" trouble, and the long distance company always >blamed the switch, even when time after time it was proved to be the >dialer's fault. This can happen. Some dialers are less trouble that others, and some dialers are quite good. The Mitel Smart One series of dialers is one of the best one the market...but even they have problems with certain types of central offices and switch combinations. (Example: GTE GTD-5 CO with ground start trunks terminating on certain types of crossbar PBX's) I have also seen telco station carrier equipment create problems for dialers (and key systems and PBX's....) Does this mean "Dialers Are Bad For Us All" ? And lazy/poorly trained tech's are always a problem, in this and any other industry. No one company has a monopoly on lousy service....it appears to be a shared concession. >Avoid any long distance company that wants to install dialing equipment >at your location. In 1989, it is as necessary as a separate bell box >down on the wall. Tell them to take a hike. John, you have not given us enough information here to justify this conclusion. Do you mean (un)Equal Access is all we will ever need? Sure, one problem here is the level of complexity. Adding components often increases the probabilty of failure. A single line phone on a CO line is often more reliable than adding a key system to the line...or a PBX. (At least that's how they sell Centrex...) And are you willing to manage the additional complexity? Does it help the company/individual using the services achieve their goals (saving money, better service or whatever)? I agree that most newer PBX'x should offer you complete flexibility in routing your calls. Most key systems do not offer this, though. For cost reasons, Automatic Route Selection is a feature of systems over 30-40 stations, usually. If you can get acceptable quatility and save money, the use of dialers is worth the effort. You can actually route calls from your key system almost as intelligently as any sophisticated PBX can. The Mitel dialers are very good at this...GET THE MANUAL! Notice the RS-232 port on the bottom....now you can take control of your communications by using a terminal! (Soap Box mode on) The issues here are really: Control, Choice and Knowledge. One example is our local operating companies: Because part of this industry is still controlled by a "natural monopoly" the operations and services we use are restricted. The phone company controls the standard methods of access. They figure most people will do the easy thing and use standard 1+ for all calls. That's why they were very careful to set up the Equal Access services the way they did: long distance was always very lucrative for them and they wanted to keep what they could, which is the intra-LATA. They protected what they saw as in their best interest, but not necessarily in everyone's best interest. That's why you have to work so hard to beat their system: your must dial the extra digits in order to have a choice, be they 10XXX or 950-XXXX or whatever. The phone company charges the customer and the carrier the most for the easiest to use services. Centrex is another example of this: charges are tied not to cost of service, but what the customer will pay for the convenience. So are Touch Tone, Call Waiting, etc. None of these services adds significantly to the per line cost of the central office. Equal Access could be far more equal, but the phone companies won't do it...so users have to do it themselves or pay the price. But, at least you have a choice, thanks to deregulation: You can always dial the extra digits and save, but most people won't. So you use dialers or smart phones or PBX's to do the extra work, and you save. The competitive nature of the long distance industry keeps the carriers working to reduce the cost of the service. The phone companies, long distance carriers, and telephone equipment manufacturers have learned that users will pay for convenience. And now they have figured out how to do it. Just because we do not agree on how some companies use (and abuse) this fact does not mean intelligent users cannot make intelligent choices. Choice + Knowledge = Control of your communcations. All of the issues John raised are legitmate to the average telephone user. By using our knowledge and technology, we can take control of our communications, and set our own priorities and make our own choices. I find it very hypocritical of readers of this newsletter to make generalizations like John raised, though. The deregulation of telecommunications brought us many choices and opportunites. We have the responsibility of learning and making intelligent choices. And sometimes we make the wrong choices (for us, at least). It's when we are given no choice or relinquish it that we lose control. Disclaimer: This is my opinion. Just because I picked on the telcos in this posting doesn't mean I hate them...I just don't agree with the idea that there is any one "right" way for something to be done. John is being flamed here only because he generalized that "This choice was bad for us all" (And I think he knows better!) (Soap Box mode off) There. I feel much better now. Comments and/or flames welcomed: Just make your point. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 13:39:47 -0800 From: "Louis J. Judice 02-Dec-1989 1636" Subject: 908 Area Code Beginning to Function Starting sometime this week, when you dial 1-908-xxx-xxxx you get a fast busy - instead of the intercept message that was played previously. 1-908-555-1212 seems to work, BTW. These tests were run INSIDE 908, but it's interesting that the new A/C seems to be coming alive... Lou ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell Date: 2 Dec 89 21:02:24 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , apple!netcom!edg@ ames.arc.nasa.gov (Edward Greenberg) writes: > Last month, my phone bill advertised a little service called Intercom > Plus. Being the phone junkie I am, I called up the business office > and ordered it right up. Leave it to Pac*Bell to sell its ringback codes to the public and then have to gall to refer to it as "advanced" service. How long is Pac*Bell going to sell bits and pieces of Centrex service to the residential and small business public while avoiding the necessary upgrades to offer really state-of-the-art telephone service? They could have offered "Intercom Plus" over twenty years ago when they installed my CO switch. It took them this long to come up with this marketing ploy? I had better shut up before the Phone Police discover that I have more than a black rotary dial phone in my house. The CPUC has made it quite clear that this as much as anyone really needs. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three? Date: 2 Dec 89 21:21:29 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , owens%tartarus@ gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens) writes: > I've been told there is a way to use some kind of bridge circuit at > each end of a 3-conductor wire to enable two phone lines to be run > over the wire. Does anyone know about this. If they exist, where can > one get them? This didn't sound like any kind of fancy multiplexing, > just a bridged circuit of some kind. Would it leave me with a clean > line and full bandwidth? How would it interact with a high-speed > modem on one of the lines? My earlier rantings on the subject notwithstanding, probably the most practical and reliable way to get your second service would be to use a subscriber carrier device. There is a way to phantom a third service from two pairs, but that doesn't apply here. Whatever you do, NEVER pick conductors from two different cables to serve as your "pair". This, in effect, causes your line to look like an unbalance circuit in each of the cables you have selected and there will be major crosstalk. In other words, don't take the third conductor from, say your existing service and your neighbor's service, to supply the run for your second line. Everyone will end up talking to everyone else. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #547 *****************************   Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 17:01:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu cc: chip@chinacat.lonestar.org Subject: Memo To Readers: Mis-numbered Issues Message-ID: <8912021701.aa18935@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> For reasons not entirely clear to me, the last two issues of the Digest (issued Saturday afternoon) were incorrectly numbered in their headers. Issue of 00:40 Saturday 12/2 was V9 #545 and was correctly numbered. Issue of 14:35 Saturday 12/2 was V9 #546 but said #545 in the envelope and #546 in the Digest. please correct the header to read V9 #546 for distribution purposes. Issue of 16:40 Saturday 12/2 was V9 #547 but said #546 both in the envelope and in the Digest itself. please correct the header and digest to read V9 #547 for distribution purposes. The next issue will be labled (we hope!) as V9 #548, and it will be issued probably early Sunday morning 12/3. Thanks for correcting your copies. Expansion list managers will probably have to make these changes in order to get the last two issues to distribute properly. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator   Date: Sun, 3 Dec 89 11:11:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #548 Message-ID: <8912031111.aa24393@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Dec 89 11:10:50 CST Volume 9 : Issue 548 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (John Higdon) Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (Dave Levenson) Re: ISDN International (David Lewis) UPS Information (APC) (Macy Hallock) Bypassing the Local Telco (John Higdon) RCI Offers 800 Hotline Home Service (Curtis E. Reid) How Do I Rotary? (Rick Farris) The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Daryl Jones) [Moderator's Note: In error, issue 547, mailed Saturday afternoon was accidentally labeled 546 (a second time!) and released before this error was caught. The second issue of 546 should be labled 547. Sorry for the confusion. Following this issue, you will recieve a special edition, discussing privacy in communications. Then later today, issue 549 will be published and mailed. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Date: 3 Dec 89 06:34:19 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , eli@robechq.UUCP (Robec Corporate Office) writes: > Ohh, I'll probably get my head handed to me on this one, since I'm not > really sure what I'm talking about, but I thought the reasoning behind > added charges for modem usage were because modems take up greater > bandwidth, in fact the bandwidth of several voice calls. Is this > true? Absolutely, positively not. Bandwidth is not dynamically allowcated by some analysis of the sonic material on the line, but is fixed by the telco in the transmission system involved. In digital transmission, if a voice channel is 64KB, then it's 64KB whether Aunt Millie is discussing recipies, your mother-in-law is yelling at you, or my Trailblazer is talking to another site. It would be a neat trick indeed if you could automatically get extra bandwidth out of a telephone connection on demand. The audio leased line department would go out of business in a hurry! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Date: 3 Dec 89 14:20:00 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , eli@robechq.UUCP (Robec Corporate Office) writes: > Ohh, I'll probably get my head handed to me on this one, since I'm not > really sure what I'm talking about, but I thought the reasoning behind > added charges for modem usage were because modems take up greater > bandwidth, in fact the bandwidth of several voice calls. Is this > true? No, it is not true. A modem using a dial-up voice-grade circuit uses the same bandwidth as any other call dialed-up over the same circuit. The added charges are based upon the presumption that average call duration is longer for modem users. The telco networks are engineered based upon assumptions about average number of calls and average call holding time per subscriber. Business voice users, residence voice users, and dial-up data users have all been characterized by the traffic engineering folk. They design their network according to the number of each in the area it will serve. When they build a central office, or an inter-office network, they engineer it with enough resources to provide a 1% blocking factor. That means that during the busiest hour of the busiest day of the week, one call out of 100 will be blocked for lack of some network resource. The economy-of-scale that is realized in this way is taken into account when rates are set. If the average useage per line changed significantly, then the rates need to change. The point recently made here, however, is that modem calls are getting shorter -- as modems get faster, and as more intelligent devices get placed behind them. A PC running UNIX and communicating with its netnews server over a UUCP link for a few minutes a day is quite different from a dumb terminal whose user logs into a netnews machine and reads the news for hours at a time. What is wrong with the telco's reasoning is categorizing all modems the same. It has also been pointed out here that some people talk to each other longer than some machines do. When I was in high school, it was not unusual for my teen-aged sisters to show line occupancy of about 36 ccs (that's 100% -- i.e. 3600 seconds per hour) of line capacity for parts of every evening. But at the time, a 'teen line' was available at a discount! Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: ISDN International Date: 3 Dec 89 06:41:10 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ [various PR deleted...] Of course, what they didn't mention is that the call (probably -- this conjecture, based on my albeit limited knowledge of the status of compatable ISDN) went from AT&T terminal equipment to an Illinois Bell AT&T 5ESS to an ATT-C AT&T 4ESS to ... (although the reference to Fujitsu terminal adaptors was fascinating -- anyone know the details, like did someone actually get an AT&T ISDN switch to talk to a Fujitsu ISDN switch??) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@oddjob.uucp Subject: UPS Information (APC) Date: Wed Nov 29 09:20:20 1989 [Moderator's Note: Mr. Hallock sends a copy of a reply to someone else. The original discussion on this was not in the Digest. PT] >You may also wish to look at products from American Power Conversion. >We use their products behind the computer and phone systems we sell. I sent him mail on the APC product. I have been using a 1200VX for sometime without problems. I tried TrippLite, but when i pulled the plug on it, the system locked up. I guess it was not fast enough. One question, the large units can tell the computer that power is out, do you know just what is done? I think there is a small jack on the back, but there is no docs on how to use it. Is it just a connection to a computers RS232 port (DTR?) or what? Per your recent reply to my posting in USENET: I, too, have been disapointed by TrippLite. The OMNI series systems have worked OK for us on the computer and most of the phone systems we put in. There have been a few odd things that have happened in the field with TrippLite that have shaken my confidence. (Fuses blowing on power failures, slow transfer, etc.) So we have standardized on APC. Seems like they are much more dedicated to providing quality products and service. We get much better technical support and sense a concern for details. Time will tell... The APC systems from the 520 and larger have a DB-9 jack on the rear of the unit that gives that provides both rs-232 and contact closures on power fail. APC reccomends the use of a dumb serial port for use with this interface. The diagrams and descriptions are on the last page of your APC owner's manual. I will provide the diagram if you need it. APC sells nice power failure software for many different unixen and other operatiing systems, at reasonable cost. For example, their Powerchute software for SCO Xenix lists for $99.00, you should be able to buy it for around $70-80(from a dist). Seems to be nicely done. APC can be called at (800) 443-4519. If you are interested in a less expensive, do-it-yourself solution, there is a file with a shell script and C program to do nearly the same thing on the Alphacm BBS run by Sandy Zelkovitz in CA. The file name is blackout . Alphacm is running SCO Xenix and will support uucp as well as regular bbs type access. Good stuff! Info on alphcm is below. Hope this helps. Feel free to e-mail me with questions. I am often on the road and away from fmsysm. Don't be surprised if it takes a few days to get a reply. I always reply...often I get to my mail on Saturdays. Regards, and good luck. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) ------------------------------ From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Subject: Bypassing the Local Telco Date: 2 Dec 89 19:49:03 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows A topic that has been on the back burner lately is telco bypass. This is what happens when an entity (usually a large business) determines that the local telco cannot efficiently meet the business' communications needs and the company purchases or leases the required equipment to "go around" telco and connect directly to their long distance carrier or to their other branches or buildings. This may be done because telco rates are high, or because the telco cannot provided needed services. The reason this is a concern (or at least has been in the past) is because when businesses start leaving the fold, telco revenues decline and they are forced to make up the difference elsewhere, usually from the residential and small business customer. Why am I bringing this up? Because I have a real concern about the future of telephone service in California. While reading about the latest offerings of CLASS and ISDN services in other parts of the country, it makes a Californian feel like he is living in a third-world country. No CLASS, no ISDN, and antiquated CO switching equipment are things that will drive many major California businesses to bypass. Add to that Pac*Bell's pricing structures (high, unless they're vulture pricing to drive out competition), and you have a climate that isn't too attractive as far as reasonable cost, technically up to date telephone service is concerned. Part of this, IMHO, is due to the fact that GTE in California is so bad, making Pac*Bell look good. Californians are, for the most part, relieved that they have (with Pac*Bell) reasonably good basic service (even if it is expensive). If, on the other hand, GTE were to be an aggressive, advanced telco, you would probably see Pac*Bell get off its behind and join the twentieth century. Oh, BTW, the reason for Pac*Bell's stoginess is not lack of money. Since the breakup, Pacific Telesis has been turning in record, almost obscene, profits. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 12:11 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: RCI Offers 800 Hotline Home Service Here's an article (reprinted without permission) I found in the Democrat & Chronicle (Rochester, NY) newspaper in the business section today (12/2/89): RCI offers discounts to push its 800 Hotline Home Service RCI Long Distance is offering discounts during the holidays to encourage subscriptions to its 800 Hotline Home service, which allows people to call home from anywhere in the country by dialing an 800 number, and its Empire 750 service, a discount long distance service for calls originating in New York state. Customers who order either service before Dec. 31 will get a waiver of normal connection charges and a 50 percent reduction in the first month's usage charges. In addition, RCI will waive permanently the $7.50 a month minimum charge for Empire 750 subscribers, if they sign up before the deadline. =============================================== Curtis Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet CER2520%RITVAX.Bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Internet) CER2520@vaxd.isc.rit.edu (NYSernet) ------------------------------ From: rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) Subject: How Do I Rotary? Date: 3 Dec 89 04:20:38 GMT Reply-To: rfarris@serene.uu.net (Rick Farris) Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California Pac*Tel offers a "rotary ring-down" service, wherein, for incoming calls, if one of a group of numbers is busy, the next number in sequence will automatically be selected. The charge for this service is a one-time fee of $40 per number affected, and then $0.50 per month per line. It seems to me that this service would have to be provided at the CO; I don't see how it could be provided at the customer site. Am I correct in this? At some point, of course, it seems that you could bring in a wide-band trunk, and then do the rotarizing at your end. At $40/line, how many lines would you need to make this cost effective? I realize I don't know what I'm talking about; that's why I've come here, for info -- hopefully not flames. :-) Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757 [Moderator's Note: That seems to be an awful rip-off price to me! Illinois Bell has always offered hunt and jump-hunt (out of sequence but reaonably close together lines) for *free*. You could always get it wired so your first line hunted the second, then the third.....ninth, fifteenth, etc... Does Pac*Bell understand what you are asking for? In some exchanges, the numbers had to be in sequence, ascending, but in others, any reasonable ascending order was okay, but there was never any charge for it. Circular hunt in an ESS office has a small charge. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 20:07:42 PST From: Daryl Jones The following message was posted to my BBS a few days ago. I thought the net would be interested... >Fm: PHIL RANE (Compuserve 74075,1244) >To: all Some time ago we had a lengthy discussion about the origins of the coax connector names such as BNC, TNC, etc. I have just come across an article in QST, a Ham magazine that I think is the real McCoy. I would like to share it with you. Quoting: During WWII, the requirements for connectors better than the UHF PL-259 and SO-239 ones, to be used for radar use, prompted two designs. The first was developed at Bell Labs by Paul Neill and identified as the type N connector. At the same time, another connector was devised by Carl Concelman. Named the type C connector, it was the first designed as a true 50-ohm connector. Later, Neill and Concelman collaborated on the design of a minature bayonet locking connector. This was dubbed the Bayonet Neill-Concelman, or BNC connector. Some time after that, an improved, threaded version for airborne use was developed and called the Threaded Neill-Concelman or TNC connector. For precise microwave use, a series of subminature connectors was produced- A, B, and C. Of these three, the A, or subminature (SMA) is the most popular. QED! |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Telecommunications Engineering Associates | | Daryl Jones, KA6VEP | 409 Wildwood Drive | | | So. San Francisco, CA 94080 | | {pacbell}!tcomeng!daryl | Phone: (415) 871-4200 | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #548 *****************************   Date: Sun, 3 Dec 89 14:01:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #549 Message-ID: <8912031401.aa05310@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Dec 89 14:00:05 CST Volume 9 : Issue 549 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (John Higdon) Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (John McKay) Re: 908 Area Code Beginning to Function (Dave Levenson) Re: Caller*ID and *69 (Dave Levenson) Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (Paul D. Selig) Re: 10XXX From Pay Phones (John Higdon) How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (John McKay) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off Date: 3 Dec 89 07:35:51 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article <1750@accuvax.nwu.edu>, macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) writes: > First: many carriers are continuing to use Feature Group B (950-XXXX) > access which does not incur a local calling charge. > Feature Group A (std. phone number) is fast fading, but always incurs > a local charge. Are you sure its FGA and not FGB? And I have seen > numbers that look like FGA but do not incur a local message charge. They gave me their access numbers. The prefix was a very ordinary downtown San Jose prefix. Nothing special at all about it. They told me that *in the future* they would be getting 950 (FGB) access. I do know the difference, thank you very much, and have even read the big yellow Bellcore manual on the topic. > There are sound reasons to use FGB and not FGD: access cost from the > phone co. to the carrier is about half that of FGD on both the setup > and per minute transport elements. Important if the savings are to be > passed on to the customer. But it didn't pencil out. The cost of the local call + their call costs were not much of a bargain, so your point is moot. If they were getting great savings by using FGA (and it was FGA, not FGB), it was simply to help their own bottom line. > >FGA has no answer supervision. When I confronted them with this, they > >claimed that their "time before answer assumption" was very generous ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You cannot assume that just because the orgination is FGA or FGB that > no answer supervision is in use. Read what I wrote about what their technician claimed. Since when do you use time before answer assumption if you have answer supervision? > Answer supervsion is available to the carrier on terminating trunks > provided by the telco on all FG's: A,B,C and D. Its just that the > carrier has to order and pay for the feature on FGA and B trunks, but > its usually standard on FGC and D terminating trunks. And if they have to order it and pay extra for it, I think it's safe to assume that they won't utilize it. After all, each little thing they have to pay extra for is going to erode their profits that much more, or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, reduce the great savings they can pass on to the customer. > Now, the question is: does the carrier have it and use it? No they didn't. And they were quite frank about it. > Do not assume dialers are automatically programmed incorrectly. Do > you have good reason to believe this company is less than reputable? Yes, I went out and visited some of their customers, one current, and two past. The past customers showed me their OCC bills for LOCAL calls that had been intercepted by the dialers. Their current customer allowed me to play with their phone. The dialers were not only programmed incorrectly, but different lines in the same trunk group were progammed differently. This I pointed out to them and they indicated that they were going to check it out. > I have seen many instances where sending the intra-LATA calls thru the > carrier is advantageous to both the carrier and customer. Check the > rate tables...often the cost is the same, but the addtional dollar > volume will move the discount they offer on the bottom line up a > notch. No way can it be advantageous to pay for a local call twice! You are already paying for the local call to the OCC's switch. Anything they add to the bill is gouge to the customer. Not to mention increased connection time, poorer transmission, etc., etc. > Does this mean > "Dialers Are Bad For Us All" ? Yes, it does. What possible justification can there be to add a layer of electronic gauze to any system when the technology exists to avoid it? And is cheaper? > No one company has a monopoly on lousy service....it > appears to be a shared concession. Wrong. GTE of California might qualify for an exclusive. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. > John, you have not given us enough information here to justify this > conclusion. Do you mean (un)Equal Access is all we will ever need? Actually I did in the original post. You were too busy reading between the lines and missed what I actually said. I said: 1. They used FGA. 2. They admitted they had no answer supervision. 3. That I had checked with their customers and that they were paying too much for local calls due to improperly programmed dialers. 4. That I had personal experience with faulty dialers. To my aging eyes, that looks like the pertinent information. > I agree that most newer PBX'x should offer you complete flexibility in > routing your calls. Most key systems do not offer this, though. For > cost reasons, Automatic Route Selection is a feature of systems over > 30-40 stations, usually. My client had the option of using his own PBX, which does ARS. The OCC indicated that they would be happy to have it happen that way. Even though that would negate my objections 3 and 4 above, I opted not to go with them; the savings were too marginal. > Disclaimer: This is my opinion. Just because I picked on the telcos > in this posting doesn't mean I hate them...I just don't agree with > the idea that there is any one "right" way for something to be done. > John is being flamed here only because he generalized that "This choice > was bad for us all" (And I think he knows better!) And I'm flaming back (rather than sending you an e-mail bomb) because you seemed to take issue with everything I said and completely ignored my reasons for saying it. You also made some interesting assumptions and generalizations. You seemed to assume that I couldn't tell the difference between FGA and FGB, that I was confused concerning trunk side vs station side CO connection, that I was ignorant concerning the ability to provide station side answer supervision, and that my (totally justified) suspicion of OCCs using dialers was leading all God's children astray. As to the matter of choices in the telecommunications industry, there are many old technologies that we no longer need to consider. Using dialers to provide long distance connections is one of them. If you can document one single OCC that, using dialers, provides better and cheaper service than its competitors who use FGD (and be sure to include those local units!), they I will be more than pleased to eat my words and any other crow of your choice publicly in this forum. But beware -- I can produce documentation for every assertion that I have made on this topic. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 89 13:30:33 EST From: John McKay Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off What is the justification for billing by the minute? ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: 908 Area Code Beginning to Function Date: 3 Dec 89 14:08:01 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <1751@accuvax.nwu.edu>, judice@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Louis J. Judice) writes: > Starting sometime this week, when you dial 1-908-xxx-xxxx you get a > fast busy - instead of the intercept message that was played > previously. > 1-908-555-1212 seems to work, BTW. These tests were run INSIDE 908, > but it's interesting that the new A/C seems to be coming alive... Lou: I'm curious: where was this tried? 1-908-XXXX still results in an immediate intercept recording from (201/908)-647-XXXX, as of the date/time this article was posted. Because of my tentency toward 'telephone nerdiness', I've been testing this from time to time, but nothing appears to have changed here, yet. Warren Twp is, apparently, also scheduled for a Zip-Code change next year. We're trying to avoid two re-printings of our business stationery. Wouldn't it be nice if NJ Bell and the Postal Service could get these things co-ordinated in some way? Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller*ID and *69 Date: 3 Dec 89 14:29:34 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <1758@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Dave_C_Henry@cup.portal.com writes: ...regarding caller-id > 1) What areas do the incoming calls have to come from for the number > to be displayed? The call must be from a telephone served by a central office which participates in the SS7 network. That includes many 1ESS and 1A-ESS switches. Here in NJ, it excludes the newer 5ESS switches, at present. Also, it only works intra-lata. Calls from outside your LATA will probably be identified only as "OUT OF AREA". > 2) Are there many phones on the market that will display Caller*ID > information? If possible, I'd like to get a phone that would display > the number rather than adding a separate box. I have been looking for something like this. I expect to see them as the service becomes more widespread, but I haven't seen one yet. > I'd also like some information about another feature, the one which > will call back the last person who called you when you press *69. ... > What kind of numbers will this service work with? (again, > within the same state, local,etc.) Same as caller-id. It will let you call back anyone who called you, as long as the call was intra-lata, and intra SS7 network. Incidentally, this followup represents the state of this technology as implemented by NJ bell as the posting date. This is an evolving technology, and I would expect it to change in several ways: The SS7 network will gradually encompass more of the local switching systems, and therefore there won't be the large 'holes' in the coverage area we have now. Perhaps the information will be carried by the inter-lata carriers, and will be able to deliver calling numbers on inter-lata calls, as well as local ones. Your telco may do things differently from NJ Bell. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: "Paul D. Selig" Subject: Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? Date: 2 Dec 89 17:29:14 GMT Organization: University of Dayton Computer Science Department I just wanted to comment from a different viewpoint on the points that Ed Ravin made about the outrageous charges that universities charge their students for calls. Here at the University of Dayton, we currently have what I consider to be a great system, which is a Meridian SL-1 switch. The university here also charges $5.00 for a collect call to a student, but with a good reason: Let's say that there are four students living in a campus apartment, and each apartment has two phones. Each student in the apartment has their own private "access code" for long distance use, and each receives their own statement of charges. If you were to make a collect call to a number in that apartment, the university has no idea who accepted the call, therefore they have no idea who to bill for the cost of the call. The $5 is used for the administrative costs and time to track down the acceptor of the call, and to have the billed call connected with the actual person. I really don't think that this is _too_ far out of line, as I would imagine that the actual costs are much higher. And, in regard to the $100 credit limit, after being a student at the University of Dayton for many years, I am still amazed at how many students will not pay their bill until their service is shut off. It happens a lot more than you might think, and the limit is imposed just to protect the university so that they may eventually get their money. Also here at the University of Dayton, students are clearly notified many times that if you let the phone ring more than 7 times, you will be billed for that call. Though I do agree that the University _should_ install call supervision equipment, they are fair in removing a charge for a call that is claimed to never have been completed. This is just a former students view on the university phone system, and my opinions do not constitute those of my employer! | | Paul Selig, Jr. Systems Administrator | --|- Computer Science Department, Anderson Center 133 | | | | The University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio 45469 --|- | BITNET: selig@dayton.bitnet ---- UUCP: selig@cps.udayton.edu or ...!uunet!ncrlnk!udcps3!selig ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: 10XXX From Pay Phones Date: 3 Dec 89 18:27:39 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , 0003962594@ mcimail.com (Eric Swenson) writes: > If I walk up to a pay telephone and want to make a call (local or > otherwise, same area code or different) without depositing coins, > shouldn't I be able to dial 10777-0-[AC]-XXX-XXXX, get a BOING, and, > assuming I have a U.S. SPRINT FONCARD, be able to dial my FONCARD > number and complete my call? Isn't this part of what > equal access was supposed to provide? You are confusing equal access with equal service. Equal access only provides that the local operating companies provide equivalent connection opportunities to each long distance carrier. Which ones they choose to use (FGA, FGB, FGD) and what service they choose to provide when connected is entirely in their hands. Just because AT&T goes ka-bong at home and at pay phones and their card works equally well doesn't mean that Sprint has chosen to provide the same service. Any long distance carrier can now offer (if it so chooses) coin-pay service just like AT&T, but that still seems to be an AT&T exclusive. You have actually hit on one of my major gripes with the AT&T competitors. We heard so much hoopla about the importance of getting the local telcos upgraded for equal access and now that they have it for the most part (even here), they aren't doing anything but providing the most basic service. What they really wanted was that "dial 1" default capability so they could be assured of reliable revenue. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 89 13:29:34 EST From: John McKay Subject: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? I understand that one can dial (at least transAtlantic calls) to ensure that the call is not carried by satellite. How do I do so? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #549 *****************************   Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 1:17:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #550 Message-ID: <8912040117.aa09135@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Dec 89 01:15:36 CST Volume 9 : Issue 550 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson FCC Orders Refunds to Long-Distance Companies (Roger Clark Swann) Modems and Phone Rates (David Robinson) 900/976 Bulletin Board Equipment? (Steve Wolfson) Advice Needed on Cellular Phones (Scott Diamond) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Tad Cook) Re: How Do I Rotary? (John Higdon) Re: Portable Phone Ad (Tad Cook) Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International D.A. (Gary Segal) Re: 908 Area Code Beginning To Function (Louis J. Judice) Re: The Lighter Side: An Unusual Story (Tad Cook) Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Scott D. Green) Correction Notice (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: FCC Orders Refunds to Long-Distance Companies Date: 3 Dec 89 23:26:29 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA REPRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE SEATTLE TIMES THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1989 FCC Orders Refunds to Long-Distance Companies Associated Press WASHINGTON - Local telephone companies may have to refund as much as $75 million to long-distance companies and large private-line business customers, the Federal Communications Commission says. Pacific Northwest Bell in Idaho is one of the 15 companies named. The local phone companies accumulated overcharges between 1985 and 1988 under FCC guidelines that allowed prices of these high capacity private-line services to exceed the phone companies' costs of providing the services. The FCC ordered a refund Tuesday as it considered challenges to the special pricing scheme, which the local phone companies provide for long-distance companies or large business customers. The commission voted 4-0 that the scheme was legal during the 1985-88 period, when the high prices were designed to keep too many customers from switching from the regular public network to private lines, but that market conditions no longer justify continuation of the special pricing. The commission said it expects the local phone companies to refrain from requesting such special prices in the future. While examining the challenges to the special pricing scheme, the commission said it found that local phone companies in some cases had charged more than allowed under the commission's guidelines. Therefore, the companies must refund those charges, which could amount to as much as $75 million, the commission said. The FCC said the amount of the refunds will not be known until the local phone companies file detailed reports with the commission. The companies have 40 days to make their filings. The companies found not to be in compliance with the commission's pricing guidelines from Oct. 1, 1985 to Dec. 31, 1986, were: Diamond State; South Central Bell in Alabama; Southwestern Bell in Missouri and Oklahoma; Northwestern Bell in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and North Dakota; Pacific Northwest Bell in Idaho. Pacific Northwest Bell is now called US West Communications and is the phone company that serves most Seattle-area residents. Companies found not complying from Jan. 1,1987 to Dec. 31, 1988, were: Ohio Bell; Wisconsin Bell; Suothern Bell in North Carolina and South Carolina; South Central Bell in Mississippi and Tennessee; Pacific Bell; Nevada Bell; Southwestern Bell; Mountain Bell; Northwestern Bell; and Cincinnati Bell. ------------------------------ From: David Robinson Subject: Modems and Phone Rates Organization: Image Analysis Systems Grp, JPL Date: Sun, 3 Dec 89 21:23:38 GMT From the discussion so far it appears that modems do not take up anymore phone network resources than a normal voice call, you get the same ~4KHz bandwidth whether you are talking or using a modem. The only valid argument for charging a modem different is that they tend to be use the line for longer periods of time. But a person sitting on a modem reading news for two hours is no different than a teen talking to their friend for two hours, both tie up the network. I think the phone companies will argue that as more modems are appearing total network usage will rise and their current physical plant and rate structure cannot support this, thus they propose a surcharge. It can easily be shown that a surcharge for modems is not fair, many modem users do not tie up lines for long periods of time. A better proposal would be to modify the current rate structure. Now we currently pay more for the first minute (anyone still pay more for the first 3 minutes?) and a cheaper flat rate for the rest of the call. If long duration calls are a problem, why not propose a rate that increases after a certain amount of usage, either linearly or non-linearly if you really want to curb long usage. I think this would be more fair and more accurately represent the problem. People will quickly change their usage habits if you start to effect their wallets. David Robinson elroy!david@csvax.caltech.edu ARPA david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov ARPA {cit-vax,ames}!elroy!david UUCP Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway! ------------------------------ From: Steve Wolfson Subject: 900/976 Bulletin Board Equipment? Date: 3 Dec 89 23:44:19 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL What type of stuff is used to shuffle folks around all of these voice mail/bulletin board numbers? Can some of the pc based voice boards do the same thing for less $$? Maybe its time to make voice bbs' available for the cost of the local/long distance call similar to the computer bbs'. Might even help put some of the ripoff artists out of business. ------------------------------ From: Scott Diamond Subject: Advice Needed on Cellular Phones Date: 4 Dec 89 05:28:53 GMT Reply-To: Scott Diamond Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute I need some advice on cellular phones. I want one but can't justify spending 600.00 - 1000.00 for the convenience. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 4 Dec 89 00:04:17 GMT Organization: very little Regarding Doug Davis's comments, I am not aware of any scanner receiver manufacturers that limit coverage in the 46-49 MHz region. Also, Doug says that Radio Shack does not limit coverage in the 800 MHz celluar area on their scanners. Not true. They started blocking these frequncies in their scanners even before passage of the ECPA, although the radios can be modified back to full coverage. Some owners have reported that Radio Shack has refused to service these radios after the cellular mod has been made! The mod consists of one clipped diode. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Actually, one diode (from D-12, I think) is clipped and re-inserted at D-9 to gain full 800 coverage as well as 68-88 megs. Unfortunatly, the scanner loses 30-50 megs in the process; but who cares? And even losing 30-50, you can use the 'magic number' calculation to bring 46.61 => 46.97 back at 68.01 => 68.37 and 49.67 => 49.99 back at 71.07 => 71.39. The IF is 10.7; just double it (21.4) and add to the desired frequency. It isn't the best reception, but it works. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: How Do I Rotary? Date: 3 Dec 89 23:31:53 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article <1765@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) writes: > Pac*Tel offers a "rotary ring-down" service, wherein, for incoming > calls, if one of a group of numbers is busy, the next number in > sequence will automatically be selected. > [Moderator's Note: That seems to be an awful rip-off price to me! > Illinois Bell has always offered hunt and jump-hunt (out of sequence > but reaonably close together lines) for *free*. I've never heard it called "rotary ring-down", but hunting costs an arm and a leg with Pac*Bell (like everything else). It costs $20.00 per line to make any change in hunting e.g. install, remove, number change, etc. For instance, if I have two lines (as I do for my UUCP modems) and I want the lead number to "hunt" to the second number, then I pay $40.00 extra ($20.00 per line) to install over and above any other charges and $1.00 per month ($0.50 per line). It would cost $40.00 to have the hunting removed as well (@ $20.00 per line). I did, however, circumvent that. With busy-forwarding, you pay $5.00 to put it in (on the first line, which when busy "forwards" to the second) and $2.00 per month. An advantage is that the two numbers have different prefixes and they won't install normal hunting to do that, even if served by the same switch. It will take 35 months before the extra dollar a month catches up with me, and there is no termination charge if and when it is removed. > In some exchanges, the numbers had to be in sequence, ascending, but > in others, any reasonable ascending order was okay, but there was never > any charge for it. Circular hunt in an ESS office has a small charge. PT] Since much of Pac*Bell is electromechanical, jump options are generally not available. In crossbar, it takes an auxiliary relay panel to allow subscriber lines to jump from one "level" to another. These panels are generally out of stock, so the customer is generally out of luck. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Portable Phone Ad Date: 4 Dec 89 00:15:40 GMT Organization: very little Regarding Will's question about GCS, they sell a traditional IMTS type VHF telephone. This is the same type of mobile phone that was popular before cellular. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International D.A. Date: 3 Dec 89 20:38:42 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division bm24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Berlin S. Moore) writes: >Pittsburgh >International Operating Center is still alive & well, but they mainly >only handle difficult calls now that the local operators can't handle, >such as High Seas calls, & calls to hard-to-reach places like >Afghanistan. As any of you other Letterman fans know, David had been playing telephone chess with Gary Kasporvo (sp?), the world's greatest chesse player. Dave was calling Gary each night, wherever Gary happened to be; Paris, Moscow, Belgrad (sp?) , or London. Durring the second week of the game, a female voice was heard chatting with Gary when Dave picked up the phone. Dave asked "Who is this". She replied "I'm the international operator, Mr. Letterman. I've been handling your calls all week." He asked her to get off the line and then proceded with the game. The next night, she was again talking with Gary in Moscow. This time, Dave asked her name, and she told him it's Kathy. Dave asked "Where are you?" And she replied "Pittsburgh". So, not only is the Pittsburgh I.O.C. alive and well, but an operator there by the name of Kathy has been introduced to the millions of Letterman fans across the country. B.T.W., Letterman lost, in case you coulnd't have guessed. Gary Segal, Motorola C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!segal Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. +1 708 632-2354 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 89 20:23:53 -0800 From: "Louis J. Judice 03-Dec-1989 2318" Subject: Re: 908 Area Code Beginning to Function [Dave Levenson was wondering where in NJ I ran my tests...] Well, just a couple of miles north of you, Dave, in 781 (Bedminster/Peapack). I'll give it a try in 562 (Piscataway) and 766 (Basking Ridge) on Monday. All calls get 2-3 rings then an intercept - much different than the instant intercept after 1-908 that I was getting before. Lou Judice Digital Equipment Corp Piscataway, NJ 201-562-4103 (But not for long) ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: The Lighter Side: An Unusual Story Date: 4 Dec 89 00:27:15 GMT Organization: very little This story about the dog providing ringing indication is an old one, and I have heard it so many times in so many different settings (although it is always an old lady!) that I feel it is apocryphal and has attained the status of telephone legend. About 10 years ago when travelling the South, Midwest and Eastern USA doing field service for Teltone, I ran across this story, and made it habit to ask old "tip and ringers" if they had heard this. No matter where I asked, someone knew of an old story from "over in the next county" where this happended. Sometimes the story involved a dog chained to a drop wire that was used as a "runner"...the insulation had worn away so that the line was noisey and the dog would yelp when the phone rang. My favorite is a variation of the British story. Seems and old telephone man was doing some maintenance "up in the holler" and talked to a subscriber whose phone didn't ring any longer, but they had a dog with ESP who could tell when someone was calling them. The dog was chained to the ground lead (party line with ground connected ringer) and the ground wire was broken off before it reached the ground. The poor old hound provided a resistive path for the 90 volts, and let out a howl whenever someone called. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 89 22:54 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC The legend, as told by a foreign-born professor of electrical engineering here at Penn, is that the BNC conncector is so named because it is a Berry Nice Connector. Scott Green ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 1:08:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Correction Notice I have been advised by David Gast of one small error in the special edition of the Digest issued Sunday entitled 'Telephone Privacy'. I had stated Mr. Gast transcribed and typed in the article; he notified me Sunday evening that the article was actually typed in and distributed by Rodney Hoffman, president of the Los Angeles Chapter of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. I apologize for the error. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #550 *****************************