Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28963; 8 Mar 90 2:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26234; 8 Mar 90 0:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24761; 7 Mar 90 23:53 CST Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 23:06:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #151 BCC: Message-ID: <9003072306.ab15850@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Mar 90 23:05:13 CST Volume 10 : Issue 151 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Torsten Lif) ISDN Courses/Training Questions (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez) Re: Real Useability of Applications Over Slower Communications (Merriman) Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS) (Jeffri H. Frontz) Re: ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal (Peter da Silva) Strange Charges on Bill (Jesse W. Asher) The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo (Henry Mensch) Wroooong Number (Dan'l DanehyOakes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Torsten Lif Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions Date: 7 Mar 90 09:10:53 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Lif Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden In article <4671@accuvax.nwu.edu> jason@cnd.hp.com (Jason Zions) writes: >Okay, so a B channel is raw 64kb/s. Is there any way to signal, >end-to-end, the higher-level meaning imposed on those bits? For >example, if I attach a Fax machine to an ISDN line and place a call, >can the receiving end get some indication on the D channel that the >incoming call is facsimile? Yes. "Bearer capability" and other signal elements tell the CO and the receiving party what the nature of this call is. The CO needs to know so that it can choose an appropriate link and/or conversion (phone calls *may* be routed via analog trunks, datacomm may *not*. Phone connections *may* need a-law-u-law conversion [if international], datacomm should not be converted). The receiving party needs to know so that only compatible equipment responds to the call. For datacomm with rate adaption the two sets of end equipment can even "negotiate" to find a "common denominator" - a speed and/or standard which they can both handle. >If I place a call through ISDN, I understand that the dialing >information goes across the D channel to do call setup and all that >other junk. Is it possible to send other setup information end-to-end >through D channel? Yes. You have "user-user info", a signal element alolowing you to send data to the other party over the D-channel during setup *and* during the call. You can also have D-channel connections for low-speed data without using any B-channel. For low-volume long-time connections this is an excellent feature. Your burglar alarm can have a *permanent* link to the security company. A few bytes when appropriate will tell them when a window has been broken. If the link goes down they get an alert and if they can't bring it up again within a certain time they go out to see what's wrong. Not fool-proof, certainly, but quite possibly better than what's available today. Actually, with ISDN, the problem is no longer "how to get the info through" but "how to handle all the info that comes". You get litterally swamped in information and the hard part is to know in which order to process it to choose the appropriate actions and what can be safely ignored because of what you already know. What is redundant for this type of call and what only *seems* to be redundant but carries some additional meaning which only applies once every alternate leap year but nevertheless must be taken into consideration? >The idea would be that the 2B+D line gets plugged >into a really smart box. When a call comes in, the smart box knows >what data is about to come in on the B channel; fax, voice, data, slow >video, etc. It then connect the B channel to the appropriate device >(if present) or rejects the call (if there's no such device present). That's not quite the intention of the designers (I think) but it would work if you wanted to build it. The intent of the design (as I see it) is that every ISDN device has its' own protocol handling and communicates with the CO independently of all others. The device (phone, terminal adapter ["modem"] or whatever) knows what capabilities it has and responds to calls matching that. Other (non-compatible) devices on the same line remain silent. A phone would only respond to calls indicating "voice" or "phone". Depending on if the phone is multi- or single- standard it may be able to handle both a-law and u-law or just the one of them. A TA (Terminal Adapter) is really a sort of temporary solution to replace your modem until all computers have plug-in ISDN cards. Until then you may have TAs of different "flavours" for different purposes and they may be more or less "smart" and thus able to handle calls differently. Anything a TA can do, an ISDN-adapted computer (or other end-equipment) can do better, except possibly that your TA might have several output connections and choose which one of them to use depending on the type of call, in which case we have your "smart box". This is still a temporary solution as I see it, since the protocol handling is "just" silicon and will soon be cheap enough to put in all equipment. Otherwise your "smart box" would have to be able to handle *both* B-channels and all the various D- channel connections with all combinations and variations of "busy" depending on which devices are already in use. This is normally handled by the "setup" conversation carried on directly between the end device and the CO. A "smart box" acting between them would have to be *very* smart to avoid being a bottleneck and impede communications instead of helping them. Your fax will in the future plug directly into the ISDN line and will respond by itself to incoming calls saying "fax". If you have a PC or workstation with ISDN interface and many emulation programmes it can recognize the type of incoming call and act accordingly. A fax call would go to the fax emulation software which stores it on your disk and/or dumps it to the printer. A "vanilla" data connection might get a pseudo-tty and "login:" prompt. For more secure data links the CNI feature may be used for auto- call-back if the caller belongs to the internal list of allowed users. The possibilities of plugging ISDN straight into a multi-processing computer are staggering and with a "large" number of pseudo-devices you don't have to worry about running out of cables. :-) Torsten Lif (formerly Dahlkvist) ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ------------------------------ From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez Subject: ISDN Courses/Training Questions Date: 7 Mar 90 16:30:23 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA Hi there! A few people in my department are looking at training alternatives on ISDN. Our background is primarily on software engineering research, and we are interested in the data communications programming aspects of ISDN. So far, we have found information on a couple of courses, described below: o Introduction to ISDN, Learning Tree International (800) 421-8166, Gordon Beattie (instructor), 4 days; and o An Intensive Introduction to ISDN, Data-Tech Institute, (201) 478-5400, Jim Davis (instructor), 2 days. The questions are: is anyone aware of any other alternatives? Has anyone in the net taken any of the courses above? If so, what is your opinion about the course contents, as well as the proficiency of the instructor? Please reply be email. Thanks. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez + + + GTE Laboratories, Inc. + Tel: (617) 466-2584 + + MS-46 + email: jdiaz@gte.com + + 40 Sylvan Rd. + + + Waltham, MA 02254 + + + + + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: merriman@ccavax.camb.com Subject: Re: Real Useability of Applications over Slower Communications Date: 7 Mar 90 17:19:11 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <4790@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dap@compsci.aberystwyth.ac.uk (Dave Price) writes: > I am interested in gathering experiences/references of people's > reactions of the useability of applications over slower networks. In > particular I wish to consider the types of applications we all happily > use over fast LANs, but running over (say) 4800 bits/sec through 64 K > bits/sec upto a couple of megabits/sec. In the VAX/VMS/DECnet world, I have had no trouble working between systems connected by slow, flakey circuits. Applications include file transfer, message switching, remote login, etc. I remember working the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul for a US client where we had three circuits back to New York: a 56kb (or maybe 64kb) satellite circuit, a 9600 bps synchronous circuit via a new lease circuit and a 2400 bps asynchronous circuit, via all kinds of old multiplexor circuits, through Japan, the Middle East and eastern Europe, already part of the clients permanent network. The most reliable of the lot was the 2400 async circuit! The satellite circuit was practically useless. The only thing I found troublesome is using full-screen editors via remote login. It is usually better to run an editing session on a local system and have the editor open the file remotely. Five or six years ago I was working on a job that had about 10 remote PDP-11 traffic concentrators around the U. S. running RSX-11/S. They booted fine from the home office over 1200bps (and even 300 bps dial backup) circuits. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 15:54:23 EST From: Jeffri H Frontz Subject: Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio In article <4730@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >>["break" never breaks an "if", only "switch"es, "do"s, and "while"s.] >If this is the real bug did anyone else notice that lint would have >caught it? Which version of lint? The four versions that I tried (UTS 5.2.6b lint, 5ESS's nlint, Pyramid's bsd lint, and Pyramid's att lint) said nothing about potential problems resulting from a break within an "if". Jeff Frontz Work: +1 614 860 2797 AT&T-Bell Labs (CB 1C-356) Cornet: 353-2797 att!jeff.frontz jeff.frontz@att.com ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 12:52:32 GMT > Bell Canada expects to start the Alex system up in Toronto at the end > of April. This is basically a line that can be called via modem to > access a variety of "service providers" that are online. It works with > the NAPLPS videotext format to transmit data and diagrams. Sounds like SourceLine, which is a service Southwestern Bell tried to make a go of down here in Houston. Remember the stuff a while back about SWBell versus BBS operators? That was Ma trying to kill off her competition. They just gave up on SourceLine and left the field to U.S.Videotel. Whether any of their associated lawsuits and rate change stuff with the PUC follow it into the bit-bucket is another question. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' ------------------------------ From: "Jesse W. Asher" Subject: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 4 Mar 90 23:48:38 GMT Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" Organization: Dynasys: Consulting for the Future. I know this is going to sound strange, but I can never get a straight answer from the phone company. Can anyone tell me what the "Federal Communications Commission Toll Access Charge" is and why I have to pay it? Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"? I'm tired of not knowing what I'm paying for and why. Thanks in advance to anyone that can answer these mysterious questions. :-) Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Evening: (901)382-1609 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 UUCP: {uunet,fedeva,rayo}!dynasys!jessea [Moderator's Note: The FCC charge is made to compensate your local telco for revenue lost when the long-distance 'separations and settlements' method of compensation from AT&T was discontinued. For many decades, the charges for long distance calls were kept higher than necessary, with much of the revenue going back to subsidize local phone service. AT&T paid this to the local telco each month. It was decided that long distance callers should not have to subsidize the local telcos, so AT&T quit paying 'settlements' to the telcos, and eventually the cost of long distance calls came down. In the meantime, the local telcos complained they were losing money on the 'free rides' people got between the local central office and the nearest long distance office of the chosen carrier. This charge you question, mandated by law, is to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of divestiture does; but them's the breaks. The "Inside Wire Maintainence Charge" you do not have to pay. Its like an insurance policy which says when anything goes wrong with the wires inside your house once every fifty years or so, the local telco will repair it for free. If you do not pay this, then if anything goes wrong with the wire once it enters your premises, YOU have to fix it. Again, this is a product of divestiture and modern ideas about how to run a telephone company. You should be able to call the business office and tell them you don't want this 'protection'. Generally speaking, you can ignore the horror stories they will use to convince you to keep it. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 15:22:10 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu From: John Higdon Just when you think that it's over, you get a call from Pac*Bell repair asking what sort of trouble you are having on the line. A caller reported the line out of order because he kept getting the wrong party for the number he was dialing! One-upmanship: I've gotten phone calls from Noo Ingland Telebozo because some telemarketer called my modem line and didn't think there should be a modem at the other end of the number they called at random. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / [Moderator's Note: I had a lady turn me in once for giving her a modem tone when she was trying to call Ruthie's Restaurant, a defunct business place which did not pay its bills. My second line is their old number from years ago. For people like her, I'd *love* to have Caller*ID so I could demonstrate what getting your number polluted beyond further use is all about. :) What evil lurks in the heart of the Moderator? Only the Shadow Knows! har har har! PT] ------------------------------ From: Dan'l DanehyOakes Subject: Wroooong Number Date: 7 Mar 90 22:26:40 GMT Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA John Higdon wrote about the Dedicated Wrong Number Telephone User. (I'm glad to know you get dedicated ones, mine all seem to be timeshared.) Check out a magazine called RE/SEARCH. They recently did an issue on practical jokes, and one of the interviewees explained what to do when you get a wrong number caller... "Never waste a wrong number," he said. When the party at the other end asks for someone you've never heard of -- say, Rapoport -- here's what you do. "Hi, is Rapoport there?" "I'll go check. May I ask who's calling?" "Tufnertz." "Okay, just a minute." Put the phone down and walk away. Let your footsteps be heard walking off. Then walk back. "Hey, listen, Rapoport won't come to the phone. He says he's still very mad at you and doesn't want to talk about it." ...It works like a charm. I've tried this several times now, and I've *never* had one of these guys call me back! When are you Cosmic cowboys gonna get it through your head? I'll be mellow when I'm dead! I'll be mellow when I'm dead! I'll be mellow when I'm dead! -- Al Yankovic Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #151 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01580; 8 Mar 90 3:38 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13262; 8 Mar 90 2:02 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26234; 8 Mar 90 0:57 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 0:31:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #152 BCC: Message-ID: <9003080031.ab07873@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 00:30:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 152 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Cable Companies Versus Telcos (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Edward S. Sachs) Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set (Gary W. Sanders) Re: Aspen vs. AUDIX (Cathy Kearns) Vista United Followup (John Bruner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Cable Companies Versus Telcos Commenting in part on the message from: "Bill B40417 2-7390 " (BTW, just WHAT Federal Penitentiary is that address from, Bill?) In TELECOM Digest Volume 10 issue 134 Patrick Townson writes: > [Moderator's Note: It appears your local cable company has convinced > your local telco they should be allowed to use an 'equal access' 10xxx > code as though they were a telco. Although it sounds like a clever > idea, I can't help but object in principle to this mis-use of the numbering > scheme. I wonder if Bellcore or anyone else in authority is even aware > of it, or gave permission for it. PT] In fact, you can expect your local cable TV company to become another of the interlopers on the "monopoly" of your 'friendly neighborhood phone company.' Today, in _every_ local cable system passing your house, the vast majority of the spectrum below 50 megahertz is unused. That capacity is enough for upwards of 30,000 plain old dial phone lines passing every house in town. The technology to use it is not difficult to figure out, and even though your local Cable TV "expert," either the one with the chino trousers and toolbelt or the IROC (Idiot Right Out of College) in the local office understands their function only to be purveyors of prurient rock videos to the masses, you can bet the HQ of the Cable TV Empire knows it. (Think there aren't Cable TV Empires? Learn about the cable TV acronym "MSO." It stands for "Multi-System Operator." About a half-dozen of them own hundreds of Cable TV systems all over the nation. They pay upwards of $3,000 per subscriber to buy cable systems, when the going price for a Telco is about $1,700 per subscriber, with far more capital plant investment and real current revenue in a Telco.They _must_ be buying to do _something_ more than sell you 30 or 60 channels of TV for $35 a month! What is that "something?" It's coming clear it will be a dial tone imported from a local Telco outside the territory of your current one. The groundwork is already laid, clear through Federal Appeals courts in which Arco Oil just outside Dallas imports the dial tone of Southwestern Bell from Dallas into GTE of Texas territory. You can betcha when Arco put those channels on a private microwave out of frustration with GTE, SWBT even joined in the action to "protect the franchise area" of its apparent 'brother of the cloth', GTE. But, Arco took up the cudgel in the courts, arguing that dial tone gets used to make _interstate_ connections, thus its provision and use in such ways is _beyond_ the purview of state regulation. Next stop, if any: the Supreme Court, and it is doubtful the Telcos want Tom Brokaw to tell you about their certain loss if they take it there. Reason: Somehow, the message of the FCC commissioners, that was even printed by some, saying that now they had broken the interstate monopoly, it was time to break the local monopoly, has been buried. It is _no_real_secret_ that the Feds want you to have a _number_ of choices in local telecommunications. What do we see happening? Add up all the bits you have seen and notice it as part of that big picture: 1.) The Cable TV potential to give you a dial tone; 2.) The FCC mandating both a "wireline" _and_ a "non-wireline" cellular company in every area; 3.) The attempt of the FCC to foster opening of "Digital Termin- ation Services" (DTS) and "Digital Electronic Messaging Services" (DEMS) that went begging for use, so the FCC gave the frequencies away (a premature attempt on the part of Government to encourage "bypass" of the local Telco); 4.) The emergence of "Alternative Access Carriers" (AACs) as characterized by the duplicate actions of Metropolitan Fiber Optics and Teleport in 20+ cities, as well as lesser know ones like Intermedia in Florida, building fiber in the streets, subway tunnels and other innovative rights- of way ... now demanding the local Telco be ordered by the Feds to interconnect with them and even let _them_ be the bearers of dial tone to your premises; 5.) The boom in VSATs, with no real minimum distance limit or restriction against being used across town; 6.) The looming flood of PCNs, CLANs, "Telepoints" and such, all clamoring for scarce 900 Mhz spectrum space just now; and 7.) NASA's work in PASS -Personal Access Satellite Systems - a technology to use the (present) upper reaches of the radio spectrum 30 gigahertz for you to get a dial tone directly from 23,000 miles in space. All of these represent cracks in the monopoly of your "local telephone monopoly" that the Feds have used or will use to give you more choices. They will _all_ need a "10xxx code" some day. What shows that _some_ understand this is discussions now underway to find a way to expand the "10xxx" numbering system past its present 999 number limit. So, Cable TV getting "10xxx codes"? Sure, and probably plenty of others, too. (The preceding is Chapter 22 from an upcoming book tentatively titled, "Things your local Mom Telco will never tell you." Anybody out there ready to front me the advance money on it ... or is it still too Jules Verne-like for you to believe it could ever happen? The difference is: It is _already_ happening! Just open your view and connect all the events together!) Readressing the end of the issue raised: >I wonder if Bellcore or anyone else in authority is even aware >of it, or gave permission for it. - PT You betcha, Pat. It couldn't happen otherwise, because Bellcore is the Official Keeper of the Book of 10xxx Codes. If you take one and they don't agree, they can issue it to somebody they recognize and get all the Telcos in the nation to route your traffic to whomever Bellcore decides to give that code to. For all we might castigate common carriers for, stupidity of that level is not something I would accuse them of. Now, to address Bill's question about the non-participation of the cellular companies in all this: >I wish that cellular phone companies would use the equal access 10xxx >for "roaming" within LATA's. It would seem a cleaner interface than >the current "roaming" number you have to prefix your calls with." You're quite right, Bill. It is extremely logical. However, that is the flaw. Logic does _not_ guide the highly-political way in which these various technologies get employed. The beaurocrats said that the "10xxx" scheme was intended for INTER-Lata calling, and since the cellular business is of course, INTR-Lata common carriage, they are not privileged to be part of that numbering scheme. No, rather, we have an entirely separate complex that employs a different group of IROCs to enter into "negotiations" for business deals for roamers around the country. It's made a better form of full employment than FDR could ever have dreamed up in the National Reconstruction Act (have to be sure people understand _which_ NRA we talk about here) era. After all, why use a logical piece of technology when you can confound the whole matter with "finanz-politik" as I imagine the Germans would say it. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, *fl MCIMail dkimberlin; ATTMail !dkimberlin [Moderator's Note: Quite coincidentally, most cable in Chicago is provided by Group W. And they are losing money badly ... like a million dollars *per month*. They want to sell out, and they actually have a buyer. Guess who! Pacific Telesis, that's who! Yes, one of the first, or maybe the first excursion by a telco into cable TV will happen right here in Chicago sometime later this spring, pending His Honor signing off on it and the Chicago City Council getting properly greased and oiled. They wanted to close the deal April 1, but that will be impossible. We now expect a June 1 cutover. A subsidiary of PacTel is being created to run things here. PT] ------------------------------ From: Edward S Sachs Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! Date: 6 Mar 90 13:47:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL In article <4709@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > That sure rings a bell! We had some UNIX training here by contract > with Western Electric back many years ago. We still have the special > WE-unique *4-ring* binders and *4-hole-punched* paper they provided to > us as part of the training materials. Designed specifically to be > incompatible with ordinary 3-hole-punched standard paper and 3-ring > binders, these look ordinary from the outside, but are sure different > inside! The instructor mumbled something about it being a way to > prevent employees from stealing supplies to use at home or give to > their kids at school. Somehow I think the extra costs of having > special products designed and produced for WE would far exceed the > amount lost through employee petty theft if they used ordinary > commercial products... :-) Just to bring times up to date a bit -- AT&T went to standard 3-ring binders about 8 years ago (I guess the special order 4 ring jobs were getting too expensive). However, for many years, we ordered special paper punched with seven (count-em, 7) holes, to fit both the old and the new binders. About a year or so ago, apparently because of the difficulties in procuring the special order 7-hole paper, it exists no more, and we now get the standard issue three hole stuff. I've had to discard many serviceable 4 ring binders and replace them with 3 ringers because it was too much trouble to repunch papers. I still have my 7-hole punch (a 3 hole job to which I added four additional punch heads -- they used to stock the extra punch heads along with the punches in the stockroom). Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL att!ihlpb!essachs, e.s.sachs@att.com ------------------------------ From: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set Date: 7 Mar 90 18:37:07 GMT Reply-To: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <4780@accuvax.nwu.edu> jeh@simpact.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9 >In article <4737@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: >> (complimentary things about the Plantronics cordless headset phone >> sold by DAK) Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard Walkman type headset is what I need. I already have a Plantronics headset, but it is not cordless; it works great but I would like a little more mobility. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Aspen vs. AUDIX Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 16:08:37 PST From: Cathy Kearns Organization: Octel Communications, Milpitas, California In article <4812@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 148, Message 4 of 11 >We have a System 85 and are looking to add voice mail. The campus has >2,000 students and about 500 faculty/staff. We've talked to two >vendors, ATT and Octel. One vendor claims 18 ports is plenty the >other says it won't work with less than 32. Now that's a pretty big >difference. A consultant claims that system integration is the key >and you should never put another vendors product on an ATT switch. >That sounds more than strange! Can anyone point me in the right >direction? Does anyone have Octel on an 85? How does one properly >size a voice mail system? Yes, it does seem strange that two quotes for voice mail systems are off by 14 ports. To answer the question "How does one properly size a voice mail system? " I'd say start off with erlang tables. Erlang tables are an industry standard that uses traffic to size needs for PBXs, ACD systems, Voice Processing systems, and determining trunking requirements. You should ask both vendors to show what numbers they used to come up with those port quotes. Perhaps one vendor was using actual traffic statistics, and the other was guessing at them. Your consultant is correct when saying system integration is the key, however Octel systems DO integrate with System 85s. Sales Engineering informs me (I'm a development programer) that we have over 100 systems in the field integrated to ATT System 85. This means yes, the Octel system answers your phone if you are not available and gives the caller your personal greeting and allows him or her to leave a message. This means yes, if you have messages the message waiting light on your phone will be lit or if your phone does not have a message waiting light you will get stutter dial tone when you take your phone off hook. This means yes, if you dial into the system from your phone it will not ask you to enter your extension (or mailbox number.) These are just a few of the features that come with an integrated system. We use a System 85 in our engineering lab to test integrations with new features, I've seen it work. You should ask your Octel sales person to get you a list of customers with Octel systems integrated with System 85s. All that work and at least one consultant hasn't noticed! Cathy Kearns Software Engineer Octel Communications cathy@octel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 21:44:46 CST From: John Bruner Subject: Vista United Followup Last month I described my encounter with "Vista United" while I was staying onsite at Disney World in Florida. When I dialed 0+NPA+NXX-XXXX there was a ringing tone, followed by a ka-bong, and I was told "Thank you for using Vista United." I called the hotel desk and was assured that Vista United was their local exchange company and they really did use AT&T for long distance. They did not. My telephone bill this month includes charges from Telecom*USA for the calls I placed from Disney World. I was not surprised to find that the calls cost me more. As I suspected at the time, I should have avoided the Mickey Mouse telephones (on which 10288 did not work) and placed my calls from the AT&T exhibit in Epcot's Communicore. (I also note that Disney is raising their ticket prices and justifying it not on the basis of expenses, but because they believe they are providing enough value to warrant charging more. Is this what Walt would have wanted?) John ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #152 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04056; 8 Mar 90 4:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22067; 8 Mar 90 3:06 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13262; 8 Mar 90 2:02 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 1:16:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #153 BCC: Message-ID: <9003080116.ab19221@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 01:15:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 153 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: How Easy Is It To 'Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (John Debert) Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Bob Sherman) Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Installing a Second Line in Apartment (Raymond Koverzin) Re: Name That Undersea Cable (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Jody Kravitz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To 'Tap' Microwave Transmissions? Respnding to: , Sat, 3 Mar 90 > In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap >the phone system at microwave towers. I was wondering if this >is really true? Not as difficult as the mostly out-of-date textbooks would make you think, Christopher. The advances that gave you all the horsepower of a PC and hand-held cellular radios have been applied to the test equipment, too. This means complex processes that once would have taken a van full of cranky analog test gear now are available in a single box, albeit an expensive one. You could rent it for perhaps $200 for a week, though. For good old analog stuff, few people properly understand just how much stuff the antennae splatter out "off axis," out of their main lobe. (Somehow they can't relate that it's the same stuff that sets off their radar detector when they pass one a mile or so away.) It means in that case that a smart tech with a home satellite TV downconverter and a shortwave radio with a Beat Frequency Oscillator (BFO) can even scan what's on them. This sort of analog interception has been of enough concern that our people intervened in London when the GPO (now British Telecom) built their tower in the center of London, asking them to relocate some microwave beams that would wind up passing over the Russian Embassy there. It ain't THAT hard to do. The question in both cases is: How much effort do you want to put forth, and is there an easier way? My answer is: There are a number of other vulnerabilities all those phone lines have and easier ways to do it. Problem is: If I told you here how amazingly simple it is to use far less elegant methods and how they could (and have been) accomplished, I would be 1.) Giving away some of my stock in trade that buys me groceries for the kiddies (by counseling communications and DP managers for a living), and 2.) Probably opening myself for prosecution, if not at least getting on a subversive list someplace. Suffice it to say that crooks are lazy people, and they have easier ways than the Russians had to use in London. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? Date: 8 Mar 90 04:43:47 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} In article <4787@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tjrob@ihlpl.att.com (Thomas J Roberts) says: > From article <4690@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by CJS@cwru.bitnet: >> In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap the phone >> system at microwave towers. I was wondering if this is really true? >> Just how hard is it for someone to do? > There are two major impediments to tapping microwave systems that > usually outweigh technical considerations. > 1) The cost of obtaining space in the line of the microwave beam. Why can't one aim their dish at the antenna they wish and pick up the signal bouncing off it? I hear that the Russians have been doing it this way for some time. > 2) The risk of being caught, and the potential penalties (civil and > criminal) that result. Is the risk really very high? How likely is it that someone doing this will be noticed, let alone caught at it? > Note that for foriegn embassies/consulates that happen to be > located within the beam, these considerations probably do not > apply [in most countries, the GOVERNMENT can legally tap the > phones, as long as the GOVERNMENT gives its permission - this > includes the USA]. Embassies & consulates are legally foreign soil and are not subject to the laws of the host country. As for the latter part of this statement - do you mean that the government can give itself permission? It's not really clear what you mean. You seem to think that it's nearly impossible to intercept links' signals. I rather suspect that you would be speechless were you to discover how easily and cheaply it could be done. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments Organization: U of Miami Dept. of Math. and Computer Science, Coral Gables, FL Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 06:27:57 GMT In <4851@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Call a friend with 3-way calling, and get them to serve as a bridge. >If you have Class services, surely you have 3-way. In fact, I could >imagine some of those operator services companies doing that. Sorry to disappoint you. But when going through call forwarding or 3 way calling, the phone number of the phone YOU are using will be the first number in the datastream, and will still be the number displayed on the CPID display. You could go through the telco operator console however, in which case her position code will show up, not your number, however you will be charged operator assist charges. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL: BSHERMAN >> Miami's Big Apple - 305-948-8000 - 24 hours - 300/1200 - PCP'able << >> Oldest Apple support board in Southeast. Now in it's ninth year. << ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail Date: 7 Mar 90 16:08:48 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > [Moderator's Note: You want to hear another laugh? Try calling 800 > Directory and asking for 'AT&T Mail'... they will give you some > strange number in New Jersey which is answered 'hello', and after > you explain that you are trying to reach AT&T Mail Customer Service > they will (maybe) transfer you correctly to some other number. Try > 201 Directory; they've never heard of AT&T Mail either, and finally > they will give you the Corporate switchboard and let her try to > figure it out. PT] Well, it's not quite *that* bad. What you get is the Technical Support Center. What you want is the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center, 1-800-MAIL-672 (1-800-624-5672); outside the U.S.A., call 201-668-6548. If you have access to AT&T Mail, you can also send a message to !atthelp on the service. (The TSC was able to give me the right number, and apologized for the confusion.) In article <4781@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telotech!lenj@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu (Leonard A. Jaffe) writes: > I read the above a day before I was put in charge of getting info > about AT&T Mail. I contacted a person who I figured would know and > he gave me the name and number of his contact: I've worked with the person Leonard mentions. He's a very nice guy, and I'm extremely grateful that he (or his secretary) helped you out. But he's a systems engineer, not a customer support type; yes, he can answer your questions, but not as easily as the CAC, and he's not doing his "real" job when he's doing that. >Leonard A. Jaffe, ...!uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!telotech!lenj The obvious next question is, "How can I get to AT&T Mail from the Internet?" The answer is, for the moment, you can't. Technically, it's easy, since AT&T Mail supports uucp. The problem is, any system that set itself up as a gateway would be billed for messages it passes on to the service, and wouldn't be able to charge its clients back. AT&T management knows this is a limitation, knows that the competition talks to the Internet, and knows that an Internet connection would be a Good Thing. If something develops, I'll let you know. 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. ------------------------------ From: Raymond Koverzin Subject: Installing a Second Line in Apartment Date: 7 Mar 90 19:07:11 GMT Organization: Northern Telecom, Mtn. View, CA I want to install a second phone line in my aparment. I called Pac Bell and they stated that can provide the second line "up to the wall of the apartment building" for the basic service activation charge. I talked to the landlord and he stated that he does not know if the apartments are properly wired for a second line. He said that I would have to get a Pac Bell service person in to check into it. I have checked behind the phone outlet and there are two twisted pairs connected to the outlet. How can I be sure that the second pair is hooked up to the local CO and that all I need is service activation? Is it likely that the second line has to be connected at the pedestal at the front entrance to the apartment complex, thus I will need to get a service technician to make the connection AND verify that the line is good inside my apartment. If that is the case, then I don't consider the second line is "wired up to the wall of the apartment building." It is only up to the pedestal. How much should I expect to pay for a Pac Bell service tech? I don't want to pay for having him install a second outlet; I can do that myself. The apartment complex, I believe, is about 5 years old. Please post your replies because I think a lot of people would be interested in the replies. But if you prefer, you can email me directly. Thanks. Ray ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable Responding to John R. Levine's question, "Name That Undersea Cable," posted Thu, 1 Mar 90: >.." Two blocks south of my house, at each end of the street (east and >west ends, that is) there are large AT&T signs warning us that there >is a buried transcontinental cable and awful things will happen to >anyone who digs without talking to them first. Since the only thing >to the east is the ocean, I presume this is one of the transatlantic >cables. Anybody have an idea which one?" Doubtful it is one of the transoceanic cables, John. Those are usually _very_well_ protected in conduits running pretty directly from the shore station toward the shoreline. That is _not_ to say the route is in a straght line, but it's usually in the streets of the town where the cable station is, not 30 miles up the shore. As to just _what_ you find there, the operative word on the sign is "transcontinental." That's one of the forms of several signs used by AT&T over the years for coaxial cable routes across the country. In an area like the Jersey Shore, it could in fact be the coaxial route from Tuckerton carrying its circuits into New York for termination on a switching machine, or even a coaxial route between AT&T facilities along the shore. You know, Ocean Gate is where AT&T has one of its shortwave stations that is still partially operative, for the ships at sea on shortwave radio. In the era that Ocean Gate was built, coaxial would have been the medium of choice to carry its circuits back to NYC for interconnection to the domestic network. As to transoceanic cables in general, many people would be sur- prised to know just how many there have been, dating in telegraphy from _long_ before the era of undersea telephone cables. One statistic I have in my library is that Cable & Wireless alone had 155,000 _nautical_miles_ (the LONG miles) of telegraph cables still in use in the 1950's. I personally had involvement in the restoration of a telegraph cable running from Havana to Key West in 1968, when it finally failed from a cut. Even later in the early 1970's that _same_old_cable_ was put back into service using a custom-built FSK system (get this: 250 Watts of low-frequency audio on 80 miles of DC telegraph cable under the Straits of Florida. Bet some environmentalists will find a reason to protest that one now that I've revealed it!). Other cables are (or were) in surprising places. One I know of was Western Union's cable station simply called "Rockaway." It is located just inshore of Rockaway Beach at Brooklyn, where WUTCo terminated telegraphic cable circuits to a _major,_ _multinational_ telegraphic interchange point on the island of Horta in the Azores. (Cables of American, English, Italian and German interests all landed on Horta, crossing paths between Europe and both North and South America. Anyhow, the workers at Rockaway were good old New York City boys who lived in Brooklyn and even rode the subway to work! (I was privileged to work with some of these heroes of what I call "megalithic telecommunications" in their later years; the major lesson I learned from them was that there _was_ life before Bell Labs and Cliff Robertson! Someday, somehow, all of this _has_ to get into a book _and_ the curricula of the courses now being foisted as learning a "proper appreciation" of the technology of telecommunications! How about it? Any takers out there? I have an extensive source of telecommunications history that exists only in mostly lost company publications and personal archives of some of those giants I was privileged to work with. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin [Moderator's Note: Please do share some of that history with us. From at least a few of the messages I get here, I think some readers believe the telephone was invented circa 1980. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 21:58:04 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller >There is a particular breed of telephone user that I would greatly >like to see exterminated. It is the Dedicated Wrong Number Caller. . . I live in rural San Diego County. The former owner of my phone number was a Mexican who tanned hides. This was his home number, but he must have given his home number to lots of people. Many of the callers did not speak English. Their persistance would lead me to believe he owed them money. When I lived on the University of Illinois campus, I shared the first floor of an old "mansion" with 3 other guys. I was the only one who was employed, so I had the only phone in the house. I programmed computers, and worked weird hours. I had call forwarding. In order to get any sleep, I would routinely forward my calls to the time & temperature lady when I was tired. One night I get this call from repair service. "Is anything wrong with your phone ?" "No", I respond, sleepily. Well, it seems that my roommates's friend had hassled the operator to tears trying to get her to put his call through to my roomate. The operator had never heard of call forwarding. The guy at repair service seemed amused when I explained to him that my phone really was working fine, and that forwrding was how I expressed my aggrevation at my roommate's friends using my phone. The next day, it was no longer possible to forward calls to the time & temperature lady. Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #153 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11904; 9 Mar 90 0:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18231; 8 Mar 90 22:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09473; 8 Mar 90 21:09 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:22:37 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #154 BCC: Message-ID: <9003082022.ab05911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:21:53 CST Volume 10 : Issue 154 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson A History of Telco Cross-Subsidies (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: Modifying Cordless Phones (John Higdon) Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Michael Morrell) Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (Patrick L. Reilly) Re: Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan (Robert E. Zabloudil) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (Andrew Payne) Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Will Martin) Re: London 071, 081 Split (Kevin Hopkins) Re: Name That Undersea Cable (Tom Lowe) Re: COCOTs and Long Distance (Jim Rees) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: A History of Telco Cross-Subsidies A bit of syncophancy (check THAT one in your thesaurus!) with our moderator on the issue of cross-subsidy: >[Moderator's Note: The flaw in your analogy between AT&T/Bell System >subsidies to local service from long distance revenues and the >Japanese thing is that AT&T started doing it at a time when we were >striving for universal service -- phones in each household, etc. >Keeping the price of local service artificially low at the expense of >long distance revenues was one way to help spur universal service. >So phone service overall was improved by the cross subsidy >since the low rates for local service prompted more people to get >phones, thus increasing the value of my phone and service. This >is true only of phone *connections* -- not phone *instruments*. >If your instrument meets certain minimal standards imposed by the >FCC, we can communicate with each other. The Panasonic or AT&T >label on it matters not. PT] Right on, Pat! It seems the history has been _so_completely_ obscured that people _do_not_ comprehend the "deal" that AT&T concocted with the Feds in 1913. PLEASE, EVERYBODY, AFTER ME: It was a pure, plain, simple Anti-Trust Consent Decree that the Bell interests sent a relatively minor VP named Kingsbury down to Washington to sign. Then, as now, you _never_ expose your King to the opposing Army, and AT&T knew how to play chess in 1913, you betcha. They sent Kingsbury with instructions, and to every demand he was exposed to, he had to "check with HQ" to get approval. What the Feds did do in 1913 was to craft a pretty neat deal to get the latest in (1913) technology spread out to all of us, without requiring Government funding; getting us all to pay for it, while creating an industry that employed millions and expanded the economy. Some pretty smart work in retrospect, because for a lot of decades, it accomplished something we all wanted that _did_ benefit us all. The monopoly on the rental of the terminal equipment was one Bell grabbed off state-by-state, and it wasn't so bad at the outset as it helped to fund the whole project. For those who _really_ want to understand this point, read some of the state-by-state history of the Feds breaking up the terminal monopoly. North Carolina may have been the most ridiculous approach suggested. Their PUC even for a while mandated you could own your own phone for use _only_ on a _second_line you rented for INTERstate calls, but you had to have a "primary" line with a Telco-rented phone for LOCAL and INTRAstate calls! That's how silly the politicians can get with this simple, buggy-whip-era (think about that!) technology. je regret, mes amis, qui votre lecteurs n'compris pas l'hist- oire de le Systeme Bell vraiment. Ils sont present seule- ment l'version de Cliff Robertson. Suivant, nous avons beau- coup de les IROCs (Idiots Right Out of College) pursuivant les affaires du telecommunications aujourd'hui. et maintenant, notre moderateur: Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Modifying Cordless Phones Date: 7 Mar 90 18:45:37 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Steck Thomas writes: > I am the owner of a Uniden cordless phone. > [...] > My question is this - how hard is it to install an external antenna of > some sort to boost the reception? Not very hard, but not very effective, either. Also, probably not very legal. If you are experiencing interference, then simply installing a bigger antenna will bring in more noise along with signal and your net gain will be zero. Also, cordless phones operate under a section of the rules that are very strict regarding antenna size in addition to transmitter power. Tampering in any way with the RF section (including antenna) of a cordless phone voids FCC type acceptance. You probably ought to look into a cordless model that can better deal with the interference. Take a serious look at the AT&T 5500. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Michael Morrell Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 7 Mar 90 21:44:16 GMT Organization: HP System Architecture Lab, Cupertino >Toll saver (answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, >when you call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know >you have no messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge). Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). This feature should be illegal. Michael [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. Years ago, telco security people referred to schemes involving letting the phone ring a certain number of times, hanging up and dialing over as 'constructive messages'; meaning telco believed a message had been delivered, regardless of no voice on the line. When I saw AT&T answering machines with 'Toll Saver' as a feature *they* were marketing, I gave up my campaign. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Patrick L. Reilly" Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? Date: 8 Mar 90 16:50:38 GMT Reply-To: motcid!reilly%uunet.uu.net@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL techwood!johnw@gatech.edu (John Wheeler) writes: >In article <4690@accuvax.nwu.edu> CJS@cwru.bitnet writes: >> In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap the phone >>system at microwave towers. I was wondering if this is really true? >Well, having installed several dozen home satellite TV systems in the >East Tennessee/Southwest Virginia area, I can tell you that there are >places it's hard NOT to "tap" the microwave transmissions..... In a previous life as a toll center engineer we would insert tones in a microwave channel in order to trace performance. A similiar practice is used to "tap" microwave lines. I cannot tell you how to do it (and it is easy despite what you may here from this group) since it is ILLEGAL. Also a tad expensive, say about $50K for the equipment. ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan Date: 8 Mar 90 19:08:57 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <4839@accuvax.nwu.edu> tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 149, Message 2 of 8 >Nowhere does the article mention the motivation behind the variation >in rate increases. Why might this be? What are the costs to the >various telcos in implementing this wide-area calling, and how if at >all is this cost related to the rate hikes? Why would it cost GTE >customers some $4.16 for this? As I recall reading somewhere, at least back in the Iowa/Illinois area, your basic local rate is based to a degree on how many phones you can reach toll-free. Thus, by expanding your toll-free area, you can call more phones "free", making your basic service more valuable, so the phone company can charge you more. If you make a lot of calls to the "fringe" areas, you'll probably come out ahead; if you're a little old lady only calling your friend across the street, you may lose a little on the deal. Bob Zabloudil Opinions my own, etc. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Payne Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 8 Mar 90 20:30:34 GMT Reply-To: Andrew Payne Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY In article <4863@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Jesse W. Asher" writes: >I know this is going to sound strange, but I can never get a straight >answer from the phone company. Can anyone tell me what the "Federal >Communications Commission Toll Access Charge" is and why I have to pay >it? >Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"? I'm tired >of not knowing what I'm paying for and why. Thanks in advance to >anyone that can answer these mysterious questions. :-) On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge or the amount. Anyone know the basis for this charge? What is the distance beyond which the charge applies? (My parents are less than 1.5 miles from the CO, and the phone lines follow the shortest road to the CO (e.g. they are about 1.5 miles long too). Also, my parents are one of the closer ones: A friend if mine is more than 25 miles from the exchange.) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu [Moderator's Note: This is indeed very strange. Are you sure this is how the charge is described? Could it be a 'foreign exchange' (or FX) charge for being served (at their request) from a CO other than the one intended to serve them? Can you give more specifics? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 14:53:07 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what motivation the consumer has to get it. The usual "affiliate" type credit cards which have an organization logo or symbol on them either provide some benefit to the organization (a charity or political-lobbying group gets some income based on the amount charged on the cards with its logo), or the consumer gets some sort of benefit -- for example, each $100 charged on the card gets the cardholder a $1 credit that can be used for merchandise from a catalog from the sponsoring organization, like a sports team. Somehow I don't think AT&T can convince people that it deserves charitable contributions, so I think the former motivation is out... :-) So is this AT&T card giving the cardholder credits against his AT&T bills at some percentage of the amount charged? Or does charging $1000 get you a T-shirt with the AT&T Deathstar on it? :-) Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Thu, 08 Mar 90 18:41:17 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins In v10i114 John Pettitt reported: -> The new London area codes that come into full use on May 1st -> work now! -> Calling 081 941 2564 (my office) works just fine. If I dial 071 941 -> 2564 I get "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcment -> three". I tried this from outside London (Nottingham - 0602), unlike John, and it also works. If you get the correct code the call completes put if you get the wrong one a recorded message is played saying: "Sorry, you have used the wrong code. Please redial replacing 071 with 081. British Telecom have not charged for this call." The 071/081 are obviously reversed for the other new area code. BT must have informed large institutions/companies of the change, and especially their telephone people, as the new codes work from behind the PBX here at work. The new codes were blocked a couple of months ago when I last tried. The little leaflet I acquired from BT also gave the new international codes for London from Eire to the UK after 6th May 1990. The will be 03 071 and 03 081 respectively. This does not fit into scheme used for major metropolitan areas, such as Birmingham and Manchester, but into the scheme used for the rest of the UK. Thus from Eire: 031 London (until 6th May) STD code 01 032 Birmingham STD code 021 033 Edinburgh STD code 031 034 Glasgow STD code 041 035 Liverpool STD code 051 036 Manchester STD code 061 03 + STD code* Other areas * including leading zero Kev. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable Date: 8 Mar 90 19:18:39 EST (Thu) From: Tom Lowe > I have a beach house in Harvey Cedars NJ, a small town on a barrier > island about 30 miles north of Atlantic City. Two blocks south of my > house, at each end of the street (east and west ends, that is) there > are large AT&T signs warning us that there is a buried transcontinental > cable and awful things will happen to anyone who digs without talking > to them first. Since the only thing to the east is the ocean, I > presume this is one of the transatlantic cables. Anybody have an idea > which one? It's not TAT-8, that leaves from Tuckerton which is about > 10 miles south. The mainland town across from us where the cable > makes landfall is Barnegat, if that's any help. There's an old VLF > antenna array nearby. From an AT&T Cable Location Map that was supplied by AT&T to a Consulting Engineering firm where my wife is an engineer: The cable that John is asking about is the 'Bermuda "A" Cable'. It starts from a building located on Beach Avenue in Manahawkin, NJ. Manahawkin is a mainland town located across the bay from Long Beach Island, on which is the little town of Harvey Cedars. I think the antenna array John is talking about is at this same location. I do believe that this location is where they communicate to Ships at sea for AT&T's High Seas service. Down in Tuckerton, which is about 6 miles south of Manahawkin and is also a mainland town across the bay from Long Beach Island (which is 18 miles long, north to south) is another AT&T Office from which TAT#4, TAT#7, TAT#8 start. These three cables run under Little Egg Harbor and run across Long Beach Island through a little town called Beach Haven. Those are the only cables on the map I have, which is for Ocean County, New Jersey. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: COCOTs and Long Distance Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:22:34 GMT > Yes most of these things have a telemetry mode. The phone I have can > do it in either voice (via a stored voice) or by a modem. The latest AT&T business equipment catalog, which I got in the mail yesterday, lists a monthly service whereby the latest rate information is automatically downloaded to your customer-owned payphone once a month. The catalog is a marvel of marketing hype and techno gobbledy-gook. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #154 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13799; 9 Mar 90 1:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29250; 8 Mar 90 23:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad18231; 8 Mar 90 22:16 CST Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:45:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #155 BCC: Message-ID: <9003082145.ab03254@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:45:18 CST Volume 10 : Issue 155 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Chris Johnson) Re: CPID/ANI and Privacy Research (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: More "I Want My ANI" (Tom Lowe) Re: More "I Want My ANI" (John Owens) Wanted: CCS7 Specs (Lester Hiraki) Caller*ID Complaints, Again (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers (Donald E. Kimberlin) Data Feed over Cable TV (Brian Kantor) Changing to MCI Long Distance (Paul Wilczynski) 508/617 Being in the Same LATA (Jon Solomon) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Larry Campbell) Re: Wroooong Number (Jerry Leichter) Special Issue This Weekend: ECPA Lawsuit (TELECOM Moderator) AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Insight Magazine via J. Lockhard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments Date: 6 Mar 90 23:15:17 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <4785@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu writes: >> [about how he doesn't want B to know that he associates with A] >> With Caller ID, if I call B, I've just given away that I'm at A. >Suggestions: >1. Wait until you are out of the area to call B. If this information >(that you associate with A) is so sensitive, then maybe the return call >can wait. And other suggestions, mostly for the business world. My warped mind, however, immediately jumped to the more personal world. This will make it a lot harder to cheat on a spouse when your home has Caller ID. Or a significant other. Gee, even folks who are friends of yours but enemies of each other could take advantage(?) of Caller ID: "You called me last night from Nancy's house! How could you? She's an egotistical bitch and I can't stand the sight of her. You'd rather spend time with that snot then watch TV with me?" I guess the answer has to be: prepare thyself for a new generation of telecommunications. No more anonymity at the whim of the moment. Who has never made a crank call? *cough* Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: CPID/ANI and Privacy Research Responding to Bridger Mitchell's inquiry about papers: >Caller ID has generated a lot of discussion, but I am unaware of many >more substantive contributions. I wonder if you know of people doing >actual research in this area that would be at a presentation stage by >the end of the summer?" I would suggest contact with Vic Toth, Principal of V.J.Toth, P.C. in Reston, VA. Vic is on a Presidential advisory council in Washington and pretty deeply into issues of Caller ID, looking into what legislative action should be taken at the Federal level. He can be E-Mailed on MCIMail under the imposing username of "The Law Offices of Victor Toth." Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail: dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More "I Want My ANI" Date: 8 Mar 90 08:21:33 EST (Thu) From: Tom Lowe > [Moderator's Note: Have you seen the Bell-Atlantic commercial for Caller*ID? > It shows a lady receiving an obscene call (or hints at it -- the words are > not stated on the television commercial). The lady recoils in horror, and > frightens away the obscene caller by pressing a button on her > Caller*ID read out, then reading the fellow's number back to him. We see > him humiliated by being exposed and identified. PT] We don't have Caller*ID in our exchange yet (609-698), but I was able to take advantage of Caller*ID technology indirectly. One night we started getting calls where the caller would say nothing. The first two times I stayed on 3 or 4 minutes before hanging up. The third time, I waited about 30 seconds then said "This New Caller*ID we just signed up for sure is handy. The police will be giving you a call tomorrow" at which point I heard a "CLICK" from the other end. Never heard from him again! Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: Re: More "I Want My ANI" Date: 8 Mar 90 16:46:08 EST (Thu) From: John Owens > [Moderator's Note: Have you seen the Bell-Atlantic commercial for Caller*ID? > It shows a lady receiving an obscene call (or hints at it -- the words are > not stated on the television commercial). The lady recoils in horror, and > frightens away the obscene caller by pressing a button on her > Caller*ID read out, then reading the fellow's number back to him. We see > him humiliated by being exposed and identified. PT] I haven't seen that one, but I've seen two others. One involves two kids left alone; the older brother is trying to explain to the younger brother only to answer the phone if the display shows mom or dad's work number, but the younger brother doesn't pay any attention to him. I didn't think it was very effective, and don't remember it well. The other has three boys of "wonder years" age making a prank phone call to a young woman (possibly their school teacher?). One deepens his voice and tries to arrange a date with the woman. She figures it out, smiles a sly smile, and checks her Caller*ID box. (I'm not sure if she recognizes the number or not.) She says she'll have to think about it and asks if she can call him back. The kid says "I don't give out my number." She says "that's ok" and reads his number back to him. She also asks if his mother is home. The kid is left staring at the receiver with an astonished look on his face. They're trying very hard.... John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Lester Hiraki Subject: Wanted: CCS7 Specs Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 13:24:51 EST I am looking for the technical specifications on Signalling System #7, the protocol which carries the notorious Caller*ID information discussed at great length here. Who publishes this? How can I get a copy? Where can I obtain one? As I am in Canada, I would prefer a local source. Are you Canadians out there?! Thanks in advance. Sorry, no sig - but email to: hiraki@ecf.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 2:09:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Caller*ID Complaints Again Once again the Caller*ID discussion has gotten away from the technical aspects of the service and into the politics involved. We went through all this last December, and you may recall one of my New Year's Resolutions was no more Caller*ID messages. Well, admittedly we have slipped away from that admirable goal. Once again we will cut the topic off and ask that further mention be in a technical perspective only. No more 'it is good, or it is bad'. I admit I am guilty of this also... and it is a tempting subject .. one that could produce many, many more Digests. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers Responding to Steve Kass' post of 2 Mar 90 > "A while back, I offered to collect information on long >distance carriers: rates, area of service, quality, billing, 950-xxxx >access, etc. and post a summary here." And Steve went on to say the cupboard was bare. Well, Steve, there IS a place to find it all. It goes by the name COMPTEL - the Competitive Telecommunications Association, based in Washington, DC. COMPTEL has about 350 members, has just completed a convention near Miami that rated an FCC Commissioner adressing it, and I think your inquiry to them will bear some fruit. It might cost 15 or 25 bucks for some paper they want to sell you, but it will be pretty authoritative. Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Data Feed over Cable TV Date: 8 Mar 90 16:34:32 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. In this month's bill for Southwestern Cable TV in San Diego there arrived a number of glossy inserts. One is quite interesting: A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are being offered starting April 1. The latter distributes IBM-PClone games for children and others over the cable system, two per week. According to the glossy, X-PRESS is a "constant stream of news and information from around the world, plus sports, weather, entertainment, and lifestyle reports. It's used in over 2,500 schools nationwide as a classroom teaching aid." (and on and on) It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser interface. My GUESS is it's a simple subcarrier modem, probably picking up 4800 bps SCA data transmissions on one of the many FM-band transmissions on the cable (our cable system runs many of the subscription-TV services' audio as cable-FM stations, as well as the BBC world service, NOAA weather, and suchlike). It would seem that the above services are offered for $10 a month. However, to attract the money-grubbing capitalists, for an additional $20 a month, "X*PRESS Executive" offers stock market quotes and analysis, apparently compatable with some of the popular PC financial/get-rich-quick programs. Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup). The glossy credits this whole scheme to "X*PRESS, 4643 S Ulster Street, Suite 340, Denver CO 80237", on 800-772-6397. That number was busy the one time I tried to call it. I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio. As if 10MB/day of USENET wasn't enough incoming information overload already. - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 11:56 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Changing to MCI Long Distance I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them. They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us anymore". Interesting. Paul Wilczynski ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 12:46:12 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: 508/617 Being in the Same LATA They are. Calls from 508-XXX and 617-XXX are handled by New England Telephone. However, the same argument (that some towns are split by lata boundries) applies to towns on the 413/508 boundry. In that case, NET leases intteroffice trunks from ATT and provides local calling for the towns in question. All of this is specifically tarriffed. jsol ------------------------------ From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller Date: 8 Mar 90 02:41:31 GMT Reply-To: campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. Even worse, one of my roommates once took a call that went like this: Caller (male): "Is Kathy there?" John: "No, there's no one here by that name." Caller (angrily): "Yeah, right. I *know* she's there. You tell her to get her butt on the phone!" John: "What? Really, there's no one here by that name! You must have the wrong number!" Caller (shouting): "Wrong number my ass, I know she's hiding out there, so get her on the phone right NOW before I hafta HURT somebody!" [At which point John gives the guy a few choice words and hangs up. The guy called back three or four times before he finally either popped an artery or found Kathy through other means.] Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@redsox.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02109 ------------------------------ From: Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu Subject: Re: Wroooong Number Date: 8 Mar 90 07:39:00 EST Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC) Speaking of ways to deal with persistent wrong numbers ... Years back, a friend of mine had a number that differed by one digit from the local Catholic Church. He got many calls for them: he describes the typical one as "What time is 6AM Mass?" After being awakened once too often - he was on one of those typical graduate student schedules, sleeping from 3AM to 11AM - he once claims to have responded to the question, "Can I speak to Father O'neil please" with "Oh, I'm sorry, the Father is really MUCH too drunk to come to the phone right now. Would you like to leave a message?" -- Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:46:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issue This Weekend: ECPA Lawsuit Mr. Henson has kindly provided a copy of the lawsuit his organization filed against the municipal government in his town relevant to violations of federal law pertaining to electronic mail. I will send out a special issue over the weekend -- probably Saturday sometime -- with this file. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: John Lockard Subject: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:46:31 CST AT&T is expanding its translation services to make it easier for consumers and businesses to communicate with non-English-speeking people. The company's Langauge Line Service, providing access to telephone interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects, is already available to businesses, which pay a one-time subscription fee of $1,000 to $1,500, monthly charges of $25 to $50, and a per minute charge of $1.94 to $2.75. Later this year, AT&T plans to introduce a non-subscription service that will allow occasional customers to use and interpreter for $3.50 per minute with the charges added to their phone bill. Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is reached by dialing a toll-free number. An operator determines the language needed and connects the caller to the appropriate interpreter, who then translates for the parties in a three-way conference call. Overseas travelers in countries that allow international toll-free dialing would also have access to the service. From Insight, March 12, 1990. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #155 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19516; 9 Mar 90 4:18 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12965; 9 Mar 90 2:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22617; 9 Mar 90 1:22 CST Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 1:19:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #156 BCC: Message-ID: <9003090119.ab16457@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Mar 90 01:19:07 CST Volume 10 : Issue 156 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted (Donald E. Kimberlin) Trying to Call Dabo Singkep (Jim Rees) Switch Applications (Bernard Mckeever) ISDN Tariffed in California (John Gilmore) TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation Mailing-List (Johnny Zweig) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm EST From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 Subject: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Commenting on W T Sykes' post of the AP story about 10-digit-dialing in NC to avoid a new area code: > The alternative to 10-digit-dialing is a new area code for the >state. But Southern Bell officials say of the original 152 area >codes, only eight remain available. > Bellcore - the research and engineering arm of the Bell >operating companies that allocates area codes - is stingy with the >remaining supply until there is no other solution. Oh, what a tangled web of technology we weave ... and then refuse to let go of. As if the Bell Labs-induced way of establishing the "Numbering Plan Area" system was cast in concrete by some previous generation of moguls. In fact, at the time, our U.S. Bell System had been caught with its drawers down about subscriber-dialed intercity calls. Then-Chairman of AT&T, Fred Kappel, took a plane trip to "one of those funny little countries over there" called Sweden to see for himself that the rumor was true about telephone subscribers dialing their own calls between cities. It was true. A "funny little company" named L. M. Ericsson (are you beginning to notice that name here, now, insular fellow Americans?) had indeed supplied its PTT with subscriber-dialed long distance equipment, and they were, in fact, selling it to other "funny little countries out there." Kappel came back with a mandate: "We're gonna do it, too (sic)." He set Bell Labs to task: Do we make it or buy the Ericsson technology? Well, if you were ever around at that point in time, you _knew_ the answer, commonly called "NIH, Not Invented Here." Yep, we _had_ to be like Frank Sinatra and do it _our_way_. That included some clever proofs that we could economize on the (then-mechanical relay-tree) logic and have a finite number of digits for any valid number, 7 local, 10 long distance. The "inefficiency" of the "Ericsson Plan" was that it was open-ended, and could have any number of digits (up to about 31). In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was to time and wait to see if any more digits followed. It was therefore widely dubbed (in American circles) as foolishly uneconomical. As could be expected, decades of telephone employees were taught a Superior American Way had been invented. In fact, the reason Ericsson did that was that even then, they had a "World View" we Americans still do not have. They left their plan open-ended so it could accommodate almost any numbering scheme the world might evolve to. What Ericsson did was to take their plan to the CCITT (another "funny little bunch of people over there") and it ultimately became the CCITT World Numbering Plan, which, of course, the insular Americans could care less about. And now, we have run out of Area Codes, while the rest of the world has for 40 years grown up with a system that has almost limitless variations and flexibility. Which raises the question: Who was really right back then 40 years ago? Could we EVER admit that Bell Labs just _might_ have been short-sighted once? Or does it hurt too much to admit that possibility? Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL MCIMail: dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Trying to Call Dabo Singkep Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 18:17:33 GMT For the last two weeks I've been trying to telephone a friend in Dabo Singkep, Riau, Indonesia. This place is pretty isolated. It's on an island off the north coast of Sumatra, several days by small, leaky inter-island boat from either Singapore or Jambi in Sumatra. The phone I'm trying to call is one of a handful on the island. It's in the hotel. It has a hand crank and a two-digit number. My first try, I called the AT&T operator and asked for the city code for Dabo Singkep. She typed away at her computer, asked me to spell it for her several times, then called the operator in Indonesia. The operator in Indonesia told her it couldn't be dialled direct. She said she would have to ring up the operator in Pekanbaru, which she did, but that operator couldn't get through to Dabo (she didn't say why not). I've tried several times since. Often the Indonesian operator simply doesn't answer. Sometimes she does, but can't reach the operator in Pekanbaru. Once the Pekanbaru operator claimed she had got to the phone line but it was busy. Seems to me that in the old days, before IDD, when you called overseas you would first call the operator (there was only one back then), give her the number, then she would do whatever necessary to put the call through then call you back. They don't seem to want to do that any more. Half the time I don't even get through to the operator in Indonesia, because the AT&T operator is only willing to stay on the line for about a minute trying to reach Indonesia. Should I give up? ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: Switch Applications Date: 8 Mar 90 14:39:53 GMT Reply-To: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In an earlier posting the following was asked: >In all my experience with various small scale telephony projects, I >have never really assimilated the various switch types used in central >offices through the years. >Perhaps Larry Lippman ( @kitty ) or Bernard McKeever or other who has >had experience in this area could provide a summary of the various CO >switches, the dates of their prominence, and the common applications >they found themselves in (big cities, toll centers, etc). >For instance, most #2 ESS offices seem to serve a smaller number of >customers and operate more slowly than, say #1 ESS. Any insight into >these issues would be appreciated. >Thanx! >John Boteler Well I have to apologize for taking so long with a reply but I have been out of town for a few weeks on business and just got caught up on the news in this group. I am in the middle of a transfer to Denver so this reply may be a little short. Switching systems come in two basic flavors, LOCAL and TANDEM. Now of course the LOCAL TANDEM switch does a little of both. The local switch connects lines to lines and lines to LOCAL TRUNKS [interoffice/ intraexchange]. The TANDEM switch connects TOLL TRUNKS to TOLL TRUNKS and TOLL TRUNKS to TOLL CONNECT TRUNKS. The LOCAL TANDEM may connect to TOLL TRUNKS directly as may some local switches. Easy so far. Most local [exchange] switches and local tandem switches use 2-wire trunks. Most toll switches use 4-wire trunks. In addition to the intended use as a "public" switch, most of the systems mentioned also saw life, in smaller versions, as PBXs. Now that we have the basics, and the CAPS, out of the way a few words from our sponsor. Much of the information that follows comes from available sources. My thanks to Notes on the Network, Notes on Direct Distance Dialing, and of course Engineering and Operations in the Bell System. The opinions expressed are mine and the accurate information and other good stuff belongs to them. Whatever you do, don't throw away old references just because a new one is issued, you may lose a bit of history in the process. LOCAL SWITCHING Automatic switching equipment started to appear in general use in 1919. [invented in 1889 by A. B. Strowger] The Step by Step [SXS] equipment was installed and [I believe] manufactured by Automatic Electric. In 1926 Western Electric introduced its own version the #1SXS. This system, as many can attest, is still used in many areas. Your basic local system, SXS was "improved" to provide 2-wire toll service as early as 1920. By 1940 SXS Tandem was able to provide Centralized Automatic Message Accounting [CAMA]. SXS spawned several variations used as Community Dial Offices [CDO]. In the beginning SXS was not considered economical for large cities so a new development began on a switcher for large cities. The 1st Panel office was placed in service in 1921. This too was a local switch later adapted to local tandem operations. Peaking in the 1950s, the last Panel office was retired on Sept.11,1982 in Newark N.J. In 1938 the #1XB system was introduced as a "metropolitan" office. The #1XB was faster and bigger than earlier electro-mechanical offices but, not quite "common control". That was the job of the #5XB introduced in 1948. #5XB is capable of providing "most" of the features we associate with the modern switching network. A variation the #5XB is the XBT [crossbar tandem] designed to provide only toll switching connections. NOTE: At the end of this article I will list several small application modifications on the above switching systems. TOLL SWITCHING In addition to the mentioned toll function provided by local switchers, several toll only switches were developed. WOOPS I am running out of time. What follows is only a short list. Is someone has the time feel free to fill in the blanks. If I have NET access at my new location I will try to follow-up. 1943 [Philadelphia] #4 Crossbar System improved in 1953 it became known as the #4A Crossbar System [what else] Electronic Switching Systems [stored program control] #1ESS 1st trial 1960 in Morris Ill. Introduced in 1965 Succasunna N.J. Local Metropolitan applications. Upgraded several times. 1968 local tandem 1974 2-wire toll 1976 #1AESS [New Processor] 1977 4-wire toll #2ESS 1970 Local Suburban 1976 #2BESS same application [I have no idea what happened to the #2AESS] #3ESS 1976 Local Rural #4ESS 1976 Large 4-wire toll #5ESS 1982 ALL OF THE ABOVE [after a little development] Misc. Switching Systems [no particular order] 1979 10A RSS local small rural [a remote linked to a #1A or #2B ESS] 5A RMS and ORM are remote and optical remote modules of a #5ESS switch #1/1A ESS HILO small/medium 4-wire toll on a 2-wire path And last but not least all sorts of CAMA and operator switching systems. I know I have missed a few of the systems and did not provide all the detail available. Sorry for the abrupt ending but....... Hope to be in touch soon, Bernie McKeever ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 01:22:26 PST From: John Gilmore Subject: ISDN Tariffed in California We got a brochure last week about ISDN from PacBell after inquiring about it a month or two ago. The 10-page color brochure was completely information-free, so we called to see what was up. They didn't know, but promised to hunt around, and a few days later we found that ISDN has been approved on a 2-year temporary tariff in California. The catch is, it's part of Centrex service, which currently has a minimum of 20 lines. They have a request in to the PUC to reduce that to 2 lines, making it useful for a lot more people. The second catch is, it only works in single central offices so far, both because of 56 versus 64 kbit problems and because the CO's built by different manufacturers don't talk to each other very well yet, he said. E.g. they don't pass the out-of-band call setup data in a standard way. The "island" problem is true, at least temporarily. The third catch is, today you can only get it in El Segundo. Within a few months they will offer it in southern Fremont; downtown SF; Sunnyvale; and San Bruno/South San Francisco. None of those sites covers where my company wants service anyway. The pricing looked utterly reasonable; it was about $3.50/line/mo more than regular Centrex service, which is the same price as regular business phone service. Installation charges were $600 plus about $70/line, still half the price of 56kbit leased line installation. (Hmm, but you need it on both ends!) You have to be within 10,000 copper feet of the wire center. They expect no trouble with that in SF and Fremont (Fremont's wire center runs fiber out to chambers in industrial parks, with copper from there; max run about 2000 ft.) Sunnyvale's wire center serves stuff along the Central Expressway so it's pretty straight easy runs. San Bruno/SSF is mountainous and is the 'test case' for long bumpy runs. The representative told me that they expect to be able to offer wide area ISDN (not in the same wire center) by the end of the year, but it will be '94-'95 before it's "ubiquitous". They don't expect to add any more CO's to the test before the end of the year. His explanation was that PacBell would love to convert the CO's as fast as possible but the PUC is balking at making the ratepayers pay the cost of doing so. [[ I wish the moderator would get back to giving entertaining anecdotes about telephony as advertised, rather than smearing people by innuendo who can't respond. I thought the moderator was to prevent flames, not fan them. -- gnu ]] [Moderator's Note: I find this last paragraph hard to comprehend. Are you suggesting there was no truth to the messages regards jolnet and the other sites shut down? And who, at any time, has been forbidden to respond here? Did not Charlie Boykin respond? Wasn't Rich Andrews invited to respond? What sir, precisely do you define as an 'entertaining anecdote about telephony', and where did I advertise this? Finally, is it possible that in future messages you might avoid that old, tired, very worn out phraseology of Usenet -- the word 'flame'? PT] ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation Mailing-List Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 17:45:03 GMT I am setting up a mailing-list (a reflector, to be more precise) for those interested in discussing issues relating to TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation. Topics of discussion could include header-compression, administration, protocols, evolving technology, applications and so forth. The reference system I have in mind is some kind of small computer (possibly connected to a small LAN) with an ISDN interface on it that it uses to talk to a gateway to the Internet -- the issues involved vary somewhat depending on what kind of system one has in mind. For example, a Mac with an ISDN link to a mainframe would never be routing packets from other machines, so source-IP address becomes superfluous per-packet information. Appropriate error detection/ correction techniques for expected ISDN performance problems are another interesting area to explore. I would encourage anyone interested in being part of the list to send requests to tcp-isdn-request@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu. The list itself will be tcp-isdn@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu. Our machines are in the process of being moved to a new location and I have not actually set up the reflector, so if your mail bounces keep trying. Johnny TCP/ISDN [Moderator's Note: My best wishes for success with your project. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #156 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13085; 10 Mar 90 4:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06116; 10 Mar 90 2:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01274; 10 Mar 90 1:30 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 0:50:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #157 BCC: Message-ID: <9003100050.ab00299@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 00:50:23 CST Volume 10 : Issue 157 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Will Martin) Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Patty Winter) Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Dan Veditz) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (John R. Levine) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (J. Philip Miller) Re: Strange Charges on Bill (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Michael Coleman) Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Tom Lowe) Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set (Julian Macassey) Re: Modifying Cordless Phones (Tad Cook) Enhanced Service Conference (David J. Farber) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 8:23:13 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls There was a segment on this AT&T Translation service this past weekend on the Voice of America's "Communications World" program. I recommend that Telecom readers who have shortwave radios try to tune this program in each Saturday afternoon; I've been listening to it regularly for some years now, and I often hear items mentioned or discussed that have been on the Telecom list, or that show up there soon thereafter. The thrust of the program is to discuss any and all aspects of telecommunications, both in the US and in foreign countries. It's about 20 minutes long, and the best time to hear it in North America is the airing after the news at 3 PM Central Standard Time (that's 2100 UTC) on Saturday. The best frequencies here in the midwest are 15580, 15410, and 11760 kHz. Non-US readers can get program schedules and information on other times and frequencies from their local USIA office or by writing the VOA directly; the VOA will not provide info to addresses within the US. Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: Patty Winter Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: 9 Mar 90 20:30:03 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA In article <4923@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (John Lockard) writes: > Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is >reached by dialing a toll-free number. Now that's interesting -- why Monterey? Could it have anything to do with the presence of one of the top language schools in the country, namely the Defense Language Institute? The only problem with that theory is that the DLI instructors already have full-time jobs, and the US government might not like them moonlighting in their spare time. Anyone know whether this is sheer coincidence, or even why this service is based in Monterey? ***************************************************************************** Patty Winter N6BIS INTERNET: winter@apple.com AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44] UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 13:34:30 PST From: Dan Veditz Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale, Calif. > [AT&T's] Langauge Line Service [provides] access to telephone > interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects, [...] > Based in Monterey, California, [...] Hmm... the Air Force (Army?) has a Language Institute in Monterey. It'd be a good source of translators, and the work would give the students practice. Anyone know if AT&T does hire students or grads from the institute, or is LLS's location in Monterey a coincidence? Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 9 Mar 90 12:18:56 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew Payne writes: > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond >a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge >or the amount. Milage charges are quite common in rural areas. The amount varies from state to state. Sometimes it's a fixed amount if you're outside the town limits, sometimes it's a per-mile charge, but it's usually well-correlated with the amount of 60 HZ crosstalk on the line. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Reply-To: "J. Philip Miller" Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:07:54 GMT In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew Payne writes: > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond >a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge >or the amount. > Anyone know the basis for this charge? What is the distance >beyond which the charge applies? (My parents are less than 1.5 miles >from the CO, and the phone lines follow the shortest road to the CO >(e.g. they are about 1.5 miles long too). >[Moderator's Note: This is indeed very strange. Are you sure this is >how the charge is described? I am sorry I do not have one of my telephone bills handy, but I have a country home which is about 10 miles from the CO (314)-358-xxxx. According to the MO PUC approved tarrifs, the flat rate is only for a defined geographical region, usually the same as the city limits. All other subscribers pay a "milage charge" for the distance they are outside of the region. I suspect that this was instituted in the spirit of distributing the costs according to the costs of providing the service. I believe that I saw a recent article that SWBT was trying to eliminate that part of the tarrif, at least in certain areas near to St. Louis. 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!wuarchive!wubios!phil-UUCP (314) 362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 9 Mar 90 15:14:06 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu>, payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Andrew Payne) writes... >In article <4863@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Jesse W. Asher" uunet.uu.net> writes: >>Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"? I'm tired >>of not knowing what I'm paying for and why. Thanks in advance to >>anyone that can answer these mysterious questions. :-) > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond >a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge >or the amount. Okay, here's what it sounds like to me. The "Unregulated Inside Wire Maintenance Charge" is a common rip-off which the Bells cooked up when the ownership of inside wiring was transferred from them to their customers. Since they don't own the wiring in your house past the protector, they may charge a fee for its maintenance. Since it's yours, it's not subject to tariff or other regulation. And you don't have to pay it, if you're willing to fix your own wire (and let's face it, it doesn't need much maintenance!). The distance surcharge is very real too. It's often labelled a "zone" charge. In rural areas, the cost of wire (to the CO) is very high, since the distances are great and the densities are low. So the tariffs may include several zones. Within the innermost zone, you pay the normal charge. Then you pay more for being farther away. A mile and a half seems a bit strange, but if it's beyond the high-density "village" area, it's not unbelievable. A lot of telcos have abolished this in the past couple of decades, and some states don't like it. But it's eminently fair in principle: Most of the cross-subsidy that adds to toll bills goes to pay for rural wire. (Did you know that Mountain Bell and AT&T pay over a dollar a minute to Beehive Telephone for calls into its territory? Not much profit there! See Art Brothers' column in Telephone Engineer and Management; his little Utah telco has some _very_ long local loops. I don't know if he has zone charges, though, since hardly anyone lives near anyone else.) Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: Michael Coleman Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? Date: 9 Mar 90 06:03:25 GMT Reply-To: Michael Coleman Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <4905@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: -What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what -motivation the consumer has to get it. Well, if the interest rate is 13.5%-14.5%, and they waive the yearly fee (which I assume is $20) for the first year, I'll probably get one because that's a lot better than the interest rates on any of my current cards. I believe it would also qualify as being one of the best in the business. As for donations to charitable causes, I guess I could just charge it on my ATT card 8-) Mike %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% try. %% "When at first you try :- try. %% don't succeed, ..." (coleman@cs.ucla.edu) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card Date: 9 Mar 90 08:16:34 EST (Fri) From: Tom Lowe > What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what > motivation the consumer has to get it. Well, if the reports in the newspapers are correct about it having a 14-15 % interest rate, that would be good motivation for me. There aren't too many cards out there with a rate that low. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set Date: 9 Mar 90 17:23:44 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <4868@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) writes: > In article <4780@accuvax.nwu.edu> jeh@simpact.com writes: > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9 > >In article <4737@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > >> (complimentary things about the Plantronics cordless headset phone > >> sold by DAK) > Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that > you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid > the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard > Walkman type headset is what I need. I already have a Plantronics > headset, but it is not cordless; it works great but I would like a > little more mobility. There is a cordless unit that uses a Walkman type headset. It is made by WICOM 21525 Strathern St, Canoga Park, California 91304. (818) 715-9096. They have two models: The first model "Walk 'N' Talk Cordless" is a cordless phone with a belt clip pack holding the Touch Tone pad etc. The headset is a Walkman type with an electret boom mike. The second model is like the first, except it has a built in FM radio so you can listen to the Greatful Dead between calls. Prices are about $199 and $169 respectfully. The sales dweeb told me that the headset was "Hearing Aid Compatible". I have never seen or used one of these units. Yours still looking for the five Plantronics Star Sets I stored in the garage. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Modifying Cordless Phones Date: 9 Mar 90 19:09:14 GMT Organization: very little Tom Steck asked about adding an external antenna to reduce interference problems from various RFI generators in his home. Adding a better antenna is easy, but unless the antenna puts you further away from the RFI generators (computers, touch-lamps, aquarium heaters, old thermostats, TV synch generators, etc) it may increase the problem. You could add a quarter wave (about 5 foot) ground plane on the roof, and this would allow you to operate the phone a lot further from your home. It will also pick up more interference from other phones/baby monitors on the 49 MHz band in the neighborhood. The ARRL has a book on reducing interference, and there is some material on shielding/bypassing TVs and computers. Check a local ham store for a interference or RFI book. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "David J. Farber" Subject: Enhanced Service Conference Date: 9 Mar 90 16:54:57 GMT Reply-To: "David J. Farber" Organization: University of Pennsylvania Fulfilling the Promise for the 1990's: Telecommunications Technologies and Policies for Industry, Consumer and Education Philadelphia, PA March 23 and 24 In a unique interdisciplinary approach this conference will bring together engineers and sociologist, industry representatives and regulators, as well as computer scientists, educators and economists to explore the proposition that dramatic advancements in information and telecommunication technologies have outpaced our understanding of how they affect organizations, individual consumers and the public interest. Special attention will be paid in the conference to the deep policy differences that now exist between the United States and Europe. Critical questions to be examined include: - Are American business opportunities being lost as the policy struggle continues? - How can information technologies enhance productivity in business, teaching and research? Organized by faculty of the Wharton Business School, the Annenberg School of Communications and the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania, the conference will include speakers such as Raymond Smith, CEO of the Bell Atlantic Corporation and Ed David, former Science and Technology Advisor to the President and former head of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Panels include: - New Technologies and Public Policy: American and European Perspectives - Telecommunications and the Business Organization of the Future - Consumers and the Intelligent Network - Education: Is there a Telecommunications Fix? - Is Public Policy Meeting the Needs of Consumers? For further information and a brochure, contact the Center for Communications and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania at (215) 898-9494. David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389 Tele: 215-898-9508 (off); 215-274-8292 (home); FAX: 215-274-8293; Cellular: 302-740-1198 "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- R. P. Feynman ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #157 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14411; 10 Mar 90 5:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27692; 10 Mar 90 3:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06116; 10 Mar 90 2:35 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 1:39:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #158 BCC: Message-ID: <9003100139.ab19036@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 01:38:05 CST Volume 10 : Issue 158 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (John Higdon) Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Tom Neff) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Blake Farenthold) Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (John W. Keating) The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo (Chris Johnson) Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV (Craig R. Watkins) Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos (John Higdon) Phone Dialer Info Needed!! (George Wang) Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail (Henry Mensch) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 9 Mar 90 00:47:27 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Michael Morrell writes: > [In re toll saver] > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, Do you feel that if someone you call isn't home that you should be charged anyway for the call? You got something for nothing in the knowledge that your party wasn't home, or at least wouldn't answer the phone for one reason or another. What about if it's busy. Again, free information. Even those robber barons at PacTel Cellular have apparently dropped the charges for unanswered calls. > This feature should be illegal. Oh great. More laws. And how would this be enforced? > [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or > would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages > waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to > cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. Years ago, telco > security people referred to schemes involving letting the phone ring a > certain number of times, hanging up and dialing over as 'constructive > messages'; meaning telco believed a message had been delivered, > regardless of no voice on the line. When I saw AT&T answering machines > with 'Toll Saver' as a feature *they* were marketing, I gave up my > campaign. PT] And rightly so. As I said above, to be totally consistent in your argument, you would have to approve of something like this: You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number. As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision. After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22! Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would sure put war dialers out of business! No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 9 Mar 90 15:41:35 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff Re: Objections to 'toll saver' on the grounds that it tells you something (i.e. no messages waiting) for 'nothing' (i.e. you get to hang up before it picks up): BULLPUCKEY! By this logic, telco might as well charge you for a BUSY signal. After all, it told you something (that someone else was calling), didn't it? And hey, out-of-service recordings are valuable info too. Outlaw them or charge for it. Just for fun, why don't we trundle back to REALITY for a bit. Telco is in business to let people TALK, voice or digitally. Nickel and diming Joe Consumer to death by playing petty games with his equipment is not proper conduct of that business. Hell, in the future we'll have voicemail stations integrated into our home computers, and YOU will decide how it behaves. Will we have 'illegal algorithm' tariffs? Paging Mr. Orwell... Remember, when convenience is outlawed only outlaws will have convenience. ------------------------------ From: Blake Farenthold Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 22:32:45 CST Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller Jody Kravitz wrote: >>There is a particular breed of telephone user that I would greatly >>like to see exterminated. It is the Dedicated Wrong Number Caller. >I programmed computers, and worked weird hours. I had call forwarding. In >order to get any sleep, I would routinely forward my calls to the time & >temperature lady when I was tired. >One night I get this call from repair service.... The next day, it was no >longer possible to forward calls to the time & temperature lady. Ridding yourself of annoyance calls is what call forwarding was INVENTED for. After I ended a relationship with a rather possessive woman she took to calling me at all hours of te night "to see if I was alone" or "to see if I had changed my mind" and other such wonderful reasons. A simple 72# took care of it all. My first thought was to forward the calls to a modem somewhere (local Telenet pad) but then I got creative. "Dial A Prayer" with Dr. Norman Vincent Peale was my first choice ... it worked well. If it had been available in the area 976-4SEX or some other dial-a-porn would probably been worth the few bucks it would have cost. Anyway Dr. Peale took care of her ... two nights later I quit forwarding the calls and she hasn't bothered me since. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE [Moderator's Note: Getting rid of unwanted calls is not really what Call Waiting 'was invented for', but it is commonly used as you suggest. PT] ------------------------------ From: "John W. Keating" Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller Date: 9 Mar 90 17:58:02 GMT Reply-To: "John W. Keating" Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA In article <4819@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Just when you think that it's over, you get a call from Pac*Bell repair >asking what sort of trouble you are having on the line. A caller >reported the line out of order because he kept getting the wrong party >for the number he was dialing! Oh, my favorite repair question was when a repair type called my line up to ask if *my* phone was working. (I had turned off the call waiting for obvious reasons and someone had been trying to reach my number...) ****************************************************************************** * Internet: keating@rex.cs.tulane.edu * REPENT! * * * Usenet: ...!pyramid!rex!keating * The coming of the Great * John W. * * Bitnet: cs6hecu@tcsvm * White Handkerchief * Keating * * CI$: 73737,733 * is near! * III * ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Date: 8 Mar 90 22:38:06 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <4864@accuvax.nwu.edu> henry@garp.mit.edu writes: > From: John Higdon > Just when you think that it's over, you get a call from Pac*Bell repair > asking what sort of trouble you are having on the line. A caller > reported the line out of order because he kept getting the wrong party > for the number he was dialing! >One-upmanship: I've gotten phone calls from Noo Ingland Telebozo >because some telemarketer called my modem line and didn't think there >should be a modem at the other end of the number they called at >random. And this all reminds me of the Saturday afternoon I was at home busy playing a fast-paced, important multi-user game on the mainframe at work on my second line (or maybe I was waiting for a phone call from my girlfriend -- I'm sure it was something important! :-), when this punk calls and asks for "Robert" or some such. I say there's no Robert here, you must have the wrong number. *click* Just when I get comfortable again in the other room, the phone rings again, and the same twit says "let me talk to Robert" as if he really was there, but that I was not letting him use the phone, or maybe just trying to hide him from his obnoxious friends, so I clearly tell the caller that in no way is there a Robert ever at this number. *click* Ten or twenty minutes later, same bozo calls back again. I tell the guy that by no stretch of the imagination is the person he wants to talk to at this number. He then proceeds to substitute obscenities for most of the verbs, adjectives, nouns and adverbs in his next few sentences as he tells _ME_ off for being a smartass! Uh duh. Who was the moron who kept calling the wrong number again? Sheeesh. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 18:55 EST From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV >A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are >being offered starting April 1. The latter distributes IBM-PClone >games for children and others over the cable system, two per week. We've had this service for many years. Basically, it works. >It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic >box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser >interface. It's a 9600 baud modem (actually, just a "dem", no "mo"). They use different carriers on different systems, but the ones that I've seen are in the commercial FM band. I looked at it years ago and I seem to remember that I decided that it was simple FSK, but I can't swear to that anymore. The "basic" service here is free (comes with basic cable service, like MTV). The "executive service" that you speak of has a monthly charge, as does "The Electric Toy Box." The executive service is a news service; the Toy Box is a service which downloads PC games. The news contains current wire-service news such as top AP headlines at the top of each hour. >Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to >leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in >electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup). There is no buffer in the box at all. The software that they supply puts articles into memory (not disk). Articles are rebroadcast often. Depending on how many newsgroups (my term, not their's) you enable, you should be able to turn on your machine and have articles come in faster than you can read them. The software contains some keyword capabilities. >The glossy credits this whole scheme to "X*PRESS, 4643 S Ulster >Street, Suite 340, Denver CO 80237", on 800-772-6397. That number was >busy the one time I tried to call it. It's sometimes busy, but not all the time. They are fairly helpful; you should call them if you have questions. >I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service >isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on >the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio. Keep looking. I suspect you will find it soon. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos Date: 9 Mar 90 00:25:10 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon On Mar 8 at 0:31, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Quite coincidentally, most cable in Chicago is > provided by Group W. And they are losing money badly ... like a > million dollars *per month*. They want to sell out, and they actually > have a buyer. Guess who! Pacific Telesis, that's who! And why will PacTel be able to run this money-losing operation when the mighty Group W cannot? It's very simple. The answer is contained in previous discussions herein, but to save you, gentle reader, the trouble of looking through your archives, I'll recap. After conning the California PUC into a regulation scheme, known to the world by the euphamism "incentive regulation", Pacific Telesis will have plenty of money to vulture-capture markets on a global scale. This will enable them to be at the fore when proper manipulations set them up as the only game in town for whatever it is that they are sinking claws into at the time. In other words, when I write that (sizable) check to Pac*Bell every month, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the money is being well spent helping to provide cable service to our honorable moderator until such time that PacTel is able to parlay their acquisition into something really lucrative. > Yes, one of the > first, or maybe the first excursion by a telco into cable TV will > happen right here in Chicago sometime later this spring, pending His > Honor signing off on it and the Chicago City Council getting properly > greased and oiled. They wanted to close the deal April 1, but that > will be impossible. We now expect a June 1 cutover. A subsidiary of > PacTel is being created to run things here. PT] So that's where they ended up with that! They tried desparately to get the Palo Alto (or was it Menlo Park?) cable franchise and bombed. It looks like Chicago is far enough away so that we dial tone customers won't put two and two together and watch "incentive regulation" in action. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:20:13 -0600 From: George Wang Subject: Phone Dialer Info Needed!! I am interested in building a tone phone dialer. I am interested in knowing what kind of frequencies are generated in a touch tone phone. Also, what kinds of specialized chips do we need?? Any layout or circuit info??? Please respond via email. Thanks George Wang ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:26:22 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Date: 7 Mar 90 16:08:48 GMT If you have access to AT&T Mail, you can also send a message to !atthelp on the service. (The TSC was able to give me the right number, and apologized for the confusion.) When dealing with attmail!atthelp you have to be sure to not give them a reason to write you back more than once. they have different people answering the e-mail sent to atthelp, so there's no guarantee you'll get the same person twice, and thus you'll have to repeat yourself ad infinitum... # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #158 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27469; 11 Mar 90 2:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10024; 10 Mar 90 23:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29309; 10 Mar 90 22:42 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:01:43 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Alcor ECPA Suit BCC: Message-ID: <9003102201.ab26403@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 21:29:21 CST Special: Alcor ECPA Suit Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson ECPA Suit: Court Filing (H. Keith Henson) Postscript (H. Keith Henson & TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: ECPA suit-court filing Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 13:47:53 PST CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, A Member of GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN 1925 Century Part East, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (213) 277-1981 Attorneys For Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case NO. SA CV90-021 JSL (RwRx) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; 18 U.S.C. Section 2701, et seq.) H. KEITH HENSON, HUGH L. HIXON, JR., THOMAS K. DONALDSON, NAOMI REYNOLDS, ROGER GREGORY, MICHAEL G. FEDEROWITCZ, STEVEN B. HARRIS, BRIAN WOWK, ERIC GEISLINGER, CATH WOOF, BILLY H. SEIDEL, ALLEN J. LOPP, LEE CORBIN RALPH MERKEL, AND KEITH LOFTSTROM Plaintiffs, v. RAYMOND CARRILLO, SCOTT HILL, DAN CUPIDO, ALAN KUNZMAN, ROWE WORTHINGTON, RICHARD BOGAN, REAGAN SCHMALZ, GROVER TRASK, II, ROBERT SPITZER, LINFORD L. RICHARDSON, GUY PORTILLO, individuals, and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a subdivision of the State of CAlifornia, And the CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal entity, and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiffs complain of defendants as follows: JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION 1. This case arises under an Act of Congress, namely the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; U.S.C. Section 2701, et Seq., and in particular, the civil enforcement Provisions thereof, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707. Venue is proper in this Court in that all of the defendants reside in this district. COMMON ALLEGATIONS 2. Plaintiffs are all individuals residing in various point and places in the United States. [except Brian Wowk who resides in Canada.] 3. Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman, Worthington, Bogan, Schmalz, Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are all employees of defendant County of Riverside, and at all times material, were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Defendants Richardson and Portillo are all employees of defendant City of Riverside and at all times material, were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Defendant County of Riverside ["county'] is a political subdivision of the State of California. Defendant City of Riverside ["city'] is a municipal entity located within California. Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman, Worthington, Bogan, and Schmalz are employed by defendant County in the Office of the Riverside County Coroner. Defendants Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are employed by the said county in the office of the District Attorney, Defendants Richardson and Portillo are employed by defendant City in the Riverside Police Department. ------------------- 4. All of the events complained of herein occurred within two years of the date of filing of the complaint. At all times material, Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a non-Profit corporation with its principal place of business in Riverside County, maintained facilities at its place of business whose purpose was to (in part) facilitate the sending and receipt of electronic mail ["E-mail"] via computer- driven modems and which electronic mail facility was utilized by the plaintiffs, and each of them. The Alcor Facility is remote in geographical location from all plaintiffs. 5. At all times material, each plaintiff had one or more E-mail messages abiding on electron or magnetic medial at the Alcor facility. Prior to [actually on] January 12, 1988, defendants procured from the Riverside Superior Court a search warrant which authorized, in general, a search of the facilities of Alcor. A true and correct copy of that search warrant is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". The search warrant does not purport to reach, nor was it intended to reach, any of the E-mail of plaintiffs. 6. On January 12, 1988, defendant entered upon the Alcor premisses and removed many things therefrom including the electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail. 7. Contemporaneously with the seizure of the electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail, defendants were explicitly informed that they were seizing plaintiffs' E-mail which was not described either generally or specifically in the warrant hereinabove referred to. -------------- 8. No notice was given to any plaintiff by any defendant of the impending seizure of their E-mail. 9. In the process of procuring the warrant, neither the defendants nor anyone else made any showing that there was reason to believe that the contents of any of plaintiffs' E- mail was relevant to any law enforcement inquiry. 10. Subsequent to the execution of the warrant on January 12, 1988, no notice was given to any plaintiff by any government entity, including the defendants, nor any defendant herein, at any time, regarding the defendants acquisition and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail. 11. The court issuing the warrant in respect of the Alcor facility did not, prior to the issuance of the warrant nor at any other time, determine that notice to plaintiffs compromised any legitimate investigation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 2705(a)(2). 12. Not withstanding that defendant and each of them were informed that they had taken, along with materials describe in the warrant, E-mall belonging to plaintiffs, said defendants knowingly and willfully (a) continued to access the electronic and magnetic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail and (b) continued to deny access to plaintiffs to such E-mail for many months although a demand was made for the return of the said E-mail. Defendants' wrongful access to and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail was intentional within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 2707. -------------- 13. Proximately caused by the unprivileged actions of the defendants hereinbefore described, each plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount to be proved at trial, but in no event less than $10,000 each. WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray: 1. For damages according to proof; 2. For cost of suit; 3. For Attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2707(b)(3); and 4. For such other and further relief as is required in the circumstances. Date: January 11, 1990 GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH, AND EPSTEIN A Professional Corporation (signed) CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH Attorneys for Plaintiffs -------------- Exhibit "A" COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEARCH WARRANT To any Sheriff, Police Officer, Marshal or Peace Officer in the County of Riverside. Proof, by sworn statement, having been made this day to me by Alan Kunzman and it appearing that there is probable cause to believe that at the place and on the persons and in the vehicle(s) set forth herein there is now being concealed property which is: ____ stolen or embezzled property __x__ property and things used to commit a felony __x__ property possessed (or being concealed by another) with intent to commit a public offense __x__ property tending to show a felony was committed; YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH : the premises located at [description of Alcor address at 12327 Doherty St.] including all rooms attics, basements, storage areas, and other parts therein, garages, grounds and outbuilding and appurtenances to said premises; vehicles(s) described as follows: (not applicable) and the persons of (not applicable) for the following property: 1. All electronic storage devices, capable of storing, electronic data regarding the above records, including magnetic tapes, disc, (floppy or hard), and the complete hardware necessary to retrieve electronic data including CPU (Central Processing Unit), CRT (viewing screen, disc or tape drives(s), printer, software and service manual for operation of the said computer, together with all handwritten notes or printed material describing the operation of the computers (see exhibit A - search warrant no., 1 property to be seized #1) 2. Human body parts identifiable or belonging to the deceased, Dora Kent. 3. Narcotics, controlled substances and other drugs subject to regulation by the Drug Enforcement Administration. 4. Article of personal property tending to establish the identity of person in control of premise, vehicle, storage areas, and containers being searched, including utility company receipts, rent receipts, address envelopes and keys and to SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me or this court at the courthouse of this court. Good cause being shown this warrant my be served at any time of the day or night as approve by my initials_________ Time of issuance _______ Time of execution __1600__ Given under my hand and dated this 12th day of January 1988 Thomas E. Hollenhorst Judge of the Superior Court ------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA H. KEITH HENSON, see attachment "A" PLAINTIFF(S) vs. RAYMOND CARRILLO, see attachment "A" DEFENDANTS(S) CASE NUMBER SA CV- 90-021 JSL Rw Rx SUMMONS ----------------------------------------------- TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S), your are hereby summoned and required to file with this court and serve upon Christopher Ashworth, Esq. GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN A Professional Corporation Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is: 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90067 (213) 277-1981 an answer to the complaint which is herewith serve upon you within __20__ days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Date Jan. 11, 1990 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT By MARIA CORTEZ Deputy Clerk (SEAL OF THE COURT) ------------------------------ From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Postscript Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 09:15:02 PST A few corrections to your anouncement. I live in San Jose, only two of the plaintiffs (who worked there) could be considered local to Riverside, one lived as far away as Canada. Second, Alcor (the owner of the BBS) is not a party to the suit, only the users who had email on the system. Thank you *very* much for covering this issue, and I will do my best to keep you informed on developments. Incidentally, my phone number is 408-978-6716 hm and 408-734-5287 wk. Like many in Silcon Valley, I am at work typically from about local noon to 8-9pm. I don't mind my phone number going out to those who could make use of my experience on this topic. Keith Henson [Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending this along. Mr. Kenson sent me several very lengthy files relating to the legal procedings now going on. I found them rather informative, and I am sure he will send copies to any of you who request them. The files he sent me include correspondence with the FBI and the United States Attorney, asking why they are, in his estimation, refusing to act on the complaint he filed against the Riverside County authorities. Unfortunatly, there is no room here to run those files (some 50 K of material was sent to me), and much of it is not telecom-related, which is why I suggest you get it direct from him if interested. In my own opinion, I think they are going to lose the case, simply because although the search warrant did not specifically mention email using those words, it did discuss electronic storage media of all kinds. It would be impossible to examine that media in detail without reviewing the contents thereof. I think the court will rule that the intent of the law was met and that the authorities acted correctly. PT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Alcor ECPA Suit ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28055; 11 Mar 90 2:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01813; 11 Mar 90 0:52 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10024; 10 Mar 90 23:47 CST Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:50:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #159 BCC: Message-ID: <9003102250.ab18492@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:50:17 CST Volume 10 : Issue 159 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Dataports at Atlanta (Ken Jongsma) Additional Caller ID Information (James Van Houten) Call Setup Info Reciprocity (John Boteler) AT&T Reach Out (was Re: Sprint Plus) (John Owens) Frame Relay vs. the CONS (Fred Goldstein) FBI Raids & Steve Jackson Games (James Van Artsdalen) Commercial for Free 900 Numbers (David Tamkin) Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges (Mark Solsman) Sprint Plus (Carol Springs) Alternate Carrier List Availability (Joe Weisenfeld) Changing to MCI Long Distance (Really Switcheroo) (David Lesher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Dataports at Atlanta Date: Thu, 8-Mar-90 17:29:54 PST I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the phone network. Seattle has a nice buisness area with desks, fax machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge! Anyway, I had 30 minutes to kill in Terminal 3 and thought I'd check my company VAXMail. Now, Atlanta has loads of payphones (all "serviced" by NTS - but that's another story). Unfortunately, none of them have RJ11 jacks. Looking around, I noticed that there was RJ11 jack by each jetway door. Ah Ha! I thought there might be an outside chance I could get dialtone and make a credit card call. I found an unused Delta gate and proceeded to unzip and hook up my laptop. Unfortunately, there wasn't any dialtone. The jack was either disabled or a digital loop of some kind. As I was packing up my computer, I noticed two senior Delta reps quickly walking my direction. It took some explaining - The one talking wanted to know who would have gotten billed for the call if it had gone through and couldn't understand why I wasn't using the payphones. We eventually parted on good terms, though the rep was telling his partner that he had never heard of such a thing. Later, at Chicago, I noticed there weren't any data jacks around the United terminal either. It's a shame, after you get used to the area at Seattle, you sort of expect it to be available everywhere. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: 08 Mar 90 23:31:34 EST From: "James Van Houten, Exec VP" <72067.316@compuserve.com> Subject: Additional Caller ID Information I was messing with my SAN-BAR 30F Caller*ID display today and found that there is a phrase in the box called "PRIVATE NO.". Not "OUT OF AREA" but "PRIVATE NO." This raises some interesting questions!!! When will I start seeing this with unlisted numbers!! Just thought I would let you all know that at least SAN-BAR is prepared for the WORST. Thats all for now. James Van Houten P.O. Box 502 Temple Hills, MD 20757 Home (301) 967-3309 Work (301) 248-3300 Voice Mail (202) 928-1036 HAM: KA3TTU @ N4QQ CIS: 72067,316 ------------------------------ Subject: Call Setup Info Reciprocity Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 0:38:37 EST From: John Boteler I commend the moderator for limiting the discussion of Caller*ID to the technical areas. It solves many problems at one stroke and allows this discussion to progress. It appears, magistrate, that although the calling number is displayed on a Caller*ID display unit when the calling office supports it, the other class features which rely on this same information are not always usable. To clarify, a particular office was recently upgraded such that it now transmits the calling number. That's nice. However, attempts to add a number from that same office to the distinctive ring list, the selective call forward list, or the other CLASS service lists for that matter, fail with the message that "the number you have dialed is not available with this service". Why is this? What other service elements must be in place in order to provide such CLASS services as distinctive ring, which apparently depend only on the originating number. John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: AT&T Reach Out (was Re: Sprint Plus) Date: 8 Mar 90 22:37:14 EST (Thu) From: John Owens On Mar 5, 15:40, Carol Springs wrote: > Anyone know if AT&T is sending out Reach Out America brochures > directly to its customers? (Not that it needs to, given the massive > ad campaign...) A few months ago, I made a few more long duration coast-to-coast calls than usual. In the AT&T portion of my phone bill for that month, all of the calls eligible for ROA (all the domestic direct-dialed ones) are marked with an '@' next to the '*N', etc., rate codes. At the end of the bill, before the total, is a section which reads (verbatim): ****************************************************************** @After analyzing your long distance calls this month, we find you could have saved money with the AT&T REACH OUT (sm) AMERICA Long Distance Calling Plan. For $7.15 a month you get an hour of weekend and night direct dialed AT&T interstate calling, and additional time costs less than 12 cents a minute. For further information, call 1 800 REACH OUT, ext. 3058. ****************************************************************** What's most interesting about this is that the bill is generated by Bell Atlantic's billing system. I wonder if any other carriers get equal enough access to have custom algorithms run by a BOC as part of the billing process.... John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 07:05:16 PST From: "k1io@FN42jk 09-Mar-1990 0957" Subject: Frame Relay vs. the CONS In article <4809@accuvax.nwu.edu>, paulb@mlacus.oz (Paul Bandler) writes... >It seems that it is envisaged that packet switching services of the >future over ISDN such as Frame Relaying are expected to support OSI >CONS by the user using an enhanced version of LAPD, LAPD+, in >conjuntion with out of band call setup with Q.931. This will provide >a lean and mean OSI WAN CONS. Nope. LAPD+ does NOT provide the CONS. Nor will we allow it to, since it's not a network layer protocol. There are two solutions defined for running the CONS over LAPD+. One is a one-octet convergence function. The other is to use X.25-PLP (data transfer phase) over LAPD+. I realize that's the American view and you Aussies may see it differently, and I don't think it's settled at CCITT, but for sure we Gringos don't go along with bowdlerizing the CONS. Nor do we go along with turning LAPD+ into a combination data link and network layer protocol. I've seen a number of "economy of protocol" hacks, where one protocol is set to do the work of more than one layer, and they generally turn into disasters. >Now for LAN/WAN OSI CONS relays today you have to run X.25 over both >the LAN and the WAN connection. Now if in the future we're going to >see WAN CONS provided over LAPD+ then it would seem a bit strange to >me to have to go 'up' to a full X.25/LLC[2|1] stack to get the CONS >across the LAN. Why would anyone want to run the CONS (X.25) across a LAN? :-) (Yes, I know some CONS fanatics do it.) But since we're not going to get the CONS from LAPD+ per se, the question is moot. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 03:09:39 -0600 From: James Van Artsdalen Subject: FBI Raids & Steve Jackson Games A friend forwarded to me some postings regarding Steve Jackson Games being raided. I thought I'd emphasize that the company Steve Jackson Games is quite legitimate. They design, manufacture and market games, mainly of the role-playing variety. James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Dell Computer Co 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759 512-338-8789 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Commercial for Free 900 Numbers Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 1:21:07 CST Starting just a couple hours ago, I've heard three radio commercials for Merchant Communications, Inc. They are advertising that if you have a good idea for a 900 line, they'll set you up with one for free. To reach them, naturally, you need to dial a 900 number. The call costs "only" $10.00. David Tamkin dattier@gagme.chi.il.us {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier Post Office Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 (708) 518-6769 BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 (312) 693-0591 Gagme management's official position on the above is an utter mystery to me. ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Friday, 9 Mar 1990 15:58:04 EST From: Mark Solsman Subject: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? I'd have a relay station that would bounce the output of one modem to the input of another, all signals. The advantages would be avoiding toll charges since it would be local to the relay station, and local from the relay station to the destination. I would like to know for both a public and a private installation. Thanks in Advance! [Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story. The way telephone rates in the United States are structured, it is very rare that two or three local phone calls, hooked together to avoid a toll charge would come out less expensive than the DDD rate for the toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings, at least on shorter calls? PT] ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Sprint Plus Date: 9 Mar 90 14:49:10 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Thanks to everyone who wrote me about Sprint Plus. I will summarize here. No one reports getting extensive information on Sprint Plus while already a Sprint customer. One person thinks he might have seen it mentioned briefly in a bill enclosure. As I pointed out, and as was mentioned in one response, conversion to Sprint Plus of existing accounts means (in most cases) less money from those accounts for Sprint. One person who received information on the plan from Sprint itself got it in the form of a promotional mailing last November; he was not (and is not) a Sprint customer. One person asks if the extra volume discounts are mentioned in Sprint's ads. Since I've never seen ads for Sprint Plus, I wouldn't know. I checked with two Sprint reps on the discounts he mentions and got conflicting information; I'll report the stats I consider the most trustworthy (the rep left the phone for a while to get the info). All are agreed that Sprint Plus offers night/weekend rates between 5:00 p.m. and 7:59 a.m. every day; customers are billed a minimum of $8 a month for calls. Apparently, in addition to these discounts, customers who make between $25 and $99.99 worth of calls per month receive an extra five per cent discount on day calls and 10 per cent on evening/night/weekend calls. Between $100 and $199.99, they get five per cent off on day calls and 15 per cent off on other calls, and for $200 and up they get five per cent on day calls and 20 per cent on others. For what it's worth, the guy who wrote me about the volume discounts and the first Sprint rep I talked to reported 10 per cent off on *all* calls (including daytime calls) at the $25-$99.99 level. In contrast, the volume discounts on "Sprint Classic" have dropped to one per cent. I know little about MCI's and AT&T's similar plans. Someone reports that MCI's discount period starts at 7:00 p.m. and that AT&T's Reach Out America uses beginning times based on the part of the plan customers select; i.e., your mileage may vary. MCI's program started in June 1989 and Sprint Plus seems to have started last fall sometime. I am in the process of convincing a Chicago friend (a Sprint customer) who was burned out by a restrictive AT&T plan a few years ago to switch to Sprint Plus, since his long distance bill is around $40/month. Clearly there is no reason, except inertia and general paranoia, for customers like this to stick with the regular Sprint plan. The rep who converted my account a few weeks ago did so quite cheerfully, after warning me about the $8/month minimum. She also assured me that my Callers' Plus points would be transferred to the new account number, for all that I care. Ironically, on the evening of the day I mailed my summary of Sprint Plus info, I received a brochure on the service directly from Sprint -- as part of a mass mailing targeted at current AT&T customers. I can switch and get "savings of up to 34% over what [I'm] now paying AT&T." Gee, if I switch to AT&T for $5 and then back to Sprint Plus for another $5 before April 20, I can get a free FONCARD-shaped solar calculator... One final thing I should mention is that the evening discounts apply to interstate calls only. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 07:47:32 PST From: Joe Wiesenfeld Subject: Alternate Carrier List Availability A while ago there was some discussion that the local RBOC would not supply the list of equal access carriers available. This AM I contacted my local business office (for business ,not residential service) and asked for the list of 1plus carriers. The agent immediately gave me the list of 15 carriers available on my exchange and their phone number for contact. He would not give me the 10XXX codes, saying that I would have to get that info direct from the carrier. In a further discussion, he indicated that there were two lotteries in each town, one business - one residential, that determined the list and the order of the list. Thus, even if the same vendors were available to two adjoining towns, the order that their names & phone contact numbers would be given out would be different. Joseph Wiesenfeld TRW Information Networks Division 1001 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701 (508) 879-7376 joew@trwind.ind.trw.com ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Changing to MCI Long Distance, really: Switcharoo Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:50:50 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Re: The comment from the MCI rep: I checked with Southern Bell re: blocking of dial 1 changes. They don't offer it, but the rep did say they used to get LOTS of those {unauthorized change} problems but one day they just stopped, bang. I think somebody read the sales force the riot act. I wonder who? 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #159 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00878; 11 Mar 90 3:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15904; 11 Mar 90 1:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01813; 11 Mar 90 0:52 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 0:04:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #160 BCC: Message-ID: <9003110004.ab31581@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 00:04:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [John R. Levine] Re: ISDN Tariffed in California [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [John Debert] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Paul Guthrie] Re: Legion of Doom [Gordon Meyer] More Legion of Doom Antics [Computer World, via TELECOM Moderator] The Operator Knows What? [Carl Moore] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Jody Kravitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Date: 9 Mar 90 15:27:38 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <4924@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 tells a nice tale, and it's probably mostly true, but there's one technical bug... (and amazingly enough, I agree with the moderator that this group should stick more to tech talk than political flamage.) >The "inefficiency" of the "Ericsson Plan" was that it was open-ended, >and could have any number of digits (up to about 31). In that era, the >only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was to time >and wait to see if any more digits followed. It was therefore widely >dubbed (in American circles) as foolishly uneconomical. As could be >expected, decades of telephone employees were taught a Superior >American Way had been invented. European open-ended numbers aren't time-dependent. And American switches couldn't have been open ended. Both of those are due to the way switches were built and the network protocols used. In the late '40s, when DDD was invented "here" (by AT&T), the Latest & Greatest switch technology was the Crossbar. Its relay logic was based around deterministic number length. Dial a 3-digit prefix, then a 4-digit suffix, and it stores 7 digits. Once it grabbed the number, it could route it on its merry way, sending the fixed-length string to the next switch. The receiving switch didn't have to say "enough digits" since the digit-string was deterministic. Europeans (such as LME) still used stepper switches and had no crossbar. Steppers don't store numbers; each dialed digit points to either another level of switching or a terminal. You can get very flexible with them. (When you see 4 or 5 digit dialing in the rural US, it's a stepper.) So they developed a dialing plan that took advantage of this flexibility, and couldn't have worked with crossbar. The inter-office signaling differed too. Europeans preferred "compelled" signaling, where the originating office was prompted for each additional digit. When enough digits are received, it sends a different signal to the sender. AT&T (with its crossbars) used en-bloc sending, so the destination didn't ask for more digits. Neither approach is "right" or "wrong", they just evolved out of the previous technology. >And now, we have run out of Area Codes, while the rest of the world >has for 40 years grown up with a system that has almost limitless >variations and flexibility. The system wasn't wrong per se. Had 1+ for area code (not Toll) been the standard all along, or had the "area code follows" code differed from the "toll center access" code, we'd never have had problems with moving to "interchangeable" area codes (which we'll get this decade anyway). And had the area code boundaries been drawn differently in the first place, we'd have needed fewer splits. But it's sometimes hard to predict what areas will become popular 20 or 30 years in the future! Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 9 Mar 90 13:08:57 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <4924@accuvax.nwu.edu> Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373 writes: >In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was >to time and wait to see if any more digits followed. In Europe, this is still often the case. For example, if you want to call the outfit that runs the Hannover trade fairs, their main number is 89-0, while their fax machine is 89-32626. >Which raises the question: Who was really right back then 40 years go? Both the American fixed-length and the European variable-length schemes make sense in their respective areas. In the US, we have an enormous area under a single telephone administration, and fixed length numbers make it much easier to do things like route calls from New York to Atlanta by way of Seattle at times when Seattle hasn't woken up yet. A call from Paris to Amsterdam isn't going to go via Warsaw no matter how much spare bandwidth they have, the politics of accounting for everything make it impractical. Despite all of the moaning and groaning about running out of numbers, the switch to NXX area codes is a pretty minor ones compared to some of the changes that have happened in other countries. Most phone numbers won't change, the numbers that do change will change in a way that's easy to describe, and the dialing procedures either don't change or change in simple ways. Compare this to the European mess where the international code for each country is different, most countries have special case dialing rules, e.g. Britain from Ireland, and they do run out of numbers and stick new digits in various random places. I note that some European countries such as France and Belgium have moved to fixed length numbers, and I expect after 1992 there will be more cooperation among the various telephone adminisrations. It'll be interesting to see if they move to a unified routine scheme and, if so, whether the adherents of variable length numbers (Germany and Italy, for reasons of theology and disorganization, respectively) have to change. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: ISDN Tariffed in California Date: 10 Mar 90 04:29:24 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) In article <4928@accuvax.nwu.edu> gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 156, Message 4 of 5 >[summary: ISDN is tarriffed, but there are catches] One other thing I would check: it is my understanding when BRI ISDN was first tarriffed in the Chicago area, you didn't have full flexibility over both B channels. I was told that the first B could only do voice, and it would take a SW upgrade before both could handle data. I would hope by now this is resolved, and it isn't an issue in California. P.S. I always feel guilty when I use tarriff as a verb. P.P.S. I still wonder what good it does to get an ISDN line. Who's out there to connect to?? Chip Rosenthal | Yes, you're a happy man and you're chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG | a lucky man, but are you a smart Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | man? -David Bromberg ------------------------------ From: John Debert Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 10 Mar 90 09:09:50 GMT Organization: NetCom - The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) says: (stuff about "toll-saver" feature deleted) > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). > [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or > would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages > waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to > cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. By following this chain of reasoning, the conclusion is that one should be charged a fee for not only dialing any number but even for simply picking up the phone. If one dials a number and it is not answered, the message is that there's no one there to answer it and if it rings busy, it's in use. There are other messages as well, such as vacant code, trunk busy, et cetera and your dial tone. I'm sure that the Telco's would be more than happy to charge their customers for every time the phone is picked up or every time it rings - even for every busy or other message. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 10 Mar 90 10:30:11 GMT Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) writes: > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, Save money? What about saving time? Suppose you _know_ there are 11 messages, some quite lengthy, on the machine, and you only want to wade through them if a new one has been added? > for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, > they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). Maybe you just have a 'thing' against answering machines. BTW, My Code-A-Phone has toll-saver. In Anchorage, because of the schism between the ringback signal and the actual ring voltage (RV precedes ringback signalling here), when I have pending messages on there, it picks up on the *first perceived ring*. Yup, some people have complained. Perhaps, though, they would complain more if there were *no way* to leave me a message. > This feature should be illegal. Techno-toy or whipping boy? Perhaps someday, it will be, but as Pat mentioned, even AT&T has toll-saver on their machines. Roy M. Silvernail | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "Every race must arrive at this #include ;#define opinions MINE | point in its history" SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, | ........Mr. Slippery Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc. | ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 19:56:37 GMT In article <4959@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tom Neff writes: >Re: Objections to 'toll saver' on the grounds that it tells you >something (i.e. no messages waiting) for 'nothing' (i.e. you get to >hang up before it picks up): BULLPUCKEY! By this logic, telco might >as well charge you for a BUSY signal. After all, it told you >something (that someone else was calling), didn't it? And hey, >out-of-service recordings are valuable info too. Outlaw them or >charge for it. Nevertheless, a friend of mine was denied FCC certification on a device that lets you call a line, let it ring once, hang up, call in again within 100 seconds and the device will switch you to a second piece of CO equipment (a modem in most cases) to answer. The FCC cited the 'information being passed for no charge' excuse for this, so we countered with both the toll saver example and a one other, but they still wouldn't certify it. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or pdg@balr.com or attmail!balr!pdg ------------------------------ Date: 09 Mar 90 21:45:10 EST From: GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Legion of Doom In a recent digest Bob Moseley III reposted a message, originally from Daneel Olivaw, concerning the e911/LoD ruckus. I'd just like to point out, in the interest of accuracy and quelching the already rampant rumours, that "Taran King" (the co-editor of PHRACK) has not been indicted thus far. In fact, he hasn't had any search warrants executed against him either. For all intents and purposes he is not involved in the case at this time. As an aside, perhaps those of you who have chided Computer Underground participants for adopting pseudonames should reconsider the practice. In light of all the recent techno-fear and witch-hunting it doesn't seem quite so "juvenile". Gordon R. Meyer 72307.1502@Compuserve.com tk0grm2@niu.bitnet Delphi and GEnie: GRMEYER [Moderator's Note: Do I understand correctly? Some one or more people commit a crime; use phake names to avoid detection, and you don't think they should be criticized for concealing their identity? Please read the next message today and tell me if you consider it to be an example of 'techno-fear' and/or 'witch-hunting'. PT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: More Legion of Doom Antics Date: Thu Mar 8 19:42:46 1990 This appeared in [Computerworld], March 5, in their Inside Lines column. Bank-vault Hackers Claim Hit "Two hackers claim to have pocketed $66,000 apiece (sic) from Citicorp after illegally jacking into DEC VAXs on Citicorp's Decnet (sic), which the multinational banking firm uses for electronic fund transfers, according to an account of the episode in an electronic newsletter published by The Legion of Doom. The hackers entered one of the VAXs, created a file to capture incoming and outgoing control sequences and then used the information to divert funds into a Swiss bank account, one of the hackers wrote. Citicorp has declined to comment on the claims." [Moderator's Note: Gee, what a bunch of harmless antics! Are we who condemn these things to be called 'witch-hunters', as Mr. Meyer suggests? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:42:20 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Operator Knows What? Jody Kravitz' note also says that "The operator had never heard of call forwarding." Has anyone out there ever had to explain a new area code or exchange (most notably, among the exchanges, something of N0X/N1X form) to an operator? I am vaguely aware that some East Coast operators, between 1973 and 1980, didn't know of N0X/N1X prefixes in use in 213 area (now 213/818, later to become 213/310/818). Concern: The poor souls who end up in the first NNX area code. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 22:00:36 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill In article <4904@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Andrew Payne" writes > On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond > a certain distance from the CO. I don't recall the name of the charge > or the amount. My "Monthly Service" includes $1.20/month for Touch-Tone Service and $0.65/month for 1 Quarter Miels Suburban Milage. My other line, which has a seperate bill, does not show such a charge, although I remember they said there would be such a charge when I ordered the service. I'm about 7 miles from the CO. Many of the subscribers in my end of town are served by SLC-96 multiplexors. I'm 1.3 miles from the main highway. I'm at a loss to know how they come up with 1/4 mile of suburban milage. Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #160 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03307; 11 Mar 90 4:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25068; 11 Mar 90 3:01 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15904; 11 Mar 90 1:53 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 0:48:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #161 BCC: Message-ID: <9003110048.ab27172@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 00:48:29 CST Volume 10 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson T1 Mux Info Needed [Jerry Aguirre] ISDN 2B1Q Countries? [Czeslaw Piasta] No Forward to Time & Temp? [Carl Moore] Re: No Forward to Time & Temp? [Jody Kravitz] Wrong Number For Model [Durham Morning Herald via J. Dean Brock] Wanted: TELEGUIDE FOR PC - ie. RLE GRAPHICS [Beezer] DDD History [David Lesher] Try This One! [John Higdon] Re: Installing a Second Line in Apartment [Steven King] Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging [Gordon Meyer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Aguirre Subject: T1 Mux Info Needed Date: 10 Mar 90 05:32:12 GMT We are trying to get a 64K international circut installed and have run into a problem. The local carrier (PacBell) doesn't offer "clear channel" 64K lines (plus something about superframes being different). The suggestion from AT&T was to get a T1 line for the local loop and put the 64K on a subchannel of that. The rest of the line would feed into our PBX for long distance voice use (Megacom). The problem we are having is finding a unit to split off a 64K V.35 subchannel from a T1 line and pass the rest of the T1 line into our switch. (With one of the subchannels dead.) While such a beast is supposed to exist no one has been able to specify one or even tell us what its exact name is. The configuration we are aiming at would look like this: ----- ---------- --------------------- ---T1---| CSU |--T1--| splitter |--T1--| System 75/Generic 1 | ----- ---------- --------------------- | | 64K | V.35 | -------------- | cisco router | -------------- I would appreciate any information and recomendations about the channel splitter and other hardware to accomplish the above. Jerry Aguirre jerry@atc.olivetti.com {amdahl|decwrl|sun}!oliveb!jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:09:08 EST From: Czeslaw Piasta Subject: ISDN 2B1Q Countries? What countries have decided to follow the ANSI-T1.601-1988 specification for the U-reference point? What countries are leaning towards it ? The question more generally can be put, "What countries have adopted or are adopting the '2B1Q line code' ?" Thanks folks, Chester Piasta UUCP: ...!mitel!piasta ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:35:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: No Forward to Time & Temp? The message about no longer being able to forward to time & temperature (from Jody Kravitz) reminds me of earlier note (sometime last year?) about forwarding calls to some recording near Chicago area, as written up in TELECOM Digest. The latter case came under "resale of services"(?), and was discovered by a phone-co. service rep who called the original number and got switched to the recording, and it led very shortly afterward to a phone-co. order that such forwarding be discontinued immediately and permanently. I don't see such "resale" in Jody's note. Jody, when it was no longer possible to forward to time & temp., what happened when such forwarding was attempted? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:52:10 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: No Forward to Time & Temp? In a previous posting I mentioned that my ability to forward my calls to the time & temperature number went away. I received a request to elaborate on this. I do not know the implementation, but a day after the complaint by my housemate's friend, you could not do the forward. If memory serves me correctly, you would get a fast busy if you entered the call-forward code + the number of the time & temp lady. There seem to be a couple of possibilities. Both involve treating the number as a special case. One possibility is that a special case was set in the CO firmware to not allow forwarding to that number. Another possibility is more complicated. The time & temp was provided by the phone company from telco owned equipment in a differrent Central Office than the one that I was served by. It is possible that they allocated a dedicated trunk between the two offices, and made a special case of connecting all calls to the time number to that trunk. This would save a lot of busy trunks and would also make forwarding impossible. Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ From: brock@brock.cs.unc.edu (J. Dean Brock) Subject: Wrong Number For Model Date: 9 Mar 90 20:20:58 GMT The March 7 issue of the [Durham Morning Herald] had a front page article about Charlotte Clark, a 68 year old Durham women, who is receiving many, many calls from men eager to converse with with Durham's other Charlotte Clark, a 20 year old Duke University student who posed for a Playboy feature entitled "Girls of the ACC." At first the older Charlotte Clark could not understand why men would be calling her to discuss Playboy magazine and "hesitated to tell her friends and family about it because it was so strange." Most of the callers were "young fellows," who sounded like college students, she said. A few sounds older, like college professors, she said. [DMH, 3/7/90] Now that Ms. Clark understands the motivations of her callers, she is quick to inform them that they have reached the wrong Charlotte Clark. Oh, the other Charlotte Clark got an unlisted number weeks ago. ------------------------------ From: Beezer Subject: Wanted: TELEGUIDE FOR PC - ie. RLE GRAPHICS Organization: Bitsko's Bar & Grill, Public Access, Salt Lake City, UT Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 16:45:12 GMT Quite sometime ago, I personally learned that the TELEGUIDE service uses RLE graphics. For those that haven't heard of TELEGUIDE, it is a public service information station that you walk up to and utilize information about all the local events, features, weather, etc... Usally contained in a upright station you walk up to, I'm looking to see if ANYONE knows if you can dial-up one of their data links directly. There are already some comparable NATIONAL systems that use RLE graphics, but they do not focus on LOCAL events. Oh, RLE graphics by the way are very swift "area-fill" graphics that use color. Quick example would be 'rolling green hills, the sun, and a advertizement' that "area-fill" in a matter of seconds. If you have leads, post them up - this would be a great asset to the home computer community. Thanx. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: DDD History Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 21:09:41 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher {Donald Kimberlin talked about DDD/SDT existing overseas prior to here} The most notable STD cutover I ever read about was in the book "A Bridge too Far" about the Operation Market Garden diaster. This was the attempt to capture an intact bridge across the Rhine. Seem as if the advanced paratroops had been dropped without the correct {or maybe ANY!} crystals for their radios. In any case, they had no communications. The local phone systems were dial, but intertown calls needed an operator. So the Germans put their operators in place, but left the locals to run and fix the rest. A member of the Resistance installed SDT at each switch in the system UNDER THE NOSES OF THE GERMANS. They {the Dutch} could then use the system, by dialing more numbers than needed for local calls, and did so for quite a while. When the British advance was pinned down, the Resistance offered several times to put them in contact with British units elsewhere in the country, only to be told to "go away" perhaps because the Brits did not understand/believe them. Such is the irony/tragedy of war. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Try This One! Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Mar 90 18:50:47 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon I have had an ongoing billing problem with Pac*Bell for 27 months. For those of you unfamiliar with a "Full State" 800 number, it works like this: There are four billing rates: Intralata on-peak, intralata off-peak, interlata on-peak, and interlata off-peak. The rates are, respectively, $21.50/hr, $8.60/hr, $12.50/hr, and $5.83/hr. The interlata is handled by AT&T, and no, there is no typo; intralata is higher than interlata. As you can see, that last rate is very attractive. For that reason, I got this service to conduct business with associates in the Southern California area after hours. That was four years ago. In November of 1987, one of my associates moved to the high desert area near Victorville. Phone service there is provided by Contel. That was when the trouble started. Since that time, large amounts of usage have been showing in the "intralata off-peak" column. When this first happened it sent up an immediate flag, since the only calls received are from Southern California. It was no trouble convincing the business office that no calls were originating from within the LATA and they gave me a credit for the difference. But it happened the following month and has happened for 22 of the 27 months since calls started coming in from Contel. Today, I made the monthly call to the business office to remind them of the usual error and got a big surprise. I was connected with a "supervisor" who said that their investigations had revealed that the reason for the billing problem was faulty data from Contel. Well, that made sense. But she went on to say that there really wasn't anything they could do about it and they weren't going to adjust my bill anymore. What??? I asked where that was tariffed, and she said it was really "beyond tariff". As a customer, I'm not entitled to correct billing? Well, she was sorry but that was that and concluded the conversation. First, I called AT&T for a reality check. Am I entitled to get what I ordered and pay the correct rate? Of course. Also, the person at AT&T was interested in how much revenue they were losing due to Pac*Bell's billing errors statewide. After all, how many 800 customers know exactly where all their calls come from and are sure enough of their knowledge to complain? Then I talked to a San Jose area manager for Pac*Bell who actually sounded legitimate. She promised to resolve the problem to my satisfaction by mid-week. This should be interesting. I'll let you know. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Installing a Second Line in Apartment Date: 9 Mar 90 16:57:22 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <4875@accuvax.nwu.edu> ntmtv!koverzin@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Raymond Koverzin) writes: >I want to install a second phone line in my aparment. I called Pac >Bell and they stated that can provide the second line "up to the wall >of the apartment building" for the basic service activation charge. >I talked to the landlord and he stated that he does not know if the >apartments are properly wired for a second line. He said that I would >have to get a Pac Bell service person in to check into it. >I have checked behind the phone outlet and there are two twisted pairs >connected to the outlet. How can I be sure that the second pair is >hooked up to the local CO and that all I need is service activation? >Is it likely that the second line has to be connected at the pedestal >at the front entrance to the apartment complex, thus I will need to >get a service technician to make the connection AND verify that the >line is good inside my apartment. >If that is the case, then I don't consider the second line is "wired >up to the wall of the apartment building." It is only up to the >pedestal. >How much should I expect to pay for a Pac Bell service tech? I don't >want to pay for having him install a second outlet; I can do that >myself. I was in the same situation about three months ago. In my 12-year old apartment building, I found a mess of wires (probably about half a dozen pairs) terminating in bare wire behind my phone plate. "This'll be easy!" I thought. I called Illinois Bell to have them install the second line. For the base activation charge they sent out a man to bring my second line "up to the wall"; in this case, to the distribution panel in the building's utility room. This he did. He said he really wasn't supposed to, but he had the time so he tried to find a pair in the apartment to connect it to. No luck. Not a single connection, other than my original phone line. Somewhere in the building every pair was severed. The Bell guy suggested my maintenance people might be able to fix things up for me; otherwise he'd have to charge THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A *HALF* HOUR to run new wires. I called maintenance. "Sorry, not our job. Call Bell." Given the distance between my apartment and the utility room, I estimated running new wires would be a two-hour job. I didn't have $140 to drop on a new line, so I called Bell to cancel service on it. I was prepared to just kiss the $50 (or therabouts) for the activation call goodbye. After all, Bell *did* fullfil their half of the bargain. To my surprise, the service rep. got all charges (ALL charges!) attributed to that short-lived second line dropped from my bill! She'd checked with billing and verified that I had never actually used the line, so she (and her superior, I imagine) took pity on me. Score one for a helpful service rep. at Illinois Bell! I'm very good at giving directions, especially if | Steve King (708) 991-8056 I'm giving them to myself, 'cause I know what I'm | ...uunet!motcid!king talking about. | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek ------------------------------ Date: 09 Mar 90 21:45:01 EST From: GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging In a recent Digest Tom Lowe asked for comments on Voicemark messaging. I called rcvd a brochure on the service. I think it's a good idea and I'd like to utilize it but two things prevent me from doing so (besides the fact that I can't use my RAO card that is :). 1) I'd like to see a >2 hour delay for sending a message. How about expanding it to at least 5 hours? If I call a message in at 6AM CST, and delay it for the maximum two hours then it would still be 6AM PST. Too early for most business calls... 2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my message lost. The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution. Seems to me a better idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. If it detects constant voice on the other end (such as would be given by an answering machine..I assume that most people are going to shut-up and listen to the message) then Voicemark could "wait for the beep" and replay it again. Of course this would make the call longer in duration but that could be billed back to the customer. I realize that #2 might not be of great concern ... I can't use the service to determine that for myself until the "billing negotiations" are worked out! GRM 72307.1502@CompuServe.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #161 ****************************** ISSUES 162 AND 163 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 163 APPEARS NEXT THEN 162 FOLLOWS IT.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24803; 11 Mar 90 15:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10542; 11 Mar 90 14:11 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17898; 11 Mar 90 13:03 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:56:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #163 BCC: Message-ID: <9003111256.ab19488@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:55:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls [Jeffrey M. Schweiger] Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls [Bill Cerny] Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set [Julian Macassey] Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [David Tamkin] Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos [Jeff Carroll] Re: Sprint Plus [David Schanen] Re: Alternate Carrier List Availability [David Schanen] Information Needed on Philips Minitel 1 Terminal [George S. Thurman] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Lou Judice] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: 11 Mar 90 02:01:44 GMT Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA In article <4948@accuvax.nwu.edu> winter@apple.com (Patty Winter) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 157, Message 2 of 11 telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (John Lockard) writes: <> Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is <>reached by dialing a toll-free number. dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 157, Message 3 of 11 |Hmm... the Air Force (Army?) has a Language Institute in Monterey. |It'd be a good source of translators, and the work would give the |students practice. Anyone know if AT&T does hire students or grads |from the institute, or is LLS's location in Monterey a coincidence? Determining whether or not 'moonlighting' is permitted, is usually left up to the organization's commander. There are some situations where a policy exists precluding certain types of 'moonlighting'. Any moonlighting that does take place is not supposed to interfere with normal responsibilities (ie., military duties, etc.). I am _not_ a spokesman in any way for the Defense Language Institute (DLI) at the Presidio of Monterey, and do not know what their policy is on these matters (or policies (plural), as there may very well be several levels to 'moonlighting' - student/staff, military/civilian, etc). There is also a large number of people living in the Monterey area who were previously associated with the military installations here, liked the area, and either stayed or returned after terminating an active association (retiring, or just leaving) with DoD. That's a source of people who would not have to worry about 'moonlighting' policy for those in active DoD employ. Also, DLI is not the only language school in Monterey (or actually, school teaching languages). The Monterey Institute of International Studies is a private upper-division and graduate school which includes languages in its curricula. There must also be both a supply and a demand for translator/ interpreter services in the Monterey area, as there are a number of such services listed in the Monterey Yellow Pages. ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger CompuServe: 74236,1645 Standard Disclaimer ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls Date: 10 Mar 90 17:32:03 GMT In article <4923@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (John Lockard) writes: > The company's Langauge Line Service, providing access to >telephone interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects... Ever wonder how they staff this? > Based in Monterey, California... Ah, across the street from the Defense Language Institute! 8-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | fax: 619-298-1656 ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set Date: 11 Mar 90 04:26:54 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <4955@accuvax.nwu.edu>, julian@bongo.uucp (julian macassey) writes: > In article <4868@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) > writes: > > In article <4780@accuvax.nwu.edu> jeh@simpact.com writes: > > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9 > > Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that > > you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid > > the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard > > Walkman type headset is what I need. > There is a cordless unit that uses a Walkman type headset. It > is made by WICOM 21525 Strathern St, Canoga Park, California 91304. > (818) 715-9096. And just hours after I posted the above about the WICOM unit I decided to read my March 1990 edition of INBOUND/OUTBOUND. This is a telecom related freebee magazine from Harry Newton's ego factory. They have a section devoted to headsets - worth a read. They also have an article on the WICOM I mentioned before (Page 77). There is an 800 number for WICOM: (800) 942-6601. Also their FAX number (818) 715-9067. But there is another cordless phone that takes a "Walkman" type headset. It is called the "Roamafone" by VXI, Rollinsford, New Hampshire. It is a modified Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone. It costs more than the WICOM - $375 - and does not have a model with an FM radio. Yours, Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 14:07:55 CST Paul Wilczynski wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 155: | I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them. | They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business | office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us | any more". Applause, applause, applause! (Serious applause to NET, not sarcastic applause to Mr. Wilczynski.) That's what happens when you cry "Wolf!" several hundred thousand times too often. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos Date: 10 Mar 90 08:02:38 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Two or three years ago I got, on my monthly cable bill, a miniature questionnaire about whether I owned a personal computer, what type, etc. I filled it out (avid consumer of high technology that I am), but that was the last I heard of it. Viacom claimed that they were considering adding "enhanced services". Did anyone else get something like this? Does anyone know if anything came of it? My guess is that the cable guys (at least here in Bellevue, where the cable service is right out of the Stone Age) decided that anything that involved real engineering was out of their ballpark. (Anyone for rec.cabletv.stupid-company-stories?) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Sprint Plus Date: 11 Mar 90 13:30:03 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing Hello net, Maybe I can help a little bit here. I am an Independent Marketing Representative for, a marketing group representing US Sprint. Here is the information I dug up on it. Effective July 17, 1989 - October 16, 1989 When I signed someone on Sprint Plus they could get $25 credit on they're January 1990 bill (from Sprint) Sprint Plus: Minimum charge of $8 per month. Night Rates start at 5pm instead of 11pm. (50% off day rates) (all bulk use discounts apply to interstate usage only) With $25 monthly usage you get 5% off all 8am-5pm usage and 10% off all 5pm-8am usage. With $100 monthly usage you get an additional 5% off 5pm-8am usage. With $200 monthly usage you get a total of 20% off 5pm-8am usage. Hope this helped, -Dave ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Alternate Carrier List Availability Date: 11 Mar 90 13:41:34 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing I contacted my local operator (Pacific Northwest Bell) for this very information. The first operator I recieved refused to give me the information so I asked for her supervisor who after some chiding eventually gave to a man with the list (I'm not sure of his position) he was very helpful and read off a list of some 30 or so 0XXX codes including carriers that were coin only! ( I don't think he meant to do that :) It took a good half an hour but I got the info I wanted. So maybe if you push a little you can get the information. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 15:05 EST From: George S Thurman <0004056081@mcimail.com> Subject: Information Needed on Philips Minitel 1 Terminal Are any TELECOM Digest readers familiar with the data terminal from PHILIPS, with the model # of MINITEL 1? I need user information. Thanks, George S. Thurman MCI MAIL ID 405-6081 [Moderator's Note: I might add George and I (we are neighbors and friends of many years) also need the User Manual for the Hewlitt-Packard terminal, Model 2629-E. George got two of them and sold one to me. They're quite nice, older (circa 1982) terminals with thermal printers built into the top. Any documentation on how to operate them or his Phillips Minitel 1 will be appreciated. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 07:32:56 PST From: "Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos It's interesting, because wrong numbers usually come in either one's or 3-4 in a row. Clearly the MEANEST way of dealing with this was in the film "Ruthless People", when the Danny DeVito character received a wrong number for Matilda. "No, I'm sorry, Matilda can't come to the phone right now because she's ******* ** ***** (use your imagination)". This of course only works for certain combinations of male/female callers and call-ee's. I certainly don't recommend it, and also certainly have never had the nerve to do it! :) /ljj ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #163 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24808; 11 Mar 90 15:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10542; 11 Mar 90 14:08 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17898; 11 Mar 90 13:03 CST Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:17:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #162 BCC: Message-ID: <9003111217.ab03371@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:15:01 CST Volume 10 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values and Telecommunications [Jane M. Fraser] Reach Out And Touch DGI [Havana Moon] Billing and Answer Supervision in Frankfurt [David Lesher] Denmark Charges for Time Off-Hook Also [Julian Macassey] More Greed [John Higdon] Unlisted Stats [Kenneth Jongsma] Telecom Student Needs Tutor/Mentor [Joel P. Krigsman] Is That a Business or a Residence, Mr. Bush [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 12:29:10 est From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values and Telecommunications Seven lectures will be presented at Ohio State University during the spring quarter on the topic "Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values, and Telecommunications." The lectures are free and open to the public; They are being sponsored by the Battelle Endowment for Technology and Human Affairs. This article is being posted by Jane M. Fraser, Associate Director, Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 (614-292-4129) (email: fraser-j@eng.ohio-state.edu). The material was drawn from material provided by Dr. Reeves. For several centuries, print culture has been of central importance to Western societies. To be literate has meant to be able to read and write the words of the vernacular language and to be able to generate meaning through the written word. At present we are in the throes of a profound transformation toward new types of literacies as the result of the confluence of the elecronic communications technologies of television, interactive networks, and computer graphics. The specific forms othat this transformation will take, and the groups of opeople whom it will empower or affect detrimentally, will depend on the ways that access to (that is, literacy in) these technologies is controlled. The lecture series will explore a variety of literacies required by or made possible by modern telecommunications, their value structures, and their impacts on our values as individuals and as a society. These include traditional literacy and numeracy, "pictoriacey" (image literacy), literacy in the critical use of television, computer interactions including scientific visulaization and questions of personal identity, and the "audiovisual literacy" of empowerment through access to telecommunications media and information. All presentations will be held 7-9 PM in Room 100 Stillman Hall, 1947 College Road, Ohio State University campus, Columbus, OH. A public, pay, parking facilty (ARPS garage) is located across the street, accessible from College Road and from N. High St. All presentations, except the first, are on Thursdays. Tuesday, 3 April 1990: Brian Stock, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, University of Toronto "Literacy and Values Then and Now". Definitions and meanings of print literacy. Associated value complexes (critical, abstract thinking, individual autonomy). Why redefine literacy now? Thursday, 12 April 1990 John Fiske, University of Wisconsin-Madison "Teleliteracy and the Conditions of Reception" Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois-Urbana "The Discipline of Culture and the Technologies of Discipline: It's Hard to be a Saint in the City" Values of television and video manipulation; television as oral subculture? Television watching as passive process? Values of orality: social relatedness? Video manipulation as active process. Thursday, 19 April 1990 Barbara Mihalas, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, Urbana Richard Mark Friedhoff, Visicom Corporation, Los Angeles "Pictoriacy" (image literacy) as bridge between media: scientific visualization as highly interactive process. Changing scientists' imaginations and intuitions about how natural phenomena behave. Enlarging our conception of science; transforming scientific literacy for citizens. Thursday, 26 April 1990 Cheris Kramarae, University of Oregon Andrew Ross, Princeton University "Computer Hackers" Personal computers and identity in a teleliterate world. Computer use as highly interactive "world-making." Gender issues in computer use. Thursday, 3 May 1990 Herbert Schiller, University of California-San Diego "Welcome to the Two-tiered Society" Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., University of Pennsylvania "The Cybernetic Triage: Inequality in the Information Age" Ownership of media and sources of information. Privatization. Equity issues. Thursday, 10 May 1990 Dee Dee Halleck, Paper Tiger TV Kevin Wilson, Teleuniversite, Montreal "The Access/Control Paradox in the New Electronic Media for the Home" Thursday, 17 May 1990 Mark Poster, University of California-Irvine "Derrida and Computer Writing" More information can be obtained from Dr. Barbara Reeves or Toni Mortimer at: Center for Comparative Studies 614-292-2559 306 Dulles Hall The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 ------------------------------ From: ckp@cup.portal.com Subject: Reach Out And Touch DGI Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 11:52:51 PST The following item by Havana Moon appeared originally in The Umbra et Lux Newsletter - a monthly publication which focuses on Signals and Communica- tions Intelligence (SIGINT/COMINT), espionage and counter-intelligence. It is reposted here with permission. Umbra et Lux is published by DX/SWL Press, 10606-8 Camino Ruiz, Suite 174-kk, San Diego, CA 92126. $18/year domestic, $24/year international. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= THE "REACH OUT AND TOUCH THE DGI" PHONE SERVICE PUT ON HOLD Mimi Whitefield, a Miami Herald staff writer (that's an Uzi City Daily, folks), reports in the 2/14/90 edition that a new under- water cable that would improve the congested telephone service between the United States and Cuba was completed last April. Un- fortunately, no one in Florida - or in Cuba, for that matter - has been able to use the line. After a mere $7 million cash outlay, I imagine the Board Room types at AT&T are somewhat less than thrilled with this state of affairs. Seems the culprit is the US Trade Embargo which limits US companies' ability to do business with Cuba. This Embargo has been in effect for nearly three decades and is designed to isolate Cuba economically and cut it off from US Dollars - and the issue here is the restric- tion on transferring the $220,000 a year it will take for the Cuban Telephone Company to maintain and service the connection. Meanwhile, the cable between Cojimar and West Palm Beach sits - and phone calls to Cuba are as hard to place as ever. An AT&T spokesman says roughly 40 million attempts to "phone home" are made annually - with only about 400,000 of these attempts actually completed - simply because there aren't enough circuits. This issue is especially hot in South Florida, where 85% of the calls to Cuba originate. Another reason AT&T is anxious to get this cable in service is due to the current over-the-horizon radio service to Cuba which uses a frequency assigned to Southern Bell for mobile cellular phones. Spokesmen say that AT&T's Cuba calls occupy the frequency and interfere with Southern Bell's ability to provide cellular service. So reach out and touch someone - courtesy of Ma Bell - but you may find yourself camped out in that phone booth for a long, long time . . . Hold on, Fidel! (c) 1990, MoonBeam Press ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 9:12:12 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher This discussion started talking about the 'toll saver' feature of answering machines. John Higdon said: >Even those robber barons at PacTel Cellular have apparently dropped the >charges for unanswered calls. {and comments on charging for both busy and no-answer calls} >No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my >messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages." According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is ringing, busy or hung at the switch. Wouldn't that be just *great* on FTS, guys?? (For those not in_the_know, FTS is also known as the "Network to Nowhere" since seemingly 60% of the calls die enroute, connect to the wrong place, go to reorder, or have one-way audio) 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: julian macassey Subject: Denmark Likewise Charges For Time Off-Hook Date: 11 Mar 90 05:14:02 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <4958@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work > yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number. > As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision. > After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a > charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't > answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number > and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22! When I lived in Denmark. You paid for communication attempts. If you picked up the handset to see if you could get dialtone - ding 25 oere for local call. If you kept it off hook, you kept paying. Then L. M. Ericsson came out with the Ericafone. The problem with the Ericafone was that it didn't go on hook very positively. After a few people complained about massive bills after the phone had been of hook for a day or two they changed the billing for phones off hook. As I recall they only charged you for the first hour of "off hook operation". But wait, there's more... When you dialed a long distance number, the long distance charges started immediatly after the number was dialled and you were billed for the time on the line (sometimes 2 second increments on international calls), whether you spoke to anyone on the other end or not. Want to call the operator and complain? That will be 25 oere - thanks. Emergency calls (dial 000) were free, How comforting. Think how much better service could get if GTE moved into Denmark. > Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the > facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call > attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would > sure put war dialers out of business! Yes, in case you wondered, you did pay for busy signals. I was told that as equipment was being used to place the call, it should be paid for. A good incentive not to supply service. Kinda ironic that the "Erlang" was named after a Danish telephony engineer. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Subject: More Greed Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 10 Mar 90 19:27:50 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon For you toll-saver dissenters, a question: How would you feel about this?-- Many people have answering machines that answer on the fourth or fifth ring all the time. This enables them to leave the machine on at all times without having to bother to turn it on when they leave. When they are home, they answer the phone before the machine does. When they are gone the machine eventually answers the phone. I know people who do this. When I call them, if there is no answer on the fourth ring, I assume they are out and hang up before the machine answers since I just called to BS anyway. I have not been charged for the call, but I know they are out and I didn't get stung by the answering machine. How about passing a law saying that you must let the phone ring ten times for each call attempt:-) But take heart. Nynex some time ago took a major step in this arena. In some smoke-filled board room a few years back, it was decided that there was a lot of traffic directed to its choke network (radio request lines, contest lines, etc.) that was not generating revenue because of busies and ACB reorders. So the courageous, pioneering practice of charging for all calls to any choke number was instituted. No answer? You pay. Busy? You pay. All circuits busy? You pay. Nynex equipment trouble? You pay. That knowledge ought to warm some hearts. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: However, see the two messages before yours in this issue. Some countries do charge for the time the phone is *being used* -- not just during the time a connection is established. Anyway, my complaint was not that you let it ring for some period of time, make some assumptions about the person at the other end and disconnect. It was the practice of using *coded ringing by pre-arrangement* with the other end; i.e. I let it ring twice and hang up, then call back again right away ... you know it's me calling because we planned it this way. PT] ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Unlisted Stats Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 05:36:54 PST The folowing chart appeared in this month's issue of [Esquire Magazine]. The stats are attributed to Survey Sampling, Inc. Percentage of Telephone Numbers Unlisted Las Vegas 60.3% San Francisco 47.7% New York 36.5% Washington DC 26.2% Atlanta 23.8% Minneapolis 15.8% Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: "GRRRRRR.....(----IT A DOGGY'S BAD DAY" Subject: Telecom Student Needs Tutor/Mentor Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 05:36:54 EST Hi! I am a student at the Rochester Institute of Technology majoring in Telecommunications which was recently offered. Currently, I am taking a course called "Telecommunications Fundamentals" this quarter. The textbook for this course is "Data Communications: A User's Guide", 3rd ed., by Ken Sherman. I'm looking for a mentor (or someone who doesn't mind helping out) who can assist me via electronic mail with any questions that I might have during the quarter. If you don't mind helping me out, please let me know. Thank you very much!! Joel P Krigsman Bitnet: JPK1521 @ RITVAX ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Is That a Business or a Residence, Mr. Bush? Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 18:01:50 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Daniel Shorr of NPR's Weekend Edition suggested that after the great Hashemi Rafsunjani phone call hoax, George may wish to get Caller-ID. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #162 ******************************  ISSUES 162 AND 163 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 163 CAME AHEAD OF 162 IN THE ARCHIVES. 164 NOW FOLLOWS.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04724; 12 Mar 90 8:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05092; 12 Mar 90 7:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06888; 12 Mar 90 6:14 CST Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 5:53:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #164 BCC: Message-ID: <9003120553.ab04346@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Mar 90 05:52:03 CST Volume 10 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson More on LoD [Gene Spafford] File Transfer Circuit Needed (for PCs,i.e.) [S. Jain] AT&T Enters Credit Card Biz [Bob Jacobson] What Happens With Lithuania Now? [Henry Mensch] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [John Higdon] Re: More Greed [John Higdon] Re: More Greed [John Wasilko] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Joel M. Snyder] White House "Caller ID" [Michael Katzmann] Re: Additional Caller ID Information [Bernie Roehl] Re: Unlisted Stats [Randal Schwartz] Sprint WD-40 Number? [Michael Fetzer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene Spafford Subject: More on LoD Date: 12 Mar 90 00:54:50 GMT Reply-To: Gene Spafford Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University For those of you believing that the LoD indictments are mean-spirited attempts to kill the fun of a couple of kids, the following information should be of interest. This is taken from my monthly "Guide to Computer Law" update bulletin, derived from a Dept. of Justice news release: Three people have been indicted in Atlanta under five federal laws in connection with their activities with the "Legion of Doom." The indictment includes charges of conspiracy to commit computer fraud, wire fraud, access code fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen property. Each of them has ALSO been charged with four counts of wire fraud and one count of possesion of access code with intent to defraud. The article claims that the LoD has been alleged to consist of approximately fifteen individuals in Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Florida and other states. An investigation into their activities is continuing. One other person has also been charged in a separate indictment in Chicago in connection with the theft and disclosure of Bell South's 911 software. The cases and federal districts involved are listed as "US v. Grant a.k.a. the Urvile a.k.a. Necron 99 a.k.a. Darden a.k.a. The Leftist, and Riggs a.k.a. The Prophet" in the northern district of Georgia; US v. Riggs a.k.a. Robert Johnson a.k.a. The Prophet, and Neirdorf a.k.a. Knight LIghtning" in the northern district of Illinois. For the interested, I think the laws involved (all from U.S.C. Title 18) are sections 1030, 1029 and 1343. Section 1905 (disclosure of confidential information such as trade secrets) may also be involved. These guys are facing long prison sentences if found guilty of even a few of these.... Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 11 Mar 1990 15:41:26 EST From: SXJ101@psuvm.psu.edu Subject: File Transfer Circuit Needed (for PCs,i.e.) I am trying to hack together a circuit that would receive data from another site. I will be using a parity odd/even scheme to check for errors in transmission. But, I would also like to correct any errors that may arise without retransmission via adding more info to the transmission message so I can correct the parrity errors. Does anyone know if this is possible and where I can find a circuit (logic diagram) for this animal? Thank you, s. jain ------------------------------ From: Bob Jacobson Subject: AT&T Enters Credit Card Biz Date: 11 Mar 90 23:43:27 GMT Reply-To: Bob Jacobson Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA The WALL STREET JOURNAL reports that AT&T has officially thrown its hat into the credit-card business ring. The telephone calling-card number will become the equivalent of your bankcard number; in fact, it WILL BE your bankcard number if you use the AT&T VISA or Mastercard. Putting two and two together, it becomes apparent that Caller ID (via 800 and 900 services) and this credit-card application of the telephone number make for a potent telemarketing and sales tool. Any thoughts on the subject? Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 21:53:11 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: What Happens With Lithuania Now? Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu What happens to Lithuania once (if) they are separated from the Soviet Union's telephone network? Do they get their own country code and the like? REFERENCE: "Expressing the will of the people, the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian Republic declares and solemnly proclaims the restoration of the exercise of sovereign powers of the Lithuanian state, which were annulled by an alien power in 1940. From now on, Lithuania is once again an independent state." -- Resolution approved by the Lithuanian Parliament. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 11 Mar 90 15:09:44 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon David Lesher writes: > (For those not in_the_know, FTS is also known as the "Network to > Nowhere" since seemingly 60% of the calls die enroute, connect to the > wrong place, go to reorder, or have one-way audio) I am convinced that one of the factors responsible for the excellent call completion rates in the United States is the traditional practice of answer supervision billing. As I mentioned, PacTel Cellular used to charge its customers for all call attempts regardless of the outcome. During that time call completion was a rigged crapshoot in favor of the house. It was better than an even-money bet that any given call would end in a reorder, for which the caller would be charged ("uses air time, you know"). Now that they have apparently dropped this practice, calls are completed much more reliably. GTE Mobilnet, which has always started the clock in this area upon supervision, has always completed calls swiftly and dependably. If a telco gets paid for every call attempt, successfully completed or not, then what incentive is there to provide any kind of decent service? As Julian Macassey put it in his related article: > Yes, in case you wondered, you did pay for busy signals. I was > told that as equipment was being used to place the call, it should be > paid for. A good incentive not to supply service. This was PacTel Cellular's argument (maybe they should have been providing service abroad), but I give you as exhibits A and B, respectively, their quality of service before halting the practice of charging for all call attempts, and after. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Greed Date: 11 Mar 90 15:28:29 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon On Mar 11 at 12:17, TELECOM Moderator writes: > It was the practice of using *coded ringing by > pre-arrangement* with the other end; i.e. I let it ring twice and hang > up, then call back again right away ... you know it's me calling > because we planned it this way. PT] Sounds like a great use for Caller-ID. If someone sees on the display that he doesn't want to talk to the caller and decides not to answer the phone as a result, should there be a charge? A hell of a lot of information has been passed! An answering machine I have on the drawing board, but have not had the energy or the need to prototype it yet, among other things works like this: It is PC-based and has (at least) two lines. One answers the listed number where callers leave their messages and the other answers an unlisted line where the owner calls to retrieve same. If there are new messages, the unlisted line answers on the first ring. If not, the unlisted line never answers. This is, in essence, rich-man's Toll Saver. Anyone have a problem with this? Do you feel that a mechanical answering device *must always* answer the phone, even if it has no communication for the caller (owner)? If you approve of this technique, why then do you object to an economical equivalent for the common man (Toll Saver)? My point is simply that unless you do bill for all call attempts, there is no way the passing of "free" information can be prevented. Attempts to do so will push the system closer and closer to the "bill all attempts" doctrine; something that could ruin the high grade of service we currently enjoy in the US. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Indeed, as you phrased it, it is a good example of Caller ID. But -- Caller ID *is* being charged for! Its not being given away free by United Charities. So information is in fact being passed (do you or don't you accept the call?) whether or not the phone is answered and billing supervision begins. And the person who subscribes to the Caller ID as a source of information pays for it, regardless of whether or not the caller also pays for it (by having his connection established.) PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 16:46:34 EST From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: More Greed The choke exchange in Los Angeles charges for all call attempts, too. My first bill from GTE was quite a surprise. Jeff ------------------------------ From: "Joel M. Snyder" Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 11 Mar 90 19:49:21 GMT Reply-To: "Joel M. Snyder" Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't In several recent articles, the moderator called for charging people for ring-no-answer, and one reader responded by suggesting that taken to an extreme this would mean charging you for picking up the phone. In fact, this is already true in the voice world, depending on how you want to divide up the basic service charge your telco charges. In the voice world, it's unlikely to be taken to such extremes, but in the data world. On the standards committees I'm a member of, the telcos, rbocs, and long distance carriers are always VERY concerned about network resource usage, and they will likely be charging you for all use of the network as you use it, rather than by creating a blanket charge. Thus, calls into a network which are never delivered, calls which are cleared by the recipient, and other "pre-connection" activities will all be something you will pay for. Naturally, the way this is all accounted for is a business decision of each provider, but be assured that the "phone company" is making sure that the standards support passing information which would be necessary for billing such attempts to the appropriate accounting systems. On a related note, and merely brushing caller-id into the conversation, this issue is always discussed with great humor in standards meetings, because, of course, from day one, calls are delivered with the "calling address" field in all protocols -- X.25, X.75 (as such), and the relevant packet-based ISDN protocols. What may be traditional in the voice world is highly irregular in the data one, and we may find that as the networks migrate towards ISDN services that either (a) all of the protocols are rewritten to deal with privacy issues or (b) the issue dies a loud and noisy death when the data people say "don't screw with what works, unless you're willing to $pay$ for it." Joel Snyder U Arizona CARAT Project [Moderator's Note: I have never called for charging people for 'ring-no-answer' as such. I have only stated that structured and pre- arranged ringing patterns -- where someone on the receiving end hears the ringing and perceives a message from it -- should be illegal if not paid for. This includes answering machines which 'listen' to rings and in effect give a message by refusing to answer after the second ring. The telco agrees: IBT's 'Identi-Call' service, where up to three separate numbers can be camped on one line, with a distinctive ringing pattern for each costs about $5 for each number assigned. And of course Caller ID, which as Mr. Higdon notes definitly delivers a message regardless of an actual connection being established, also costs money. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 90 18:31:28 GMT From: Michael Katzmann Subject: White House "Caller ID" Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home Perhaps C&P can provide the White House with caller id! But then again George Bush would have to be able to recognize the the Iranian Speaker's number. (Yes, yes I know it wouldn't work from Iran) ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Re: Additional Caller ID Information Date: 11 Mar 90 21:58:16 GMT Reply-To: Bernie Roehl Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Having heard all the discussion about caller identification, I'm curious as to how it's done. I know how it works with ISDN sets (vaguely), but how do they do it with standard analog subscriber loops? Is it sent between rings? If so, in what format? Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu OR broehl@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl Voice: (519) 747-5056 [home] (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Unlisted Stats Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 01:55:26 GMT In article <5019@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ken@cup writes: | The following chart appeared in this month's issue of [Esquire | Magazine]. The stats are attributed to Survey Sampling, Inc. Makes me wonder how they came up with the stats... "Hello, I'm from Survey Sampling. Is the randomly selected number my computer just dialed to talk to you listed or unlisted? ... Hello? ... Hello?" :-) Just another listed number (and paying up the yin-yang to be that way!), /=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/ ------------------------------ From: rider@pnet12.cts.com (Michael Fetzer) Subject: Sprint WD-40 Number? Date: 11 Mar 90 03:56:31 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA I got my Sprint card through WD-40, with the 60 minutes free. I was just telling a friend about it. He wants the number, and I can't think of it. 1-800-xxx-wd40? Can someone email it to me, please? Mike UUCP: uunet!serene!pnet12!rider or ucsd!mfetzer ARPA: crash!pnet12!rider@nosc.mil INET: rider@pnet12.cts.com or mfetzer@ucsd.edu BITNET: fetzerm@sdsc [Moderator's Note: Surely. The number to call is 1-800-FON-WD40 (800-366-8340). But don't call until you have studied for the test they give you! You'll need to answer two questions about the use of WD-40 to remove rust and other accumulated crud. The answers to both questions are yes. If you don't want to listen to the commercial, just punch '1' as soon as it answers; then pause, punch '1' again, (pause), then '1' a third time. You'll be congratulated as a winner, and connected to the Business Office. And the prize is actually about $5, payable as a credit on your *third* bill. You'll pay a 75 cent surcharge on each call. Whatta deal! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #164 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07031; 12 Mar 90 17:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08546; 12 Mar 90 8:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05092; 12 Mar 90 7:20 CST Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 7:00:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #165 BCC: Message-ID: <9003120700.ab03445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Mar 90 07:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Tad Cook] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stuart Lynne] Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging [John Higdon] Re: T1 Mux Info Needed [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Sprint Plus [Rich Sims] Telesphere Long Distance Service [Robert Kaplan] Searching For X.25 High Speed Boards [Antonio Martinez Mas] Changing of 416 from NNX to NXX [David Leibold] Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller [Shawn Goodin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 12 Mar 90 03:07:14 GMT Organization: very little In the Seattle area I can call without toll charge to a very wide area into the suburbs, but most of the suburbs cannot call each other without paying toll. I have a Centrex like service called 2-line Residential Centraflex. One of the features is Call Transfer. Anyone can call me, give me a number, and I can hookflash, then dial the number and hang up. This ties up a trunk or two in the CO, but not my line. As long as the person calling me does not pay toll to reach me, and I don't call long distance, no one pays. There are some BBSs north of here in Snohomish County that have a similar function, only automated. I have not tried it, but they can transfer calls from Seattle to Everett. I think one or two of them may use FX lines in the scheme, but I am not sure how. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 11 Mar 90 09:58:44 GMT Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 159, Message 8 of 11 >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? A local BBS uses Call Forwarding to achieve this. His BBS is situated in a suburb of Vancouver which is a free call from most parts of Vancouver. But from some of the other suburbs it's a long distance call (which is really strange in some cases, for example it's long distance for me, but I'm only about 10km away, vs about 25km for downtown Vancouver which is free). He has a friend in the downtown area who allowed him to install a phone line with call forwarding. It is permanently setup to forward to the BBS number. This means I can call his number in Vancouver and be forwarded to the real number without any toll charges. To summarize: A to B is free, B to C is free, A to C is long distance, A to C via call forwarding in B is free. Works fairly well. Saves everyone a bit of money. Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532 (voice) 604-939-4768 (fax) [Moderator's Note: You mean it saves everyone a bit of money *except* for the person who subscribes to service 'B'. Someone is paying whatever the going rate for local service is for that line. Does the corresponding 'savings' experienced by users of the BBS offset the basic monthly charge? Have you any idea who uses it, and how frequently? PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging Date: 11 Mar 90 11:49:04 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> writes: > 2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my > message lost. The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but > I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution. Seems to me a better > idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. Expanding on that a little, what about businesses that have automated attendants? Frequently there is a considerable amount of canned verbage before the default kicks in and you are connected with a live attendant. By the time any human would be available to hear the announcement, it would long be completed. Also, when one calls the Higdon Manor he is greeted by a machine that has no default. A DTMF digit must be entered, or the machine ultimately hangs up without doing anything. (It's 1990, and I have no desire to deal with anyone who can't generate DTMF!) I'm sure that Voicemark will not listen to my menu and make the correct selection! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: T1 Mux Info Needed Date: 11 Mar 90 23:27:06 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) writes: >The problem we are having is finding a unit to split off a 64K V.35 >subchannel from a T1 line and pass the rest of the T1 line into our >switch. This is called a "drop and insert" function. You might want to get something like a copy of Telecommunications and call some of the small T1 mux vendors and describe what you need. I can't recommend a particular one, but a knowledgable sales person should be able to steer you in the right direction. Chip Rosenthal | Yes, you're a happy man and you're chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG | a lucky man, but are you a smart Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | man? -David Bromberg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 13:19:04 EST From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Sprint Plus In-Reply-To: message from drilex!carols@husc6.harvard.edu > Anyone know > if AT&T is sending out Reach Out America brochures directly to its > customers? (Not that it needs to, given the massive ad campaign...) I've got several lines with different billing options, and Reach Out America on one "set". AT&T sends notices of updates of the ROA service based on that subscription. AT&T is also the LD carrier on the other lines, not covered by the ROA plan, and whenever one of those lines runs up a bill that would have been lower with ROA, I get a notice about it, urging me to subscribe to the plan. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 02:55:35 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Telesphere Long Distance Service In a special issue last week, the Moderator noted that Telesphere, the Chicago-based provider of 900 numbers, is also an AOS provider. He also mentioned that Telesphere's AOS is somewhat disreputable. I'd like to provide confirmation of that. Brandeis University Telecommunications contracts with Telesphere to provide 0+ service from all student phones. While I don't have prices immediately at hand, I can assure you that Telesphere's prices are far above the de facto standard set by ATT, MCI, and US Sprint. Service is also poor; Telesphere will not make person-to-person calls from campus phones, claiming they have no way of billing. Essentially, all they will do is charge a small fortune for making collect calls. The only way around it, as I have noted earlier, is to use 950-[0|1]XXX to access rthe LD carrier of your choice, or ask the Telesphere operator to connect you to AT&T. Connection to AT&T this way takes an extra 60 seconds and involves waiting through some excruciatingly loud tones. BTW, AT&T has no problems connecting person-to-person calls and billing for them. I suppose it could be worse though; when I went down to Brandeis Telecommunications' office to complain that 10XXX didn't work, the lady there said that "Telesphere is a lot better than the last company we dealt with." I don't think I want to know how bad the last company was... What I want to know, then, is what Brandeis' incentive to use Telesphere might be? Is the university possibly getting a cut of Telesphere's revenue on collect calls? Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. P.S. If you want to see for yourself, Telesphere's 10XXX code is 10555. If anyone can get them to complete a person-to-person call, I'd like to know about it. [Moderator's Note: Their 'incentive' for using Telesphere is that they receive a much larger commission on calls handled/billed for than AT&T was giving them. Telesphere rates are much higher (as you have found out) and the difference is 'passed on' to the organization running the phones, in this case, your school. They are really a sleazebag bunch, but for 900 service, which is sleazy by its nature, I would probably use them if I wanted a 900 line. Do you remember in the early days of divestiture (and even before) how some of the OCC's and these AOS creeps used to advertise how much cheaper and better their service was than that provided by AT&T? Americans got what they were asking for! PT] ------------------------------ From: Antonio Martinez Mas Subject: Searching For X.25 High Speed Boards Date: 9 Mar 90 17:44:20 GMT Reply-To: Antonio Martinez Mas Organization: Dept. Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos, dit, upm, Madrid, Spain I am trying to find X.25 communications boards at high speeds, for mainframes or minis and PC,s. The bit rate required is 2 Mbps for the host comm. board and at least 1 Mbps for the personal computer board. An alternative solution to the X.25 may be any other connection oriented protocol at the required speed (may be with the ISDN Hxx channels). Has anyone out there had any experience with such boards? Any suggestions of a possible vendors? ! o ! Antonio Martinez Mas --! !-!- Departamento de Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos ! ! ! ! ETSI Telecomunicacion \_ ! ! !_ Ciudad Universitaria s/n 28040 MADRID; SPAIN U P M tel.(..34-1)5495700 ext 367; fax.(..34-1)2432077 ................................................................... ------------------------------ Subject: Changing of 416 from NNX to NXX Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 20:31:46 EST From: woody Well, 416 now requires 1+10D for all long distance (as is North Carolina by now, and perhaps everywhere else in a few years). None of the exchanges of the N 0/1 X format have shown up yet, though one new NNX-style exchange has appeared in service in Toronto a few days into March. Here are some other observations I found courtesy of PunterNet: Msg # : 29 of 81 - Ref 111/207 From : JIM BOYCE To : ALL Posted : 0613h on 21-Jan-90 * CONF 130 Subject: The 416 changeover... Just a short note. I noticed the other day, when I did a change on my board to allow for the new dialing system ( By dialing 1+416 for ALL 416 long distance calls. No more dialing 1+number) I found out that the BBS was dialing 416+number for LOCAL calls. Not 1+416, but just 416+number. Where I am it WORKED! The call was completed. I tried it many times and the result was the same. Local Bell staff were of ne help not knowing if it is normal or not. I don't see how having to dial 416+number would be normal UNLESS this is a sign of things to come!!! Jim Boyce - SysOp K.E.B. SYSTEM IV * Node 111 ----------------------------------- [This is likely a situation for certain exchanges only. I tried it from my residence and it stopped after the 416 with a recording. djcl] ----------------------------------- K.E.B. SYSTEM IV - Thornhill, ONT * Node 111 Msg # : 32 of 81 - Ref 111/210 From : JIM BOYCE To : ROMAN KOWALCZUK Posted : 1056h on 24-Jan-90 * CONF 130 Subject: Bell 416 changeover... Actually I think, although I'm sure it would upset loads of people, that Bell should make ALL local communities to Toronto AND Toronto a DIFFERENT area code. The time will come when they will use up the 20% that they generated and if they integrated something like this now while things are still on a small scale they would have less problems. Actually it would be better to give Toronto the 416 code and the rest of 416 could be reassigned. There is more people in Toronto and area so it only seems logical. Sooner or later it will happen but by that time it will be more difficult. Jim Boyce - SysOp K.E.B. SYSTEM IV * Node 111 ------------------------------------------- || David Leibold djcl@contact.uucp || "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse" - Bruce Cockburn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 01:10:28 EST From: Shawn Goodin Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller In-Reply-To: message from foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu >getting rid of the dedicated Wrong-number caller.... Since Jody Kravitz expressed her aggrievation over her roommate's friends using her phone by forwarding her calls to the time and temperature lady, I thought I'd mention a problem I had. I once worked for a major GM division in the Chicago area. I was being annoyed by calls from headhunters and unable to get much work done at times. One day, I followed the maintenance personnel up to the roof to oversee the replacement of a circuit breaker in the power systems of our computer center. As I climbed the various ladders and steps to the roof, I noted three telephones -- one at the top of the ladder, one on the roof in a weatherproofed housing, and one in the power room. I noted the phone numbers of all three phones. The following day when the calls began again, I sent out a memo asking folks to call me at a different number (actually the phone on a vacant desk next to mine). I then took my regular desk phone and set call-forwarding (Centrex) to dial the number on the roof. It was nice to have silence again ...... and I imagine that if someone did answer the phone on the roof, it resulted in a very interesting conversation. Shawn UUCP: ....!crash!pro-charlotte!shawng | Pro-Charlotte - (704) 567-0029 ARPA: crash!pro-charlotte!shawng@nosc.mil | 300-9600 baud (HST) 24 hrs/day INET: shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com | Log in as "register" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #165 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00449; 13 Mar 90 3:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16781; 13 Mar 90 1:27 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21004; 13 Mar 90 0:22 CST Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 0:00:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #166 BCC: Message-ID: <9003130000.ab10763@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Mar 90 00:00:05 CST Volume 10 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Legion of Doom Story - Middlesex News [Middlesex News via Adam M. Gaffin] Citicorp Hackers [John Markoff] SW Bell in Mexico [Will Martin] Telecoms in Brazil [Nigel Whitfield] 900 With a Twist [Jeffrey Silber] Bellcore Number Busy [Carl Moore] Sprint and Three-way Calling [Steve Elias] Cellular Privacy [Jeff DeSantis] Looking For International Network Managers [Sharon Fisher] An Idea For Using Caller*ID [Amanda Walker] Oops! A Typo Needing Correction [Tom Lowe] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 11:20:48 EST From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Legion of Doom Story - Middlesex News [Moderator's Note: This story appeared in the Middlesex News (Framingham, MA) on Monday, March 12. Mr. Gaffin indicated to me he intends to do a followup story in his column next week also. PT] The operator of an Illinois computer bulletin-board system apparently helped federal officials crack a multi-state ring of hackers now charged with breaking into a computer system running a 911 system in the South and distributing a highly technical on- line manual describing how to run - and disrupt - the system. Federal officials are not saying much about the investigation, except to say it is continuing, but observers in the telecommunications field say it may be widened to include a close look at hundreds of on-line break-ins and attempted break-ins of computers tied to the international Usenet network since last summer. Ironically, though, the Illinois system operator had his system seized by the government as evidence in the case. The government may also be seizing other bulletin-board systems the hackers may have used. And that raises some troubling questions about the protection of electronic mail and First-Amendment rights on electronic networks. Charged so far are four members of the ``Legion of Doom,'' which federal officials allege did things such as re-programming computerized phone switches and changing people's computerized credit ratings. Federal authorities were apparently aided by Rich Andrews, operator of Jolnet, one of a small but growing number of private systems connected to the Usenet international computer network (itself a part of the Internet research network). In an interview with Patrick Townson, who moderates a telecommunications conference on Usenet, Andrews says his involvement began about 18 months ago. According to Townson, Andrews noticed the 911 documentation had been uploaded to his system and promptly sent it to another Usenet-linked BBS operated by AT&T, with a request that it be sent to the right people there. Andrews acknowledged, though, that he then kept a copy of the text himself. A few months later, AT&T contacted him, asking him for the manual, and then the feds got in touch with him. It was then, about a year ago, Townson says, that Andrews decided to cooperate with the feds. According to Townson, Andrews said the 911 software was just ``a small part of what this is all about...'' As part of the investigation, Andrews did nothing about the Legion of Doom members allegedly using his system to pass the 911 manual back and forth and to develop programs to crack other systems, Townson says. If convicted, the alleged hackers face upwards of 30 years in jail and several hundred thousands of dollars in fines. The seizure of Andrew's system has a number of system operators worried. Unlike phone companies, which cannot be held liable for the actions of their subscribers, computer bulletin-board systems fall into one of those gray areas that remain unsettled. Already, Bill Kuykendall, who runs a Chicago system similar in operation to Jolnet, has tightened up his requirements for who he will let on the system. ``Today, there is no law or precedent which affords me, as owner and system administrator of The Point, the same legal rights that other common carriers have against prosecution should some other party (you) use my property (The Point) for illegal activities,'' he wrote in a recent message to users of his system. ``That worries me. ``By comparison, AT&T cannot be held liable should someone use their phone lines to transmit military secrets to an enemy. Likewise, Acme Trucking is not vulnerable to drug trafficking charges should they pull a sealed trailer of cocaine to some destination unknowingly. Yet somehow, I am presumed to be cognizant of the contents of every public message, mailed message, and file upload that passes through this public access system. On a system this size, that may be nearly a gigabyte (1+ Billion characters!) of information a year. ``I fully intend to explore the legal questions raised here. In my opinion, the rights to free assembly and free speech would be threatened if the owners of public meeting places were charged with the responsibility of policing all conversations held in the hallways and lavatories of their facilities for references to illegal activities. ``Under such laws, all privately owned meeting places would be forced out of existence, and the right to meet and speak freely would vanish with them. The common sense of this reasoning has not yet been applied to electronic meeting places by the legislature. This issue must be forced, or electronic bulletin boards will cease to exist.'' ----- end ----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 09:26:13 -0800 From: John Markoff Subject: Citicorp Hackers I checked that same story with telecommunications people at Citicorp about two months ago and after discussions with them, came away believing that nothing ever happened. My best guess is that the LoD kids write interesting fiction. John Markoff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 8:27:31 CST From: Will Martin Subject: SW Bell in Mexico A news article from the [St. Louis Post-Dispatch], March 7 '90: SW BELL TO HELP MEXICO MODERNIZE TELEPHONE NET Southwestern Bell Corp. will help Mexico modernize its telecommunications network under an agreement signed this week with the Mexican Institute of Technology. The agreement calls for SW Bell to help the institute train Mexican citizens in advanced telephone technology and design. SW Bell also will help the institute identify needs and resources for the Mexican telecommunications industry. "We're proud to be associated with such a prestigious university as ITAM," said Ross Spicer, president of SBC Technology Resources Inc., the SW Bell subsidiary that will work directly with the institute. ITAM is an acronym based on the institute's Mexican name. The institute is a leading Mexican university that specializes in economics, finance, business administration, computers, digital networks and information technology. The university is building a new center for research and post-graduate studies in telecommunications engineering and design. SBC Technology Resources Inc. helps SW Bell companies develop and assess new and emerging technology that can be applied to their businesses. ***End of article*** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 09:47:04 GMT From: Nigel Whitfield Subject: Telecoms in Brazil I am currently working on a project that may involve linking systems in Brazil to remotes in London, and I'd be grateful for any help that people can give me with the following questions. They may seem an odd bunch of requests, but we've still not decided much beyond that we want to establish a link. Anyway, here goes: 1) How tightly regulated is the Brazilian telecoms system; eg can we just buy a modem and plug it in ourselves, or do we have to go through the local Telco? 2) Assuming that it is possible to plug in a modem, are there any restrictions on what sort can be used; eg must it conform to Bell or CCITT specs, or would either do, and is there a limit on the maximum speed. 3) Does Brazil have a packet switched data network that can be accessed via IPSS from the UK. If so, what's it called, what facilities does it offer? 4) What would typical call rates from Brazil to the UK be, both via a direct dialup and via packet-switching? Is it likely to be cheaper than calling in the other direction? Well, I think that's most of what I need to know for now, but any other comments would be much appreciated. Thanks, Nigel. It's true I've been lead an amazing dance poet@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk But why should I ever complain? nigelw@ibmpcug.co.uk If I should be given a second chance n.whitfield@cc.ic.ac.uk I'd live it all over again. ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Silber Subject: 900 With a Twist Date: 12 Mar 90 17:54:33 GMT Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 900 numbers are often run for less-than-noble purposes (e.g. getting kids to run up their parents' phone bill). I saw a new twist on the 900 number this weekend. A local PBS station (WVIA/Scranton) is using one for part of their telethon. If you don't want to make a major pledge, you can "give your support by calling our 900 number. Remember, your call will cost $5.00." "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." --Sen. Everett Dirksen Jeffrey A. Silber/silber@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science & Engineering ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:41:15 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Bellcore Number Busy On Saturday and today, I have tried calling the Bellcore number given for punching in area code and exchange, and the number, 201-644-5639, is busy. How do I check what is wrong? [Moderator's Note: You don't check it. You just wait until it comes back up, if it ever does. Maybe the computer was down, and the line busied out as a result. Maybe it was deliberatly shut down. Who knows? PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint and Three-way Calling Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 08:30:05 -0500 From: Steve Elias YAAOUSS: (Yet Another Advantage Of US Sprint): Sprint's industry leading sound quality and volume levels are very handy when one is using 3 way calling to connect long distance parties... I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ From: Jeff DeSantis Subject: Cellular Privacy Date: 12 Mar 90 16:15:43 GMT Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA Reported in the POLITICAL JOURNAL column of the [Boston Sunday Globe] March 11, 1990 by Brian C. Mooney. THE LONER IN LOVE WITH HIS PHONE This story falls into the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction category. Last week, Globe columnist Mike Barnicle was driving his wife's car in the South End when the car phone rang. Barnicle's wife's office was trying to reach her. In the background, Barnicle heard a familiar voice and asked the caller to put him on hold. For the next few minutes, he listened to former Boston Mayor Kevin H. White giving advice to Democratic gubernatorial candidate John R. Silber. Among other things, White advised Silber on how to deal with the Globe. He also second-guessed Silber's decision to make Robert (Skinner) Donahue his campaign director. Donahue was a key operative of Joseph Timilty in the bitter 1975 White-Timilty mayoral campaign. "What are the chances of that happening?" said Barnicle of intercepting the call. "Probably pretty good," White said in an interview, confirming Barnicle's story. =============================================================================== Jeff DeSantis jjd@necis.nec.com NEC Technologies, Boxborough, MA necntc!necis!jjd ------------------------------ From: Sharon Fisher Subject: Looking For International Network Managers Date: 12 Mar 90 19:36:31 GMT Organization: The Asylum, Belmont, CA I'm doing a story for Network World about globalization of networks. I'm looking for network managers who can discuss the following issues: o ability to get foreign equipment inside the country and the ability to communicate between countries o types of services and links available o difficulties in transmitting information across borders o planning issues, including user groups and hiring o 'how-to' information for people setting up their first international network This isn't limited to Unix networks, PCs, or anything like that; in fact, the bigger the better. Please reply to me via email at sharon@asylum.sf.ca.us or slf@well.sf.ca.us Thanks! ------------------------------ From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Subject: An Idea For Using Caller*ID Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Sterling, VA Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 01:56:14 GMT In article <4993@accuvax.nwu.edu>, pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) writes: > Nevertheless, a friend of mine was denied FCC certification on a > device that lets you call a line, let it ring once, hang up, call in > again within 100 seconds and the device will switch you to a second > piece of CO equipment (a modem in most cases) to answer. This is off the subject some, but it gave me (what at first blush seems to be) an interesting idea. Imagine, if you will, box that decides what piece of equipment to let answer the line based on the ANI burst between the first and second rings. That way, for example, I could have a single line which would ring my phone (or my answering droid) for most calls, but would put a fax machine on the line if I was being called by a number in set "A", or my computer on the line if I was bening called by a number in set "B", or whatever. I can see really being able to use such a thing. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi" ------------------------------ Subject: Oops! A Typo Needing Correction Date: 12 Mar 90 10:51:17 EST (Mon) From: Tom Lowe PT: You told us to call 1-800-FON-WD40 (1-800-366-8340) should have been 1-800-366-9340. Tom Lowe tel\@cdsdb1.ATT.COM [Moderator's Note: Indeed I did. Sorry. I was really concerned at the time about passing that difficult test they administer. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #166 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02826; 13 Mar 90 4:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27432; 13 Mar 90 2:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac16781; 13 Mar 90 1:27 CST Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 0:48:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #167 BCC: Message-ID: <9003130048.ab24712@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Mar 90 00:47:43 CST Volume 10 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Bill Nickless] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Jeff Wolfe] Re: Telesphere Long Distance Service [John Higdon] Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service [Tom Lowe] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Bill Berbenich] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Robert E. Stampfli] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Colin Plumb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 11:01:43 CST From: Bill B40417 2-7390 Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charge In TELECOM Digest MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? And the moderator responds: >[Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure >someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story. >The way telephone rates in the United States are structured, it is very >rare that two or three local phone calls, hooked together to avoid a >toll charge would come out less expensive than the DDD rate for the >toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then >it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a >single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings, >at least on shorter calls? PT] I can think of a situation where that strategy could be useful. I attend a small Christian university in Southwest Michigan called Andrews University. Andrews is affiliated with the Hinsdale Medical Center, located just outside of Chicago. Before we were connected to the Internet, one option we explored involved the use of a leased line that exists between the Michgan and Illinois campuses. We were going to put two modems on a simple timer, connected (naturally) with a null modem, and strap one of the modems to auto-answer. At night, when the leased line was not being used for Nursing Department business, we would try to contact a Chicago site local to Hinsdale for a USENET news feed. Fortunately, we became connected to the Internet and receive our news feed that way instead. The key advantage to this plan is that in involved no increase in funding from the University. The Nursing Department was already paying for 24 hours a day leased line service, of which 8 hours a day wasn't being used. We would have used those 8 hours without having to justify our news feed to the bean-counters in the administration building. By the way: in an earlier Digest there was some question as to my location. Donald E. Kimberlin wrote: >Commenting in part on the message from: >"Bill B40417 2-7390 " >(BTW, just WHAT Federal Penitentiary is that address from, Bill?) I thought it was rather funny, but just for the record here is an explanation of the various fields in the address: Bill: My first name B40417: My badge/payroll number 2-7390: My office phone number (full extension: (708) 972-7390) nickless: My last name and computer login flash: A Sun Microsystems SparcStation 1 (Flash, Spark, Get it? Oh well. We tried.... ;-) ) ras: Reactor Analysis & Safety Division of anl: Argonne National Laboratory gov: funded by the Department of Energy of the Federal Government. .signature under construction detour mail to nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 12 Mar 1990 13:13:25 EST From: Jeff Wolfe Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu>, MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) says: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? I don't know for sure, but I would guess that it is. >[Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure >someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story. [ ... ... ] >toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then >it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a >single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings, >at least on shorter calls? PT] I live in the same area as the original poster, and our Telco does allow free local calling, however I must dial a '1-xxx-xxxx' to call a town less than 7 miles from my house, when I can dial 'xxx-xxxx' to call a town 20 miles from my house. The toll boundaries seem to have no logical pattern. Is this a normal occurance? or are we just stuck in the dark ages? ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Telesphere Long Distance Service Date: 12 Mar 90 16:00:10 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Robert Kaplan writes: > While I don't have prices immediately at > hand, I can assure you that Telesphere's prices are far above the de > facto standard set by ATT, MCI, and US Sprint. For your dining and dancing pleasure, I will share with you at least one sleazebag company's justification for stratospheric pricing in the long distance market. During the FCC hearings some time back (when people first were rudely awakened by COCOTs and AOSes, a spokesman for some company (it might have been ITI -- don't sue if I'm wrong) said that the "big three" LD carriers were purposely vulture pricing their services below the cost of providing them in order to drive the valient little Ma and Pa operations out of business. When you pay $10.00 for a three-minute call from San Francisco to Los Angeles, that is closer to the cost of providing the service than the "dumping-style" charges of those nasty big companies. And I always thought the "big three" conspired to keep the rates UP! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service Date: 12 Mar 90 10:34:26 EST (Mon) From: Tom Lowe GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> writes: > In a recent Digest Tom Lowe asked for comments on Voicemark messaging. > I called and rcvd a brochure on the service. I think it's a good > idea and I'd like to utilize it but two things prevent me from doing so > (besides the fact that I can't use my RAO card that is :). > 1) I'd like to see a >2 hour delay for sending a message. How > about expanding it to at least 5 hours? If I call a message in at 6AM > CST, and delay it for the maximum two hours then it would still be 6AM > PST. Too early for most business calls... You can specify delivery to begin up to 7 days in the future. I think you are confusing 2 hour delivery window with delay. By default, the system will attempt to deliver your message starting immediately and continuing for the next 2 hours. The 2 hour window can be changed to one, two, three or four hours. Specifying a delivery time is a major feature of the service. It is especially useful for deliverying messages internationally where the timezones are very far apart. > 2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my > message lost. The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but > I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution. Seems to me a better > idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. If > it detects constant voice on the other end (such as would be given by > an answering machine..I assume that most people are going to shut-up > and listen to the message) then Voicemark could "wait for the beep" > and replay it again. Of course this would make the call longer in > duration but that could be billed back to the customer. The safest thing to do if you suspect there may be an answering machine at the destination is to send a "person-to-person" message in which an attendant will introduce a call. There are two flavors of "person-to-person": "Message taker allowed" and "no message taker". If you specify "Message Taker allowed" and an answering machine takes the call, the attendant will wait till the BEEP before starting the message. If you specify "No message taker", the attendant will not deliver the message and delivery will be attempted again later. As far as listening for voice, that's a tough issue. It's hard to reliably know if we have voice or noise or busy or dog barking or baby crying, etc. etc. Also, the system can't listen for voice at the other end while playing a message. It would hear itself talking. Also, we can't allow the attendant to stay on the line during the message for privacy issues. > I realize that #2 might not be of great concern ... I can't use the > service to determine that for myself until the "billing negotiations" > are worked out! You can use MasterCard or VISA, if you have them. To specify the above options, first record your message. When finished with the recording, you will be prompted: [blah.blah.blah] .. For immediate delivery press 1. For other delivery instructions, press 0. If you press 1, your message will be delivered for the next 2 hours. If you press 0, you will be able to follow the prompts to specify several options. If you need help at any point, you can press "*H" and you will be connected to an attendant who can answer any questions and also enter your options for you. Enjoy and thanks for the questions! Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM VoiceMark(sm): 1-800-562-MARK ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos Date: 12 Mar 90 16:49:31 GMT Organization: Summit NJ In an area related to people not understanding that they don't have the correct number of the person they're calling, here's a problem that I encountered. If anyone can possibly think why the person I called "lied" to me, let me know. Even before the 212/718 split of New York City, there were a lot (>2) of area codes in the area. NY City was 212, the two suburban Long Island counties are 516, and the northern suburbs, and up into the Catskills are 914. Also, businesses are branching out over the entire area, so if you have a company's 7-digit "headquarters" phone number, you have to know where it is or what the area code is. In my case, I had a problem with a Long Island based bank; my account was in a branch in Manhattan. When I called the branch, I was given the 7-digit of the main office, which I assumed to be a suburban Long Island number. So, I called (516) xxx-yyyy, and it was obvious I didn't call a bank office. So, in order to make sure that the error wasn't one of my dialing or the telcos switching, I asked the person if I had reached (516) etc.; she said "no". OK, so I called that number again, and of course the same person answered. Now, I can almost understand people not wanting to give away their phone number to a person who reached them by mistake, but if I already have their phone number, and tell them what it is, it means I didn't reach them by mistake, so at that point what difference does it make? I can always call them again whenever I want. (P.S., when I then called (212) etc, I got the bank office.) Any ideas as to why people act this way? Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 09:39:51 EST From: Bill Berbenich Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta In TELECOM Digest V10, #159, Ken Jongsma, ken@cup.portal.com writes: >I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some >airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the >phone network. Seattle has a nice business area with desks, fax >machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge! Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary in the Nineties. Many of the airlines' clubs (paid membership type) are getting RJ-11 connections in their lounges, but to retrofit an entire airport or terminal would likely be too expensive to be worthwhile to the airlines or airport commission at this time. A letter to Delta suggesting a no-charge business area would probably be a good idea - maybe other list members could mail a letter also (?). Delta has its home base here in Atlanta and I think they would have the clout to pull something like that off if enough interest was shown to them. William A. Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 Diamonds are a girl's best friend, |uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill but a man's best friend is a dog. |Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | ------------------------------ From: Robert E Stampfli Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 12 Mar 90 19:16:05 GMT Reply-To: res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli,55216,cb,1C315,6148604268) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ... OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for something I cannot use. Rob Stampfli / att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) / kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio) 614-864-9377 / osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home) ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 12 Mar 90 19:48:20 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario This issue is basically one of a covert channel. The telephone company wants to charge for sending bits, and people have come up with non-obvious ways to get the bits across. But plugging covert channels is *hard*. I recently saw an ad for phone-controllable thermostats. One handled multiple zones, was intended for commercial buildings, and could be programmed by DTMF tones (the primary password was 4 digits; the supervisory one was 7 - it seemed adequate). The other was for residential use; the suggested use was a cottage. It didn't plug into the phone line at all. It heard the telephone ringing through a microphone. If you called once, let the phone ring a certain number of times (3-7, I think), hung up, then called back within 30 seconds and let the phone ring another certain number of times, it would heat the house up for a few hours so when you arrived at your cottage, it would be warm. Various people may believe that this is cheating the phone company by communicating without making a billed call, but: This gadget is designed to handle party lines (it isn't confused by funny ring patterns), so as much as the manufacturers might have liked to, it isn't allowed to connect to the phone line and answer the phone line. (Party lines must only be used by people, who can understand an emergency request to vacate the line by someone else sharing it. You mustn't connect modems and whatnot to them.) Those trying to figure out billing rules for unanswered calls might like to ensure that their logic extends to cover this situation. -Colin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #167 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05707; 13 Mar 90 5:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25494; 13 Mar 90 3:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27432; 13 Mar 90 2:32 CST Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 1:50:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #168 BCC: Message-ID: <9003130150.ab21893@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Mar 90 01:50:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines [Bob Goudreau] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Jim Shankland] Re: Operator Knows What? [John Cook] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Amanda Walker] Sorry, Wrong Number [Matt Simpson] Phone Harassment [Murray S. Kucherawy] New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Insight Magazine via J. Lockhart] Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill [Matt Simpson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 14:01:58 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <4845@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > It occurs to me, having driven in a bit of rural New York state, that > towns as defined there go way out into the countryside. What is it > like in Massachusetts? Remember that if you go out on a rural route > (U.S. Postal Service) from a town "proper", you may cross into a > different telephone exchange from that serving the town "proper". > When you go northwest along rural routes from Oxford or Nottingham > (both in Pa.), the next exchange is also in the next area code; these > towns proper are served by 215-932 Oxford, and if you go northwest > from them, you cross into 717-529 Kirkwood. That kind of effect is seen quite often in states like NC, where the vast majority of the land area in the state is not part of any municipality. Cities and towns expand by annexing unincorporated areas, so municipal boundaries often end up looking very random and ragged, and some cities have "holes" (unincorporated areas surrounded by city land) and "islands" (detached sections unconnected to the main city area). ZIP codes and telephone numbers for unincorporated areas are assigned usually to the nearest city, but sometimes such areas end up getting annexed by a different city. It is therefore not uncommon to find such anomalies as a residence that is in the city limits of A, has a postal address of city B, and is served by a telephone exchange from city C. In Massachusetts (and, as far as I know, most of New England), a completely different situation applies. There is no such thing as annexation or unincorporated areas; every piece of land is within the limits of one of the 352 cities or towns. Town boundaries are not as ragged; they mostly follow natural boundaries or straight lines, in the same manner as county, state, or national boundaries. Telephone exchange boundaries respect town lines most of the time, but there are a few exceptions like the New Braintree example cited above. Probably the most common kind of exception is the edge effect, where a business or residence in town A (but close to the boundary with town B) gets a telephone number in a B exchange. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ From: Jim Shankland Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 13 Mar 90 00:25:50 GMT Reply-To: Jim Shankland Organization: The Eddie Group In article <5016@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Lesher writes: >According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone >administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is >ringing, busy or hung at the switch. That certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up in Munich. Billing was done in "message units", which at the time cost 0.18 DM each. A (completed) local call cost one message unit, regardless of its length. Toll calls were charged in seconds per message unit, rather than money per minute. The phone company (== post office) started counting message units when the connection was established. Oh, yes: the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. jas ------------------------------ From: John Cook Subject: Re: Operator Knows What? Date: 12 Mar 90 08:57:24 GMT Organization: The Goose Egg, Stockton, CA I have often had to explain to Pacific Bell operators what 950-xxxx or 10xxx numbers are used for. I never cease to be amased at how little these people who should be in the know, really do know. ------------------------------ From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Sterling, VA Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 02:09:36 GMT In article <4962@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chris@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Chris Johnson) writes: > Who was the moron who kept calling the wrong number again? Sheeesh. I recently had a very annoying morning. Evidently, my phone number used to be connected to a local Mexican food wholesaler. I got a string of about 8 phone calls from someone wanting to order tortillas, who simply would not believe that she had the wrong number. "But it's right here in my catalog!" Sigh. On call #7, it was her supervisor, who wanted to talk to *my* supervisor (for playing games with this poor woman, I guess :-)). I rather testily suggested that she call C&P directory assistance and ask *them* what my phone number was. In a few minutes she called back (call #8) and apologized profusely. I asked her for the name of the restaurant so that I could make sure and avoid it... It's not so bad when I get strange messages on my machine (my # is also one digit away from the loan department at a local bank :-)), but this was truly annoying. Grumble. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 13:21:29 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Sorry, Wrong Number The discussions of persistent wrong-number callers brought to mind a couple of interesting anecdotes. Several years ago, when I lived in Dayton, I got frequent calls from a head-hunter in Kansas City who kept trying to talk me into jobs in all kinds of out-of-the-way places. This guy called me often enough to know that my answering machine's outgoing message was quite frequently weird, and that when I answered the phone in person, it frequently wasn't a standard "Hello". One day, he lost my number, and forgot what city I lived in .. so he called Cincinnati information and asked for my number. They obligingly gave him a number for Matt Simpson in Cincinnati, and he called, and asked for Matt. The person who answered said "I'm sorry, sir, he passed away 6 months ago" The jerk was sure it was me playing games with him, so he said "That's okay, he never was worth a s**t anyway" It turned out he was talking to the guy's son. After trying to extract his foot from his mouth, he remembered where I lived, and related the story to me. Going farther back, when my brother and I were in school, we used to use all kinds of weird names when we called home collect (Toll-saver foes, take note: This was not a scam to deliver free messages; our parents always accepted the calls). This was before 0-plus dialing, when the operators had to dial collect calls. One day when I tried to call home, the operator dialed the wrong number and announced that she had a collect call from the Wizard of Oz. The ensuing conversation was quite amusing: The elderly lady who answered was very confused ("Who did you say this is?" "This is the operator speaking, but the call is from the Wizard of Oz") I tried to explain that it was a wrong number, but when the operator read the number to the lady, she said that was her number. She finally agreed to pay for a call from the Wizard of Oz, although I don't think she realized that's what she was agreeing to. After the operator was satisfied that the lady was accepting the charges, and put the call through, I asked the lady again what her phone number was, and determined that the operator had mis-dialed. The operator, who was apparently still listening, broke in again, apologized profusely, and dialed the right number next time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:43:37 EST From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Subject: Phone Harassment I have a friend who is receiving sexually harassing phone calls. This would not be unusual, except that the phone company has been unable to trace the source of the calls. The problem has been going on for more than two years. The local police are baffled, and each time it happens, they aren't able to do anything more than add the incident to their huge file on the case. The content of these calls has increased in offensiveness to the point where the receiver has become rather seriously paranoid. As this person is a good friend of mine, and I am concerned for his/her well-being, I would like to see this stop as soon as possible. However, I am as baffled as the next person. When the phone company places a trace on the line, the calls stop for one week (the maximum duration of a line trace), then they start again. This implies that the person has ties within the phone company or within the police department. I am curious to know why the phone company is unable to trace the call. Also, if anyone out there is having a similar problem, or has dealt with something such as this in the past, I'd like to hear from you. Finally, if anyone has any advice at all, PLEASE post or mail it to me. We would appreciate hearing from you. =========================== Murray S. Kucherawy ============================ E-Mail: mskucherawy@{ watmath | dahlia | crocus | trillium }.waterloo.edu Faculty of Mathematics (Comp Sci), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario Gamesmaster/Postmaster, UW Computer Science Club (mkuch@watcsc.waterloo.edu) System Manager, VAX/VMS Network, Board of Education, London, Ontario [Moderator's Note: It may be very well the case, as you suggest, that it is a employee of the telco who is tormenting your friend. A phreak working for the company would know all the ins-and-outs of the call tracing routine, and how to avoid getting caught. Is your friend tape recording the calls? I think under the circumstances, a judge would okay a silent and continuous tap on the line recording the conversations in the hopes the voice would be recognized. *Do tell the police and the court about this*. DO NOT notify telco of the tap and recording device. If the calls stop when the police are aware of the matter, then the contact is through the police. If the calls continue, then record one or more conversations, transcribe them, and *make a duplicate tape stored away safely*. Take the tape to the telco management, in a meeting with the head of security. Play the tape and hand out the transcriptions. Let them see if the voice or speech mannerisms can be matched to any existing employee, particularly an employee working in the frames or otherwise in a position of trust who would know what was going on from day to day. Let the police also have copies of the tapes if they were not the ones making them to begin with. A couple of questions: Are the calls always about the same time of day or day of the week? Has your friend changed (non-published) phone numbers only to have the new number likewise polluted? If the latter is true, this points more and more to some telco employee in a position of trust working in the CO who has access to the records, or the ability to go right on the frames to call out. Please let us know the results of this. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Lockard Subject: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:43:37 EST [Moderator's Note: Forwarded to the Digest from the Net Exchange BBS. PT] Hearing-impaired and speech-impaired people now may be able to communicate more effectively by telephone with other people, both deaf and hearing, thanks to the introduction of the Phone Communicator, a system developed by IBM that uses a tone telephone and a personal computer. A prompter directs the sending party to type a message on the phone's dialing keypad. The deaf person receives the message on the computer's screen and may then type a responce or send a prepared message, which reaches the receiving party as a synthesized voice. The device also has an aswering machine and an automatic dialing function and is capable of saving and printing all phone communications. The Phone Communicator is a "very important development" in facilitating communication for the deaf, says Merv Garretson, interim executive director for the National Association of the Deaf. He says the device should help many people in the workplace. From Insight, March 12, 1989. ===== This caught me by suprise. It seems that very few words, English or otherwise, would have the same sequnce of numbers. (I'm assuming that they use 1 for Q, 0 for Z, * for a period, and # as a space.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 10:52:35 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill Someone asked about mileage surcharges on phone bills. My bill includes such a charge. I don't have a bill lying around, so I don't remember the exact name, or the exact amount. However, it is substantial. The "basic" rate for local service is about 12.00/month. The distance surcharge is about 13.00. By the time the 1.00 for Touch-tone service, and the FCC line charge is added, we're up to about 32.00 for Plain Ole Telephone Service. No, this not a FX line, it has no neat features (unless you consider the fact that it quits working frequently, saving me from nuisance calls, a feature). Several months ago, there was a flyer included in my bill saying that if I wanted an explanation of any of the itemized charges, that I could send back this card with a number where I could be reached during the day. I sent it in, intending to ask about the distance charge, and also give them some rhetorical grief about the Touch-tone charges. A South Central Bell rep called twice, I was out both times, and left a message for me to return her call. The number she left was a 557-xxxx number, which is the format of all of SCB's business office, repair service, etc. numbers in this area. Unfortunately, I work in a GTE area, and it isn't possible to dial a 557 number from a GTE phone, so I never got my answers. Of course, I should be used to service like this, after fighting with SCB for several months just to get a single line installed in my house ... but that's another long story. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #168 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22485; 14 Mar 90 23:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00120; 14 Mar 90 21:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26739; 14 Mar 90 20:47 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:15:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #169 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142015.ab15687@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:15:01 CST Volume 10 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More Greed [Scott Fybush] Re: White House "Caller ID" [Jody Kravitz] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Ken Abrams] MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) [Gary Segal] One More Horror Story [Scott Fybush] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Brian J. Haughey] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Roy Smith] How About More Digits in Addition to Caller ID ? [Brad Templeton] Can This Be True? [Richard Pavelle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 02:43:11 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: More Greed Those of you who deal with a _real_ phone company can consider yourselves lucky. Here at Brandeis, there is no answer supervision. B'deis Telecommunications will tell you that they charge after six rings because (of course) "it uses our facilities." What B'deis Telecommunications doesn't tell you is that if the called party answers on the first ring, you can talk for 36 seconds (6 sec. ring cycle x 6) and not get billed. :-) On the flip side, I don't know how NET deals with it but calls to the Boston choke line 617-931-xxxx don't get billed by Brandeis if they aren't completed ... or at least if you hang up within 42 seconds of connecting. BTW, is the network designed to prevent access to choke lines from out-of-town if the choke line is very busy? Last week, I tried for 2 hours to get Ticket Master (617-931-2000) from a phone in Rochester NY (716-427-xxxx), and kept getting an ATT "Sorry, the number you have dialed is busy now." message. Would my odds of getting through have been better if I had routed the call through conference calling in the 617-736 exchange? Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 19:49:43 PST From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in the white house. The number was a 900 number. I had never heard of a 900 number before. I was curious then (and am now) if this was done for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id. Anyone care to comment ? Jody P.S. To reply to me Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: 12 Mar 90 16:28:14 CST (Mon) From: Ken Abrams In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? I doubt that this lash-up is illegal anywhere in the U.S. It's probably not worth the trouble to really find out. If you think about it for a few minutes, there are a couple of other (better) ways to accomplish the same thing. Redialers or call diverters are available on the open market that will do what you want without the added cost of the modems. If the intermediate office in your example has call forwarding available, it will also accomplish the same thing using only one line instead of two. The drawback of the above two options is that you are locked into a single terminating number to call. Guess your modem option would allow you some flexibility. The cost of two lines and two modems seems a pretty high price to pay to avoid paying the short-haul toll charges. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) Date: 12 Mar 90 21:01:13 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America. Here are the details: Plan Name: Preimer (I think) Plan Period: 7pm-8am weekdays, 12am Sat-5pm Sun Rates: Minumum $8.00 / month for first 60 minutes. 10.833 cents per minute for each additional minute. Distance: Rates apply to all 48 states. When I first joined this plan, the additional minute rate was 11.33 cents. I noticed sometime ago that the rate dropped without even a marketing brouchure to annoucne it! I find this plan meets my needs very well, as most of my LD calls are to one of the coasts, so I really save over distance sensitive rates. The negative with this plan is that it only works from my phone, not on calls dialed with the MCI card (i.e. no "Around Town" feature for Preimer). Any calls I make on my card are subject to the standard MCI rates and rate periods. Around Town does apply for those rates. "If you've done six impossible things this morning, | Gary Segal, Motorola CID why not finish it up with breakfast at MillieWays, | 1501 W. Shure Drive the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!" | Arlington Heights, IL | ...!uunet!motcid!segal ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 03:39:32 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: One More Horror Story Just when I thought Brandeis Telecommunications had gotten as bad as it could get, comes this month's phone bill. Checking the calls carefully, I found _four_ calls that my roommate made. Now, Brandeis uses six-digit accounting codes, and at least in theory, calls made with one's access code will appear on one's own bill no matter what phone the call was made from -- very much like a phone credit card, though our numbers bear no relation to any real phone number. Well, all four calls were made with my roommate's access code, _not_ mine. So somewhere in the billing computer, it is looking at what extension the call was placed from instead of the access code used [this problem has never happened in reverse; since the phone line is registered in my name, meaning collect calls and the like show up on my bill, not his]. And it's not like the technical problems with the system are the worst part. When I went in to complain, the lady there told me that I should first attempt to collect the $10.59 _directly_from_my_roommate_! Imagine if AT&T were to suggest that to its customers! Needless to say, I told her that I had already wasted more than enough of my time, and that Brandeis Telecommunications could figure out its own billing, and that maybe I'd just use an AT&T card from here on. This is not at all an isolated problem; people here have had nine-hour calls to Brazil and other oddities on their phone bills for months now, and there's nothing we students can really do. Of course, New England Telephone isn't allowed to connect a direct line to my room ... and I'm willing at this point to pay $15 a month just so I can get 10XXX dialing, answer supervision, reasonable billing, and twenty-four-hour-a-day operator service. Any other ideas? (And no, I can't afford a cellular phone :-) Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ From: b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 12 Mar 90 16:32:49 GMT Organization: University College Dublin In article <4901@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!hpda!morrell@lcs.mit.edu (Michael Morrell) writes: >>Toll saver (answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, >>when you call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know >>you have no messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge). > Do others think this is a bad feature? I understand you can save > money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the > phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing > (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything). Also, > for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine, > they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4). > This feature should be illegal. Two quibbles : Why should it be illegal? I think it's perfectly valid to see if you have messages. Why be charged for discovering you have no messages - when you *do* have them and want to access them, *then* the telco makes its money. You could extend the same logic to the practice described by some guys on this list who use exchange callback to allow internal calls. I guess you'd disapprove of that, too. But your other point strikes me as intriguing - you want external callers to be able to hang up if they figure there's a machine on the line? Isn't that the same idea, that the caller gets information from the number of rings to answering ? Why allow one and not the other? Regards, bjh ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 13 Mar 90 15:45:20 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Do you feel that if someone you call isn't home that you should be > charged anyway for the call? You got something for nothing in the > knowledge that your party wasn't home, or at least wouldn't answer the > phone for one reason or another. What about if it's busy. Again, free > information. > You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work > yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number. > As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision. > After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a > charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't > answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number > and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22! > Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the > facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call > attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would > sure put war dialers out of business! > No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my > messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages. How about the following scenario. You decide to go see a friend who lives some distance away. You get in your car, drive to a toll road, get on, and pay when you get off. You get to your friend's house, ring the bell, and there is no answer. You get back in your car, drive back over the toll road, and ask for the tolls back, since your friend wasn't home, and you did not get to talk to him. The toll collector looks at you, and says: "Are you kidding? You used my road!." Then you go to the gas station, and ask for a fillup, with the same rationale. The answer is probably not fit for usenet. Etc. etc. While I am certainly not advocating being charged for call attempts, there definitely is a good rationale for them. Actually, I believe that in Denmark there is such a charge. Some things are free, which could reasonably have charges. When buying something in a store, they will usually let you return it for any reason. Some businesses will charge a restocking fee. Also remember that one COCOT operator recently got caught placing calls first over AT&T to see if the card number was good, hanging up, and then placing the call over their own lines. The court deemed this illegal. There was also some serious discussion in CCITT whether there should be charges for call attempts in ISDN, which the US strongly opposed. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 16:47:42 GMT In <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Shankland writes: > the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed > that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no > itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that > you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I > never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. And how is that any different from the typical electric, water, or natural gas bill? In a typical house, each of these items is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY". What would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could I possibly have used that much?" Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? It's certainly not because of the amount of money involved. The average person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: Brad Templeton Subject: How About More Digits in Addition to Caller ID ? Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 15:20:11 EST Keeping track of the numbers of the fax machines that call you is silly, I think. What would make a lot of sense would be extensible phone numbers. After you key in a phone number, the system should let you keep dialing, terminating with a '#' or somesuch as needed. Then the extra digits should be sent to the recipient or PBX or whatever. Those digits might be an extension in the case of a PBX (no need for centrex) or a code to identify who you're calling (fax machine, modem, particular person.) This would also replace the system whereby they give you several numbers that ring differently. Instead you dial suffix digits. Ideally, the telco could assign some codes (say all 3 digit codes starting with 9) for official purposes. These codes would have standard meanings that everybody would obey -- fax machine, e-mail hookup, switchboard, voice-mail message center etc.) Thus all fax machines would use suffix 999, and fax machines would know to add this suffix. Nice trick is that it doesn't hurt to add the suffix when calling a regular number, it's just ignored. ------------------------------ From: Richard Pavelle Subject: Can This Be True? Date: 14 Mar 90 00:39:29 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world? P.S. I took away his paper clips and scolded him!!!!!!!!!! Richard Pavelle UUCP: ...ll-xn!rp ARPANET: rp@XN.LL.MIT.EDU [Moderator's Note: Describe the payphone. Is this the older type where you put the money in and then get a dial tone, typically without an armored handset cable? On those older-style payphones, yes, you could use a safety-pin or similar to momentarily connect the tip to ground (same as what happened when the coin hit a little 'seesaw' on the inside of the box which briefly touched two wires together). When I was ten years old, sometime around 1950, we always made free payphone calls. The handset cords were made of straight (not curled) cloth, the phone had three slots on the top for 5/10/25 cent coins, and the coin return did not have a trap door as now. We were quite proficient at getting a stiff wire up that return slot and tripping the collection table in our favor before the operator could get to it and trip it the other way, collecting the coins. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #169 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24953; 15 Mar 90 0:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14643; 14 Mar 90 22:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00120; 14 Mar 90 21:53 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:50:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #170 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142050.ab30741@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:50:33 CST Volume 10 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Chris Johnson] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [John Higdon] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [John R. Levine] Re: Telecoms in Brazil [Rich Zellich] Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [John Higdon] Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Tom Hofmann] Re: London 071, 081 Split [Joel B. Levin] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Steven King] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [David Barts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 14 Mar 90 22:47:51 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8 > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of > >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ... >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. Well, what's really stinky about the whole thing is that most phone companies probably bill that charge like US West (nee Northwestern Bell) does: The line on the bill says it is an FCC charge, as if the FCC were getting the money. If you ask for details, the detailed bill says it is an FCC mandated charge. That the FCC specifically set the amount (which as you have noticed I'm sure, has gone up every year since it started -- originally it was "way cheap" at $1 a line or less, and is now pushing past $4 a line here) may be strictly accurate, but it is deceptive "advertising" nonetheless. Most consumers, I'll bet, blame the government/FCC for the charge when they think about it at all. In reality, though, not only does the money go to phone company, but it would be more descriptive to say they are limited to charging only that amount and no more by the FCC. If given a free hand, I'm sure that immediately after divestiture local phone service prices would have gone through the roof in a ballistic sort of way, instead of just growing exponentially at about 7-10% a year. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. VOX: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: 13 Mar 90 10:14:34 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Robert E Stampfli writes: > OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for > local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be > charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that > this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for > something I cannot use. I'm surprised that no one has thought to mention the relavent point concerning the access charge. In the spirit of "universal service", this is a universal charge. It is not a usage charge; you don't escape it just because you don't use long distance. It's design purpose was to protect telcos' revenue, not to pay for long distance connections. There is no way to get out of it, so you might as well stop spinning your wheels. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 13 Mar 90 20:25:11 EST (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) writes: > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is to compensate the local > > telco for providing access to the long distance carrier of your choice. >... it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for local calls >only, with no long distance access, that I should not be charged this fee. This is a common misconception. The access charge is for access to the network, not just to LD companies. It was really a way to compensate the telcos for the revenue they lost from traditionally padded long distance rates by raising all of the local rates, without having have tarriff hearings before every state PUC in the country. It would be a lot more honest if the judge set an expiration date for the access charge of, say, January 1991, and all of the telcos adjusted their rates accordingly. I realize that the highly politicized PUCs in many states would make it extremely difficult for the telcos to make up the difference in any reasonable way. Ah, well. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 12:17:49 CST From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Telecoms in Brazil Try this lady; when I first ran across her 5-6 years or so ago, she was just starting to work on getting Brazilian universities connected with a network. She ought to either have the knowledge you need, or be able to point you at someone else who does. Cheers, Rich Date: Mon, 24 Jul 89 12:40 C From: LIANE%UFRGS.ANSP.BR@UICVM.UIC.EDU To: ifip-gtwy-request@TIS.LLNL.GOV Subject: request to be added to IFIP-GTWY list Please add my name to the list IFIP-GTWY Liane Tarouco University Federal of Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre - RS - BRAZIL [Alternate address from a message 26 Oct 89: From: LIANE%SBU.UFRGS.ANRS.BR@UICVM.UIC.EDU] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling Date: 13 Mar 90 10:04:01 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Steve Elias writes: > I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume > levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite. The differences are minor, but usually if there is a difference, it's in favor of AT&T. AT&T ought to know how to make their own technology work! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Tom Hofmann Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Reply-To: Tom Hofmann Organization: CIBA-GEIGY AG, Basle, Switzerland Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 18:50:38 GMT In article <4989@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: |>In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was |>to time and wait to see if any more digits followed. |In Europe, this is still often the case. For example, if you want to |call the outfit that runs the Hannover trade fairs, their main number |is 89-0, while their fax machine is 89-32626. There is no waiting for more digits in the above case: no other number starts with 89-0. Whenever extensions can be dialled directly, -0 (resp. -1) is the number of the local operator while all other extensions have a fixed length number (e.g. 5 digits for Hannover trade fairs) starting with digits 2--9 ("-NXX..." in US-like notation). Waiting for more digits is not necessary in Germany. In Austria, however, you sometimes get the local operator by simply dialling no extension. | A call from Paris to Amsterdam isn't going to go via |Warsaw no matter how much spare bandwidth they have, the politics of |accounting for everything make it impractical. Is a call from Florida to Hawaii routed via Mexico? | Compare this to the European mess |where the international code for each country is different, As in America! There are only two countries with the same area code: USA and Canada (forget the Caribbean--that is like Liechtenstein, San Marino etc. which have no country code either). |countries have special case dialing rules, e.g. Britain from Ireland, How about special case dialing from North America to Mexico ("area code" 905 instead of +52 5)? |and they do run out of numbers and stick new digits in various random |places. Usually, when running out of numbers, they add only one new digit at a time. Still easier to remember then a new 3-digit area code. |I note that some European countries such as France and Belgium have |moved to fixed length numbers, I cannot remember that France ever had variable length numbers. |It'll be interesting to see if they move to a unified routine scheme |and, if so, whether the adherents of variable length numbers (Germany and |Italy, for reasons of theology and disorganization, respectively) have |to change. Rather the opposite. France and Belgium are the only countries in the European Community (or even all of Europe?) with fixed length numbers. (I am not sure --- has Belgium such a fixed number length?) Tom Hofmann wtho@cgch.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 09:03:15 EST >Date: Thu, 08 Mar 90 18:41:17 +0000 >From: Kevin Hopkins >In v10i114 John Pettitt reported: >-> The new London area codes that come into full use on May 1st >-> work now! >-> Calling 081 941 2564 (my office) works just fine. If I dial 071 941 >-> 2564 I get "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcment >-> three". >I tried this from outside London (Nottingham - 0602), unlike John, and >it also works. If you get the correct code the call completes put if >you get the wrong one a recorded message is played saying: >"Sorry, you have used the wrong code. Please redial replacing 071 with >081. British Telecom have not charged for this call." The 071/081 are >obviously reversed for the other new area code. I was sitting at home reading this last night, and I thought it might be amusing to get a British Telecom recording. If worse came to worst I might be charged a buck or two for reaching a recording, but it would be worth it for a few minutes' entertainment. (If I actually rang a number by accident it would be Mr. Pettitt's office number, which should cause no one any great inconvenience at 2:45 am.) I thought I would try all three carriers available to me (that I know of)*. I started with my default, Sprint, using the invalid 071 "city code" (as they are termed by American telcos). I received a recording (American accent) from Sprint ("58-93"), who could not complete my international call as dialled. I thought, "Aha, Sprint does not know about these new city codes." However, when I tried MCI, the recording informed me that I did not have to dial "0" after the country code ("2EN"). Oops, I had been dialling 011-44-071- when I should have been dialling 011-44-71- (and I should have known better). I went back to Sprint and tried the number correctly. This time I was informed "60-93 You have entered an invalid country or city code." MCI informed me "Your international call cannot be completed as dialled ... 2EN." The first time I tried AT&T (I tried each carrier at least twice) I got the message, following three tones, that my international call could not be completed as dialled and suggesting that if I continued to have trouble I should contact the AT&T operator. I had not yet heard a British accent. Now it gets strange. When I repeated the above test, with 10288- 011-44-71-etc., I got a something new. Three loud and harmonic laden tones followed by this message: "Due to the earthquake in the area you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time. Please try your call later." These tones and words were repeat once. After a pause three similar but not identical tones at a more normal volume were followed by "Your call cannot be completed at this time to the country you are calling. Please try your call again later." spoken very slowly and distinctly. I hung up after hearing this message the second time. I got the same sequence of recordings the next three times I dialled, and one more time fifteen minutes later**. Needless to say, CBS did not interrupt with a bulletin and the 11:00 news did not report a recent earthquake anywhere. I repeated all the above numbers using the soon-to-be-valid city code of 081 (without "0"). The results were the same as for 071, except that I did not get the earthquake message from AT&T. Finally, just for the heck of it, I dialled via Sprint using 011-44-1- and shortly heard a ringing tone (I disconnected immediately). >BT must have informed large institutions/companies of the change, and >especially their telephone people, as the new codes work from behind >the PBX here at work. The new codes were blocked a couple of months ago >when I last tried. I guess these three international carriers are not in such a hurry as the various PBXs, or BT has not got around to telling them. /JBL *For completists I should state that I placed all these calls from New Hampshire in 603-880. **I tried again two hours later (midnight local time) and at 7:30 this morning. Still an earthquake somewhere, apparently. Now I'm in Cambridge I'll try again when I get to a pay phone (my PBX here won't accept 10288 unfortunately, and the default carrier turns out not to be AT&T). levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's ...!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor." ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta Date: 14 Mar 90 16:58:39 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <5083@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes: >[explanation that Atlanta's lack of dataports is due to age of the airport] >[...] are getting RJ-11 connections in their lounges, but to retrofit an >entire airport or terminal would likely be too expensive to be >worthwhile to the airlines or airport commission at this time. It wouldn't be necessary to retrofit an entire airport to pull this off. The Mallworld ... er, Woodfield Hyatt in Schaumburg IL has some souped-up pay phones near its function rooms. These computerized wonders include, you guessed it, RJ-11 connectors! It shouldn't be a difficult matter to install a few of these anywhere that has existing pay phones. If all you do in life are important things, then | Steve King (708) 991-8056 you'll never have any fun -- unless having fun | ...uunet!motcid!king is an important thing to you. | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 08:23:24 pst From: David Barts Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta > Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed > before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have > many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary > in the Nineties. Well, Sea-Tac was completed sometime in the mid *sixties*, and somehow they did manage to install laptop facilities. My guess is that if Atlanta got enough complaints from laptop users, they'd find a way to install the facilities. David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #170 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27670; 15 Mar 90 1:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09385; 15 Mar 90 0:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14643; 14 Mar 90 22:57 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 21:54:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #171 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142154.ab21212@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 21:54:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 171 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Notes on the German Telephone System [Henning Schulzrinne] AT&T Call Manager Program [Ravinder Bhumbla] Enhanced 911 [David Barts] Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold [Charles Buckley] Happy NYTEL [John Stanley] Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature [Steve Elias] 800 Costs [Hank Nussbacher] Request For Telco News Material [Scott Fybush] I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! :) [Bill Berbenich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:16 EST From: Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Notes on the German Telephone System Since there has been a recent discussion on call supervision in Germany, I thought I'd add the experiences of a native. I was always under the impression that calls were charged starting from the time the other party answered - as correctly pointed out, the clock tick method and non-itemized billing would make it close to impossible to really check calls. However, I shared a phone once with a housemate and we tabulated "talk" time with a specially designed kitchen timer. Usually, we were within a unit or two of the phone bill, so that it seems unlikely that call attempts were charged for. Also, coin phones and the pay-after-you-talk phones in the post offices never charged for call attempts. [Aside: I often heard that the Bundespost, the German PTT, justified its non-itemized billing system with privacy reasons. If you had the data on a computer, the reasoning went, any [law enforcement agency | hacker | your friendly, but nosy neighborhood employee of the Bundespost ...] could potentially put together some interesting information on lifestyles for a large number of subscribers, even without 900 numbers. In reality, electronic offices are only now replacing step-by-step switches, but there seems to be no general clamoring for itemized billing. I used to be impressed when they said that they would take a photographic image of the matrix of mechanical counters in the central office and automatically read the numbers into the billing computer.] The German pay phone system deserves a special paragraph. It seems to me one of the few items in the German phone system that could stand being emulated around here. First, German currency makes calling from a coin phone somewhat less of a pain. Having DM 5 coins in common circulation (app. $3.10) avoids the agony I so vividly remember when I tried to call home after arriving at JFK. "Deposit seven dollars and thirty-five cents, please..." Ever tried to convince a hamburger stand to part with thirty quarters? (Needless to say, foreign visitors don't carry calling cards. Many countries, including Germany, do not allow collect calls.) But even for your everyday coin calls, the German procedure seems far more elegant (and cheaper). If you want to make a call, you deposit the anticipated amount into the machine. The current balance is then displayed, more or less slowly decrementing, on a digital readout. (In older pay phones, the coins are shown sliding down a chute, dropping into the coinbox rather audibly.) If you see your balance approaching zero, you either deposit more coins or hurry up your conversation. Extra coins are refunded (but no change); leftover credit can be applied to the next call. Also, a basic unit of 0.30 DM (20c) provides about 40 sec of cross-country off-peak talk time (roughly), that's often all it takes to announce "I'll be arriving on the train at 15.42". Not much of an incentive to use clever ringing patterns or "out-smart" automatic operators. Also, there is no 60c+ surcharge, no operator interference, no ringing back after call completion (but also no credit cards). Actually, calling from a pay phone (used to be?) slightly less expensive than using a regular home phone, since a unit (beyond the first) costs 0.23 DM from a regular phone, 0.20 DM from a payphone. As of last December, the rate structure worked as follows (shown in time per unit, where unit = 0.23 DM). M-F, 8am-6pm otherwise local calls 8 min 12 min ("local" = same area code) < 50 km 60 sec 2 min 50..100 km 20 sec 38 4/7 sec > 100 km 15 sec 38 4/7 sec Simple (and more expensive ...) A word on area codes: Since large cities have short (2/3 digit) area codes, but six-digit numbers, and small cities have long (4 digit) area codes, but shorter numbers, must phone numbers work out to be about 9 digits, not counting the initial zero indicating long distance. (No problems with NXX area codes here.) You can actually tell how a call is routed (if everything goes according to hierarchy) by the area code: All cities connecting through Cologne, for example, start with a two. Originally, as pointed out in another recent submission, this allowed call routing without storing (or waiting for) the whole number. Naturally, the area code has to be instantaneously decodable, as they say. If a city outgrows its numbering plan, it prepends a digit to all numbers. Henning Schulzrinne (HGSCHULZ@CS.UMASS.EDU) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: +1 (413) 545-3179 (EST); FAX: (413) 545-1249 ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: AT&T Call Manager Program Date: 14 Mar 90 06:04:08 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego AT&T seems to have a new program called Call Manager which helps roommates keep track of their calls. I saw their ad in our campus newspaper yesterday and called AT&T to find out about it today. The way it works is each roommate selects a 2-digit code between 00 and 99 (without informing AT&T). After that each time he makes a call, he dials 0 nnn-nnn-nnnn 15 mm, where nnn-nnn-nnnn is the number he is trying to dial and mm is his personal two digit code. The 15 is supposed to be dialled after you get a tone from AT&T. The operator assured me that dialling 15 would make sure that their computer did not wait for a calling card number (the procedure did look suspiciously like a calling card call to me). The calls will be listed separately in the monthly bill. This service is supposed to cost NOTHING, and, if I can manage to get my roommates to dial those additional 4 digits this is sure going to save me a lot of trouble with our monthly bill! Disclaimer: This is what I think the AT&T operator meant to say. To make, sure call AT&T at 1-800-22-0300 and ask about the Call Manager program. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 07:44:39 pst From: David Barts Subject: Enhanced 911 Monday (12 March) an article appeared in the [Seattle Times] about the impact of PBX's on Enhanced 911. I don't have the complete text of the article with me, but it was quite long and rambled a bit so I'll summarize: Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment, which normally wouldn't be a problem because that part of King County has E911 service. But the apartment complex was served by a PBX owned by a company several miles away. The address that came up on the E911 display was that of the PBX company, not the location of the emergency. Fortunately, the 911 dispatcher figured out that the address on the E911 display was not correct, looked up the company's business number, and found the correct address of the apartment. (This time. I could easily imagine a tired or overworked operator sending an ambulance to the address of the PBX owner.) Even then, the complex involved had several buildings and there was some question as to which one had the emergency. Naturally, if the tenants had been served directly by Pacific Northwest Bell instead of the PBX, E911 would have been able to supply the correct address down to the apartment number. The article mentioned that apartment PBX's were becoming increasingly common and this problem would also occur at many businesses (although I'd assume there would be less chance of a frightened, confused child making a 911 call from an office). From what I remember of previous discussions in this group, I get the impression that fixing E911 to handle this problem would be difficult. (Also mentioned was that not all of King County has E911 service yet.) David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 10:30:01 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold It seems a bit sad, that the Bell name is now being put on inferior merchandise, but that seems to be the case. This refers to a phone I recently bought. It carries the modernized bell-in-a-circle logo at the top, and the words "BELL(tm) Phones" in big letters, followed by (in smaller letters) "by Northwestern Bell Phones". The model number is Techline 2702S, and a quick check of the back indicates the set was made in Korea. The problem is something very simple, that even the old faithful 500 or 2500 sets didn't have: if you set the receiver down on a flat hard surface (like a desktop) with the mouthpiece and earpiece down, you generate a feedback squeal, which is disturbing to the party on the other end, to say the least. I have seen this happen on two sets of the same model, so I know it's a design defect, and not a manufacturing one. This was confirmed by the manufacturing rep - see below. Having noticed the problem, I tried several different handsets of the same style made by other companies (made in Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. - sigh), and none of them had this problem. Northwestern Bell Phones provides an 800 number for service problems, which I called using their product. I demonstrated the problem in real-time, and the rep replied: "Oh yes, that's a problem with all the Techline phones [there are 4 models], but you know, you're going to get that with any phone made." I told her it was not true, and promptly switched to a handset made by another company and demonstrated my point. I told her I would not be put off so easily. I also allowed as noise cancelling was not a new innovation, and was even cheap to implement, and there was no excuse for not doing so. At this point, she asked me to hold while she consulted a technician. I waited, and she came back and said "Well, I just talked to our technician, and he said the same thing I said. You're welcome to send it in for service, but we're not going to find anything wrong with it." I allowed as this was unacceptable, and stated I wanted my money back. At this point she stated flat out "We do not give refunds.", and she repeated this several times as I tried to reason with her. I finally gave up. The case is so clearcut, and the matter so badly handled, that I feel I must resort to a posting here. If anyone from Northwestern Bell reads this list, I would suggest you do something about your marketing organization - poor-quality products and insolent, intimidating, lying service reps won't get you very far. The Bell name took years to develop a good reputation, and it seems that this capital is being squandered by those who now use it. Maybe some of the other firms earning money off the Bell logo might want to have a word with Northwestern Bell Phones as well, in their own interest. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 11:25:47 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Happy NYTEL "O what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to telecommunicate..." A recent series of messages discussed how to 'unlist' oneself by changing the listing name. I had had a bad experience with a (pre-divested) Michigan Bell, which did not allow me to do this. I tried it with NYTEL, and LO!, 'certainly sir, what name do you want?' There was an admitted $9.90 service order charge, which was minor, so I said 'change it.' This month, I see the order charge, plus a $1.81 per month charge. I am waiting for a supervisor to call me back and I will find out what this is. I am waiting because Happy NYTEL is trying to time my untimed service. They claim that untimed service pays one charge per call, no matter how long the call is. On my last bill, they charged me >$8 for 4 (very long) calls, all local service area, all supposedly untimed. Previous bill: $12 for 15 calls. And finally, who says COCOT and AOS weasles don't have a sense of humor? Last bill, credit card call through a COCOT on the Ohio Turnpike to Michigan, $1.56 for one minute. AT&T - similar distance, $.96. What's the humor? The AOS service is named "Integretel". Like, 'integrity', only almost and not quite. /*------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 6035 Corporate Drive n n m m m R R i East Syracuse, NY 13057 n n m m m R R i #include stanley@nmri.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ [Author's note: is there really a 'receipt' mechanism for submitted items? I have not received any for any of several submissions. Is mine one of the bouncers?] [Moderator's Note: Yes there is. It was not operating for about a month due to a problem in the software, but it has been running again for a few weeks. We use mmdf here, and a file called '.maildelivery' tells how to sort, deliver and respond to incoming mail. The '.maildelivery' file exempts mailer-daemons and other (themselves) automated replies, to prevent an endless loop. But there is such a variety of names these things use it is impossible to prevent them all without accidentally excluding some legitimate names as well (without having the .maildelivery file go on for hundreds of lines.) The use of a 'reply-to' line in your message almost always guarentees a receipt. The autoreply program substitutes the 'reply-to' information in place of the 'From' information whenever possible. If it can't, then it replies to 'From'; but these frequently bounce. I have about a 95 percent success rate with autoreply. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 07:43:24 -0500 From: Steve Elias Subject: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature I saw a TV ad in NJ this weekend for a "repeat dial" service available from the local telco. Does anyone know anything about this service??? eli@spdcc.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 15:32:15 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: 800 Costs Does anyone know what the costs are to set up an "800" number? Installation, monthly minimum, etc. Does it matter where the base is? I heard that AT&T now has a new service called "International 800" and so far there are about 15 companies that have applied and work (places like some international money market fund, big name travel agents, etc.). Anyone have list? Thanks, Hank ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:09:36 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Request For Telco News Material When I'm not fighting to get AT&T operators, I'm the assistant news director of WBRS-FM, the radio station on the Brandeis campus. I'm trying to put together a story on how Brandeis Telecommunications is making lots of money by using AOSs and the like. So I come to all of you for help. Is there anyone out there who'd be willing to give me some usable quotes about scumbag AOSs, equal access, and Telesphere's rates? You can e-mail me at kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu, or voice at (617) 736-6327 or 6372. Thanks for any help any of you might be able to provide. Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 09:23:26 EST From: Bill Berbenich Subject: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! :) 1-800-FON-WD40 worked when I called. And can you believe it... I WON!!! :-) Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Question: How long did you have to study for the test? PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #171 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29784; 15 Mar 90 3:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00160; 15 Mar 90 1:05 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09385; 15 Mar 90 0:01 CST Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 23:00:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #172 BCC: Message-ID: <9003142300.ab18857@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Mar 90 23:00:21 CST Volume 10 : Issue 172 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Michael I. Bushnell] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Danial Hamilton] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Roger Haaheim] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Tom Lowe] Re: Wrong Number For Model [Michael L. Starr] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Torsten Lif] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Rich Zellich] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stuart Lynne] Re: Data Feed over Cable TV [Robert Gutierrez] Re: *TONE-BLOCK* [Don H. Kemp] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael I. Bushnell" Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Organization: University of No Money, Albuquerque, New Mexico Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 17:15:10 GMT I have a particularly sad example of the wrong number problem. My parents have been at the same number for about 30 years. Last Christmas, we got a call from an old woman looking for Mary. We have no Mary. After the fourth call or so, the poor caller was nearly in tears. It seems this friend of hers had moved, left our number (by mistake, obviously) and now she could find no way to get ahold of her. It was all quite tragic. Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee! ------------------------------ From: Danial Hamilton Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Date: 14 Mar 90 17:05:29 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL My standard procedure for handling wrong numbers has always been to ask the caller what number they dialed. If the number they give me is different than mine, then I tell them that they must have misdialed, and to try their call again. If they dialed my number correctly, then I tell them that they dialed correctly, but the number they have is incorrect. Case one avoids revealing my number, and case two (hopefully) avoids repeated call backs. ------------------------------ From: Roger Haaheim Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Date: 13 Mar 90 13:54:39 GMT Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA Just gently remind him that HE's the one that keeps calling the wrong number. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 90 08:55:48 EST (Tue) From: Tom Lowe Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) writes: > So, in order to make sure that the error > wasn't one of my dialing or the telcos switching, I asked the person > if I had reached (516) etc.; she said "no". OK, so I called that > number again, and of course the same person answered. > Now, I can almost understand people not wanting to give away their > phone number to a person who reached them by mistake, but if I already > have their phone number, and tell them what it is, it means I didn't > reach them by mistake, so at that point what difference does it make? In many business environments, people don't necessarily know exactly what number they are answering. It may be a pots line that is used exclusively for a toll-free number (although no restrictions on calling the pots number), or part of a hunt group or any one of other strange arrangements. At one of my former jobs, my phone could potentially be reached by dialing 3 or 4 different numbers, and I had no idea which number had actually been dialed. Then again, maybe they were just lying to you. Tom Lowe AT&T tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: "Michael L. Starr" Subject: Re: Wrong Number For Model Reply-To: "Michael L. Starr" Organization: AT&T HRISO, Morristown, NJ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 15:05:20 GMT In article <5002@accuvax.nwu.edu> brock@brock.cs.unc.edu (J. Dean Brock) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 161, Message 5 of 10 >The March 7 issue of the [Durham Morning Herald] had a front page >article about Charlotte Clark, a 68 year old Durham women, who is >receiving many, many calls from men eager to converse with with >Durham's other Charlotte Clark, a 20 year old Duke University student >who posed for a Playboy feature entitled "Girls of the ACC." This reminds me of an article I read several years ago in the [Washington Post.] The electric company in Virginia changed their name from VEPCO to Virginia Power (apparently to avoid the confusion with another company in the area, PEPCO). It seems that whenever calls to directory assistance came in requesting the number of Virginia Power, the operators gave the number of an elderly woman named Virginia Power. After a period of a constant flood of calls to this poor woman, the operators were instructed to ask callers whether they wanted the power company or the individual. __/\__ ******************** __/\__ | starr@hriso.ATT.COM \ / * Michael L. Starr * \ / | att!hriso!starr |/\| ******************** |/\| | attmail!starr ------------------------------ From: Torsten Lif Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 13 Mar 90 11:24:44 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Lif Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden In article <5041@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Joel M. Snyder" writes: >In several recent articles, the moderator called for charging people >for ring-no-answer, and one reader responded by suggesting that taken >to an extreme this would mean charging you for picking up the phone. >In fact, this is already true in the voice world, depending on how you >want to divide up the basic service charge your telco charges. In the >voice world, it's unlikely to be taken to such extremes, but in the >data world. I may not be the only person to point this out, but nevertheless here goes: In Denmark you are indeed charged for "picking up the phone". The counter (on which your charges are based) first "clicks" when you lift the receiver (or more strictly: when you get the dialling tone). Danish pay-phones have no return slot. Whatever money you put in stays there. The argument for all this is that the costly part for the CO is in the *setting up* of the call; *not* in maintaining it. Even the fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains information to the caller. Needless to say, repeating auto-diallers are not a big sell on the Danish market :-) Torsten Lif ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 8:14:49 CST From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Remember also though, that the "toll saver" feature is there for another purpose as well. Allowing more rings on the first pickup gives you, the owner, time to get to the phone to pick it up before the machine grabs the incoming call. After the machine gets the first one, however, it makes the assumption that you aren't home and answers more quickly on subsequent calls so the caller doesn't have to wait listening to rings any longer than necessary - theoretically keeping some people from hanging up too soon. The above, of course, so you can leave the machine on all the time and not have to worry about remembering to turn it on every time you leave. ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 14 Mar 90 11:21:06 GMT Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) Organization: Wimsey Associates In article <5047@accuvax.nwu.edu> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: }To summarize: A to B is free, B to C is free, A to C is long distance, }A to C via call forwarding in B is free. }Works fairly well. Saves everyone a bit of money. >[Moderator's Note: You mean it saves everyone a bit of money *except* >for the person who subscribes to service 'B'. Someone is paying >whatever the going rate for local service is for that line. Does the >corresponding 'savings' experienced by users of the BBS offset the >basic monthly charge? Have you any idea who uses it, and how >frequently? PT] I average 11 hours a week to deliver him his newsfeed. At $.10/minute that would work out to $320/month. It probably costs him on the order of $30/month for the line and call forwarding. I would imagine that there are a fair number of other users on it as well. In the near future BCTel is supposed to be looking at widening the free calling area. At that point in time this won't be too useful. Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532 (voice) 604-939-4768 (fax) ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV Date: 14 Mar 90 07:36:37 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC...The Purveyors of TCP/IP Communcations. brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes in Volume 10, Issue 155, Message 8 of 14: > In this month's bill for Southwestern Cable TV in San Diego there > arrived a number of glossy inserts. One is quite interesting: What happened to Cox Cable??? > A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are > being offered starting April 1. The latter distributes IBM-PClone > games for children and others over the cable system, two per week. > According to the glossy, X-PRESS is a "constant stream of news and > information from around the world, plus sports, weather, > entertainment, and lifestyle reports. It's used in over 2,500 schools > nationwide as a classroom teaching aid." (and on and on) I had heard X-Press was outta business ... ah well, it's nice to spread rumors for a service that I thought was awful. X-press is a service transmitted out of Boulder, Colo. which takes various newswire stories and uplinks them onto a VC-II data channel on one of the pay services. The data feed is then received by the cable company via an addressable VC-II (Videocipher-II) data receiver, then re-modulated (FSK'd) on a spare frequency on the cable system (~70-75 mhz, or 108-118 mhz) and transmitted downstream in the cable. > It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic > box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser > interface. My GUESS is it's a simple subcarrier modem, probably > picking up 4800 bps SCA data transmissions on one of the many FM-band > transmissions on the cable..... Bingo ... though try 9600 baud. FSK no less (talk about bandwidth hog). > It would seem that the above services are offered for $10 a month. > However, to attract the money-grubbing capitalists, for an additional > $20 a month, "X*PRESS Executive" offers stock market quotes and > analysis, apparently compatable with some of the popular PC > financial/get-rich-quick programs. When I was 'testing' the service at the cable company I worked for, this was actually part of the service, though it was a 'seperate' area you had to go to on the program (on your PC) to manually look them up. Now, they just added some fancy bells and whistles (ie: made a better program) and charged you (the sucker) for it. > Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to > leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in > electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup). Yessiree. Buffer is only as big as your memory, and that was filled up in about 15 minutes or so. Oh, also, you can print out the articles you wanted to save, but no file saving was allowed (I got around that with a little nifty TSR called "LPTX" which redirected printer output to a file). > I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service > isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on > the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio. Try the frequencies listed above. This service is a rip off because of one thing ... the 'stories' or 'articles' they used were the so-called _broadcast_ versions, or in other words, just summaries of the real articles you see on your local newspaper. Maybe about 1/4 - 1/3rd of the real newswire story. Might as well just get a subscription to my local kitty-litter liner. And with just 640k of buffer available, well, you may not get all the 'articles' you really want anyway. How long would 640k last for a Usenet feed?!? > As if 10MB/day of USENET wasn't enough incoming information overload > already. You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on a couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about that. One of the satellites is K-2 (Ku band). A 3 1/2 foot dish getting continuous Usenet articles ..... Usenet articles .... Usenet articles...... Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet Network Operations. Moffett Feild, California. ------------------------------ From: Don H Kemp Subject: Re: *TONE-BLOCK* Date: 13 Mar 90 23:23:27 GMT From article <4628@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon): > Tom Lowe writes: [Tale of woe about ill-educated service reps deleted] > [Moderator's Note: Smart consultants earn a good part of their living by > cutting a deal with their clients where they audit the phone bill for > a period of several months past. Then they take a percentage of whatever ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Sleezy Practice) > they save their client. Incorrect billing by local telcos due to changes > in equipment and service never recorded correctly is a scandal. Legend has it that this kind of "consulting" was at one time very common in the trucking industry. The "consultant" would tell the client that they would cut the client's phone bill by a large percentage, by finding billing errors and "optimizing the network". They would take, as their fee, up to half of the savings, sometimes for as much as five year's worth. They would then take a quick look for errors, and if there wern't enough savings to provide a large enough fee, they'd start ripping out WATS and 800 lines. They would then block LD calls on local lines. Sure enough, the phone bills would drop dramatically. The "consultant" would get their fee, and go on his way. Of course, when the truckers customers couldn't reach the company, and the dispatchers couldn't get an outside line, and revenues started dropping. I agree that billing errors are rampant, especially where equipment was transferred from the Bell Operating Company to AT&T at divisiture. We have found cases where the client was being billed for equipment that had been removed (or ordered removed) even before '83. And we still see cases where the Telco is charging for CPE that AT&T is also charging for. Our policy, and that of most reputable consultants, is that any savings or refunds that we find are the client's. We feel that we can make a reasonable profit on our hourly fees alone. Our clients seem to agree, at least they keep calling back :-). 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 [Moderator's Note: Indeed, it was a much more common approach years ago then now; but even then, the ethical consultants signed a contract with the client saying they would divide the 'savings' in two parts: the telco billing errors in one group and the service configuration/ judgment calls in another. They agreed to discuss both categories with the client. Obviously, the billing errors were reported and corrected. Regards the other, the client agreed in the contract that if he chose to implement the recommendations of the consultant at any time in the near future -- say the next year -- he was liable for that portion of the fees the consultant would have earned had the changes been made at the time of the consultation. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #172 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02397; 15 Mar 90 3:55 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07161; 15 Mar 90 2:10 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00160; 15 Mar 90 1:05 CST Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 0:01:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #173 BCC: Message-ID: <9003150001.ab24942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Mar 90 00:00:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 173 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ECPA Clarification [Ed Ravin] Telecom Conference in Philly [Daniel Finnigan] Phone Statistics [Henning Schulzrinne] Sleazy Credit Card Ad [Amitabh Shah] Re: Cordless Hands-free Phone Source [John Courtney] Cuban/USA Politics and the Cable [Keith Henson] Secret Service Surpasses ANI as Threat to Privacy [Herb Caen via J Palmer] Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [Glenn M. Cooley] Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones [John Parsons] Use of New London City Codes From U.S. [Carl Moore] Area Codes List [Carl Moore] Global Ventures by US Sprint [Henry Mensch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Ravin Subject: ECPA Clarification Organization: The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game In New York Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 18:27:50 GMT Some more clarifications on ECPA restrictions on receivers and receiving: Our good moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Radio Shack also got a lot of pressure to make changes >in the scanners they sell. You and John are correct in a couple of points: >Old equipment on hand is not illegal. The manufacturing of new stuff is >controlled. You no longer see a channel 83 spot on new televisions, for >example. Older radios which can coincidentally tune cellular are okay, but >newer radios have to be blocked. I don't think strictly speaking you are >allowed to sell the older units, for the same reason Grove and Radio Shack >are no longer allowed to sell them if they receive cellular. PT] There is *NO* restrictions on manufacturing of new scanners, at least not legal ones. Radio Shack and Uniden/Bearcat block the cellular frequencies on their own volition, not under legal duress from the ECPA (though perhaps under other kinds of duress). Some manufacturers, like AOR, come out with new models that DON'T have the 800 Mhz frequencies blocked. Another confusion to the issue is that frequencies are not illegal to listen to, but "protected communications" are. So you could tune your scanner to 870.330 and listen to the noise level (that's not illegal) but when a cellular call comes in you tune away. To add even more confusion, some frequencies may be used by both "protected" and ordinary communications, which means the scanner owner has the burden of figuring out who he or she is listening to. While we're on the subject, ECPA prohibits places a cordless telephone BASE unit under "protected communications", but NOT the handset. Don't ask me why. This one will never stand up in the courts because owners of cordless phones don't have the money to hire lawyers and lobbyists the way the cellular telephone people do. Again, there is no legal restriction on manufacturing or selling equipment that is capable of receiving cellular (or for that matter, IMTS 150 Mhz car phone) calls. There is only a restriction on manufacturing or selling equipment that is PRIMARILY USEFUL for intercepting protected communications. This was a hard-fought for compromise in the law, perhaps the one piece of ground ceded to the radio hobbyists. Even a converter designed to down-convert the 800 Mhz band into a normal scanner seems to be legally sold (heck, they're advertised in Popular Communications, it MUST be legal :-), probably becaused it is also useful for tuning in trunked systems and the other non-protected communications that can be listened to in the 800 Mhz band. 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: Daniel Finnigan Subject: Telecom Conference in Philly Date: 13 Mar 90 21:54:08 GMT Reply-To: Daniel Finnigan Organization: University of Pennsylvania DON RITTER WILL BE GIVING A CLOSING ADDRESS AT CONFERENCE ON MARCH 23 AND 24 FULFILLING THE PROMISE FOR THE 1990's Telecommunications Technologies and Policies for Industry, Consumers and Education In a unique interdisciplinary approach this conference will bring together engineers and sociologists, industry representatives and regulators, as well as computer scientists, educators and exonomists to explore the proposition that dramatic advancements in information and telecommunication technologies have outpaced our understanding of how they affect organizations, individual consumers and the public interest. Special attention will be paid in the conference to the deep policy differences that now exist between the United States and Europe. Critical questions to be examined include: - Are American business opportunities being lost as the policy struggle continues? - How can information technologies enhance productivity in business, teaching and research? Organized faculty of the Wharton Business School, the Annenberg School of Communications and the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania, the conference will include speakers such as Raymond Smith, CEO of the Bell Atlantic Corporation and Ed David, former Science and Technology Advisor to the President and former head of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Panels include: - New Technologies and Public Policy: American and European Perspectives - Telecommunications and the Business Organization of the Future - Consumers and the Intelligent Network - Education: Is there a Telecommunications Fix? - Is Public Policy Meeting the Needs of Consumers? For further information and a brochure, contact the Center for Communications and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania at (215) 898-9494. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 20:19 EST From: Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Phone Statistics For a report I'm working on, it would be helpful to have the following traffic engineering data: 1) What is the average and peak rate of calls handled within the United States (or, if that's too difficult, by the major long distance carriers)? 2) What is the mean call duration? 3) Are there any estimates as to the fraction of bandwidth/calls/usage devoted to voice, data, fax, ...? Any references, suggestions, clues, hints or guesses are appreciated. Henning Schulzrinne (HGSCHULZ@CS.UMASS.EDU) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: +1 (413) 545-3179 (EST); FAX: (413) 545-1249 ------------------------------ From: Amitabh Shah Subject: Sleazy Credit Card Ad Date: 14 Mar 90 02:21:49 GMT Reply-To: Amitabh Shah Organization: Cornell University Computer Science Department In the continuing saga of late night sleazy ads, here's one I saw recently. This was from a bank called American National something. It showed a guy complaining about how other banks would not give him a credit card because he had a lack of credit history. Then this bank gave him one ("All you have to do is to open an account with them.", yeah!) without any hassle. At the end was a 900 number to call the bank for a credit application, only 10$ per call. Amitabh Shah shah@cs.cornell.edu--(INTERNET) Dept. of Computer Science { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP) Upson Hall -- Cornell University (607) 255-8597---------(OFFICE) Ithaca NY 14853-7501 (607) 257-7717-----------(HOME) ------------------------------ From: John Courtney Subject: Re: Cordless Hands-free Phone Source Date: 13 Mar 90 15:55:48 GMT Organization: Metromedia Paging Services I called about the WICOM unit. I already have a Plantronics set but I don't like the way the earpiece sits in my ear. At any rate, they informed me that Sharper Image stores carry the high priced model (of course) A quick call to Sharper Image confirmed this. The price is $ 199. Looks like a nice unit, plus you can have some tunes on all day. Later, =============================================================================== John Courtney INTERnet: courtney@metpage.mps.com Metromedia Paging Services 201-807-3366 UUCP: ...uunet!metpage!courtney Ridgefield Park NJ - USA +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." - Brooks =============================================================================== The above text might not even be my opinion, its certainly not my employers.. ------------------------------ From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Cuban/USA Politics and the Cable Date: Tue, 13-Mar-90 08:26:12 PST The story ckp reported on is the *stupidest* example of blind government bureaucrats I have ever heard of. Of course they should encourage phone traffic, and the resultant spread of news/ideas to Cuba if they have any desire for the Castro regime to fall. STUPID! Keith Henson (someone should take this one to the President!) ------------------------------ From: Jim Palmer Subject: Secret Service Surpasses ANI as Threat to Privacy Date: 14 Mar 90 03:38:06 GMT from _The San Francisco Chronicle_, Monday March 12, 1990, quoted from Herb Caen's column: "...Kind of scary: At around 8 a.m. on the day Pres. Bush spoke at the Commonwealth Club, Phyllis Sherman phoned the S.F. Hilton to find out the closest Muni stop [public transit], figuring it would be impossible to drive there. Although she gave neither her name nor phone number, she got a phone call at 9:30 a.m. from a Secret Service agent who addressed her by name and asked 'What was the nature of your call?' He accepted her explanation, adding, 'Sorry, but we're checking out something I can't discuss.' Now that's almost as intriguing as the eavesdropping. Pardon. Surveillance ..." [endquote] Boggles the mind. Any guesses as to how it was done? ANI to the ^Nth! But why was an hour and a half needed before followup? P.S. For the SecServ: I'm clean, just curious. Really, I am, check the files ;-) {hplabs,ptsfa,pacbell,ucbvax}!well!jpalmer Jim Palmer, not in JOCKEY shorts Admirers of laws or sausages are advised to avoid witnessing either's creation. ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance Date: 13 Mar 90 16:47:16 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them. >They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business >office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us What has been happening is that TELCOs hire telemarketing firms to harass, I mean call, people at dinner time and ask if they want to switch. These firms get paid on commission and so MAGICALLY, the TELCOs were told of many people who wanted to switch but didn't. NETCO, my local TELCO, also does this (and who out there thinks they're squeaky clean?) and started charging me for added services (e.g. call waiting) which I never ordered. They insisted that I just must have said yes in such a call (or it just must have been my wife) because this service could not have been supplied otherwise. After further argument, they canceled the service and credited me the overcharges (do TELCOs hire people who see arguing as a fringe benefit or are they trained to never, never, never, give in before 20 minutes are up) still maintaining that this just could not happen and that mine was the only case they had ever encountered. Some two years later I read in TIME about this WIDESPREAD problem which was a COMMON occurrance for up to 50% of the orders relayed by the telemarketers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 12:13:18 mst From: John Parsons Subject: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones I bought two re-conditioned Western Electric Trimline (r) rotary phones a while back from an AT&T Phone Store -- love that old technology :) . They both have a distortion problem when speaking in a normal voice or louder. My guess is overmodulation. Is there a way to cure this, perhaps by reducing the gain somehow? Thanks, John Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:01:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Use of New London City Codes From U.S. This responds to an item posted Feb. 19 by John Pettitt which was in Telecom: You said that calling your office as 081 941 2564 (obviously from within U.K.) works fine and that calling it with 071 instead of 081 yielded "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcement three". Just now I tried 011-44-71-941-2564 and it got AT&T intercept, indicating that the new city code (I did not try 081 due to the ghastly hour for U.K., 5 hours ahead of Eastern Time, where I am) is not yet recognized at this end. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 16:18:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area Codes List The area codes list I "inherited" had 170 for northwest Mexico and 190 for Mexico City. Aren't these referring to the former "fake" area codes 706, 903, and 905? (Yes, I know 903 will later appear in Texas by splitting what is now 214.) In my copy, I deleted 170 and 190 (see above), and also deleted reference to suburbs w/r to area code 202, which in my copy again refers only to Washington, DC. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 19:44:05 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Global Ventures by US Sprint Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu Pinched from the [New York Times] -- US Sprint Communications Co. announced four moves Wednesday to expand operations overseas, including a preliminary agreement to provide high-quality international telephone links to the Soviet Union. Sprint said it had signed an agreement to create a venture in Moscow with Central Telegraph, which provides long-distance telephone and telex services in the Soviet Union, and the Latvian Academy of Sciences. The new company, called Telenet U.S.S.R., will import and operate an advanced switching center that will use satellite communications to offer voice and high-speed data exchanges, said Susan W. Williams, Sprint's vice president for international services. Sprint will provide the switching center while Central Telegraph, a unit of the Soviet Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, will supply office space, pay employee salaries and make local telephone connections available, Ms. Williams said. Operations are scheduled to begin by the end of the year, Sprint said. Sprint also said that it had joined several Asian and European concerns in planning a $260 million fiber-optic cable project. Scheduled for completion in mid-1993, the system would link Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore and connect with trans-Pacific cables serving the United States and Canada. In addition, Sprint said it was forming a venture with Elektrisk Bureau AS, Norway's largest maker of electronic components, to sell data communications products in Scandinavia and that it had opened new switching centers in London and Amsterdam. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #173 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04763; 15 Mar 90 4:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27876; 15 Mar 90 3:14 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07161; 15 Mar 90 2:05 CST Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 1:05:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #174 BCC: Message-ID: <9003150105.ab19538@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Mar 90 01:05:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 174 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Back in Court Again: NTS/ITI Lawsuit [Don H. Kemp] Separations & CALC (was Re: Strange Charges on Bill) [Fred R. Goldstein] TCP/IP<-->ISDN Interoperation Mailing List [Johnny Zweig] Fax, E-mail, Voice Mail Comparisons Wanted [Steve Huff] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Matthias Urlichs] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Steve Forrette] Being Charged For No-Answers [Liudvikas Bukys] Re: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) [Todd Olson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AT&T Back in Court Again: NTS/ITI Lawsuit Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 15:15:38 EST From: Don H Kemp AT&T's back in court again.... FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1990 BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today said it is suing National Telephone Services Inc. (NTS) and International Telecharge Inc. (ITI). The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, charges that NTS and ITI have switched public telephones from AT&T to NTS and ITI without the knowledge or consent of the owners of the premises where the phones are located. AT&T charged NTS and ITI with a number of deceptive practices including: deceiving business owners into believing that there is an association between NTS, ITI and the local telephone companies; claiming that AT&T is no longer providing long-distance service for a business owner's public phones; or indicating that NTS or ITI has been designated the new long-distance operator services company for public pay phones on the business owner's premises. NTS is headquartered in Rockville, Md. ITI is headquartered in Dallas. AT&T said the deceptive practices have resulted in considerable confusion and inconvenience for business owners with public phones and may have cost AT&T millions of dollars in lost revenue. "Business owners with public telephones deserve the right to choose their long-distance company without concern for deceptive and fraudulent business practices," said Merrill Tutton, vice president, AT&T Consumer Services. The lawsuit against NTS and ITI asks the court to order NTS and ITI to stop making false, misleading or deceptive representations, and to stop switching AT&T long-distance business customers to NTS or ITI without authorization by the customer. In addition, it asks the court to declare void any contracts between NTS or ITI and AT&T's business customers that were entered into through NTS' or ITI's deceptive actions. AT&T has asked to be awarded damages it has suffered as a consequence of NTS' and ITI's wrongful conduct. AT&T said it believes that thousands of business owners with public telephones who have been switched from AT&T had either never been contacted by NTS or ITI, had declined to switch when they were contacted, or didn't realize they were being asked to authorize the switch. Many business owners were initially unaware that they had been switched to another long-distance company. AT&T also said these practices have created confusion for people who make calls from public phones. In a related action on Jan. 10, 1990, AT&T sued MCI and its telemarketing agent, Pioneer Teletechnologies, for deceptive telemarketing practices that misled consumers and for widespread switching of long-distance customers without their consent. The case is still in the early stages of litigation. Business owners who chose AT&T long-distance for the public telephones on their properties and think their service may have been switched without their consent can contact their local AT&T account executive or call 1-800-KEEP ATT (1-800-533-7288). # # # 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: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Separations & CALC (was Re: Strange Charges on Bill) Date: 14 Mar 90 17:19:57 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu>, res@cblpe.att.com (Robert E Stampfli) writes... > > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of > >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ... > >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. Well, to be sure, the explanation of the charge above is somewhat in error, but it's a common misunderstanding brought about by the use of the slang term "access charge" to refer to what's formally known as the "customer access line charge" (CALC). Under the 1930-ish court ruling Smith v. Illinois, local telephone service is jurisdictionally both interstate and intrastate. Since the same local wires are used for both, the cost must be charged to both. From then until 1984, a system called Separations & Settlements was in place. This apportioned the cost of local telco plant (the non-traffic-sensitive stuff, or NTS) according to relative interstate and intrastate use. The interstate was marked up by a "Subscriber Plant Factor" (SPF) to increase the interstate share; this constituted the subsidy from AT&T Long Lines to the local telcos! The interstate money all came from usage (traffic sensitive) charges, even though it paid for NTS. Without this in place, long distance would have been cheaper, local costlier. In 1984, the rules changed. SPFs remained in place, but instead of charging 100% of the interstate NTS costs to toll/WATS usage, the FCC decided that non-traffic-sensitive costs should have non-traffic- sensitive charges. (Sort of makes sense, doesn't it?) So that's the CALC, or "access charge". It's the FCC's way of levying a monthly charge for what's jurisdictionally theirs, the same way your state has the telco levy a monthly charge for what's jurisdictionally theirs. (Imagine if the states gave away lines for FREE but charge more for intrastate calls ... that's the equivalent of the old FCC system. Come to think of it, that's almost California!) If your line had NO interstate "contamination", then 100% of its cost would be borne at the state level. You wouldn't pay CALC, but you'd have a MUCH higher local charge to make up for the money that your local telco isn't getting from the interstate pool. In sum, it's not access TO interstate, it's just the result of having two regulators splitting your bill. Incidentally, this FCC proceeding began WELL BEFORE divestiture was even dreamt up, and while it was installed coincident with it, it technically has NOTHING TO DO with divestiture! It would have happened had the Bell System remained in place. Really. Check it out. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 opinions are mine alone. sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: TCP/IP<-->ISDN Interoperation Mailing List Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:32:24 GMT [ IMPORTANT NOTE: Due to a stupid mistake on my part, the list as it stood on 14 MAR 90 was lost. I apologize profusely (you can send flowers to the sysadmin who doesn't do daily incrementals any more). Everyone who asked to be added please ask again -- I'll be more careful from now on. ] This is the second announcement of the creation of a mailing list (a reflector, to be precise) for the discussion of issues relating to using ISDN as a transport mechanism for TCP/IP traffic. The list is a means for people implementing systems to communicate with one another, as well as to discuss issues peculiar to using moderately-fast point-to-point reconfigurable serial links for internetworking. Since different configurations allow different techniques for sending the data (for example, a single workstation that dials up a server directly would be able to elide IP-headers and most of the information in each TCP-header as communication progresses). As a favor to anyone who has trouble with mail aliases longer than 8 characters (or who just hates to type long names), the group is called "tcp-isdn" rather than "tcp-ip-isdn" (*). Requests to be added to the list should be sent to: tcp-isdn-request@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu Articles to be distributed to everyone on the list should be sent to tcp-isdn@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (Notice, for those who usually send to user@cs.uiuc.edu, that the word "brutus" is _not_ optional!) Johnny List (*) I opted against IP-ISDN since I think that using ISDN as a transport mechanism for IP-datagrams ("ISDN as Ethernet") is only one of a number of interesting ways of doing things, and didn't want to express a bias. ------------------------------ From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" Subject: Fax, E-mail, Voice Mail Comparisons Wanted Date: 14 Mar 90 17:42:52 CST Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services I am working on a project that will describe & compare electronic mail, fax, and voice mail. Although I have searched the electronic databases here, I'm not finding anything that compares these processes. Is there anything out there (preferably FTP) that will handle this comparison? I am most interested in each equipment's business use. Specifically, I am looking for: 1. How to choose which device for use in your business. 2. Humorous anecdotes, satire, etc about e-mail, fax, and voice mail. Thanks in advance. Steve Huff Internet: HUFF@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu or 2HJAAHOY@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Bitnet: HUFF@ukanvax.BITNET or 2HJAAHOY@ukanvax.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Matthias Urlichs Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG Date: Wed, 14 Mar 19:41:30 GMT In comp.dcom.telecom, article <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Jim Shankland writes: < In article <5016@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Lesher < writes: < >According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone < >administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is < >ringing, busy or hung at the switch. Not in Germany. Some other European contries, like Austria, have that problem. < That certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up in Munich. < Billing was done in "message units", which at the time cost 0.18 DM < each. A (completed) local call cost one message unit, regardless of < its length. Toll calls were charged in seconds per message unit, < rather than money per minute. The phone company (== post office) < started counting message units when the connection was established. Today, the unit is 0.23 DM. They recently dropped the general 1% rebate (for wrong connections and general non-reliability). Local calls now cost one unit per eight minutes (12 minutes, 18-8 o'clock). Most long-distance calls are 15 (38 4/7) seconds per unit -- about DM 55 (21), or US$ 30 (12), per hour. < Oh, yes: the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message < units consumed that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; < there was no itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their < word for it that you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, < "But sir/ma'am, I never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. The technology still isn't there. Almost everywhere, you can't even get touch tone dialling. But even where they have fairly modern technology, you can't get a list of the numbers dialled, this being justified by the magic word "privacy". Nonsense -- hell, it's _my_ phone line and bill! (The same reasoning is applied to the Telecom (new name for the wiry part of the Bundespost)-operated X.25 network.) Matthias Urlichs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 18:31:40 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bob Stampli writes: >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. I asked Pacific Bell about this a couple of months ago, and much to my surpise, it made sense. A line that can only place local calls *does* have access to the interstate network, as it can *receive* calls from out-of-state. If they could block such calls (they probably can't), I don't know what the answer would be. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 10:41:08 EST From: bukys@cs.rochester.edu Subject: Being Charged For No-Answers I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or not. The University has a ROLM phone system internally. It does "least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers. Now, in the consumer world, I thought it was long settled that charges for incomplete calls were not acceptable and that the various technical issues had been laid to rest. Am I right? Now, I'm wondering (1) whether there is any technical excuse: (a) in general, or (b) for a PBX (e.g. our ROLM system), or (c) for international calls. (2) whether this violates any tarriffs. I will be pursuing this with our telecommunications people as well, but would appreciate the commentary of all you smart and disinterested telecom experts. Liudvikas Bukys University of Rochester Rochester, NY USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 19:46:36 -1000 From: Todd Olson Subject: Re: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) Reply-To: Todd Olson Organization: University of Hawaii In article <5123@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!segal%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 4 of 10 >I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America. >Here are the details: [....] >Distance: Rates apply to all 48 states. I thought that there were 50 states? I guess I don't live in a state, huh? Where do I live then in a foreign country? Damn, I thought I was an American; I guess not ... Does this mean I don't have to pay taxes? ____ ___ _ _ ___ __ ___ / / / / \ / \ / / / ( / / /\ / olson@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu / /__/ /__//__/ /__/ /__ __) /__/ / \/ "Women: can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts." - Norm of Cheers fame [Moderator's Note: I *think* (am not sure) he meant the 48 contiginous states on the mainland. There are some long distance plans which do not take in Alaska or Hawaii (as was the case with Reach Out America at first, and AT&T WATS for many years.) PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #174 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03976; 16 Mar 90 15:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00810; 16 Mar 90 10:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05582; 16 Mar 90 8:21 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 7:41:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #175 BCC: Message-ID: <9003160741.ab03028@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 07:40:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 175 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Will Martin] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [John Higdon] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: White House "Caller ID" [Carl Moore] Re: White House "Caller ID" [David Tamkin] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Tom Neff] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 10:45:49 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision >Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized bills from other >utilities but not from the phone company? It's certainly not because of the >amount of money involved. The average person's average phone bill is probably >a lot higher than their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and >a lot lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). It is because the *basis* for the billing from the telco is so different from the billing from the gas or electric company. The electric company doesn't care what you plug into the sockets, and it doesn't charge you differently for electricity that runs your stereo vs. that which cooks your food (though I admit some areas DO have time-of-day usage differentials in electric bills, so you pay less for power used at night). The telco bills you differently depending on multitudinous factors. And they certainly make mistakes; not only have we all had evidence of this personally, but many examples have been posted to this group. There's nothing that keeps you from hooking your own electric meter inside your house to the incoming line, and computing yur own bills as a check on the electric-utility's billing. It wouldn't be too cost-effective, but it would be fairly straightforward. To do the same for your phone line would require a dedicated computer (probably); some businesses actually do that and products to do this are marketed. In order to avoid the expense of doing that, we want information from the telco as to their basis for charging us. If we are being billed some large amount for a call to Mozambique, we want to know about it, not have it buried in and hidden by a message-unit charge total that happened to be clicking off at 300 per second for that call, as opposed to once every 10 seconds for a call next door. Why do the Europeans allow such non-itemized billing when Americans object? Because our fundamental attitudes are different. (Unfortunately, that difference is decreasing as traditional American anti-government principles deteriorate...) Telcos in Europe tend to be governmental organizations, like the Deutsche Bundespost, which impose a great deal more weight on the user and have much less of an attitude of "serving the customer" than even Ma Bell at her height of monopoly had. We've all heard the tales of poor service, waits for months or years to get phones installed, the ridiculous anti-modem regulations, etc., in Europe and other areas. [Almost as bad as in GTE-land... :-)] The American attitude tended to be to let the private-enterprise telco do *almost* anything it wanted, but to beat it about the head and shoulders now and then with the state or local-area Public Utility Commissions or equivalents. One aspect of that was to force the telco to at least *specify* what it was charging us for, even if it could [in reality] get away with charging us whatever it really wanted to for those things. Also, there is the simple historic precedent -- if you'd always been given a detailed breakout of the charges, the mechanism for collecting and disseminating that data *was* in place, so it might as well be used, and, if the customer always had received that info, they expected to continue to receive it. Inertia plays a big part here, too... Many years ago, I think in some telephone-hacker publication or article on phreaks I happened to run across, I read a prediction (or a hope) that someday the telco would charge you for usage at a flat rate. Whether you made a long-distance call or a local call, whether you used conference-call facilities or other exotica, or just called your Aunt Mabel to chat, you'd pay the same low per-time usage charge. I *think* this was sort of in the same light as the '50's-era predictions that nuclear power would make electricity so cheap that it wouldn't be worth metering, though... :-) This seems to be based on the theory that the electronics and computers that run the telco facilities would become so cheap that it wouldn't be worth the effort of determing what facilities you were using. I think history has shown that to be incorrect; the billing is moving more and more in the opposite direction, with the cheap computing facilities being used first for accounting, in order to identify and bill for more and more specific things. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 15 Mar 90 09:48:27 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > And how is that any different from the typical electric, > water, or natural gas bill? In a typical house, each of these items > is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our > meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY". What > would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But > sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could > I possibly have used that much?" Perhaps you are making a good argument for the itemiztion of electric and water bills. Maybe it could be done by usage on each day. Last year, a client received a bill from PG&E (Pacific Graft & Extortion), the local power company for approximately three times the normal amount. This was for electrical consumption at their mountain top transmitter site. The site demand is 20KW day after day, year after year. I explained this to PG&E who insisted that their meter could not possibly be in error. Had we perhaps left something on inadvertently? Had someone connected up an extension cord on the hill to steal power? I asked the person if he was serious; the electrical service couldn't withstand three time the normal draw! Not only that, but their own meter showed the month's peak demand at 20KW. The figures didn't work out. I had to meet them at the site, where they swapped meters and all the while told me that this was stupid since their meters were never wrong. The long and the short of it is that the bills went back to normal. Think how much easier this could have been if there had been some detail to dispute. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:43:41 pst From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized > bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? Well actually I am not perfectly happy, *but* unlike the telephone, I can go out and get daily readings off of my meters if I want to. I have access to exactly the same data that is going to go into the billing system. If things start getting weird, I can experiment and watch the effects in "real time" on my account balance. Given this level of control and information. I can discover how my use habits affect my cost and make intelligent decisions on how to change my use patterns. If all I got was a single bill, I wouldn't be able to tell if I was making too many calls to grandma or too many calls to my brother. > It's certainly not because of the amount of money involved. The > average person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than > their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot > lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). We may not be average, but at our house the phone bill is almost the highest in the "utility" category. It's really not very high (in the $60 range), but our other bills are lower. Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP 1000 N.E. Circle | (USA) (503) 750-4980 | FAX Corvallis, OR 97330 | (USA) (503) 757-2000 | VOICE All relevant disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 17:30:31 GMT In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 8 of 10 . Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized .bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? It's .certainly not because of the amount of money involved. The average .person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than their water .bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot lower than .their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas). Because there is less possibility of fraud. It's not real likely that the kid down the block can charge his TV usage to my electric bill. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 15 Mar 90 14:34:07 GMT Organization: Summit NJ > > the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed > > that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no > > itemization of calls. > And how is that any different from the typical electric, > water, or natural gas bill? In a typical house, each of these items > is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our > meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY". > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized > bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? There are simple answers to this question. The first is that, unlike the gas or electric utilties, there are cases where the phone company will refund the charges after usage (i.e., wrong numbers) or not charge at all for usage (i.e., no answer or busy). Thus, the only way to determine if, in fact, these charges were not posted is to have a fully itemized list. The water company doesn't refund charges due to a non-seating of the toilet valve, nor does the electric company when you leave the refrigerator door open. The second is that immediate access to billing information for water, electricity, and gas is available. If you, for example, want to see how many KWH the electric company is billing you for your airconditioner, just take meter readings two hours before, one hour before, when you turn the A/C on, and one and two hours after. The difference in averages is mostly the A/C usage. The bottom line is that we are not taking the water, electric, etc. company's word for it when we get their bill, as we can independently audit all the information that they're basing their bill on, but we are taking the phone company's word for it. As an aside, about 22 years ago, NY Telephone got a tariff to provide detailed billing for message unit calls (there is no unlimited local service in New York City; message unit calls, from 1 to 6 for the initial period with 1 message unit calls being untimed, cover Nassau County (Long Island), all of New York City, and the southern part of Westchester County, including Yonkers, Rye, and White Plains). Where NY Tel really socked it to anyone who wanted the service was that the minimum for a call would be 2 message units. Now, that might have been okay, but all calls billed as 2 message units, including those to one message unit areas, would be timed (1 message unit every 3 minutes after the first 5 minutes). Needless to say, this service was not very popular. Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 15 Mar 90 15:15:55 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >And how is that any different from the typical electric, >water, or natural gas bill? Because unlike the telephone, each of these has a meter which I can read, measure, and verify my bill with. In fact, with my water bill, I read the meter and send the numbers into the water company (they check every so many years to adjust any discrepencies/deceit). And if I wanted, I could use a one cubic foot bucket to verify or show that the meter is or isn't ripping me off. But when the TELCO tells me to pay up for 15 message units, how do I know this is correct and if it isn't correct how do I prove it. Given the proven abusive nature of such companies I wouldn't be surprised is their computers are "accidentally" overcharging people. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:06:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" I don't know how President Carter's call-in was done. I do recall it was toll-free, on a 900 number (done so that it would not interfere with the normal long-distance traffic), and that calls from the DC area to that were routed via Wayne, Pa. (near Philadelphia). The number was 900-242-1611, if I remember, and someone in the Milwaukee area got deluged with calls from some people (in 414 area?) who forgot to dial the 900. This was in 1977. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 18:45:43 CST Jody Kravitz wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 169: | Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in | the white house. The number was a 900 number. I had never heard of a | 900 number before. I was curious then (and am now) if this was done | for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id. | Anyone care to comment ? It could not have been for billing the caller, as those calls were publicized as free. That was the first time I heard of 900 numbers, and that was the only time I have ever heard of a free call to a 900 number. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 15 Mar 90 18:57:06 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff In article <5155@accuvax.nwu.edu> Torsten Lif writes: >Even the fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains >information to the caller. Hey, the fact that a payphone is not in use (and thus available to the caller) conveys information. I think we should charge 'em for looking. :-) (Actually, this is a classic case of monopoly despotism. In a free market, the issue would be decided by consumer choice. If company A charges for every off-hook, then company B can try to knock their socks off in the marketplace by charging only for completed calls. I suspect that in the US, at least, it'd be a winning strategy.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #175 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04177; 16 Mar 90 15:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00810; 16 Mar 90 11:01 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05582; 16 Mar 90 8:21 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 8:02:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #176 BCC: Message-ID: <9003160802.ab20567@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 08:02:42 CST Volume 10 : Issue 176 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls [R. Smith] Executone 2496 Telephone System KSU and Extras For Sale [Doug Davis] UK Telephone System Questions [Doug Davis] Pay Phone Operation [Steven L. Finberg] US WEST Rate Change in Washington State [Roger Clark Swann] ISDN Local Station Wiring [Roger Clark Swann] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:32:28 GMT It works both ways. I remember once trying to call somebody (this was years ago, so I may be distorting the details) and by mistake got an old lady on the phone who wouldn't respond to my simple "is this xxx-xxxx?" query. So, I figured I just dialed it wrong, said I was sorry for I had bothered her, and tried again. Got the same lady. Obviously I had the wrong number, but she wouldn't give an inch to any of my queries as to what number I had actually reached, etc. I tried DA and they gave me back her number again. Obviously some sort of foul up so I called the operator and asked her for help. She dialed the number, got the old lady again, who by this time was so freaked out she could only sob into the phone "why do you keep bothering me!?" or something like that. I never did resolve the problem. I feel sorry for the old lady, but she could have prevented some of her grief is she had just confirmed that I had really reached the number I thought I dialed. I have a funnier story about wrong numbers too. One day a couple of years ago, the phone rings. The caller asks for somebody. I say I think he has a wrong number ask what number he is trying to reach. He says 718-636-11238. No, that's not a typo. It didn't sound right when he said it, but I couldn't figure out why it sounded funny, so I asked him to repeat it. Yup, he wanted 718-636-11238. I point out to him that he doesn't have the right number of digits, thinking how strange it was that there is anybody in the USA who doesn't know that a phone number must be 7 or 10 digits. Of course that's true, but this guy was calling from (if memory serves) The Netherlands. I was a bit surprised when he asked me if I would mind looking up the correct number for him (seems like an expensive way to get DA but, hell, if he's willing to pay for the transatlantic call, I'm game). He gives me the name and an address which must be just a few buildings away on the next block from me! I find him the number and we chat a few minutes. Well, to make a long story short, here's what must have happened. It's not surprising that the party he was trying to reach lives near me; after all, he just screwed up in the last few digits and reached somebody unexpected in the same area code and exchange. The odd part, is that my phone number is 718-636-1123 and my zip code is 11238! He must have somehow merged an area code and exchange with a zip code, dialed the resulting 11 digits (the last of which was ignored by the US switches) and gotten me. Now, the unlisted and collect story. We're getting involved in a legal situation. The details are not important, other than the telecom part. We will be placing ads in newspapers soliciting information that may be helpful to us from anybody who might know anything and happen to see the ad. These people are not supposed to know who they are calling (other than my first name), and may be reluctant to call at all, so the ad urges them to call collect. The calls may be far and few between, and every one is precious, so our lawyer says to put an answering machine on the line, with an out going message that starts "Hello, this is Roy. Yes operator, I'll accept the charges if this is a collect call". To cut down on random calls, the number should be unlisted. But I've been reading in telecom digest about these new fandangled computerized collect call systems which do voice recognition sans human operator intervention to determine whether to put the call through. I fear this will interact badly with our answering machine. I asked our lawyer about that. He says not to worry, that there is some way for a caller to get a real human operator on the line. Anybody know more about this? Also, our confidentiality is important in this matter; all the callers are supposed to know is our first names. Our lawyer told us a story of a similar situation in which the caller managed to track down who he was calling via the phone company. Some people in a similar situation to us set up a similar phone line with answering machine and asked people to call collect. Somebody called them, and they ended up establishing a sort of relationship, getting a series of such collect calls over a period of time. Once, the caller forgot to call collect and dialed the number directly. Nobody thought anything of this until the caller got his phone bill and saw a long distance call to a city he didn't think he made any calls to. The number was the same number he had called collect several time before, but that didn't click (it had never showed up on his phone bill before), so he called the phone company to queried the charge. The helpful phone company looked it up and asked him, "You didn't call John Doe in Telco City, Wisconsin on that day?" That gave the caller everything he need to know to track down exactly who the mysterious person was that he had been calling collect for all these weeks was. It seems odd that the phone company would gladly give out the name and address belonging to an unlisted phone number in response to a billing query, but apparantly they did. I once had a similar unrecognized charge on my bill. I called NY Tel and they quickly came back with the name of the person belonging to that number. The confusion was just that I was calling some small town in central New Jersey but the bill came back as Princeton, which wasn't where I called (but I guess it went through a Princeton switch). I don't think it was unlisted, but the billing folks may not even have that information. Anyway, the suggested solution from our lawyer is to have a friend we trust take out the phone in his name, but installed in our apartment. That way, should an overly helpful telco clerk give out more information than we would have liked, all anybody could do is track down our friend, who presumably would clam up. I know this sounds like something out of a spy novel, but I assure you that the legal situation is really not that mysterious and our lawyer is just being paranoid, which I guess is what we're paying him for. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: Doug Davis Subject: Executone 2496 Telephone System KSU and Extras For Sale Date: 14 Mar 90 17:31:45 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lonestar.org Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. I have the following for sale in whole or in part, this was removed from service when we moved into this building. It was attached to the wall and still powered up (probably left in that state 6-9 Months). It has been sitting in my store room about 2 months after I powered it off and removed it from the wall. I suspect the unit to be functional, but I cannot offer any guarantees to how functional it is. You can reach me via email, daytime (214)-340-5172, or evening (214)-270-9226. 1 Executone KSU 2496/K21001 Series 5. Contains: # Type of card Slot Model Number(s) on card 10 2 Line Co (CO/LS) K21023 10 3 Station (LC ) K21039 LC/2496A 1 Off Premises? (OP ) K21029 1 EPA? (EPA ) K21007 EPA/2 1 CPU (CPU ) K21020 CPU-3 1 FX (FX ) K21201 FX2 Additional: 1 Power Supply for above (Model K21003) Series 3. 1 External Pa Amplifier (Model 4402001) 10 watts output. 4 Unknown (possibly external ring boxes) Model K21005 Series-I [ OPX-5 ]. Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun||texbell}!letni!doug doug@letni.lonestar.org "Well, that was a piece of cake, eh K-9?" "Piece of cake, Master? Radial slice of baked confection ... coefficient of relevance to Key of Time: zero." ------------------------------ From: Doug Davis Subject: UK Telephone System Questions Date: 15 Mar 90 04:57:05 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lonestar.org Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. This is probably going to open a can of worms, but ... what problems am I going to encounter using U.S. telephone equipment, specificly a Trailblazer T2500 modem in the U.K.? The power supply is an easy fix, the question is more directed to different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc. Please answer via mail, I'll summarize if there is enough interest. Thanks, Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun||lawnet||texbell}!letni!doug or doug@letni.lonestar.org "Well, that was a piece of cake, eh K-9?" "Piece of cake, Master? Radial slice of baked confection ... coefficient of relevance to Key of Time: zero." ------------------------------ From: "Steven L. Finberg" Subject: Pay Phone Operation Reply-To: "Steven L. Finberg" Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 21:19:11 GMT While local calls from pay phones are still $.10 here in MA (at least from real NET/NYNEX ones), I noticed they are rather user unfriendly compared to the Bell of PA ones I used last weekend. The problem seems to be associated with the way calls are timed. The phone delivers a dial tone with out a coin, but insists on ten cents before any local call can be dialed. So far no problem. The problem occurs about once a minuite durring the first three, - the battery and talk path are broken for about 3 seconds, making conversations difficult, and making it obvious that you are at a payphone. Then about 30 seconds before the end of the 3 min initial period, a recorded "operator" comes on demanding 5 cents more for the next 3 min! No matter when you put the nickel in she dosen't stop talking till she is done her whole speel. This makes for significant breaks in any conversation. Any ideas why the talk path interuptions are needed? And why the recording can't be stoped as soon as the coin deposited? The Bell of PA phone wanted 25 cents but didn't ever interupt, I don't know what the initial period was, as I never made any extended local calls. ************************************************************************** Steve Finberg PO Box 82 MIT BR Cambridge MA 02139 617-258-3754 w1gsl@athena.mit.edu ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: US WEST Rate Change in Washington State Date: 15 Mar 90 06:08:19 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA Just received my US West bill for March and included is the following notice regarding rates: Our Rate Structure is Changing In accordance with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Fourth Supplemental Order, US WEST Communications is simplifying its rate structure as of February 15, 1990. As a result, most US WEST Communications customers will experience a monthly rate decrease. No customer will receive an increase. How Will This Affect You, Our Customers? _Long_Distance_From_US_WEST_Will_Cost_You_Less_ Effective February 15, 1990, US WEST will temporarily reduce its long distance rates. That price reduction will be replaced on July 1, 1990, with a new "call timing method" that will, on average, amount to a four percent savings. This new call timing will more accurately reflect your long distance usage. It will reduce the timing of calls longer than one minute to six-second increaments. _Local_Service_ The multitiered structure used to calculate monthly rates will be streamlined. As a result, most residence customers will experience a decrease in their monthly local service. [ Do they really mean that service will be decreased? :-) ] _Suburban_Mileage_ All Suburban Mileage charges will be eliminated. _Party-Line_Service_Improvement_ US WEST Communications will begin a five-year program to expand current facilities in order to provide one-party service for all customers. One-party service enables customers to place long distance calls without the use of the operator, to choose their long distance carrier and purchase discounted packages. For customers who currently have party-line service, they may retain this service at their current address. WARES-0290 Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: ISDN Local Station Wiring Date: 15 Mar 90 06:36:35 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA Someone asked recently here about local station wiring for ISDN. Here in my office there is some remodeling going on currently involving the same. ATT is installing several new drops for ATT 7500 series ISDN sets and rather than use the plain four pair cable that they use for the 2500 sets ( for the poens ), they are using a shielded type cable. I have a piece here and it reads: TENSOLITE (SJ) CL2P 150'C 24 AWG (UL) What I find strange about this stuff is the color coding... There are four pairs: RED - BLACK GREEN - BLACK BLUE - BLACK WHITE - BLACK ( the shield surrounds the whole bundle ) The only way to identify the BLACK conductors is to find which color they are twisted with. I think I perfer the scheme where a colored cond. is paired with a white cond. with that same color stripe on it. In addition, the conductors are stranded, rather than the conventional solid. Hope that this helps whomever needs it. Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #176 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00941; 17 Mar 90 0:44 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20038; 16 Mar 90 23:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12110; 16 Mar 90 22:03 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:05:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #177 BCC: Message-ID: <9003162105.ab02481@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:05:37 CST Volume 10 : Issue 177 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Data Feed over Cable TV [Bob Sutterfield] Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Andrew Boardman] Re: Can This Be True? [George Pell] Re: Enhanced 911 [Steve Swingler] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Jeff Carroll] Re: 900 With a Twist [Tom Betz] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [David Tamkin] Re: Telecoms in Brazil [Hank Nussbacher] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Sutterfield Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Organization: Morning Star Technologies Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:45:13 GMT In article <5158@accuvax.nwu.edu> gutierre@oblio.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Gutierrez) writes: You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on a couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about that. Try contacting the folks at the Stargate project (mark@stargate.com) - they did (do?) news over spare bandwidth on Ted Turner's network. The economics tilted somewhat away from their scheme with the introduction of the Trailblazer and widespread use of NNTP, as well as the universal availablility of UUNET. I don't know whether the project is officially belly-up or still in business serving a smaller niche. ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling Date: 15 Mar 90 19:37:17 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) In article <5136@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >> I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume >> levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... >I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up >and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite. Not necessarily. I saw some tests of using V.35 modems with the three LD carriers in Data Communications about a year back. In all tests (BER, call completion, setup time, etc.) AT&T won, except for one. Sprint had the best signal levels. I doubt it's a quirk so much as different results for different conditions. Chip Rosenthal | Yes, you're a happy man and you're chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG | a lucky man, but are you a smart Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | man? -David Bromberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 22:27:54 EST From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eating In article <5181@accuvax.nwu.edu> bukys@cs.rochester.edu writes: >I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for >long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or >not. The University has a ROLM phone system internally. It does >"least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers. All of the ROLM systems I have seen have done very clever things as far as returning call supervision to calling parties (they don't until they *sbsolutely* have to; following the letter of the law lets them get away with some interesting things), *HOWEVER*, "supervision" is a foreign word when it comes to outgoing calls. The rationale I've gotten from ROLM and other *BX vendors is that they are primarily targeting for a business environment, and businesses aren't particularly concerned with calculating which account made which calls, as they are all presumably made to further the cause of the business. >Now, in the consumer world, I thought it was long settled that charges >for incomplete calls were not acceptable and that the various technical >issues had been laid to rest. Am I right? As the saying goes, no one ever gets fired for buying (recommending to buy, et cetera) IBM stuff. "How could it have been the wrong choice, it was made by IBM!" The consumer world is not the business world, not by far. >Now, I'm wondering > (1) whether there is any technical excuse: > (a) in general, or No. I've worked on several ROLM boxes, and they've *all* been junk. > (b) for a PBX (e.g. our ROLM system), or No. (presuming any sort of sanity with outgoing trunk connections) > (c) for international calls. Hmm... not so sure about this one... > (2) whether this violates any tarriffs. As far as I can tell, no. (I wish!) I currently live in Columbia University housing, and am forced to live with an IBM/ROLM 9751. Most people were quite unhappy with the price/performance ratio of ROLM when it was newly installed, and some people (students, like me) were looking for any means at all to get out of it (from lawsuits to starting their own telephone service (a certain party with a NYNEX line and a 5 station key system won't be mentioned :->)). It's a classic case of the fascist-university-wants-to-be-a-telephone-company-too thing that's been posted about a lot lately. I thought AT&T would stop appearing in my *local* phone bills after 1984. (They still do, courtesy ACUS.) [I eventually forked over for having a New York Tel. line installed in addition to the ROLM line. The ROLM only gets use for those under-45-second calls. (Like those $50 900 numbers and such.) (Of course, two weeks later, idiot contractors cut through *all* of the New York Tel lines around here, and the out-of-service credits for the month it took to get fixed (during the NYNEX strike) counterbalanced my phone bills for months. The striker-replacement "repair" people were really pathetic. My line was fixed within 48 hours of the end of the strike. :-> (They traced the problem in about 15 minutes, and then spent the next few hours ripping out a wall (*not* mine :->) with three of their friends to get at the cable break. (They said it was the most fun they'd had in a while.)))] Andrew Boardman amb@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!amb amb%cs.columbia.edu@cuvmb.bitnet or try amb@ai.ai.mit.edu if the Columbia machines are having problems ------------------------------ From: George Pell Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: 15 Mar 90 23:34:56 GMT Reply-To: George Pell Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <5130@accuvax.nwu.edu> rp@xn.ll.mit.edu (Richard Pavelle) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 10 of 10 +I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told +me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a +paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance +calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe +the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to +complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. +Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor +that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world? When I was 15 (quite a few years ago) with the older style pay phones like the moderator described in his followup, we used to make calls using a coke cup cut into a strip the width of a dime, inserting it into the dime slot (calls were a dime), and dropping pennies into the quarter slot. You may have had to bang the coin return at the same time, but I don't remember now. geo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:24 CST From: Steve Swingler Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Enhanced 911 *CAN* be implemented from many large PBXs. It simply requires the use of ANI trunks and an accurate database. It has been done by several different groups...the one that comes to mind is the City of Seattle. They use several NT SL-1 switches, and they all provide accurate E911 data to the E911 Operator. The problem with the previously mentioned apartment complexes is the lack of pressure on the owners of the places to spend the money to fully implement E911, just in case it is ever needed. Steve Swingler Center for Computing and Information Systems Baylor University ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta Date: 15 Mar 90 19:33:56 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <5083@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes: >In TELECOM Digest V10, #159, Ken Jongsma, ken@cup.portal.com writes: >>I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some >>airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the >>phone network. Seattle has a nice business area with desks, fax >>machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge! (stuff deleted)> >A letter to Delta suggesting a no-charge business area would probably >be a good idea - maybe other list members could mail a letter also (?). The "teleport" at SeaTac Airport is provided by USWest Communications. There's one in the north satellite (i.e., the United terminal), one in the main terminal (though rather hard to find), and, presumably, one in the south satellite, the international terminal, though I haven't been out there to check. International flights from Seattle are to places I don't go. SeaTac, despite its role as an international hub, is a relatively large, spacious, and empty airport, which had room to spare for such services (the airport is much older than the "teleport".) I would guess that, even in other cities served by USWest, there probably isn't existing room in the airport terminals for such a service. (Do Denver, Portland, and Minneapolis have them?) I would also conjecture that vandalism in the average airport is much higher than at SeaTac. Further, the authority governing SeaTac airport is only very loosely coupled to other governmental agencies. The Port of Seattle is governed by a board of commissioners, who are directly elected by the voters of King County, and tend overwhelmingly to be businessmen rather than politicians. The mayor of Seattle has nothing at the airport with his name on it, except newspapers. Would the airlines provide such services? Maybe, but I doubt that we'd be satisfied with their quality (and/or cost). Ditto for the airport authorities (too much chance of politically-based patronage of somebody's fly-by-night operation.) I'd write to the local BOC. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: 900 With a Twist Date: 15 Mar 90 21:40:46 GMT Reply-To: Tom Betz Organization: Greyston Business Services Quoth Jeffrey Silber in <5071@accuvax.nwu.edu>: |X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 166, Message 5 of 11 |900 numbers are often run for less-than-noble purposes (e.g. getting |kids to run up their parents' phone bill). I saw a new twist on the |900 number this weekend. A local PBS station (WVIA/Scranton) is using |one for part of their telethon. If you don't want to make a major |pledge, you can "give your support by calling our 900 number. Remember, |your call will cost $5.00." WNET has been doing it for about a year... initially the calls were $10 each, but now they have both $10 and $20 lines. They use them to "shorten the on-air pledge period"... "I don't run - I tend to black my eyes." - D.Parton | hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz | tbetz@upaya.lilink.com "One minute I'm in the pasture porkin' ponies, | Tom Betz - GBS the next I'm a can of Mighty Dog!" - Secretariat | (914) 375-1510 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 1:29:37 CST Robert Stampfli wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 167: | OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for | local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be | charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that | this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for | something I cannot use. 1. Can your local telco really block all outgoing long distance calls? They can assign no 1+ carrier, but can they block 10XXX? [Perhaps the link is not used for calls dialed via 950-YXXX or a carrier's 800 dial-up, but use of those carries a surcharge that can outstrip the subscriber line charge fairly quickly.] 2. Would the telco really cancel this charge on the strength of a customer's personal solemn promise not to place any long-distance calls? 3. Can your local telco, as Steve Forrette pointed out, block incoming long-distance calls? I truly doubt it. If you receive a long-distance call, you are using the link from the l/d company's local POP to your own CO. You don't even get to choose which long-distance carrier it is, because the caller makes that decision. David Tamkin P.O Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:15:56 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: Telecoms in Brazil >3) Does Brazil have a packet switched data network that can be >accessed via IPSS from the UK. If so, what's it called, what >facilities does it offer? Try either of these people. INTERDATA is the Brazilian equivalent of Telenet or Tymnet. EMBRATEL is the Brazilian PTT. Brazil: INTERDATA Mr. Armando F. Castanon or Mr. Arne Freinsilber EMBRATEL EMBRATEL Av. Pres. Wilson 231 / 10o andar Av. Marechal Floriano 99/12 andar Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22031 Rio de Janeiro 20080 Phone: +55 (21) 2403306 Phone: +55 (21) 2168328 Fax: +55 (21) 2103182 or 2168637 >4) What would typical call rates from Brazil to the UK be, both via a >direct dialup and via packet-switching? Is it likely to be cheaper >than calling in the other direction? The costs for connecting to the USA from Brazil are as follows: Country Cost per Cost per Fixed Maximum connect 64,000 cost speed hour characters per month -------------+-----------+------------+-------------+--------+ Brazil | $20.55 | $26.25 | none | 1200 | Anytime, Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos Date: 15 Mar 90 07:41:43 GMT Organization: very little Stan Krieger asked about why someone would lie to him when he has dialed a wrong number (but not misdialed) and wants to verify the number with them by asking "have I reached (x-number)?"...then they say "no", and he calls back and gets them again. I have had this happen, and here is what is really going on. You have accurately dialed what was originally a wrong number, but it comes on as part of a group of lines into a business. Like where I work, our main number is 881-7000. If that line is busy, it rotates to the next line, and the next line, etc. Each line has its own number, and it is not consecutive, like 881-7001, etc. So the receptionist or whoever answers our phone at work, says, "no, you haven't reached 881-7459, this is 881-7000." She is not lying, she just doesn't know what the number is for the third line in the trunk group, or whatever you have come in on. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #177 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03036; 17 Mar 90 1:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22091; 17 Mar 90 0:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20038; 16 Mar 90 23:07 CST Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 22:41:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #178 BCC: Message-ID: <9003162241.ab13088@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Mar 90 22:40:59 CST Volume 10 : Issue 178 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Special Issue: CLASS Features [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Linc Madison] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls [Steve Elias] Re: More Greed [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: Enhanced 911 [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Peter da Silva] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Steve Forrette] Re: White House "Caller ID" [Scott Fybush] Choke Lines [Carl Moore] Choke Exchange (was Re: More Greed) [Blake Farenthold] "Chilling Effect" on Public Access (Was Re: Legion of Doom) [Mike Godwin] Satellite Data Link [Steven L. Finberg] Information Needed Re: TPC 100 [Robert Masse] When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Scott Fybush] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:23:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issue: CLASS Features The special issue for this weekend will be a detailed report of CLASS features provided to the Digest by Chris Ambler of Cal Poly. This issue will be distributed sometime Saturday afternoon or evening. My thanks to Chris for sending it along. Incidentally, for a good time: 'finger cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu'. You won't regret it! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 02:17:25 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5084@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Stamfli writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8 > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge) > >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is > >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long > >distance carrier of your choice. >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for >local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be >charged this fee. So far I have been unable to convice my telco that >this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for >something I cannot use. Oh, but you'll still have to pay the access charge, unless you manage to get a line which blocks *INCOMING* long-distance calls. The reason I know is that I was the system administrator for a small residential Centrex system (11 lines). One line was the answering machine, left in a public area. To prevent any unexplained calls to Kathmandu, the line was restricted to place outgoing calls only within the Centrex system. However, because the line was still connected to the long-distance system for incoming calls, we still paid the FCC access charge, per Pac*Bell's ever-joyous interpretation of CPUC Tariff. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 09:54:28 -0500 From: Steve Elias According to a tariff writer for NE Tel, using call forwarding in order to avoid toll charges is explicitly illegal. I don't know where such a law is listed. Perhaps it is written into the tariffs somewhere. ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ; ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: More Greed Date: 15 Mar 90 15:03:02 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > BTW, is the network designed to prevent access to choke >lines from out-of-town if the choke line is very busy? Last week, I >tried for 2 hours to get Ticket Master (617-931-2000) from a phone in >Rochester NY (716-427-xxxx), and kept getting an ATT "Sorry... You got it. Since the long distance carriers (ATT...) have to pay for local TELCO access charges and tie up their capacity just to get a busy signal on the far end (and hence no revenue), if the far end number is getting a lot of calls and is busy the network software blocks all future calls on the local end automatically/regardless. So forget getting those Bruce tickets, unless you're local to the phone order handling company, your call isn't even getting close to having a equal shot at getting in. Your best bet is to call a friend in upstate Vermont etc. where nobody is likely to be calling in and hence no block is in effect in their LD hub. A related anecdote -- when something like MTV has a 800 number phone poll they only answer the phone 50 times (and only pay for 50 800# calls) of the 80,000 calls that come in. Therefore, the LD carrier loses money each day since the 50 call revenue is far less the thousands of local TELCO access charges. (Usually when you call an 800# and it is busy you call back and get through with the charge for the sucessful large enough to cover the unsuccessful ones.) ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 15 Mar 90 15:24:32 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I >believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and >couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment. I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.) ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 12:49:52 GMT > What would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But > sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could > I possibly have used that much?" Actually, if you have reason to believe that your bill is in error they are happy to work with you to figure it out. They're selling you kWH, and if you didn't get them you're entitled to a refund. The phone company is selling you bandwidth. If you don't get it, then you're entitled to a refund. > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized > bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? Because it's not technically feasible to get non-itemised bills from other utilities, perhaps? What would an itemised bill from the power company look like? "Refrigerator: $27.75, A/C: $57.21, ..."? _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 03:07:03 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> Roy Smith writes: >In <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Shankland writes: >> the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed >> that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no >> itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that >> you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I >> never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. > And how is that any different from the typical electric, >water, or natural gas bill? It's different because with an electric or gas bill, billing problems can be resolved easily by looking at the meter (it's even CPE :-) ). If there's a reading or billing error, you have the ultimate proof that you are right. I would imagine that these are quite accurate. On the other hand, I'm sure we've all had billing problems of one sort or another with "the phone company." By its very nature it's more prone to error. Where would you be if you didn't get detailed billing? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 16:10:31 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID" A 900 number in 1977?!? I was but 5 years old then, so I don't remember, but it seems to me like a lot of COs wouldn't have been programmed to accept a 900 number. Anyone know if that was the case? Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" [Moderator's Note: There were '900' numbers in the middle seventies; but not nearly the number we have today. I think there were maybe ten or a dozen in all. Sports, horoscope and the talking clock were among the first, along with national weather. All were one-way; there were no interactive 900 numbers then (except President Carter). A call to 1-900-555-1212 is free; the tape used to last about a minute or less, but now it goes on, and on and on. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:23:33 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Choke Lines Regarding "choke" lines: I am wondering about 215-263 in Philadelphia, Pa., and 609-590 just across the river in Camden, NJ, being "choke" lines. An old gripe for people from Delaware is that both numbers are 11-digit long distance, and this causes problems in getting thru on phone contests, because of the extra digits to dial. More recently, I have heard "263-xxxx inside Phila., 1-800-yyy-xxxx elsewhere", and I can't recall just now what the yyy stands for. (Scott Fybush had written concerning reaching a "choke" number from out-of-area.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 09:42:02 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Choke Exchange (was Re: more greed) jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) writes: >The choke exchange in Los Angeles charges for all call attempts, too. >My first bill from GTE was quite a surprise. I can't beleive the radio stations stand for this. When I was working in radio (10 years ago) we fried comthing at the CO giving away $1,000 and a few weeks later the phone company came out with the "radio exchange". We didn't want to change our request/contest line number and told 'em so. They said if we didnt get on the choke exchange the'd cut off ALL our phones if we jammed the CO again. This had some people in the programming and engeneering departments at the station awfully mad. We had several plans. The programmers suggested we urge all our listeners to rip out their phones and march on the business office. The engineers had th better plan though: Let 'em cut off our phones. We'd use the 2 way radios and send a DJ to a payphone.. he'd come on the air and say we're giving the money away to the first caller at xxx-xxxx. We'd fry the phone system every day from a different location. Fortunatly for the station, cooler (management) heads prevailed and we just hopped on the radio exchange bandwagon. But if they started charging listeners for the calls, that seems to defeat the purpose of a give-a-way if not violate FCC rules relating to stations conducting lotteries. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE [Moderator's Note: The fallacy in your argument is that charging for a phone call to reach the radio station lottery is violating rules pertaining to contests. Contests which have you mail in a coupon or ticket are not violating the law because the post office requires a stamp on the envelope. Both the postage stamp and the telephone charge are simply fees for transporting the message. PT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: "Chilling Effect" on Public Access (Was Re: Legion of Doom Story) Date: 15 Mar 90 15:29:25 GMT Reply-To: Mike Godwin Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas If anyone is aware of sites that have gone offline or eliminated public access out of fears resulting from the Legion of Doom-related equipment seizures by federal agents and from worries that system administrators may lack common-carrier immunity, please send me Email. I'm working with a newspaper reporter here in Austin who'd like to know what effect the seizures have had on the general Net community, as well as any general information about the jolnet and attctc 'stings.' It could be helpful if you include a voice phone number. Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"Neither am I anyone; I have dreamt the world as mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | you dreamt your work, my Shakespeare, and among mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu | the forms in my dream are you, who like myself (512) 346-4190 | are many and no one." --Borges ------------------------------ From: "Steven L. Finberg" Subject: Satellite Data Link Reply-To: "Steven L. Finberg" Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 17:35:53 GMT I am looking to set up a data link, probably full duplex, between a high altitude ultra long duration atmospheric research aircraft and a ground station. On the order of 4800 bits per second of data is to be transfered. Both telemetry and control is being communicated so the transfer must be real time. Over most of the proposed flight paths any number of synchronous comm sats would be visible to both aircraft and the ground control. What is the availability of low bandwidth transponder channnels, who rents them out, how much do they cost? Who makes the "ground" stations? Light weight and an omni directional nontracking antenna for the aircraft would be a big plus. What are the coverage areas of the satellite receivers? Are their footprints only aimed at land areas? Thanks in advance. Steve Finberg PO Box 82 MIT BR, Cambridge MA 02139 617-258-3754 w1gsl@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Robert Masse Subject: Information Needed Re: TPC 100 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 22:58:35 GMT Can anyone tell me what "TPC 100" is? I have heard it in many conversations but I never bothered finding out what it is exactly. Thanks in advance, Robert Masse (514)466-2689/home Internet: robert%altitude@IRO.UMontreal.CA UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert soon: robert@altitude.cam.org or robert@altitude.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 04:12:15 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs The phone number of Alex's Pizza here in Waltham is 647-5522. Of course, from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522. Naturally any number of people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system reads as 6475. 6475 is a student phone number in one of the dorms, the occupants of which now answer their phone, "Alex's Pizza, may I help you?" Seems to me that if I were assigning numbers here, I would shy away from using ones whose first three digits were the same as the local CO's exchanges, namely 647, 890, 891, 893, 894, 897, and 899. And in fact, no numbers of the form 89xx are used on our phone system. Would it have been that complicated to not use 647x either? Just one of those things that shows the difference between adequate system design and excellent system design, I suppose. Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" [Moderator's Note: I had the same problem for awhile several years ago. My office extension was 7262; the carry-out bar and grill on the first floor of the office building had the number RANdolph (726) - 2xxx. Invariably -- almost daily -- five minutes before the start of the lunch hour at 11:45 my phone would ring. Somebody ordering their lunch would be on the line. Some had the courtesy to apologize, while others would say nothing and just click off. Still others were profane *toward me* before hanging up. This was in 1968-69; our phone system was a centrex on a 5-Xbar switch. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #178 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05118; 17 Mar 90 2:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26886; 17 Mar 90 1:17 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22091; 17 Mar 90 0:12 CST Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 0:00:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #179 BCC: Message-ID: <9003170000.ab14122@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Mar 90 00:00:34 CST Volume 10 : Issue 179 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Direct Dialing to USSR [Dan Ross] The Assignment from Hell [Blake Farenthold] T1 and DDS Test Equipment [Michael Dorl] When Gremlins Come A-calling [Epsilon] Interesting Use of 900 Service [Chuck Bennett] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [tanner@ki4pv.uucp] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Vance Shipley] Re: Modem Leapfrog To Avoid Toll Charges [Vance Shipley] Info Needed on Worldwide V&H Data [Peter G. Capek] Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Dave Levenson] Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Ross Subject: MCI Direct Dialing to USSR Date: 16 Mar 90 17:20:41 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept I just got an international dialing instructions card (with list of codes) with my new MCI card, with a printing date of 2/90. Something new was a listing for "Soviet Union (Moscow Only) 7". I called for rate information, and the MCI rep gave me 011 7095 as the prefix to call (I think 095 was listed here as the city code for Moscow earlier) and the rates, which were lower than AT&T's rates of a year and a half ago (minimum 3 minutes @ $6 something, additional minutes still $2 or more, and operator assisted). The rates are: 1st min addl mins 1pm-2am 2.24 2.01 7am-1pm 1.84 1.72 2am-7am 1.69 1.55 I won't be trying it anytime soon, but I thought it was interesting that MCI was providing such a service. Is it just via AT&T? Is US Sprint doing this too? Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ...!uwvax!dross ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 13:59:19 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: The Assignment from Hell I think someone wants to fire me. I have been chosen to evaluate our 40 lawyer law firm's telecommunications needs. First they want me to look at our long distance service. This I can live with, as the change, if any, SHOULD be almost transparent to our users. All I have to deal with are the sales reps. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what I should ask about. So far I figure I need to get: 1) Prices per minute for A) 1+ service B) Dedicated WATS i) installation charges ii) recurring monthly charges C) Credit Cards i) surcharge per call ii) access method a) 10xxx b) 950-xxxx c) 1-800 d) 1-800 to our DISA iii) instant credit? D) Volume Discounts: Do credit card and WATS aggregate to calculate discounts? 2) Billing format/Customer Support 3) Quasi technical stuff A) Is there a local switch? B) Fiber Optics i) Fiber out of THIS city ii) % of calls on fiber iii) is it there own network or are they reselling C) Call setup time D) % of failed called (all circuits busy or other) If you have any comments or suggestions on getting this information or on another questions to ask, PLEASE let me know. SECOND they want me to determine if we need a new PBX. I'm starting off with the idea we do not. We have an ITT system 3100 and it does everything I can think of that we need. DID, SMDR, Xfers, conference calls, forwarding (busy, no answer, always), DISA, paging, camp on, etc. I really can't think of anything we (a bunch of lawyers) need that we don't have. Most attornies don't have computers and those who do need only to tie into our Word Processing mini computer or to dial up Westlaw. But anyway, since I was asked to look at the firm's needs I figured the best way to do it was to survey everyone to see what they need/want in a phone system. I got a list of features of an AT&T System 75, tried to translate the feature descriptions into English (or legaleese) but am not too happy with the results. I was HOPING that some of the telecomm pro's out there might have a list of typical PBX features, in layman's terms I could base my survey on. If so Pleeeeeeeese send it my way. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com We are the people our parents warned us about. Jimmy Buffett ------------------------------ From: Michael Dorl - MACC Subject: T1 and DDS Test Equipment Date: 16 Mar 90 17:28:54 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center I'm interested in test equipment for 56k DDS and T1 lines. I'm just starting to investigate but I think I want gear with following capabilities: Interfaces supported: 56k DDS plain (don't care about secondary channel) T1 D4, ESF, B8ZS (test equip does CSU function) V.35 Capabilities: Test pattern - transmit and receive Standalone loopback testing ,with one unit End-to-end test with two units Able to cause the various kinds of remote loops on T1 and DDS Signal quality measurements such as jitter and spectrum Detect T1 events such as checksum errors, bipolar volations, framing errors, etc. Any other things I should be interested in? Any suggestions on vendors other than FIREBERD? Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet ------------------------------ From: claris!wet!epsilon@ames.arc.nasa.gov Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 05:02:01 PST Subject: When Gremlins Come A-calling I noticed the line status light flickering on one of my lines the other day; how odd, but it's been rainy, and who knows? Then a couple of times the phone would ring -- once. Very strange. So I called repair service, in case Pac*Bell had someone playing with the wires. First surprise -- no human! There's now an automated system that eats DTMF and files trouble reports. OK, I can live with that. Not long after, the phone rings, I pick it up, and I find myself in someone else's conversation; about five seconds later the other parties hang up. The phone rings a few more times (once), but each time I head toward the phone it's idle. Finally it rings twice, I pick it up, I hear another voice say "hello" and a third identify himself as a Pac*Bell rep -- who was quite surprised to actually reach me, apparently the other subscriber was sitting by the phone. We learn that my line has somehow been crossed with a number with a different prefix (but served by the same office). They say they'll get it fixed within a few hours [apparently they did]. I called Pac*Bell billing to flag my account in case I've got an inadvertent party line; we'll get it all figured out next cycle. I have 976/900 blocking, so I don't have to worry about those nasties. There's just one thing that bothers me: I have MCI as my 1+, and it may be months before I know if any unauthorized charges were made on my line. -=EPS=- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 10:59 EST From: "Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134" Subject: Interesting Use of 900 Service Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance for its PC based product 1-2-3. The rate structure is a reversal of most 900 services... $0.00 1st minute, $2.00 each additional minute. One is supposed to be immediately connected to a technical "high trained engineer" for support. They are doing this on a trial basis. It will be interesting to see if this works and/or spreads. Chuck Bennett UNC, Chapel Hill, NC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 23:45:51 -0500 From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision ) [ differentiate between metered, non-itemized billing from the ) phone co and metered, non-itemized billing from the power co ] Easy. In the cases of the power, gas, and water bills, you are receiving a fungible commodity. With the phone bill, you can not reasonably assert that local calls may be interchanged with the call to Brazil, and you must make this assertion or the idea of metered, non-itemized billing is inappropriate. Further, I can verify the readings on the meters for the power, gas, and water by examining my meters. I can, if it pleases me, go out and watch the dials turn and verify that they are turning at the right rate. I can install my own meter (after the company's meter) if it pleases me. You can not, in principle, do this with the phone. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra bpa uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:14:06 PST From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) In article <5127@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >In <5087@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Shankland writes: >> the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed >> that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no >> itemization of calls. You pretty much had to take their word for it that >> you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I >> never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff. > And how is that any different from the typical electric, >water, or natural gas bill? [...] > Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized >bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? [...] Speaking for myself, I can say that I am willing to put up with the utility bills on that basis because I can see the meter, I can see the wires or pipes on my side of the meter, and I trust the utility companies to have aaccurate meters (and if they weren't accurate, how would I know, anyway). The system is too simple for much to go wrong. I don't have to worry about someone on the other side of the country running their toster oven and charging it to my electric bill. Even when things go wrong, it is usually not the utility's fault, rather it is usually some cretin (read Landlord) who is tapping my electric lines to power the hall lights, or the elevator, or something, not an error in billing. The few billing errors I have heard of were simply errors of misreading the meters, and they are usually cleared up quickly and easily. (When a residence gets a bill for $4,000,000,000 worth of electricity used in one month [because the incorrect reading was lower than the last correct reading, so the computer thought it spun around], people at the utility are usually willing to believe that it was their mistake.) As a practical matter, I pretty much accept on faith that my local phone bill is accurate. I have never seen a local call on my bill which I could show was billed incorrectly. It is only the long-distance and monthly charges which cause problems, because of the complicated ways these charges can be generated, and the corresponding increased chance of error. (No flames or horror stories about mistakes in local billing, please.) But since I have yet to go 24 months without finding an error in my long-distance billing, I demand to see it itemized. ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:32:28 GMT My question is who is getting answer supervision provided all the way back to the PBX? I know of several people in different areas of the US that are. This allows optimal billing back of calls. So, who is getting it? Who is providing it, and how? (T-1,ISDN-PRA,or analog) vances ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:10:36 GMT In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: >Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? >I'd have a relay station that would bounce the output of one modem to the >input of another, all signals. The advantages would be avoiding toll >charges since it would be local to the relay station, and local from >the relay station to the destination. I set one of these up once. Trying to dial into our office switch and out again over an FX line didn't work because of degradation of the signal, so I hooked two modems back to back and created a "digipeater"! In order to prevent unauthorized use I hotlined the output of the second modem so it would automatically connect me with the site I was interested in. I also disabled the escape sequences on both. The null modem cable connecting the two must be done correctly so you don't get hung up. vance@xenitec.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 19:52:52 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Info Needed on Worldwide V&H Data A colleague of mine is looking for a source of information similar to that on the Bellcore V+H tape for the world outside the US. It seems unlikely to exist in any centralized place, but perhaps there's some way to get this from the various national PTT organizations? He'd like to have a way of locating places (for planning data communications) by specifying country code + city code + exchange and translating that into a latitude/longitude. Does anyone know of a source? Peter Capek IBM Research -- Yorktown Heights, NY ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy Date: 17 Mar 90 03:40:31 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <5072@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > On Saturday and today, I have tried calling the Bellcore number given > for punching in area code and exchange, and the number, 201-644-5639, > is busy. How do I check what is wrong? That's a relatively local call from here. It answered, and performed as expected when I tried it this evening. But it is a bit out of date. It correctly identified the location of several local and out-of-town places I frequently call, but it had no audible response at all to 708-864. When I tried 312-864, it identified it as Evanston, IL, which was correct until a month ago or so. (But it pronounced it as 'eevanston ill'.) Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 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, 15 Mar 90 14:36:13 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy Today, March 15, the Bellcore number ("enter area code...enter exchange...") accepted my call, but treated all the prefixes I entered as non-existent (i.e., went right on to the next area code prompt). Later in the day I tried again, and I was able to use that service, punch-in and all. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #179 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26061; 17 Mar 90 13:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13724; 17 Mar 90 12:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11608; 17 Mar 90 11:19 CST Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 10:52:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: CLASS Phone Features BCC: Message-ID: <9003171053.ab07129@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Mar 90 10:50:00 CST Special: CLASS Phone Features Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CLASS Phone Features [Chris Ambler] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:13:56 -0800 From: Fubar Subject: CLASS Phone Features No. 1/1A ESS Div. 3, Sec. 1z(3) Corporate Software Standards Draft Issue 3/12/90 CUSTOM LOCAL AREA SIGNALING SERVICES (CLASS) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.01 GENERAL INFORMATION AT&T developed a set of 1A ESS revenue generating features called LASS (Local Area Signaling Services). Pacific Bell requested customized software enhancements for some of the features, and will refer to them as CLASS (Custom Local Area Signaling Services). Documentation may refer to either acronym. The CLASS features allow increased customer control of phone calls. Existing customer lines can be used to provide call management and security services. The primary basis of CLASS is that the terminating office can obtain the identity of the calling party. Special terminating treatment based on the identity of the calling party can then be provided. The CLASS features are dependent upon an SS/CCS (Signaling System 7/Common Channel Signaling) network and use the SS7 Call Management Mode of operation. SS7 is the next generation signaling system that features flexible message formatting, high speed data transmission (56/64 kbps) and digital technology. CCS is defined as a private network for transporting signaling messages. In the existing voice and signaling network, signaling and voice use the same path but cannot use it at the same time. With SS7, signaling and voice have been separated. Signaling (SS7) is over a high-speed data link which carries signaling for more than one trunk. Refer to Corporate Software Standards, Division 3, Sections 1z(1) and 1z(2) for more information on SS7/CCS. In the initial deployment, the CLASS features will only work on intraLATA calls that are originated from and terminated to switches that are SS7 capable. Although CLASS features will be marketed and sold under the Commstar Custom Calling Feature label, the features will not be available for Centrex and Commstar II customers initially. However, like the other Commstar features, most of the CLASS services can be added to existing telephone equipment and will work on Touch Tone or Rotary sets. The Tracking Code (TC) for installation, translation and trunk work associated with CLASS is 299. All time spent on CLASS should be coded to the TC in order to ensure proper time reporting. 1.02 REASON FOR ISSUANCE This document is being issued in order to incorporate Methods and Procedures with Corporate Software Standards for the CLASS features. Subsequent changes to this document will be noted with a (>). 1.03 DESCRIPTION Seven features, plus Number ID Blocking, Screen List Editing, and Line History are available with the initial deployment of CLASS in the 1A ESS. Pacific Bell renamed the AT&T features; Bellcore has their own feature names. Documentation may refer to any of the names as noted below. Pacific Bell AT&T BELLCORE ------------ ---- -------- Call Block Selective Call Selective Call Rejection (SCR) Rejection Call Return Automatic Callback Auto Recall (AC) Call Trace Customer Originated Customer Originated Trace (COT) Trace Number ID Individual Calling Calling Number Line ID (ICLID) Delivery Number ID Privacy Calling Number Blocking Delivery Block Priority Distinctive Alerting Distinctive Ringing/ Ringing (DA) Call Waiting Repeat Automatic Recall Auto Callback Dialing (AR) Select Call Selective Call Selective Call Forwarding Forwarding (SCF) Forwarding NOTE: Bulk Calling Line ID (BCLID) will not be offered with the initial deployment of CLASS features. Following is a brief description of the CLASS features as well as Line History and Screen List Editing. CALL BLOCK The Call Block feature allows the customer to not receive, or block, calls from a pre-specified list of telephone numbers. The telephone numbers are placed on a Call Block Customer's Screening List. When the calling telephone number matches a number on the screening list, the calling party receives a rejection announcement. The customer blocking the calls (called number) does not receive any indication that a call was made. Activation Code: *60 Deactivation Code: *80 CALL RETURN When activated, the Call Return feature initiates a call to the last telephone number who called the subscriber. If the calling number is idle, the call completes immediately. If the calling number is busy, the request is queued until the line is idle or he request times out. This feature can be used to re-establish a previous incoming call, or to contact a party who called while the customer was unavailable. Activation Code: *69 Deactivation Code: *89 CALL TRACE Call Trace allows the called party to initialize an automatic trace of the last incoming call received. When the customer activates a trace, a message containing the following information is output to the SCC Maintenance Channel: 1. Time the trace was activated 2. DN of the calling party 3. MLHG/multiline indicator 4. DN and LEN of the customer requesting the trace 5. Date and time of the TTY message 6. Date and time the call being traced was received 7. Privacy Indicator 8. CWT Indicator Activation Code: *57 No Deactivation Code required LINE HISTORY Line History provides memory to store the Last Call Directory Number (LCDN), service routines to access the memory and logic to retrieve the LCDNs. Only the LCDN of the most recent originating and terminating call is saved. A permanent Line History Block is maintained for each line in a CLASS office. The LCDN is used in all CLASS features. NUMBER ID The Number ID feature enables the customer to identify the calling party before the call is answered. After the first ring, the calling party's DN is displayed on customer premises equipment (CPE). When the calling party's location is not CLASS equipped, or their telephone call is marked private, a code will be appear on the CPE display (e.g. '000-0000' or 'private' or 'out-of-area'); the display is up to the CPE vendor. No Activation/Deactivation Codes are required. NUMBER Number ID Blocking allows a customer to ID make their telephone number private on a BLOCKING per call basis by dialing an activation code prior to the called number. The term 'private' means that although the calling number is sent to the far end, it is marked private so that there will be no ICLID display of the number; the calling number can still be traced using Call Trace and can also be added to screen lists. This capability is available to all customers in a 1A ESS switch that has CLASS, whether or not they have the Number ID feature. Activation Code: *67 PRIORITY This feature provides a distinctive ring RINGING to the subscriber when incoming calls originate from telephone numbers pre-defined on a Priority Ringing List. When the customer with Priority Ringing receives a call and the calling number is on the list, the called party receives: Special ringing tone if the called number is idle, or If the called customer has Call Waiting and is on a call, they will receive a special tone indicating that a number on their Priority Ringing List is trying to reach them. Activation Code: *61 Deactivation Code: *81 REPEAT Upon activation, Repeat Dialing DIALING automatically redials the last otgoing call dialed from the subscriber's line. It does not matter whether the last call dialed from the customer's line was busy or idle, answered or unanswered. Repeat Dialing is available to POTS and multiline hunt customers as long as the ring back can be directed to a particular number on a unique LEN. If a call cannot be completed immediately due to a busy line, the customer receives a confirmation tone, the call is queued and recall completion is attempted when both parties are idle. The customer with Repeat Dialing receives ring-back ringing (2 short 1 long within six seconds) and upon answering the called party receives regular ringing. Once Repeat Dialing has been activated, the busy/idle status of the called and calling lines is checked every 45 seconds for 30 minutes. Activation Code: *66 Deactivation Code: *86 SCREEN LIST Screen List Editing allows subscribers to EDITING build and change the lists of telephone numbers associated with the Call Block, Select Call Forwarding and Priority Ringing CLASS features. When editing, the subscriber may also hear the entries on the list and obtain instructions. A screening list is activated when it is initially created during feature activation. When the screening list is active and has at least one number on it, the corresponding feature is on. An individual list of DNs is required for each feature that uses screening lists and is associated with the customer's line. SELECT CALL This feature automatically forwards FORWARDING incoming calls from telephone numbers that have been pre-defined on the subscriber's Select Forwarding List. Select Call Forwarding is totally independent from Call Forwarding Variable. Separate activations and 'forward to' numbers will be required. Both features may be activated simultaneously. Activation Code: *63 Deactivation Code: *83 NOTE: On Rotary sets, the '*' is replaced with '11' on all activation/deactivation codes. ------------------------------------------------------ Sig: ++Christopher(); | Fubar Systems BBS Internet: cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu | (805) 544-9234 3/12/24 8-N-1 Also: chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us | finger cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu Bix: cambler | Home of the 13K .plan (and growing) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: CLASS Phone Features ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09010; 18 Mar 90 11:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27557; 18 Mar 90 9:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08989; 18 Mar 90 8:28 CST Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 8:25:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #180 BCC: Message-ID: <9003180825.ab16113@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:25:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 180 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Canada's ALEX [Doug Eastick] Re: London 071, 081 Split [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Leonard P. Levine] Re: Can This Be True? [Amitabh Shah] Re: One More Horror Story [Len Jaffe] Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [John David Galt] Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Roy Smith] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Herman R. Silbiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Eastick Subject: Re: Bell Canada's ALEX Reply-To: eastick@me.utoronto.ca Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 23:58:59 EST [From ont.general: Bell Canada put a flyer in three major papers on Wednesday promoting their new service, ALEX.] dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman|LSUC|Toronto) writes: >Does Bell really have a lot of service providers signed up? >I note also it's "subject to CRTC approval". >Anyone have the inside scoop? I don't have an inside scoop, but last fall I participated in part of the market research for it (and got $50 for 2 hours of my time). They say the thing plugs into your phone jack (didn't say if it was the existing one, or a new one). About 40 of us (between 20-40 years of age) sat in a lecture-type room and a real slick guy gave us a presentation. They had two TV's, a videodisc player, and a Mac with a joystick. The Mac controlled the videodisc and thus the video. The laptop model shown in the ads looks more practical. Concept we were shown was this: - use the joystick to pick things off a main menu: Banking, Games, Real Estate, Shopping, Movie Rental, News Headlines - For banking you select your Bank (we were told ours was CIBC), and a list of pending bills, with due dates, pops up (Rogers, Bell, Gas). Pick and point to the bills you want to pay, and presto, it's sucked out of your account. He said Rogers and Bell would submit their electronic invoices to the "main computer". Oh ya, you needed to enter a secret code, and if you needed HUMAN help, you could hit a button talk to a Customer Service-like person, real-time. - Headlines involved the top headlines from various networks. We got to watch bits of ABC News Nightline. This was quite irritating to watch because the refresh rate was about twice a second. Ted Koppel's mouth looks quite funny in freeze frame. On the bottom of the screen, while he was reading the "grabber" for the story, menu subtopics appeared such as background info on the Labor Union (if the story was about a labor union). The idea of "only watching what you want more of" is a good one (like NN's Subject menu) but the picture really sucks. I'd wait for ISDN :-). - Real estate: a cross between the freeze-frame things on Rogers at present, and the News coverage described above. You could also hit the magic button and talk to a live Realtor. - Movie Rental: previews of movies (at the bad refresh rate), and ordering. Use VISA/MC to pay, and they guarantee 30 minute delivery (ya right). - Grocery Shopping involved "walking" thru the aisles and picking your products. Products on sale we shown first (Maxwell House Coffee) then you could click to other brands. Something like 3 hour delivery. I picture a small warehouse with lots of little people running around, bagging your order :-). - Storytelling. This one really got me steamed. If your child wants to hear a bedtime story, you can pick a story from a menu and THE ACTUAL AUTHOR will read the story to him/her. It was a good idea, but I figure if you've got the time to click a few buttons, you should have time to sit down with your kid and read. - Video games. This was slightly interessting, and I know the D&D CS types will get a kick out of it. You can "sign up" to play a game and if someone wants to play you they will notify you to come to your terminal and challenge them. We played 4x4 truck racing (I should say, the videodisc showed us it). We didn't actually play with anything, we just answered questions. I wouldn't pay for any of it, but by the support some of the other people in the group gave it, it might work. Comments I can remember: "Can you order beer?" - no "It'll make us a nation of couch potatoes" "It's great, you don't have to leave your house for anything" "F*ck, those games are bitchin" (same guy as the beer question) "Good for the disabled who can't get out that often" "I prefer to pick out my own produce at the grocery store" "Do you have to push the button after you move the stick?" If anyone orders ALEX, please let me know what it's really like. Thanks. Doug Eastick -- eastick@me.utoronto.ca ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split Date: 17 Mar 90 05:28:59 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <5138@accuvax.nwu.edu> levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes: >However, when I tried MCI, the recording >informed me that I did not have to dial "0" after the country code If they know exactly what you have dialed wrong, why don't they just put the call through? ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers Date: 17 Mar 90 05:59:50 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <5181@accuvax.nwu.edu> bukys@cs.rochester.edu writes: >I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for >long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or >not. The University has a ROLM phone system internally. It does >"least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers. A lot of these problems stems from the fact that telcos will normally refuse to give answer supervision except to real carriers. I have never quite understood why. What do they have to lose by providing it? But since they will not provide any indication of when a called number has answered, most private telephone systems have no choice but to establish a time period, after which, they assume the call has been answered. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: (011)+81-3-237-5867 Voice Mail: (011)+81-3-222-8429 ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta Date: 15 Mar 90 19:50:03 GMT Reply-To: len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu > Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed > before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have > many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary > in the Nineties. Even Milwaukee has had a small (6 station) office space with RJ-11 connectors available to the public, and has had one for more than a year now. If you ask any airport person, they will guide you to it. + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Leonard P. Levine e-mail len@cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:04:43 -0500 From: Amitabh Shah In article <5130@accuvax.nwu.edu> rp@xn.ll.mit.edu (Richard Pavelle) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 10 of 10 > I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told > me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a > paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance > calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe > the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to > complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. > Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor > that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world? I have done similar things in my childhood too ;-). The public phones in India (at least in Bombay, where I lived) were designed so that one made a call and only after hearing the called party come on line, you put in the coins. We used to do two things: 1. On some sets, it was possible to communicate using ONLY THE EARPIECE, not the mouthpiece, without using any coins. So you first instruct your mom to speak slowly, and not immediately. Then you alternate between hearing thru' the earpiece, and then speaking thru' it. It really worked. It was easy to get caught doing this, and I was indeed caught once by our school principal's wife. 2. Some very old Indian coins were doughnut-shaped (well, flat doughnuts) - with a hole in the middle. If you had such a coin, then you could tie a string to it and drop it in to complete the connection. Pull it out later when you're done. Ah, those were the days!! Amitabh Shah shah@cs.cornell.edu--(INTERNET) Dept. of Computer Science { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP) Upson Hall -- Cornell University (607) 255-8597---------(OFFICE) Ithaca NY 14853-7501 (607) 257-7717-----------(HOME) ------------------------------ From: Len Jaffe Subject: Re: One More Horror Story Reply-To: Len Jaffe Organization: Kent State University Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 20:10:26 GMT In article <5124@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Robert Kaplan) writes: [College phone horror story...] Let me tell you about the phones at Kent State. I lived in a dorm made up exclusivly of 4 person suites. Each suite had a phone and every 2 suites shared a bathroom. This maent 8 peolple with access to two phones. Ohio Bell would non-randomly assign the phone to one resident of the suite. This lucky individual would be the person with the lowest social security number. I'm originally from New York State so my SSN begins with a zero and all my roommates' SSNs began with a 2 so the phone would always be assigned to me. The phones are rotary. There are no individual codes to protect people from someone using the phone for which you are responsible to call Germany after his phone gets shut off for not paying the $500.00 he has already racked up. Don't laugh! It happened to one of my closest friends. The billing office's attitude has always been, "The phone is in your name, so it's your responsibility." I have been called by collection agencies and had my credit rating threatened over calls I did not make, calls by people who did not live with me. Thanks for letting me let off this steam, it has been building since 1984. Leonard A. Jaffe || "Who needs information?" Telotech, Inc. /\ - Roger Waters 23775 Commerce Park Rd. \/ "It ain't easy being cheesey." Beachwood, Ohio 44122 || - Chester Cheetah Uucp: ...!uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!telotech!lenj Phone: (216) 591-0240 I don't speak for Telotech and They'll probably never let me. ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted Date: Sat, 17-Mar-90 12:11:21 PST In the USA, the only case where timing must be considered is when the first digit you dial is 0. The zero could be the whole number. What follows is the rest of the scheme, which allows ALL other cases to be distinguished by their initial digits (usually the first two, but sometimes as many as nine). Here are the "old" and "new" systems as best I understand them. At present a few crowded area codes use the "new" system and the rest use the "old." I predict that in a few years all of USA + Canada + carribean will have to go to the "new" system, because we will have run out of area codes possible under the "old" system. (Under the old system an area code must have first digit in range 2-9, second 0-1, third any. New system allows second digit to be any, so the set of possible codes increases by a factor of five!) Old system: First digit 0, second 0 = long distance operator "00", total length = 2. First digit 0, second 1 = International call. This case IS ambiguous, but the ambiguity is not a result of the US system, and you can tell the network you are done by hitting "#" at the end. First digit 0, second 2-9 = Operator assisted call. Ignore the initial zero for purposes of determining length. First digit 1, second 0 = First five digits are a company code, then figure the total length as if the company code were omitted. First digit 1, second 1 = Special function, length set by local phone co. (For example, "1170" turns off my Call Waiting.) First digit 1, second 2-9 = The initial "1" is ignored, figure the length using the rest. First digit 2-9, second 0 = Area code + number, total length = 10 First digit 2-9, second 1 = Check third digit to catch the special cases 411, 611, and 911 (total length = 3). Otherwise it is area code + number = 10. First digit 2-9, second 2-9 = Local number, total length = 7 New system: First digit 0, second 0 = same as old system First digit 0, second 1 = same as old system First digit 0, second 2-9 = 0 + area code + number, total length = 11. (Yes, the new system requires the area code on operator assisted calls to your own area code. Los Angeles does not yet have this but San Francisco does.) First digit 1, second 0 = same as old system First digit 1, second 1 = same as old system First digit 1, second 2-9 = 1 + area code + number, total length = 11 First digit 2-9 = Check second and third digits to catch the special cases 411, 611, and 911 (total length = 3). Otherwise local number, total length = 7 Also, for those of you who aren't from here and haven't heard: California will soon have TWELVE area codes! The new ones are 510 (effective 10/7/91, covers the East Bay section of what is now 415) and 310 (2/1/92, western Los Angeles County). Have a phone time! :) ---> John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com (There IS no save vs. puns! Ahhahahaha!) ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:47:29 GMT In <5259@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Robert Kaplan) writes: > from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522. Naturally any number of > people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system reads as 6475. It works the other way too (sounds like deja vu, doesn't it). Some years ago, we had a data line put in at work (must have been around 1980 or so; when having a 212A data set meant all sorts of fuss to install a special line with an RJ-45-somethingorother with an exclusion key phone, etc). It was the only phone in the place where you didn't have to dial 9 to get an outside line. People often forgot that, and would dial 9-xxx-yyy-zzzz and get connected to 9xx-xyy-yzzz. This was before the days of dial 1 for long distance, so the call would go through to some random long distance number. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 17 Mar 90 22:50:13 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter. This counter will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the end of the month. By the way, a non-trivial fraction of your cost of telephone service, both local area and inter-LATA, is due to the cost of billing. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #180 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10914; 18 Mar 90 12:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09332; 18 Mar 90 10:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27557; 18 Mar 90 9:35 CST Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 9:20:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #181 BCC: Message-ID: <9003180920.ab03610@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Mar 90 09:20:10 CST Volume 10 : Issue 181 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones [Jim Rees] Re: Name That Undersea Cable [Jim Thompson] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Bob Breum] Re: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature [Dave Levenson] Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Dave Levenson] Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Jim Thompson] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Amitabh Shah] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Jim Thompson] Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Carl Moore] Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Jeff Wolfe] Re: The Assignment From Hell [Curtis Abrue] Merlin Cordless Phone [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rees@dabo.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 19:02:45 GMT In article <5170@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > I bought two re-conditioned Western Electric Trimline (r) rotary > phones a while back from an AT&T Phone Store -- love that old > technology :) . They both have a distortion problem when speaking in > a normal voice or louder. My guess is overmodulation. Is there a way > to cure this, perhaps by reducing the gain somehow? I love that old technology too. If it were a modern phone you'd have to take it apart, unsolder wires, buy an expensive replacement part, etc. But if it really is an old WE unit, the problem most likely is that the carbon granules have started to stick together, which they do when they get old. The cure is simple and requires no dissassembly or fancy test equipment. Grasp the handset firmly by the earpiece end and bang the mouthpiece end hard against a hard surface, like a desktop (no, not your electronic desktop! The old wooden kind). This will unstick (decohere for all you old radio technology fans) the grains and improve the sound quality. ------------------------------ From: jthomp@hosaka.Central.Sun.COM (Jim Thompson) Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable Date: 18 Mar 90 07:46:25 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Responding to John R. Levine's question, "Name That Undersea Cable," posted Thu, 1 Mar 90: >.." Two blocks south of my house, at each end of the street (east and >west ends, that is) there are large AT&T signs warning us that there >is a buried transcontinental cable and awful things will happen to >anyone who digs without talking to them first. Since the only thing >to the east is the ocean, I presume this is one of the transatlantic >cables. Anybody have an idea which one?" There are several signs that say much the same thing ('transcontinental' even!) running up the street outside where I work/live. (No, I don't live at work, usually.) I'm in Dallas, Tx. No ocean. Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems - jthomp@central.sun.com Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY) "Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest." -Jenny Holzer ------------------------------ From: Bob Breum Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 17 Mar 90 21:18:44 GMT Organization: kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? >I doubt that this lash-up is illegal anywhere in the U.S. It's >probably not worth the trouble to really find out. If you think about >it for a few minutes, there are a couple of other (better) ways to >accomplish the same thing. Redialers or call diverters are available >on the open market that will do what you want without the added cost >of the modems. >If the intermediate office in your example has call forwarding >available, it will also accomplish the same thing using only one line >instead of two. The drawback of the above two options is that you are >locked into a single terminating number to call. Guess your modem >option would allow you some flexibility. The cost of two lines and >two modems seems a pretty high price to pay to avoid paying the >short-haul toll charges. There's a better answer. I have used a device which allows you to reprogram the call forwarding number remotely to accomplish this same purpose. My home is a long distance call from my newsfeed in Orlando (and most of the commercial online service access numbers). My mother's house is roughly halfway between, and is a local phone call from either site. I had an extra phone line installed in her attic, billed to me at a rate of $17.02/month for unlimited local calls and call forwarding. Previous to this, I had a special calling plan which allowed me to call Orlando for the discounted rate of $ 0.13/minute. Forwarding my calls through the intermediate number saves me hundreds of dolllars a month in LD charges. The Remote Phone Forwarder (mfgd. by Cynex in N.J.) device is programmed by means of the following sequence: assuming that the phone line is already forwarded, you must first dial the intermediate site and let it ring once or more. Although the C.O. will, of course, forward your call as programmed, it also rings the intermediate site once to "remind" it that its phone has been forwarded. This alerts the Remote Phone Forwarder that you may wish to alter its programming. It then goes offhook and disables call forwarding. It waits thirty seconds or so for you to call back and reprogram it using touchtones and a two-digit security code. If no call is received, or if the reprogramming attempt fails, it redials the C.O. and reestablishes the previously programmed call forwarding. This process is cumbersome, and does not lend itself to frequent programming changes. It is also offensive if used for voice calls, as you must ring the forwarded number again to alter its programming. It has, however, served very well in my data application. I note that Mr. Townson has repeatedly poo-poohed this idea on account of metered local phone service. I've lived in at least eight different service areas around the southern and midwestern U.S., and I've never encountered metered local service. I have seen a similar concept offered, where you are allowed a handful of free local calls monthly, after which you pay so much _per call,_ not per minute, for which you pay a reduced monthly rate. I'm not disputing the existence of metered local service; I merely question Mr. Townson's perception of its ubiquity. Bob Breum uunet!tarpit >---v--< petsd 1701 Missouri Avenue hoptoad >---| Sanford, FL 32771-9722 USA ucf-cs >---+-----------------> !peora!cmpfen!bob +1 407 322-2002 uiucuxc >---' [Moderator's Note: If unmetered, local talk-as-long-as-you-like service is available, then of course this method works well. But in many of the larger metro areas, unmetered calling is becoming very rare. Even in Chicago, where very limited free local calling is available to *residence lines*, stringing together a series of call-forwarded lines to defeat the meter is tenuous at best. If it works in your community, great! PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature Date: 18 Mar 90 02:58:54 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <5146@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Steve Elias) writes: > I saw a TV ad in NJ this weekend for a "repeat dial" service available > from the local telco. Does anyone know anything about this service??? Repeat*Call service is part of a package of custom calling services offered by NJ Bell under the service mark CLASS. With this service, if you call a busy number, you then hang up, go off-hook, dial a feature-activation code, and hang up again. When the number you previously dialed becomes not-busy, if your line is not-busy, you get a call back. If you answer, then that number gets called, and you get connected. While waiting, you may make or receive other calls. (The CO isn't really repeatedly re-trying, as the name suggests. It actually requests that the distant central office send notification when the status of the called number changes.) Note that the number you called must be within your LATA, and must be served by a central office equipped for CLASS services. If these two requirements are not met, you are given a recorded message in response to your feature-activation code, and you receive no call-back. Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 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: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have Date: 18 Mar 90 03:05:25 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <5201@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tneff%bfmny0@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) writes: > (Actually, this is a classic case of monopoly despotism. In a free > market, the issue would be decided by consumer choice. If company A > charges for every off-hook, then company B can try to knock their > socks off in the marketplace by charging only for completed calls. I > suspect that in the US, at least, it'd be a winning strategy.) In the New York City area, there are two cellular telephone service providers. When the first system (known to cellular telephone users as service B) went on the air a few years ago, they charged for every call attempt, whether or not anyone answered. The competition (service A) which became active almost a year later charged only for completed calls. Apparently, Tom Neff is correct. Today, both companies charge only for completed calls. Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 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: Sun, 18 Mar 90 04:02:12 CST From: Jim Thompson Subject: Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. Oh, I don't know, try it yourself: (You'll have to add support for the '*' -> '.' and '#' -> ' ' mapping.) Jim -------- foneno.c ------- char buf[64]; main(argc, argv) char **argv; { while (*++argv) digit(*argv, buf); } digit(str, p) char *str, *p; { int i; if (!*str) { puts(buf); return; } for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { *p = "000111ABCdEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXY"[((*str - '0') * 3) + i]; digit(str + 1, p + 1); } } ------------------------ Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems - jthomp@central.sun.com Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY) "Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest." -Jenny Holzer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:16:07 EST From: Amitabh Shah Reply-To: shah@cs.cornell.edu Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Organization: Cornell University Computer Science Department This is what happened to a friend of mine (actually, my XSO) in India. On a Sunday, they started getting a call every hour or so starting at 8:00 am. The caller would ask "Is Yusuf there?" Despite being told persistently that the caller had a wrong number, this wouldn't stop. It was the same caller again and again. It happened about 10-12 times and then stopped in the evening. Later around 1:00 am that night, they get this call with a different voice: "Hi. This is Yusuf. Are there any messages for me?" It may have been one of their friends playing a practical joke, but to this day, they haven't figured out who. Amitabh Shah shah@cs.cornell.edu--(INTERNET) Dept. of Computer Science { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP) Upson Hall -- Cornell University (607) 255-8597---------(OFFICE) Ithaca NY 14853-7501 (607) 257-7717-----------(HOME) [Moderator's Note: Come on! This routine is as old as the hills! Jack Benny used this on his radio show several times; and I think he got it from Bob Hope. We were pulling this on neighbors and school teachers we did not like when I was 10 years old; having gotten the idea from listening to Jack Benny on Sunday nights. Despite how old it is, it is still good for a laugh. PT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Thompson Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Date: 18 Mar 90 09:48:30 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. I might as well add to this thread. My (current) number is one digit (3, instead of 2) away from the Garland City Jail (even though I live miles from The Land of Gar). I get an incredible number of 3am "Do you have my husband there?" calls. I find that repeating the correct number back to the calling party, along with a friendly admonishment about their mis-dial eliminates the 'Persistant' caller. Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems - jthomp@central.sun.com Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY) "Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest." -Jenny Holzer [Moderator's Note: I can think of all sorts of perfectly awful ways to handle these calls, but I am not interested in breaking up a family and causing a divorce, etc. :) PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 16:37:38 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) Response I sent to Jeff Wolfe : Where are you that you dial 1+7D for a town less than 7 miles from home, but have 7D for a town 20 miles from home? My residence phone in Newark, Del. has lopsided local calling. I can call (local) all of New Castle County except for the little fringe next door to Smyrna at Kent County line, and also 2 exchanges in southern Chester County, Pa. But Maryland, maybe only 2 or 3 miles away to the west (and the next-door exchange in that direction), is 11-digit long distance (inter-LATA). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 23:44 EST From: Jeff Wolfe Subject: Re: lopsided local calling area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) I live in Dalton, Pennsylvania. A case in point: Dalton, Pa. (where I live) our prefix is 563 Lake Winloa, Pa. (7 miles from my house) Prefix is 378 Dunmore, Pa. (where I attend Penn State) Prefix is 961 I don't know why the boundaries are like this, but they are. -Jeff Ps. Our Tele Co is Commenwealth Telephone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 11:28 EST From: Curtis Abrue <0002788283@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: The Assignment From Hell I can probably assist you in quickly getting long distance charges on MCI. Call me during business hours at 202-887-2907. Some of your questions need to be handled by a sales rep but most of them can be handled by me. Curtis Abrue MCI ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 02:22:35 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Merlin Cordless Phone I just got a mailing from AT&T about the Merlin cordless the other day. The slick brochure explains that it has 5 line or function keys, as well as dedicated transfer and hold keys. Also, I thought it interesting that it has a message light. The funny part was in the letter: "Your competitors are doing everything they can to be more competitive." Yea, right. They're probably on their way to Radio Shack to buy a scanner. :-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #181 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12833; 19 Mar 90 1:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac28989; 18 Mar 90 23:46 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04379; 18 Mar 90 22:40 CST Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 21:56:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #182 BCC: Message-ID: <9003182156.ab01892@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Mar 90 21:55:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 182 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery? [Brian Kantor] Misinterpreted Numbers? [Peter A. Clitherow] TDD Emulator/Macintosh [Thomas Neudecker] Rating and Billing SW for *nix [Richard O'Rourke] Loud Signal Tones vs. Your Ears [J. Stephen Reed] FCC Rumors (We _Told_ You They Were False) [Chip Rosenthal] Another Request for Telecom News [Scott Fybush] Recall / Flash Hook [Tim Steele] New Sprint Bills [Ken Jongsma] Email Directory Being Compiled [Phil Smyth] Buying Telephone Gear [Steve Bellovin] Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Jeff Wolfe] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Kantor Subject: Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery? Date: 17 Mar 90 14:23:34 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. I received one of those "you may have already won" calls on my voice mail at work the other day (in fact, so did everyone else in the office!) that told me that all I had to do to find out I was a winner was to ring up their 900 number and they'd be happy to enter me in the contest. The call would cost me $10. (This one was a typical machine-delivered message, and if originated in California, was illegal since it did not start with a human asking me if I was willing to listen to the damn thing. Sounded like they hired some disk jocky to record it for them. In fact, the whole thing sounded like a radio contest.) Since there was no mention of any other way to enter the contest, does that make it a lottery and subject to all kinds of legal chastisement? I've seen other "dial 900 to enter" contests, such as on MTV, but the fine print always mentions that you can just send in a postcard and enter for free as well. - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 21:02:51 EST From: Peter A Clitherow Subject: Misinterpreted Numbers? I recently made a call from a COCOT outside an eatery in Key West (on South Beach, perhaps the southernmost payphone in the cont. US), which had no number listed on it - and had 10288+ dialling disabled. Upon receiving my ATT bill I was suprised to see a call listed from Orlando FL 407-423-xxxx, whereas presumably, the number was 305-423-xxxx. Whose DB was broken? Southern Bell?, ATT?, the company that installed the phone? Presumably this happened in 1988 when 305 split. I guess what I'm asking is what is sent to ATT - a logical phone number, or some physical identifier that has to be matched for billing purposes? If I call that number, will it ring in Orlando or Key West? pc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:22:50 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Neudecker Subject: TDD Emulator/Macintosh A while back some one posted a pointer to a TDD emulator for MS-Dos boxes (in the Simtel archieves). Would anyone know of a Macintosh version? Thanks, Tom Neudecker Carnegie Mellon ------------------------------ From: Richard O'Rourke Subject: Rating and Billing SW for *nix Date: 17 Mar 90 05:46:52 GMT Organization: Grass Root Systems, Burnaby, B.C., Canada I'm shopping for a call rating and billing software package to run on an AT&T 3b2 600 (or better). I need to rate 500K to 800K calls per month, spread across 8 billing cycles. Procuring a bigger and better machine is an option if the 3b2 won't get the job done. We do want to stay as close to *nix as possible. Thanks for any information you can provide. Richard O'Rourke - (604)436-1995 - Grass Root Systems uunet!van-bc!mplex!ror - ror@grassys.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 16:01 EST From: "J. Stephen Reed" <0002909785@mcimail.com> Subject: Loud Signal Tones vs. Your Ears An article in the [Chicago Tribune], Friday, March 16, noted an investigation by relevant Illinois state agencies into the three-tone pattern that is used to precede telco messages. It noted that this tone pattern is used hundreds of thousands of times per day; in the Chicago area, on the first day of the mandatory cutover to the 708 suburban area code, it was used 1.6 million times. Apparently these tones are about 116 decibels. This level plays havoc with anyone with sensitive hearing, and especially with those who have hearing impairments and use amplifiers on the line. Amplification can put these tones up in the range of a jet engine at 100 feet away. The article quoted a Bellcore spokesman to the effect that these tones were implemented a decade ago -- in pattern, tone, and loudness -- under an international agreement to make them standard worldwide, and that the loudness is necessary for some automated equipment to catch the existence of a telco message. The spokesman didn't promise early changes but said that possible changes would be investigated. Would anyone here from Bellcore care to amplify :-) on this for us? And what kind of equipment (for business, I presume) would make use of these tones? I know I have been bothered by them, and my hearing is far from bein weak or particularly sensitive. * * * Steve Reed -- Liberty Network, Ltd. -- P.O. Box 11296, Chicago, IL 60611 MCI Mail: 290-9785 (0002909785@mcimail.com) CompuServe: 74766,347 (74766.347@compuserve.com) "I do not believe in democracy, but I am perfectly willing to admit that it provides the only really amusing form of government ever endured by mankind." -- H.L. Mencken * * * ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: FCC Rumors (We _Told_ You They Were False) Date: 18 Mar 90 16:46:46 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!) The following message was posted by William Degnan to alt.cosuard. The rumour that the FCC was going to start BBS charges was pretty soundly debunked in Telecom as very old news resurfacing. Here is a pretty definitive answer that might be worth socking away for the next time this comes up... --- start of forwarded message --- * Original to All @ 1:0/0 in MDF * Forwarded Tue Mar 13 1990 00:05:06 by William Degnan @ 1:382/39 Just as the FCC has finally gotten around to responding to my Letter of Nov. 6, 1989 and my follow-up letter of Dec 15, 1989 -- I'm just getting around to entering their reply here. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Common Carrier Bureau Enforcement Division Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch Suite 6202 Washington, D.C. 20554 Feb. 23, 1990 In Reply Refer To: 63203 IC-90-00924 William S. Degnan Principal Consultant Communications Network Solutions P.O. Box 9530 Austin, Texas 78766-9530 Dear Mr. Degnan: Chairman Sikes asked this office to respond to your correspondence expressing concern about the rumor of Commission licensing requirement for computer bulletin board systems (BBS). It appears that you may be referring to the Commission's 1987 proposal to eliminate the exemption from interstate access charges currently permitted for enhanced service providers. As background, in its June 10, 1987 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 87-215, the Commission invited comment from interested members of the public on the issue of the access charge exemption for enhanced service providers. The Commission requested information on the types of services offered uner the enhanced service exemption, the configuration of those services, and the effect upon them in discontinuing the exemption. Our objective in this proceeding was to establish a set of rules that would permit the recovery of the costs of exchange access in a fair, reasonable and efficient manner from all users of access service, regardless of their designation as carrier, enhanced service provider or private customer. After analyzing and carefully considering the voluminous record filed in response to its proposal, the Commission released an Order on April 27, 1988, to terminate this proceeding. The record indicated that the enhanced services industry in in a unique period of rapid and substantial change because of a number of complex and interrelated factors. Enclosed is informational material concerning this matter. Thank you for your interest in this matter. Sincerely, /signed/ Sue Earlewine Carrier Analyst Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch Enforcement Division Common Carrier Bureau Enclosures --- end of forwarded message --- Chip Rosenthal | Yes, you're a happy man and you're chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG | a lucky man, but are you a smart Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | man? -David Bromberg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 19:34:39 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Another Request for Telecom News The story I'm working on for Brandeis' WBRS-FM and _The Justice_ has been delayed a week, so I'm posting a few more questions for knowledgeable readers: 1)What, if any, specific obligations does a university PBX operator have to the system's users? I was told by the director of Brandeis' phone system that the university can--and will--block *all* 0+ dialing from campus phones if abuse takes place. Can they legally do that? 2)What rights does New England Telephone (or any local telco) have to install a non-PBX line in my dorm room? ...in a student office? I suspect they would have no right to do this at all, and I'd like to know if there are any universities out there that do permit this. 3)Technical question: Anybody have experience with the Northern Telecom SL-1 switch or with the user hardware manufactured by NT? I've heard a lot of people here are disappointed with the quality of the equipment at the user end; on the other hand, the telecom officials here say they are extremely pleased with the reliability of the switch itself. My thanks to those who replied to the original posting. I'd like to ask anyone with responses to this to reply either by e-mail at kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu or by voice at (617)736-6327/6372/5277 for me or by voice at (617)736-3752/5598 for Ilene Rosenberg. If we could hear from you by Thursday, we'd greatly appreciate it. Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ From: Tim Steele Subject: Recall / Flash Hook Organization: Tadpole Technology plc Date: 17 Mar 90 12:25:00 To get the exchange back during a phone call, in the UK we use a 90ms line break called Timed Break Recall (for those of us lucky enough to have a modern exchange!). I gather you guys in the US use a 600ms line break called Flash Hook or something. Is this right? Tim tjfs@tadtec.uucp ..!uunet!mcvax!ukc!tadtec!tjfs Tadpole Technology plc, Titan House, Castle Park, CAMBRIDGE, CB3 0AY, UK Phone: +44-223-461000 Fax: +44-223-460727 Telex: TADTEC G ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: New Sprint Bills Date: Sat, 17-Mar-90 05:54:51 PST I just received by monthly residential Sprint bill. They've done a pretty impressive redesign. Consider the following: Page 1: Summary Page. Pretty much the same as before. Includes call activity totals, taxes and return receipt. Page 2: Fon Manager Lists total calls, minutes and charges by calling number or FON Card number. Tax breakdown by government unit. Page 3: Fon Manager Lists total calls, minutes and charges by intrastate, interstate and international. Lists minute analysis percentage and total by day, evening and night rates for both domestic and international calls. Lists the top five called cities, number of calls, number of minutes, total charges. Page 4+: Detail Page. Gives the usual itemized detail list by calling number. This is slick. I realize that most companies get this type of report (or should be getting this stuff) from their SDMR processor, but I've never seen it on a residential bill before. Since my residential bills rarely drop under $100, this is useful stuff. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 14:38 CET From: Phil_Smyth_EuroKom@eurokom.ie Subject: Email Directory Being Compiled Dear Sir / Madam, We here at EuroKom are endeavouring to build up a database of electronic mail addresses. If you wish us to place your E-mail address in the database please reply with the following information. - Your full name - The name of your organisation - The Country in which you are resident - Your EuroKom name (if any) - EC Programme Affiliation (if any) The information held in the database will be made available to all registered EuroKom users, so that they may contact people who are not EuroKom members. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. Yours sincerely, Phil Smyth EuroKom. ------------------------------ From: smb@ulysses.att.com Subject: Buying Telephone Gear Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 12:20:56 EST Can anyone suggest an address where I can buy a few ``66 blocks'' (the punch-down blocks), and a few short (4 foot) lengths of connectorized 25-pair cable? Preferably without needing a second mortgage? Please reply by mail. --Steve Bellovin smb@ulysses.att.com, att!ulysses!smb ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 18 Mar 1990 21:52:11 EST From: Jeff Wolfe Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) Somehow, my original post was truncated. Here is the fixed version: I live in Dalton, Pa. a town serviced by Commenweath Telephone Co. I have a few friends in the town of Lake Winola, Pa. 7 driving miles from my house. To call them, I must dial 1-378-xxxx. But, to call Penn State's Scranton Campus, where I attend school, I can simply dial 961-xxxx. Since Lake Winola is serviced by Commenwealth, and the PSU Scranton campus (and the rest of Scranton/Dunmore) is served by Bell Of Pa. I am at a loss to explain why the boundrys are the way they are. A call to Commenwealth's Customer service did not help, as the person I chatted with had no idea how the boundrys were laid down. Is this a standard occurance? Or am I just lucky? Jeff Wolfe JTW106@psuvm.psu.edu RelayNet node: Outer JTW106@psuvm.BITNET BBS (717)563-1279 HST ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #182 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19805; 19 Mar 90 3:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32130; 19 Mar 90 1:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05077; 19 Mar 90 0:46 CST Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 0:00:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #183 BCC: Message-ID: <9003190000.ab32234@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Mar 90 00:00:31 CST Volume 10 : Issue 183 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, etc [Dave Levenson] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Steven King] Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [David Tamkin] Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Bill Fenner] Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Bill Fenner] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Miguel Cruz] Re: Research Paper on Telecommunications in China [Ernie Bokkelkamp] What is LOD and PHRACK? [@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:ins_bac@jhunix.bitnet] Explain These Acronyms [@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:ins_bac@jhunix.bitnet] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls Date: 18 Mar 90 17:30:11 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <5216@accuvax.nwu.edu>, roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: ... > Now, the unlisted and collect story. We're getting involved > in a legal situation. The details are not important, other than the > telecom part. We will be placing ads in newspapers soliciting > information that may be helpful to us from anybody who might know > anything and happen to see the ad. These people are not supposed to > know who they are calling (other than my first name), and may be > reluctant to call at all, so the ad urges them to call collect... If people call you collect, then they are giving you their first name, as well as their phone number (which appears on your bill when you accept the collect call). Do you expect people to call without knowing who you are when they know that you know who they are? Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857 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: Steven King Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos Date: 19 Mar 90 00:57:43 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL And here's my obligatory Persistent Wrong Number horror story: A few years back, I was running a BBS out of my dorm room. For various reasons, I shut it down after only three months. Within that period of time, it seems some helpful person listed my board on a national service (I think it was Compu$erve, but I can't say for sure). Middle-of-the-night calls were a common occurrance through the rest of the school year; as a matter of course I started shutting the ringer off at night. How do I know calls persisted? I sometimes forgot to hit the switch before I went to bed... :-( I curse the Commodore engineer who decided their modems should generate carrier in ORIGINATE mode without first checking for an answering carrier! A friend of mine was running a board out of his dorm room, too. His was up for several years, and was quite popular. When he graduated he recommended that the phone number be retired for a while, for the sanity of the next occupants of the room. The university didn't listen to him. I hear that the new occupants were quite mystified (and upset!) over strange calls at all hours of the night, with either silence or a weird squealing on the other end of the line. I think they finally got the number changed. If there's a byte of data in the computer but no | Steve King (708) 991-8056 pointer is pointing to it, then it isn't really | ...uunet!motcid!king there. | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 15:58:34 CST In <5259@accuvax.nwu.edu> Scott Fybush had written: > from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522. Naturally any number of > people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system reads as 6475. Roy Smith responded in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 180: | It works the other way too (sounds like deja vu, doesn't it). | Some years ago, we had a data line put in at work (must have been | around 1980 or so). It was the only phone in the place where you | didn't have to dial 9 to get an outside line. People often forgot | that, and would dial 9-xxx-yyy-zzzz and get connected to 9xx-xyy-yzzz. | This was before the days of dial 1 for long distance, so the call | would go through to some random long distance number. That doesn't quite add up. The only way 9xx-xyy-yzzz would have reached another area code (if that's what Roy meant by saying "long distance" and showing ten digits) is if the first x was 1 or 0. Since no area code begins with 1 or 0, how could anyone who put an unnecessary 9 in front be trying to call 9-1xx-yyy-zzzz or 9-0xx-yyy-zzzz? Maybe if you had eight-digit intra-NPA toll dialing there, people were trying to dial 9-1-Nyy-zzzz and dialing to area code 91N but never completing a call because there were only six more digits; if N was a 7 (or a 2 before Georgia was split), the area code was invalid so the call still got nowhere for a different reason. Somehow, though, I find it hard to accept that any area has *ever* had eight-digit intra-NPA toll dialing and ten-digit inter-NPA dialing at any time in history. Now, let's say that the person was trying to place an operator-assisted call with 0+ and dialed an unnecessary 9. 9-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX, where the area code didn't begin with 8 or 9; if 903 had already been changed to 706, didn't begin with 3; or if 904 had not yet been split from 305, didn't begin with 4. But all area codes to date are N[0/1]X; the P would be 0 or 1 and thus could not begin a valid prefix in area code 90N. Again, no call completed. Next, maybe the person thought 1+ was needed before calls outside the area code. We still run into the same problem with the P digit as in the preceding paragraph; if N is 7 (or 2 before Georgia was split) we don't even get a valid area code. [I did just see a newspaper ad where a number in Itasca, Illinois, was printed as (708) 150-XXXX, but I honestly believe that the way it was printed won't work. It must have been a typo for Itasca prefix 250 or, if that part of Itasca has Bensenville service, for 350.] Now suppose the person dialing the extraneous 9 was trying to place a ten-digit call to another NPA. 9-N[0/1]X-yyy-zzzz. The N was never 0 or 1, so the call got placed to a local number, 9N[0/1]-Xyyy, assuming 9N[0/1] was a valid prefix reachable with seven digits. I can believe that, but the result would be an intra-NPA call. Finally, let's say the person was trying to reach local number NNX-zzzz. (Ten-digit dialing to other area codes is a good indicator that there were no N[0/1]X prefixes nearby.) Dialing an extra 9 sends the call to 9NN-Xzzz; again, it doesn't get out of the area code. I just don't see how adding a 9 in front of a valid dialing sequence can reach a valid inter-NPA number until we go to NXX area codes. Roy, I think you remembered it wrong. There must have been a lot of wrong numbers, some of which might have been inter-LATA, but none of which were inter-NPA. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs Date: 18 Mar 90 23:19:01 GMT Reply-To: Bill Fenner Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University In article <5259@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Robert Kaplan) writes: |Seems to me that if I were assigning numbers here, I would shy away |from using ones whose first three digits were the same as the local |CO's exchanges, namely 647, 890, 891, 893, 894, 897, and 899. And in |fact, no numbers of the form 89xx are used on our phone system. Would |it have been that complicated to not use 647x either? PSU's PBX requires you to dial the last 5 digits of the phone number. PSU's exchanges are 862-, 863-, and 865-, so PSU phone numbers dialled from on campus start with 2-, 3-, and 5-. Now State College, the surrounding town, has exchanges 231,234,237,238,353,355,359. This presents a lot of collisions, but it seems that so far the namespace is so large that there are no 862-3xxx or 863-5xxx numbers assigned. One confusing thing is that State College recently added another exchange, 867. Dialing instructions can no longer say "Drop the 86", because 7-xxxx from on campus gets you nowhere. Another wonderiffic thing about the PSU phone system is the recent addition of 911 emergency calling. Now, the off-campus local-call prefix used to be 9. In offices (863 and 865), off-campus toll-calls would be prefixed with 8, while in the dorms (862) it would be 91. (10xxx worked from the dorms but not from offices.) Starting on the second of March, at 5:30 pm, all off-campus calls were to be prefixed with 8. The only call you could dial starting with 9 is now 911. If you attempt to dial an off-campus number with 9 now, you get a bored-sounding OTC (Office of TeleCommunications) employee saying "You have dialed 9 for an off-campus number. It is now necessary to dial 8 before these calls. Please refer to your centrex users guide for further information." You get intercepted to this recording after dialing the prefix (I.E. 9-234 - recording.) If they can do this, I don't see why tthey couldn't just keep 9 as the access code. Maybe to reduce accidental 911 calls. Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ [Moderator's Note: In addition to his sysoping duties at Heart of Gold (hog) BBS, Mr. Fenner maintains a Fido/Telecom Digest gateway service. Mail to 'Telecom Digest 1:129/87' from any Fido BBS is forwarded here to the Digest automatically. Thanks Bill! PT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy Date: 18 Mar 90 23:24:07 GMT Reply-To: Bill Fenner Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University In article <5271@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: |Today, March 15, the Bellcore number ("enter area code...enter |exchange...") accepted my call, but treated all the prefixes I |entered as non-existent (i.e., went right on to the next area code |prompt). Later in the day I tried again, and I was able to use that |service, punch-in and all. I just tried it, and all the local exchanges I tried, those belonging to PSU, local towns, and State College, all got "State cllg, paw." Wonderful text-to-speech, there... even my Radio Shack pair of voice synthesis chips does better than that. Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 13:53:06 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Jim Gottlieb writes: > A lot of these problems stems from the fact that telcos will normally > refuse to give answer supervision except to real carriers. I have > never quite understood why. What do they have to lose by providing > it? > But since they will not provide any indication of when a called number > has answered, most private telephone systems have no choice but to > establish a time period, after which, they assume the call has been > answered. The University of Michigan's otherwise inept phone system (medium to large, phone number range covers around 40,000 #'s, but I don't know how many are actually in use) has had answer supervision from Michigan Bell for about a year. I noticed accidentally when I flashed before a call was answered and I didn't get a second dial tone. But I tested and sure enough, it works. That's good, I guess, from the phone company (UMTel) that didn't recognize standard touch tones properly for its first three years of existence. Also, come to think of it, the phone company that for years let anyone place free, unbilled calls to anywhere in the world from any phone, including public courtesy phones, by prefacing the call with the obscure (yeah, right) sequence '15'. Miguel Cruz Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu [>- Opinions? Bah. These are FACTS. -<] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 19:14:00 EDT From: Ernie Bokkelkamp Subject: Re: Research Paper on Telecommunications in China On 20 Feb 1990 22:09, umgeary0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (1:105/42) wrote: uc>I am currently writing a research paper on Telecommunications in uc>China. In particular I am looking for information on technology uc>transfer existing communication facilities, planned facilities uc>If you know of any primary or secondary sources which would uc>assist me in this paper I would appreciate email. I would suggest you contact SIEMENS AG, Dept Oe V, in Muenchen, West Germany for information as this organisation is involved in China with the installation of EWSD digital exchanges. The full address is: SIEMENS AG, Public Switching Systems, Hofmannstrasse 51, Postfach 70 00 73, D-8000 Muenchen, West Germany. Regards, Ernie Bokkelkamp Fido: 5:491/22 (SysOP) & 5:491/1 EWSD System Design Authority Akom-BS200: EBOK Region: LgRsa TD / ISDN Pilot Project Voice: +27 12 2251111 / +27 12 451071 PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa *** Standard disclaimer applies *** Ernie Bokkelkamp via The Heart of Gold UUCP<>Fidonet Gateway, 1:129/87 UUCP: ...!{lll-winken,psuvax1}!psuhcx!hogbbs!5!491!22!Ernie.Bokkelkamp Internet: Ernie.Bokkelkamp@f22.n491.z5.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 90 09:46:32 GMT From: ins_bac <@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:ins_bac@jhunix.bitnet> Subject: What is LOD and Phrack? Reply-To: jhunix!ins_bac@uunet.uu.net Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF Sorry to sound misinformed but I guess this is the best place to find out. 1) I have been reading about hacking groups called LOD and PHRACK, what exactly did they do that warrants the sentence of 31 years? I mainly want to sound objective, but if these 'kids' could do it, then outside malevolent forces I am sure could do it. I think people are going to have to learn that kids are a lot smarter than they think. I am under the impression that these groups did nothing that threatened the integrity of the systems they explored. Also I'd like to add that with the growing amount of control communications services afford thru information dissemination, not only will this incident prove to be a rallying point around the hacker ethic for the next generation of hackers but it could make these young geniuses into martyrs. I think the phone company is best erved by listening to them instead of persecuting them. If they (PH. and LOD) did do this for profit, I am sure they would have been in different position. ins_bac@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu [Moderator's Note: The 'hackers group' is called Legion of Doom, or LoD for short. Phrack is the official publication of the Legion. Phrack was distrbuted via the Internet, among other electronic networks, and it was the contents of Phrack, among other things, which got the LoD in trouble recently and caused at least a few computer sites to be closed by the government and/or (in the case of attctc) by its owner. They have not received any punishment yet because they have not been found guilty yet. For further information, I refer you to the Telecom-Archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu - cd telecom-archives) and the file there entitled 'jolnet'. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 90 09:46:32 GMT From: ins_bac <@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:ins_bac@jhunix.bitnet> Subject: Explain These Acronymns Reply-To: jhunix!ins_bac@uunet.uu.net Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF I am new to the Unix news enviroment and just stumbled across this group, but what do the following terms stand for and what are they? a) ISDN b) TCPIP c) LOD d) SBDN They seem to pop up once in a while. Well thats it for now. ins_bac@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu [Moderator's Note: Again, check the Telecom-Archives, and pull the files 'glossary.txt.', 'glossary.acronyms' and 'phrack.acronyms'. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #183 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21452; 19 Mar 90 4:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10423; 19 Mar 90 2:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae32130; 19 Mar 90 1:51 CST Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 1:31:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #184 BCC: Message-ID: <9003190131.ab20173@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Mar 90 01:30:11 CST Volume 10 : Issue 184 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pac Tel and Cable Service in Chicago [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill [Bob Goudreau] Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Charles Daffinger] Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [TELECOM Moderator] Re: CLASS Phone Features [Mark Earle] Intercepting Cellular Transmissions [Mark Earle] Re: Calling Card Validation [Allen Nigel] Yellow Pages Error Puts Distribution on Hold [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 0:54:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Pac Tel and Cable Service in Chicago When Group W made its financial projections in 1984, it figured that five years later its Chicago cable system would serve 225,000 subscribers and generate $151 million in annual revenue. They must have figured something wrong, since it did not turn out that way. It didn't even come close. At the end of 1989, Group W, whose service area is the north and northwest sections of Chicago, had just 105,000 paying subscribers, and losses of $1.5 million per *month*. The total loss in 1989 was just about $19 million. Not surpisingly, Group W wants out -- badly. No one here was surprised then when Prime Cable, of Austin, Texas made an offer to buy the Chicago market from Group W. Prime Cable is in the business of taking over failing cable systems and making them into profitable operations. The most notable example of this is what they did in Atlanta. Prime Cable agreed to buy Group W Cable for $198 million, or what at that time was about $2000 per subscriber. That's about $800 per subscriber less than what a healthy cable system could fetch. What did come as a surprise, and will potentially kill the deal is the arrangement between Prime Cable and their partner, Pac Tel Corp. of San Fransisco; a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, one of the former members of the 'Bell System'. The plan calls for Prime Cable to purchase Group W Cable, then sell it immediatly to Pac Tel ... and sign a management contract with Pac Tel to operate the Chicago system. "Not if we can help it," said Michael Green, the general manager of Chicago Cable Television, the cable system that serves the south side of our city and the lakefront area. Like other members of the National Cable Television Association, Chicago Cable strongly opposes the entry of a 'Baby Bell' into the cable business. But some members of the NCTA are saying privately they don't care if Pac Tel operates cable, as long as they don't do it in the same communities where they are the telco. Likewise, if Ameritech/Illinois Bell tried to go into cable *in the Chicago area* there would be a major battle brewing. In 1984, when Judge Greene presided over divestiture, one of the terms was that the 'Baby Bells' could not enter the cable television business. If he grants the waiver Pac Tel is requesting, a precedent will be set which may well lead to all the telcos getting into the act: something that gives the existing cable operators nightmares. In fact, cable operators and broadcasters rarely agree on anything, but the National Association of Broadcasters and independent television broadcasters have joined the NCTA chorus against Pac Tel's attempted move into the Chicago market. They say one small step today (allowing a telco to buy into the Chicago market) can serve up a later rationalization for a giant leap into information services on a widespread basis. And I assume we all know that given the opportunity to be in cable, the telcos would move in a hurry, and the relatively small existing cable industry in America would be soon gone -- squashed dead by the Sisters Bell .... His Honor hasn't indicated which way he will rule, and the next few months should bring a flurry of activity to his courtroom as the cable guys fight to keep Pac Tel from getting a piece of the action here, or anywhere. Which still doesn't answer the question, 'Why would anyone WANT the cable business in Chicago?' ... the fact is, it has not panned out as expected in Chicago or most large urban areas. Maybe Pac Tel needs a tax writeoff. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 22:37:08 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <5093@accuvax.nwu.edu>, SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: > A South Central Bell rep called twice, I was out both times, and left > a message for me to return her call. The number she left was a > 557-xxxx number, which is the format of all of SCB's business office, > repair service, etc. numbers in this area. Unfortunately, I work in a > GTE area, and it isn't possible to dial a 557 number from a GTE phone, > so I never got my answers. I had a similar problem last fall. Due to various real-estate weasel shenanigans, our scheduled move to our new house was delayed a couple of weeks. As I had previously arranged with Southern Bell to switch our line over to the new address on a given date (both houses are served by the same CO), I called them back four days before the scheduled switchover and informed them of the delay. "No problem," they assured me. Well, you guessed it, they blew it. Friday evening rolls around, and suddenly our phone no longer has dial tone. And of course, this is the Friday night before Labor Day, so I figure we're doomed to a long weekend without phone service. But I went back into work and tried to call Southern Bell's customer repair number anyway. This number (780-BELL) is toll-free and supposedly universally available across the multi-state Southern Bell territory. My only problem was that my work phone is in GTE-land, from which there seems to be no way on earth to dial that number! Finally, after getting the GTE operator to connect me with a Southern Bell operator, I managed to extract a real, dialable, long distance number which I was told I could dial collect. That worked, and our phone service was back by the next day. However, this business of undialable numbers is disturbing. It's bad enough that you can't directly dial +1-800-nxx-xxxx from other countries, but now local numbers too? Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:37:00 -0500 From: Charles Daffinger Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington My number has the last 2 digits swapped with the number for the Big Red Liquor store (... 7354 vs ... 7345). I frequently get calls at the ungodly hour of 8AM: 'do you have kegs'... or 'are you open', etc. Once one of their big ads in the peper had the number misprinted, instead giving my number. My phone began ringing off the hook after this. The manager was a real jerk when I called to tell him about the problem. After that, when people called to ask about an item on the special, I replied 'No, I'm out of . You may want to check at '. Charles Daffinger >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water< (812) 339-7354 cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Home of the Whitewater mailing list: whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:32:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill In Argentina, rampant inflation is a fact of life. But even so, Argentines were shocked by phone bills which went out the second week of March that were as much as seventeen times higher than the month before. One resident of Buenos Aires, Antonio Lecce, paid a phone bill of $3.60 for February, and got a $40 bill this month. That amounts to about half a month's pay for the average citizen of that South American country. Rates went up March 9 by what the government-owned telephone administration (Entel) said was an average of 433 percent. But bills reflect much higher rates. The latest bimonthly service charge plus 200 calls, for example, increased by 1,682 percent, to 31,816 australs, or about $6.75. A typical family's bill increased nearly ten times to $43.80, which is prohibitively high for most people in Argentina. The government's explanation is that rates were eroded by inflation, which skyrocketed by 12,000 percent in the past year. The overall inflation rate in January alone was 79 percent, and 62 percent in February. Also, rates had to be increased to allow a profit at the deficit-ridden Entel, which the government is trying desperately to sell. Entel director Maria Julia Alsogaray said, "People who cannot afford the new rates can give up their service, and share with someone else." Her comments, along with the increases outraged Argentines who live with substandard phone service to begin with. The phones go dead when it rains, and even in nice weather it is difficult to get a dial tone or the right connection on the first try. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:53:15 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: CLASS Phone Features Patrick, thank you for the recent CLASS listing. Wish that more of them were available here; we get call waiting, forward, and three-way conferencing, and that's about it, from what I can tell. This leads to a question: Which features are dependant on switch level (7ESS for the "good" ones?) How do I find out which level is installed here? Is there a requestable listing (Bellcore?) or a code/number one can use to interrogate the servicing CO that gives me, the subscriber, a way to find out what I have serving me...? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:53:15 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Intercepting Cellular Transmissions Re: Cellular reception. It is emphatically NOT illegal to own/possess a receiver cabable of receiving CMT calls. It *is* illegal to intercept such a call. BUT, some of the CMT frequencies are shared with non-CMT services, which ARE legal to receive. The usual non-disclusure/make gain from interecepted comms apply, of course, as with any intercepted communications. I believe that to advertise privacy of communications, the CMT vendors ought to scramble/encrypt the communications. Instead, they've made the system technically easy to intercept. Here's why (w/a TEXAS viewpoint, remember!) Originally, CMT was proposed to use low-height, low powered "cells". The call would pass from cell to cell, and the same frequency could be used several times, say at the north and south ends of a given town/metro area. Well, in reality, putting in 80 to 100 sites proved a costly investment. So, they (CMT providers) went for 2-3 "super sites". In San Antonio, Cellular One and Southwestern Bell each have 2 sites (Cells). In Corpus Christi, they each have ONE. There are sites in outlying areas, but you don't get switched to those sites unless you are in very close proximity (30 miles or so away from the main site). Also, the earpiece feedback of the mobile's mouthpiece is aparently done at the central site...meaning that by listening to the BASE signal from the cell, one hears BOTH sides of the conversation. Now, think about that...I can (potentially) listen to a nice, high, STRONG signal, hear BOTH sides of a conversation...and since the signal is so strong, I only need a simple antenna (i.e., I can do the deed from anywhere without being obvious). So, I don't doubt for a moment that CMT calls are intercepted. Playing devils' advocate: If I wish to intercept your CMT calls, first, I find out if you're Cell 1 or SWB-narrows the channels to listen to in half. Then I find out your CMT number. Listening to the base signals, I can find most of the calls TO your phone. Calls you originate are toughter, but not impossible. For a rate cheaper than a typical detective charges, your CMT calls *could* be intercepted. (The detective charges 'field' rates. This work could be done at an "office" rate). Oh, yeah: CMT calls are private, right? That's what the ECPA says! So go ahead, make deals and dates, knowing that congress has protected your sensitive communications with the shield of a law, largely un-enforceable. Mark Earle Cute saying goes here..... from Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 0:23:00 EST From: canremote!nigel.allen@uunet.uucp Subject: Re: Calling Card Validation In Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 105, message 9 of 9, the moderator wrote.: > Moderator's Note: Anyone wishing to learn how to (ahem!) 'verify' > questionable card numbers -- as if there were any reason to do so > unless you were a telco accepting them for services rendered -- > can consult with JH in other media. Actually, operator service providers (long distance companies usually associated with privately-owned pay telephones or hotel phones, that usually do not own their own long-distance lines and often charge substantially more than AT&T) would like to be able to validate calling cards that people key in to pay for their calls. Operator service companies aren't telcos, nor are they facilities-based long distance carriers. Didn't one OSP get in trouble for verifying calling card numbers by improperly accessing an AT&T or BOC calling card database? As I understand it, when the OSP wanted to verify a number, it would attempt to place a call over the AT&T network using the calling card number, and hang up before the called number started to ring. (I suspect that OSPs can purchase calling card verification services through a service bureau, but the OSP in this case was getting verification for free.) Things weren't this complicated before divesture. :-) MaS Relayer v1.00.00 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST Internet: nigel.allen@canremote.uucp UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!canremote!nigel.allen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:53:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Yellow Pages Error Puts Distribution on Hold Jeffrey Feinberg and Adrienne Maidenbaum took a $197 ad on Page 68 of the Greater Hollywood, Florida Yellow Pages to let everyone know about the legal services they offered in their practice: "Real Estate, trial practice, title insurance, divorce, father's rights, abortion ... " The trouble is, the word should have been ADOPTION -- not abortion. Very stunned and dismayed, Feinberg and Maidenbaum, attornies at law, demanded a recall. Apparently someone at the printing plant in Atlanta slipped up and mistyped the entry. The attornies raced off to the courthouse. Broward County Circuit Court Judge Linda Vitale granted their motion to prohibit further distribution of the directory. More than 220,000 copies had already been distributed throughout Broward and North Dade Counties, according to Bell South Advertising and Publishing Corporation. An additional 95,000 are sitting undelivered in the warehouses of Bell South Distributing, waiting for the outcome of a hearing set for Monday, March 19. Jim Owens, attorney for Bell South Advertising admitted, "It's our error. We're imperfect human beings. But it is not in the best interest of the people in the area to stop delivery because of one ad, no matter how concerned we are with the error. We caused the error, we're deeply sorry for it, but we see no reason for the public to suffer because of our error." Feinberg said Bell South Advertising offered them a free full-page ad in next year's run. The law partners were not satisfied. They asked for damages and a disclaimer inserted in the next Bell South Telephone Company billings in the region served by the directory. He continued, "We really didn't need this. There isn't anything positive about being an abortion lawyer. To a large segment of this community, abortion is tantamount to advertising for contract murder. Abortion is a very volatile issue and our firm does not want to be associated with abortion." To correct the error, Feinberg asked the court to order Bell South to included a gummed sticker with the correct ad in all telephone bills next month, along with instructions asking customers to paste over the erroneous ad. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #184 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18927; 20 Mar 90 3:53 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01269; 20 Mar 90 2:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31439; 20 Mar 90 0:59 CST Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 0:12:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #185 BCC: Message-ID: <9003200012.ab32222@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Mar 90 00:12:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 185 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can This Be True? [Tom Talpey] Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, etc. [Roy Smith] Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [George Horwath] Re: T1 and DDS Test Equipment [Brian Woodroffe] Re: Enhanced 911 [Gary Wilson] Re: US WEST Rate Change in Washington State [Peter Marshall] Re: Interesting Use of 900 Service [Will Martin] Re: CLASS Phone Features [John David Galt] Re: I Passed the Test With Flying Colors! :) [Bob Mosley III] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:20:56 -0500 From: Tom Talpey Subject: Re: Can This Be True? > I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told > me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a > paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance > calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe > the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to > complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. Circa 1970 with pay phones in Rochester, NY, this was possible. By placing a thumbtack in the dial's fingerhook, a completed circuit with the metal cage of the mouthpiece would nicely obtain a dialtone. In retrospect I assume this would be a loop or ground start, depending on the phone's configuration. What was interesting about it was that, as observed, the phone was completely unrestricted at this point. Where I went to school, it was common to find thumbtacks up behind the coin slots. Not that _I_ ever used them for such purposes. Tom Talpey tmt@osf.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 10:25:19 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City > If people call you collect, then they are giving you their first name, > as well as their phone number [...] Do you expect people to call without > knowing who you are when they know that you know who they are? Strange as it sounds, yes I do. I appreciate the various notes I've gotten on this subject and I might as well respond en masse to them. To the suggestion that I just put in an 800 number, we thought of that already. According to our lawyer, 800 numbers look corporate and the sorts of people we are looking for might be scared off by that. Also, an 800 number that forwards to our regular line means they get a busy signal if I'm on the phone. This phone line will be dedicated to nothing but waiting for those rare but important calls. And, unfortunately, I must respectfully decline to answer queries asking the specifics of what's going on here, other than to assure you that (no matter how bizarre it all sounds) it's really reasonably straight forward. Most of the running around in circles is to satisfy the paranoia of our lawyer. I hesitated bring this up in the first place since I knew I would have to remain mysterious about the background, but I though the telecomm issues, even in isolation, might be interesting. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ From: George Horwath Subject: Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill Date: 19 Mar 90 15:12:07 GMT Reply-To: motcid!horwath%uunet.uu.net@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Regarding the Argentine phone system: Some years ago, when I was at GTE, one of our engineers went down there to work on a PABX and brought back some stories about the phone service. For example, wealthy people have no trouble getting dial tone. When they want to make a call, they inform a servant who then removes the handset from the phone. The maid or butler is the one who waits for dial tone (up to a half hour, if I recall correctly). George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!horwath Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 16:26:34 gmt From: Brian Woodroffe Subject: Re: T1 and DDS Test Equipment With regard to the following RFI, I think you should check out the HP3787B The following (brief) description of the capabilities of the Hewlett-Packard 3787B Digital Data Test Set has been culled from the 1989 HP catalogue: ISDN D & D channel Protocol Analysis interface Comprehensive bit error measurements and analysis at DS1C, DS1, DS0 and DDS interfaces. Sub-rate drop and insert. Built in data logging. DS1 Jitter analysis. Drop & Insert: If the Transmitter/receiver is suitably frames, test patterns or control codes can be inserted to/extracted from the following:- Individual timeslot (64k and 56kbit/s) DDS: 2.4k, 4.8k, 9.6k, 19.2k, 56kbit/s primary or secondary channels (DS0A and DS0B.) 4kbit/s Datalink (ESF) 4kbit/s Fs channel (DS1 Ft) 8kbit/s R-channel (T1DM) Measurements: Frequency: DS0 (64kbit/s), DS1 (1.544Mbit/s), DS1C (3.152Mbit/s) Framing: DS1 (SF, ESF, T1DM and Ft only), DS1C and DS0B Line Code: B8ZS, AMI. Error Types: Logic (binary), Bipolar Violations, Frame Word, CRC-6 Word. Error Results: Error count, Error Ratio, Error Seconds, Error Free Seconds, % Error Free Seconds. Error Analysis: %Availability, %Unavailability, %Severely Errored Seconds, %Error Seconds, %Degraded Minutes, Count Consequective SES, Count SES, Count ES, Count Degraded Minutes. Alarm Seconds: Instrument Power Loss Seconds, Signal Loss Seconds, AIS Seconds , Frame Loss Seconds, Test Pattern Loss Seconds. Frame Slips (Controlled): separate and concurrent indication of positive and negative slips. Protocol Analyser Interface: RS232C 4-wire synchronous interface, for the following: DDS primary & secondary channels ISDN B/D (64/56kbits/s) ESF datalink, D4 Fs channel, T1DM R-channel. DS0 Bit monitor:Selected received csutomer bytes displayed. Signalling bits: A,B(SF) or A,B,C,D(ESF) can be ste/didsplayed for 56kbit/s. DS1 Jitter Measurement(option) Peak-to-Peak: Range 0.00 to 10.00UI, in 0.01 UI steps Jitter Filters: LP=2Hz to 40Khz, HP1+LP=10Hz to 40Khz, HP2+LP=8Khz to 40Khz. Jitter Threshold:0.05 to 10.00UI pk/pk in 0.01UI pk/pk increments. Jitter Hit Measurements: Jitter Hit Count, Jitter Hit Bit Count, Jitter Hit Bit Ratio, Jitter Hit Seconds, Jitter Hit Free Seconds. Now with regard to your specific points: |I'm interested in test equipment for 56k DDS and T1 lines. I'm just |starting to investigate but I think I want gear with following |capabilities: | Interfaces supported: | 56k DDS plain (don't care about secondary channel) Yes, secondary channel is included. | T1 D4, ESF, B8ZS (test equip does CSU function) Yes, yes, yes (not sure what you mean). | V.35 DSX type connections or RS232C as appropriate. | Capabilities: | | Test pattern - transmit and receive Yes, standard PRBSs etc. | Standalone loopback testing ,with one unit Yes, (In DDS the returned MAP-codes are checked for.) | End-to-end test with two units Yes. | Able to cause the various kinds of remote loops on T1 and DDS Yes, T1: inband or data link, DDS alternating or latching and MJU routining. | Signal quality measurements such as jitter and spectrum Yes, jitter | Detect T1 events such as checksum errors, bipolar volations, | framing errors, etc. Yes, yes, yes. |Any other things I should be interested in? Yes, the '87 has probably the fullest coverage of T1 & DDS functionality. T1 pipe testing; DDS: Primary channel, Secondary channel, full sub-rate E/C (even 19.2kbit/s), Loopbacks, MJU routing etc. The '87 is combined transmitter receiver, which operate independantly to allow testing across levels in the hierarchy. Obviously it is remote controllable (both HPIB & RS232). Your nearest HP dealer will have fuller details: (for Wisconsin:-) Hewlett-Packard 275N Corporate Drive Brookfield, WI 53005 Tel (414) 792-8800 fax (414)792-0218 +--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Brian Woodroffe | HPDESK: Brian Woodroffe/HP1400/B1 | | Hewlett Packard Ltd | ARPA: bww@hpsqf | | Queensferry Telecomms Division | bww%hpsqf@hplabs.hp.com | | South Queensferry | UUCP: ..!hplabs!hpqtdla!bww | | West Lothian | JANET: bww%hpqtdla@hpl.hp.co.uk | | Scotland EH30 9TG. | PHONE: +44-31-331-7234 | +--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ NB: You are advised to check the suitability yourself. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 19 Mar 90 16:43:31 GMT Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport,NJ In article <5246@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@mvuxr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes: > I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my > hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario > than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the > phone :-) I like the humor but E911 has real advantages and potential for cost savings in dispatcher costs through manpower reductions. Usually, E911 is integrated into a computer aided dispatch system at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). When a dispatcher answers the call, the address and phone number are automatically run against the computer system and displays all the information known about the address. This includes what fire company, first aid squad and police patrol car should be dispatched to the address and any known hazards on scene (dangerous chemicals, etc.) The dispatcher, once she determines the nature of the problem (Police, Fire, Medical) merely has hit the corresponding button to dispatch the appropriate agency automatically whether by phone, radio or computer depending on the system. This also allows the computer to log the incident and response, freeing the dispatcher to handle the next call, hence, fewer dispatchers are required then with a manual look-up process. However, this cost reduction can only be acheived by consolidating dispatch, i.e. one county PSAP instead of twenty-seven township ones. Here politics can get in the way. E911 allows the dispatcher to send help quicker and with less chance of data entry error. A human is still needed in the loop to filter out false calls and occasional errors such as the PBX one. The magazine of choice for people interested in this topic is the "APCO Communicator" published by the Associated Public Safety Communications Officers, Inc. of which I'm a member. 73 Gary Wilson, WB2BOO Deputy Communications Coordinator (Volunteer) Office of Emergency Management Mercer County, New Jersey PS The address and phone number should STILL be taped to the phone ! :-} ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: US WEST Rate Change in Washington State Date: 19 Mar 90 17:17:42 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Hard to understand Roger Swann's 3/15 post on this topic, but notwithstanding absence of a discernible point to the post, seems the topic is the WA PUC's recent approval of a negotiated settlement providing for US West incentive regulation here. More to the point, perhaps is that two intervenors in the case have appealed the WUTC's Order in court, and that the PUC and US West were also in court last week over a little matter of some $8M relative to the tariffs US West filed to implement the Order in question. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 13:25:54 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service >Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance >for its PC based product 1-2-3. The rate structure is a reversal of >most 900 services... $0.00 1st minute, $2.00 each additional minute. >One is supposed to be immediately connected to a technical "high >trained engineer" for support. They are doing this on a trial basis. >It will be interesting to see if this works and/or spreads. Intriguing concept, but I find it hard to understand just what they are trying to do with this arrangement. I get the impression that they are encouraging simple questions -- if you can get your answer in a minute, you don't pay anything. (But then Lotus has to pay for the call -- the previously posted information on 900-call-charging assumed the callers would always be paying more than the cost of the calls, so I wonder how the billing arrangement works in this case...) But then you pay more and more as your question gets more complex or harder to answer. So it actively discourages difficult queries. Yet this seems to be the reverse of what a technical hotline or customer/user-assistance service is supposed to be doing. It promotes "RTFM"-type questions that the user probably can and should figure out for themselves in order to learn the use of the product, but punishes the user for having a difficult problem they cannot get solved locally. Yet "pushing the envelope" for a product like 1-2-3 is the way it gets applied in more and more areas and thus generates more applicability and therefore eventually more sales. And finding obscure bugs that didn't show up in regular product testing is what advanced users are really good for, from a system-designers' and -implementers' point of view. But such bugs would most probably be describable or identifiable only after a *lot* of trial-and-error and give-and-take between the user and the tech-assistance rep. This charging procedure would discourage such interaction, thus leaving such bugs undiscovered and lurking to bite other users and haunt the company in the future. If they just don't want to be bothered, I could understand a high fee for the first minute. But a zero fee for the first minute with some fee thereafter is hard to comprehend, unless this is coupled with a method for the tech-assistance folks to turn off the fee when they recognize a valid problem or decide the time they are spending is worthwhile to the company. Is that an available option for 900 calls -- that the callee has a button they can push that tells the telco "this call is free to the caller"? Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: CLASS Phone Features Date: Mon, 19-Mar-90 18:47:07 PST I asked my local PacBell rep about CLASS just now, and she said that it is being delayed here (Silicon Valley) because most of the carriers that have it are being sued for various reasons. Can anyone fill me in on why? John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Mosley III Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! :) Date: 19 Mar 90 18:23:03 GMT Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX In article <5149@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes: > 1-800-FON-WD40 worked when I called. And can you believe it... > I WON!!! :-) Just on a lark, I deliberately picked the wrong answers, and I still won. Reminds me of an "Eyebeam" strip some years ago: "For our super grand prize, who wrote the Gettysburg Address?" "Domino's Pizza" "Correct! You Win! Will you be paying by Cash, Check, or Visa?" OM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #185 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18959; 20 Mar 90 3:54 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01269; 20 Mar 90 2:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31439; 20 Mar 90 0:59 CST Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 0:54:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #186 BCC: Message-ID: <9003200054.ab00395@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Mar 90 00:54:23 CST Volume 10 : Issue 186 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold [Brad Isley] Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area [David Tamkin] Re: What is LOD and Phrack? [Douglas Mason] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Matthias Urlichs] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Stephen Tell] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stephen Tell] Re: Recall / Flashohook [Vance Shipley] Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears [Herman R. Silbiger] Protection Device [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..." Date: 19 Mar 90 07:58:26 EST (Mon) From: Brad Isley In article <5144@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 171, Message 4 of 9 >It seems a bit sad, that the Bell name is now being put on inferior >merchandise, but that seems to be the case. This is no news to me. My wife works for Southern Bell. They had a "special" offer for employees several years back for som phones made by "Bell". She bought a cordless phone through this offer for a huge discount. Later we discovered why the discount was so large. The batteries would typically last about 10 minutes. Nice touch (brand new). At most any time, though it only happened when we were asleep, it would emit an ear-piercing squeal that would wake us up from the other side of the house. After tiring of this we called to try and get it fixed. We were informed that since we got it through the "special" we had no warranty and it would cost $90 to send it in for repair. That was about $30 less than the phone cost to start with. We tossed it at that point. In case you're interested, it was the "Freedom Phone" - I forget the specific manufacturer, but it was not AT&T or Southern Bell. No more "Bell" phones for us - we are QUITE pleased with all 4 of out AT&T phones. Brad Isley, yer local tools blacksmith. What, me worry ? ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 23:33:02 CST Jeff Wolfe wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 182: | I live in Dalton, Pa. a town serviced by Commenweath Telephone Co. I | have a few friends in the town of Lake Winola, Pa. 7 driving miles | from my house. To call them, I must dial 1-378-xxxx. But, to call Penn | State's Scranton Campus, where I attend school, I can simply dial | 961-xxxx. What's significant are not so much the boundaries of your seven-digit dialing area so much as those of your toll-free area. If I were placing calls from Dalton, whether there were toll charges would be more important to me than whether I had to dial eight digits or seven. Where the moderator lives and where my parents live, there are a lot of places to which one must dial eleven digits but the calls are untimed and also a lot of places to which one must dial seven digits but the calls carry a per-minute toll. Given a choice of which of a company's locations to call, I'll take more button-pushing with less cost over dialing fewer digits but paying higher charges any day. Do you also have untimed (perhaps even unlimited) service to Scranton but have to pay by the minute for a call to Lake Winola, or is it the other way around? David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: What is LOD and Phrack? Reply-To: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 12:46:46 GMT >[Moderator's Note: The 'hackers group' is called Legion of Doom, or >LoD for short. Phrack is the official publication of the Legion. >Phrack was distrbuted via the Internet, among other electronic >networks, and it was the contents of Phrack, among other things, which >got the LoD in trouble recently and caused at least a few computer >sites to be closed by the government and/or (in the case of attctc) by >its owner. They have not received any punishment yet because they have >not been found guilty yet. For further information, I refer you to the >Telecom-Archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu - cd telecom-archives) and the file >there entitled 'jolnet'. PT] A few minor corrections to Pat's otherwise correct comments. PHRACK (short for "Phreak and Hack") was put out by Taran King and Knight Lightning as a quite seperate entity from the LoD group. LoD put out something called "The LoD Technical Journal" which was their "official publication". In fact, I dare say that for some time there was a lot of friction between the two "magazines", people often arguing over who was better -- The LoD tech journal had more techy stuff, but Phrack was put out on a quite regular basis (about 29 issues, each about 200k long) while LoD only put out a few (3 I believe) and were erratic about when they were released. It is quite suprising that Phrack was the one hit with the bad stuff. I was actually an editor for it some time back before I decided the "business was not for me" and there was a lot of screening as to what was "questionable" and what could be printed. I suppose it was a bad choice on Craig's part for not deleting that E911 stuff when he received it. I knew him fairly well (Knight Lightning) and knew he kept quite far from the "bad stuff" and wouldn't touch it for fear of God or other equally dangerous agencies. I have mixed feelings about the whole bust affair. I got along with many of the group, and have met many of them. The whole "Eliteness" of the group's attitude really bothered me, and it seemed that by placing themselves on such a stand, it was only a matter of time before someone came to knock them off. Now I only wish that they aren't shafted to the extreme that the media seems to want to impose. What they did was wrong, wrong, wrong; don't think I am trying to justify that, but after meeting some of these people, talking to them, realizing that they are indeed people, students, kids even, it's hard to wish 31 years upon them. I invite all threats/comments/suggestions. If you are nice, I'll even send you some of the back issues of Phrack for your reading entertainment. ;-) Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | ------------------------------ From: Matthias Urlichs Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:55:57 GMT In comp.dcom.telecom, article <5289@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) writes: < For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who < want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call < costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter. This counter < will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the < end of the month. One problem is that this counter is incremented by a high-frequency beep (16 kHz?), so you can't run a "normal" modem on that line. (MNP and/or PEP is OK.) One might assume that 16 kHz should not disturb modems, which use lower frequencies. Unfortunately, the PTT plays some dirty games with the line to make sure that the beep is not propagated to the other end. The other problem is that this counter has absolutely zero legal significance. You say "Did not", PTT says "Did too", and that ends the argument. If there's a real problem with billing, it usually takes lots of phone calls to convince them that something may indeed be wrong, and then they will send you a crew of repairmen (one at a time) to test your installation (consisting of calling the line test machine (which pronounces the line OK), asking some non-pertinent questions, and leaving) before they even think of searching for the bug at their side. :-( And we have not even talked about trying to get part of your money back. :-( :-( < By the way, a non-trivial fraction of your cost of telephone service, < both local area and inter-LATA, is due to the cost of billing. This statement, unfortunately, makes sense. Matthias Urlichs ------------------------------ From: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 19 Mar 90 17:52:59 GMT Reply-To: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article <5289@accuvax.nwu.edu> hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) writes: >For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who >want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call >costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter. This counter >will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the >end of the month. >Herman Silbiger How can such a device work on a system where the PTT's counter runs at different rates depending on distance, time of day, and so on? I think this is a fundamental diference between the telephone and other utilities that no one has explicitly mentioned yet. The phone company would have to provide you with a (rather large) database of billing rates for various destinations and times for you to do your own billing as a check. On the other hand, one could easily buy a bunch of electric meters and attach them to large appliances to itemize their own electric bill. Steve Ciarcia built a device some years ago in _Byte_ to send a certain number of pulses per kilowatt hour to a PC which counted them. I would expect to be able to buy a similar device somewhere. Indeed the electric company could concievably sell such a service, with remote telemetering meter modules to provide itemized billing. With electric power, the maximum number of rates I can think of a single customer having to contend with is peak/off-peak and low/high power factor, for a total of four. With telephone service, there are a lot more different rates that might be charged and therefore must keep track of in order to do your own billing. Steve Tell tell@wsmail.cs.unc.edu CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill. Former chief engineer, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC. ------------------------------ From: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 19 Mar 90 18:21:41 GMT Reply-To: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article <5292@accuvax.nwu.edu> swbatl!uiucuxc!cmpfen!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Breum) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 181, Message 3 of 12 >kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >>In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >>>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person >>>could call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll >>>charges? .....lots deleted.... >There's a better answer. I have used a device which allows you to >reprogram the call forwarding number remotely to accomplish this same >purpose. >The Remote Phone Forwarder (mfgd. by Cynex in N.J.) device.... >Bob Breum (Could you pleas post/mail their address/phone number? - thanks) I've been wondering about the feasibility of a related setup. Here's the situation. I make quite a few long-distance calls while in my office at school, and right how have to use my calling card. The $0.70 or so per call adds up. My appartment is a local call from school. Is there a device available that would coexist with an answering machine, and if it heard the right DTMF security sequence kick the answering machine off the line and respond with its own prompt (a tone or somthing). Then I would enter the number I wanted to call and the device would use three-way calling to place the call. It would then sit back and hold the line open until the call was completed, at which time I could either hand up or send it another number. Does such a device exist? I haven't experimented with three-way to see if CPC is provided when the second connection is broken so the device would know to accept another number. (I think it has to flash in order to connect to me, the first connection, again). Steve Tell tell@wsmail.cs.unc.edu CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill. Former chief engineer, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC. ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Recall / Flash Hook Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 00:15:36 GMT In article <5321@accuvax.nwu.edu> tadtec!tjfs@relay.eu.net (Tim Steele) writes: >To get the exchange back during a phone call, in the UK we use a 90ms >line break called Timed Break Recall (for those of us lucky enough to >have a modern exchange!). I gather you guys in the US use a 600ms >line break called Flash Hook or something. Is this right? Yes, you are quite correct. A "flash" (or "hookswitch flash") is widely accepted as a 600 millisecond on hook condition. Qouting from the EIA Standard RS-464 Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Switching Equipment for Voiceband Applications: 4 Technical Requirements 4.1 Central Office - PBX Trunk Interface 4.1.1 Supervision - Ground Start Trunks 4.1.1.6 Call Supervision 4.1.1.6.4 The PBX shall not generate momentary breaks in the dc path through the trunk circuit exceeding 100 ms on outgoing calls and for longer than ten seconds on incoming calls, except to signal disconnect or, on outgoing calls, to flash-recall a toll operator. If the PBX automatically generates flash signalling, it shall generate an on-hook indication of 300 ms to one second to signal a flash request. 4.8 Station Interface 4.8.3 Loop Supervision 4.8.3.5 Call Supervision 4.8.3.5.1 If flash signals (momentary on-hooks) from the remote terminal are used by the PBX to initiate internal calling features, the PBX shall ignore an on-hook signal of 150 ms or less; interpret an on-hook signal of 300 ms to one second as a valid flash; interpret an on-hook signal of 1.5 seconds or greater as a valid disconnect. 4.8.3.5.2 If flash timing is not provided, the PBX shall interpret an on-hook signal of 300 ms or greater as a valid disconnect. How's that for an answer? vance ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Loud Signal Tones vs. Your Ears Date: 19 Mar 90 20:58:29 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <5318@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0002909785@mcimail.com (J. Stephen Reed) writes: > Apparently these tones are about 116 decibels. This level plays havoc > with anyone with sensitive hearing, and especially with those who have > hearing impairments and use amplifiers on the line. Amplification can > put these tones up in the range of a jet engine at 100 feet away. I don't know who measured the level of these tones, or how they were measured, but I doubt very much that the level of those tones is 116 dB. However, even if they were at that level, they could not cause any hearing damage at those short durations. In addition all telephone receivers made by reputable manufacturers have a limiting device installed across the receiver capsule terminals (a varistor), which limits at 119 dB re 20 microPascals, so that regardless of any amplification on the line, harmful levels are not possible when hearing loud tones or noises for short periods. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:19:41 PST From: Steve Forrette Subject: Protection Device Does anyone know of a device that will allow you to (legally) connect a homebrew device to a POTS line? What I have in mind is something that would go between your device and the telco line that would protect them from any "evil" signal you may generate. What I'd like to do is to be able to make something myself, and possibly sell/lease it in small quantities without having to get the device itself FCC approved. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #186 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21244; 20 Mar 90 4:47 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15271; 20 Mar 90 3:11 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01269; 20 Mar 90 2:08 CST Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 1:36:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #187 BCC: Message-ID: <9003200136.ab11124@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Mar 90 01:35:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 187 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson PTT's Which Bill in Message Units [Joseph C. Pistritto] Is There a Modular Wiring Standard? [David J. Camp] Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Will Martin] PALCOM PT1013SL Programmable Call Controller [James Van Houten] Business Week on Long Distance Rates [Business Week via Ken Jongsma] New California PUC Rules for Pay Phones [LA Times via Steven W. Grabhorn] Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? [Mark Brader] Calling North America From Overseas [Jim Gottlieb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Mar 90 09:58:45+0100 From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" Subject: PTT's Which Bill in Message Units They will indeed rent you a counter device to count your calls, however, they will also refuse to accept its results to 'adjust' your bill if they make a mistake. Only the counter in the PTT is official. Speaking of the cost of billing, I pay an extra 5 Swiss Francs (about 3 US $) a month to get itemized billing on my phone in Switzerland. Now, it might amaze some of you Americans out there that you can be CHARGED for billing, but after living in Europe for a while, you get used to things like that. (After all, didn't the KGB charge the families of executed persons for the bullets...) ====================================================================== Joseph C. Pistritto HB9NBB N3CKF 'Think of it as Evolution in Action' (J.Pournelle) Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002 Basel, Switzerland Internet: jcp@brl.mil Phone: (+41) 61 697 6155 Bitnet: bpistr%cgch.uucp@cernvax.bitnet Fax: (+41) 61 697 2435 Also: cgch!bpistr@mcsun.eu.net ------------------------------ From: "David J. Camp" Subject: Is There a Modular Wiring Standard? Reply-To: "David J. Camp" Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:32:44 GMT I see these 6-pin modular adapters cropping up in a lot of products. Is there a pinout standard? I would appreciate a diagram. Please reply directly to me. Thank you, -David- Bitnet: david@wubios.wustl ^ Mr. David J. Camp Internet: david%wubios@wugate.wustl.edu < * > Box 8067, Biostatistics uucp: uunet!wugate!wubios!david v 660 South Euclid Washington University (314) 36-23635 Saint Louis, MO 63110 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 12:55:46 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees >[Moderator's Note: The fallacy in your argument is that charging for a >phone call to reach the radio station lottery is violating rules >pertaining to contests. Contests which have you mail in a coupon or >ticket are not violating the law because the post office requires a stamp >on the envelope. Both the postage stamp and the telephone charge are >simply fees for transporting the message. PT] Don't be so sure about this -- up until fairly recently (mid '60's or early '70's, I believe), a lot of nationwide contests or sweepstakes were illegal in Missouri, and void in this state, because the official State Attorney General legal opinion on the issue was that *the stamp on the envelope* needed to enter the contest was a payment, which made the contest a lottery then illegal under state law. It wasn't until a state constitutional amendment was passed that permitted the state lottery to be begun that this situation changed. I recall quite clearly a lot of otherwise-nationwide contests that had "void in Missouri" [and some other states] in the fine print because of this, and the subject showed up now and then in newspaper advice columns and consumer articles. Some states still have some provisions in their laws that help their citizens in this respect. I think Vermont is one of them; you'll see a note in the fine print of contest rules regarding sending for an entry blank or the like that residents of all states *except Vermont* [or whatever state this really is, if not Vermont] have to send a self-addressed stamped envelope. Residents of Vermont [or whereever] need only send a self-addressed envelope with no stamp on it. Back then, calling Long Distance was still a big deal, so I think there were few, if any, contests that required entry by calling outside a local area. I tend to think that the mindset that called the stamp an illegal lottery payment would view the cost of toll calls the same way. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 90 12:56:28 EST From: James Van Houten <72067.316@compuserve.com> Subject: PALCOM PT1013SL Programmable Call Controller I have read several messages in the Digest that concern controlling access to your dialtone (i.e. College Dorms, Etc). This is a perfect solution. The PT1013SL is a programmable Toll Restrictor that does much more than just block 1+, 0+, 00, 011, 900, 976, 411. The controller has the ability to block up to 400 digits of your choice. It has an override code that allows the owner of the device to bypass it on a per call basis. The controller will also make a line incoming only and can make a lined timed from 1-15 mins. If you have a need to have total control of a phone line then the PT1013SL is for you. Give me a call for further info. James Van Houten P.O. Box 502 Temple Hills, MD 20757 (301) 967-3309 INTERNET: 72067,316@compuserve.com PACKET: KA3TTU@N4QQ Voice Mail: (202) 928-1036 ------------------------------ Subject: Business Week On Long Distance Rates Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 19:27:30 EST From: Ken Jongsma This week's Business Week has an interesting Personal Business article on Long Distance. Some of the highlights: Long Distance rates have dropped almost 40% since 1984. Most consumers cannot tell the difference between AT&T, MCI and Sprint in terms of connection quality. Marketing is focusing on price. On a 12 minute evening call, the following rates apply: AT&T (No Plan) 1.89 AT&T (Reach Out Day) 1.42* MCI (No Plan) 1.77 MCI (Primetime) 1.29* Sprint (No Plan) 1.74 Sprint (Plus) 1.38* * Volume discounts apply in addition to listed rates. Telecom Research & Action Center (TRAC) publishes a business ($5/issue) and residential ($1/issue) newsletter that compares rates. Their address is PO Box 12038, Washington, DC 20005. TRAC finds that Sprint is almost always cheaper, but not always the best choice. Saturday callers should use MCIs Supersaver plan. Longer calls (10+ minutes) overseas may be cheaper on AT&T. Promotions abound. MCI gives miles on Northwest or American Airlines and offers members of the ABA a 5-10% discount. Sprint allows new members to cash in Contental miles for credit on their Sprint bill. AT&T gives a $10 credit if you sign up with HBO and vice versa. In addition, most carriers offer to pick up the BOC conversion charge if you change default carriers as well as offering a certain amount of "free" calls. [Comment: The new Sprint bill (mentioned in a previous digest) makes it very easy to analize you bill and decide if your calling patterns suggest a change in carriers. - Ken] ------------------------------ From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" Subject: New California PUC Rules for Pay Phones Date: 19 Mar 90 21:44:20 GMT Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego From the Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1990 PUC IS ABOUT TO WRITE NEW RULE BOOK FOR PAY PHONES A new era in the pay-phone business in California is expected to dawn later this year when the Public Utilities Commission completes work on a two-year study of the former monopoly that it opened to competition in November, 1985. The centerpiece is a "settlement agreement" that reconciles the differ- ences of all parties: consumer groups, the PUC's consumer-support staff, local phone companies, long-distance carriers and owners of private pay phones. If it works as intended, the agreement would have these benefits for each group: CONSUMERS: There will be a uniform 20-cent rate for local coin calls from any pay phone, guaranteed for five years. (While pay phones operated by local phone companies charge 20 cents for these calls, private owners may charge 25 cents.) There will also be minimum equipment standards and uni- form information posted at the pay phones, including the name and toll-free number of the telephone's owner. There also will be no charge for dialing toll-free numbers to reach a preferred long-distance carrier, whether that carrier had a prescribed five-digit code (10-XXX) or a number starting with a prefix of 950 or 800. A phone's owner could no longer block access to carriers other than the one subscribed to. LOCAL PHONE COMPANIES: The PUC would authorize and set out procedures for these companies to enforce prices and "get rid of the bad actors" by discon- necting those guilty of persistent overcharging. PAY PHONE OWNERS: The new owners agreed to trim their basic coin rate to 20 cents but in exchange will receive a 30-cent payment from phone companies and long-distance carriers for all non-coin calls the private pay phones transmit to their networks. This provision can spell the difference between profitability and loss for the pay phone's owner. Owners also will eventu- ally be able to buy additional network services from local carriers that are not now available, offering such advantages as correctly identifying when a call is answered and billing should begin. LONG-DISTANCE CARRIERS: So-called interexchange carriers are assured that their customers will always be able to reach them from any pay phone in California. Owners will no longer be able to force customers to use only the carrier the owners selected for their phones. PHONE MAKERS: Manufacturers of telephones equipped with automated operator and billing services that meet certain standards set by the PUC will be allowed to install their equipment and compete with the local phone compa- nies' operators for dial-O calls. Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152 Phone:619-553-3454 Internet:grabhorn@nosc.mil UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 18:15:30 EST In ont.general, in a discussion on harrassing phone calls (and Caller ID), L.J.Dickey (ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu) writes: > The phone company can install a device that will, on command, > "lock in" the caller, so that, even after the caller hangs up, > the phones are still connected. I recall reading about such a device myself, but it was in Reader's Digest and more than 10 years ago. I don't believe I've ever seen it mentioned here on comp.dcom.telecom. Given what I have learned here about the wide variations between switches, I'd conjecture that the device exists, but only for some types of switch. Would I be right? Mark Brader "When you're up to your ass in alligators, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto maybe you're in the wrong swamp." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Bill Stewart ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Calling North America From Overseas Date: 19 Mar 90 10:10:38 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan I received a fax from the owner of Credit Card Calling Services (CCCS) and I will pass on the information I received. CCCS will place calls to any number in the U.S. or Canada, including (800) numbers (I assume only those (800) numbers dialable from New Jersey). I find their rates to be cheaper than using AT&T's USA Direct, but the owner of CCCS believed they were often more expensive than AT&T. Part of this confusion may result from the fact that each AT&T operator I talk to gives me different rates for their service, and then there was the one who reprimanded me: "It's the middle of the night over here! You call us up in the middle of the night and expect us to know all the rates?" Well, excuuuuse me. But I digress... CCCS plans to extend service to other countries in the near future. Europe and Japan will be the first overseas countries that one will be able to call using this service. CCCS charges $4.80 for the first minute on any U.S. station-to-station call. This includes calls to (800) numbers. Person-to-person calls are $7.80 for the first minute. The additional-minute rate varies according to where you are calling from. To quote the owner, a Mr. Nadybal: "CCCS is extremely sensitive about fraud. Because of experience with fraud, the following restrictions exist: - Calls are permitted for voice use only. We do not permit data transfers over our lines. This includes computer transmissions and fax. - We have suspended acceptance of US Bell company calling cards at this time. For the moment, we accept only major credit cards and collect calls. Collect calls can not be made to Canada. - For a considerable and random portion of each day, we restrict calls to non-800 numbers to only person-to-person calls. There is no extra charge unless the customer specifically asks for person-to-person service. This is a fraud-protection measure we found necessary to implement. - Callers who wish to use the system extensively should rotate billing between different credit cards. We have automated billing number blocking in place which senses calling patterns used by computer hackers trying to access computers stateside using stolen or invented credit card numbers. It is conceivable that a 'frequent caller' might 'trip' the system into blocking a card number until the caller writes us and asks for the block to be manually lifted. Anyone who would like a detailed explanation of the service and a wallet-sized card with access numbers can write to: Credit Card Calling Systems, Inc. 67 Wall St., #2411 New York, NY 10005 Tel: +1 212 323 8030 Fax: +1 212 432 9366" I don't have their wallet-sized card, but here are the access numbers. From Europe ($1.55 additional-minute charge except $1.35 from Great Britain): Belgium 11-5454 Denmark 800-10-800 Finland 98-001-0110 France 19 (wait for tone) 0590-1800 Germany/Berlin 01-302928 Great Britain 0800-89-1800 Greece 0800-12-2928 Israel 00177-908-7831 (not available from public phones) Italy 1678-79-074 (local call charge applies) Liechtenstein 04605-1800 Monaco 19 (wait for tone) 0590-2747 Netherlands 06 (wait for tone) 022-6202 Norway 050-12-050 San Marino 1678-74-001 Sweden 020-79-56-79 Switzerland 04605-2928 (local call charge applies) Vatican City 1678-74-001 Asia ($1.95 each additional minute): Australia 0014-800-125571 Hong Kong 800-2928 Japan 0031-12-1800 (not available from all phones) New Zealand TBA Philippines TBA Singapore 800-1518 So. Korea 0081-800-907-8201 (not available from all phones) Latin America ($1.95 each additional minute): Brazil 00081-4550-2928 Chile TBA Mexico TBA Panama 1-800-322-2928 Caribbean Basin ($1.95 each additional minute): Aruba 800-1508 Antigua 1-800-322-2928 (not available from public telephones) Jamaica 0-800-322-2928 Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Br. Virgin Isl., Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, St Kitts & Nevis(?), St. Maarten, Saba, & Bonaire, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos, U.S. Virgin Isl. : 1-800-322-2928 Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: +81-3-237-5867 Voice Mail: +81-3-222-8429 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #187 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06548; 21 Mar 90 3:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23716; 21 Mar 90 1:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25980; 21 Mar 90 0:20 CST Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 23:41:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #188 BCC: Message-ID: <9003202341.ab04150@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Mar 90 23:40:17 CST Volume 10 : Issue 188 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson PSC to the Rescue [Matt Simpson] FCC Access Charges [System Operator] Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia [David Leibold] Fun With Step-By-Step Switches [David Leibold] Odd Stuff at MCI [Ted Koppel] ALEX is Nothing Special [Robert Masse] Wiring Standards for Data on RJ45 [Edward Greenberg] Arrrrrgh! COCOT's Have Crossed the Atlantic [John Pettitt] SPRINT Industrial Espionage Lawsuit [W. W. Scott] Information Wanted on CNA [Don Saklad] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:34:09 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: PSC to the Rescue Bob Goudreau's description of having his phone service disconnected because the phone company forgot to delay a cutover as he requested reminded me of one chapter in my long story of trying to get phone service in my new residence ... so I thought I'd relay the whole bitter story. It started in about Feb. 89, when I was almost through (I thought) construction of my new house, about 1/4 mile fom my old one, on the same property, served by the same central office and same cable. I called SCB to request a new service installation. Since I was unsure of my exact moving date, I asked if they could go ahead and do the physical cable installation, and I would call back later and give a cutover date. No, they couldn't do that, they had to cutover the day they installed the cable. I asked if I could have the service active at both locations for a transition period. She thought so, but if not, what date did I want it cutover? I picked an arbitrary date in April, figuring that if I didn't move at the same time the phone service did, I could just leave the answering machine at whatever location had a live phone jack. Several days later, I recieved a letter informing me that due to "unanticipated growth" in my area, they would not be able to immediately fulfill my request for new phone service. I called and asked what the problem was, and was told that they lacked the necessary outside plant capacity; translation: no more pairs on the cable. When did they think they could provide service? Maybe September, but they couldn't commit to that. I said that was totally ridiculous, that all they had to do was to use the pair serving my old house to serve the new one, since the old one would be probably be vacant until after they "upgraded their outside plant". I was told that they didn't do business that way, that they couldn't take a pair from an existing location to serve a new location, not even when requested to do so by the owner of both locations. Much irate screaming got me connected to a supervisor, who told me that there were other people in that area who had been waiting for service for 6 months, and were probably facing another 6 month wait, and that if they disconnected my existing service, they would have to use that capacity to fulfill one of those waiting orders before they could give it back to me, because that was a newer order. I said I didn't want my service disconnected, I wanted my demark point moved to another location on the same premises. Finally, they agreed to investigate that possibility. The next day, they called back, to tell me they had checked with engineering and had been told that the pair which served my old house could not be used to serve a new house 1/4 mile away. I'm not a telephony person, so I didn't understand their reason. They said something about a booster coil on the cable between the two locations. I was also so mad thay I didn't think quickly enough to catch their contradiction; the day before, they had threatened to give my pair to someone else, now they're telling me it won't work anywhere else. At this point I gave up, figuring I'd move without phone service, relying on an answering machine at the old location and a voice pager to keep in touch with the outside world. This was fine, till one day I came home and picked up the phone to return a call, and it was dead. I knew right away what the problem was, this was the date that I had originally requested the cutover. Of course, the new service was not installed. I drove 3 miles to the nearest pay-phone, and talked to repair service. The rep was extremely apologetic and helpful, and promised to have my old service restored by Monday evening (this was Friday). He mentioned that to get the order into the system, he actually had to enter a transfer request that said I was moving from the new house back to the old house, but not to worry, it wouldn't cost me anything. Sure enough, on Monday, I had phone service again, but I was a little dubious about the effect of the rep's new transfer order. So a couple of weeks later, just for grins, I called the service dept. to ask if there had been any improvement on the anticipated date for my new service. .."Sir your new service should already be operational" .. "Well, I'm afraid it isn't" .. The call almost became a Laurel-and Hardy type of conversation " Is your new address ....?" "No, that's my old address..." Finally, the confusion was resolved, and they regretfully informed me that the installation schedule had been delayed even more. For a couple of months, I lived with this inconvenience, until one day I got a bill which included $60 for "new service installation". I instantly guessed that this was for restoring the old service, and after I came down off the ceiling, I called to complain. I got hold of a real rude rep, who explained to me (in a "You idiot" tone) that the charge was for reconnecting my old service. When I complained that I didn't think I should pay for telco screwups, she explained in a very exasperated tone that a transfer request generated two work orders, one to disconnect old service, and one to connect new service, and just because one got cancelled, the other didn't automatically get cancelled. I said that I thought that was their problem, that all I wanted was continuous phone service, that they had disrupted that because of their own internal screwup, and that I shouldn't have to pay to restore it. She told me that I was all wrong. I then pointed out that I had been told that there would be no charge. "Who told you that?" .. "I don't remember his name, but it was one of your service reps" ... "Well, there are over 200 of us, and if you don't remember which one you talked to, I can't help you" ... "Well, if you can't help me, I'd like to speak to a manager" ... "All our managers are in a meeting, and I don't know when one will be available". She didn't offer to take a message to have a manager return my call when available. At this point, I got really angry, and did what I should have done months earlier: I called the state Public Service Commission and explained the situation. Less tahn 2 hours later, I received a call from someone at SCB, telling me that the $60 charge had been deducted from my bill, and that my new service would be installed the next week. The PSC rep even called me back the next week to verify that SCB had made good on their promise ... they had. ------------------------------ Subject: FCC Access Charges Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 21:48:52 EST From: System Operator Just to throw this in on the discussion of FCC access charges: For a while, I ran a 976 service in the South Florida area. My phone bills where HUGE! On each line there was a 6! dollar FCC access charge. This can mount up when you consider how many trunks are placed on each working phone number. As we all know, these charges are to allow everyone "equal access to the long distance network." Ok, I'll bite... The 976 lines were not capable of placing outgoing calls; no dialtone, just battery tick when they are taken off hook. ALL calls outside the LATA are BLOCKED from being able to reach those 976 number. Hence NO ACCESS to the NETWORK is possible from EITHER direction. Why was I being charged??!! When I asked someone from Southern Bell, they said, well, gosh gee, its because that 6 dollars per month was calculated based on EACH phone line, regardless of whether they have access to the network. Does this mean ring-down lines get nailed too? Anyone else have some opinions, comments? How about a good old class action suit?. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of several years!!! These thoughts are my own, and all standard disclaimers apply. Andy {your favorite backbone...codas}!novavax!pinn!sysop ------------------------------ Subject: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 22:58:04 EST From: woody I read an item some time ago that Maritime Tel & Tel, which service the province of Nova Scotia, Canada, plans to introduce a 911 service that will cover the entire province. Currently, Canadian 911 installations are done on a region-by-region, or even city-by-city basis. Any examples of state-wide 911 yet? || David Leibold "Art is anything you can get away with" || djcl@contact.uucp - Marshall McLuhan ------------------------------ Subject: Fun With Step-By-Step Switches Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 23:08:37 EST From: woody Years ago, when I had access to a real live step-by-step exchange, there were some strange things that could be done. For instance, because of number absorbing and things like that, a call placed to one exchange for numbers of the form nxx.4xxx could also be dialed using nxx.7xxx when called via long distance (same nxx exchange, same last three digits, just use a 7 instead of a 4; there were officially no such things as nxx.7xxx numbers). Some people kept phoning our number long distance because they were really wanting some party who had a number like zzz.7xxx in another exchange, only they decided to dial our exchange (which was adjacent) as nxx.7xxx, therefore getting us on nxx.4xxx. Not to mention what we could do to that adjacent exchange (zzz)... dialing to that exchange, but with numbers like zzz.70523 (yes, extra digits on step-by-step!), it was possible to tap into some of the calls being placed in that exchange. (Again, no official phone #s in the zzz.70xx range, but this was something strange for electro-mechanical technology). Of course, up in the great white north, one used to be able to dial 1 514 188 xxxx and it likely got the overseas dialing trunk. No wonder the phone company wanted to switch us over to digital technology as soon as possible. (I didn't have a blue box, so some of these things couldn't be tested out too well). Obviously, with the change in technology, all of the above is now likely unavailable. Anyone else with experiences on SxS switches? || David Leibold "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse" || djcl@contact.uucp - Bruce Cockburn ------------------------------ From: Ted Koppel Subject: Odd Stuff at MCI Date: 20 Mar 90 06:20:16 GMT Organization: CARL -- Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries I was trying to make a call this morning (Denver --> San Jose) on MCI from home. Got an intercept that said my call can't be completed at this time - for further information call 1-800-888-1800. Tried, of course, calling the 800-888-1800, but line was consistently busy, so eventually I went to work. Called MCI tonight to ask if they were having network problems this morning, but the (low-level) clerk I spoke to of course didn't know anything. 1 - was MCI not working to the West Coast today, or did I have a fluke? 2 - what is the point of dialing the 1-800-888-1800 number; what information might they have told me if it hadn't been busy? Ted Koppel CARL - Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries = Internet: tkoppel@carl.org -or- uunet!isis!tkoppel (uucp) ------------------------------ From: Robert Masse Subject: ALEX is Nothing Special Organization: None Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 21:55:37 GMT I have personally used Bell's ALEX several times and I don't think it's as good as the publicity suggests. I find that the services it currently offers are not very useful to the average person. Maybe in the future Bell will offer more usefull services but until they do I don't recommend it. Robert Masse (514)466-2689/home Internet: robert%altitude@IRO.UMontreal.CA UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert soon: robert@altitude.cam.org or robert@altitude.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 08:12 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Wiring Standards for Data on RJ45 I'd like to wire some RS-232 circuits from desks back to a wiring closet using modular hardware at the desk end. We will be terminating a six wire connection on an RJ45 (8 pin modular jack) under each desk, and then use a modular cord (with appropriate ends) to connect the jack to a DB25 or DB9 shell, thence into the back of a PC. Is there any standard for the appearance of the standard RS-232 signals on the RJ45, or should I just invent something that works. Note: Why 8 pin jacks with six wire circuits? We can't seem to get some of the parts with RJ11 jacks. Thanks, Ed Greenberg edg@cso.3mail.3com.com ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 15:31:22 GMT Organization: Specialix International Subject: Arrrrrgh! COCOT's Have Crossed the Atlantic I have found a COCOT in the UK. In the Continental Arilines President's Club lounge at London Gatwick Ariport there is a public phone that has the name `Comvik Card Call' and a `CCC' logo on the front. It claims to take Mastercard, VISA, AmEx, Diners and Switch (a debit card). It does not take money. It blocks calls to the operator and will not allow the use of a British Telecom or Pacific Bell credit card. I tried to use my Switch card and it would not work so I pressed the button marked `helpline' and got connected to some bimbo who claimed not to have heard of Switch cards (despite the Switch logo on the phone!). The flyer that was next to the phone identified CCC as a Kinnevik Company but does not list a phone number for them. The rates posted on the phone were 3 to 5 times the BT rate for the same call. John Pettitt Specialix International jpp@specialix.co.uk ------------------------------ From: W W Scott Subject: SPRINT Industrial Espionage Lawsuit Date: 20 Mar 90 18:04:01 GMT Organization: Bell Communications Research Have you heard that the FBI is investigating SPRINT for using industrial espionage to obtain information from Martin-Marietta and MCI to help win the FTS-2000 contract? SPRINT executives are reportedly so quiet that you can hear a pin drop! ------------------------------ From: Don Saklad Subject: Information Wanted on CNA Reply-To: Don Saklad Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 02:10:03 GMT ...from a stack of pending telecommunications questions: Does anyone know something, anything or everything about CNA, customer name and address service? [Moderator's Note: Customer Name and Address Bureau (or Service) is usually only an inter-telco arrangment, where authorized employees of one telco (such as the billing department) can get the name and address of a customer whose charges have to be billed collect, etc. One exception to the rule that CNA can only be used internally by telcos is the one operated by Illinois Bell specifically for the public. (They also have an internal version for their own use.) By dialing 312 (or 708, it matters not) 796-9600 you reach operators at Illinois Bell's Chicago-Wabash central office who do reverse directory lookups at the rate of 35 cents per two numbers. You provide the 312/708 number; they respond with the name and address where the service is located. If the service is non-pub, that's your tough luck; they don't have it available on their terminals. As stated above, most telcos do not offer this service to the public. Are there others besides Illinois Bell, which also does it for Central Tel on the northwest side? PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #188 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08391; 21 Mar 90 4:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31768; 21 Mar 90 2:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23716; 21 Mar 90 1:26 CST Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 0:28:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #189 BCC: Message-ID: <9003210028.ab12221@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Mar 90 00:28:31 CST Volume 10 : Issue 189 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [David Dyer-Bennet] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Daniel Karrenberg] Re: Enhanced 911 [Macy W. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [David Schanen] Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [Ken Weaverling] Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [Ed Greenberg] Re: Recall / Flash Hook [Brian Kantor] Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [John Bruner] Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [Linc Madison] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Tue Mar 20 15:34:20 1990 Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5267@accuvax.nwu.edu> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 179, Message 8 of 12 vances writes: >My question is who is getting answer supervision provided all the way >back to the PBX? I know of several people in different areas of the US >that are. This allows optimal billing back of calls. Most BOC's will not give answer supervsion (aka reverse battery) for any reason. They simply refuse to tarriff it. Most COCOT vendors (the ones that try to be legit, anyway) would kill for answer supervision. Murder, however, is regarded negatively by the BOC's. Many non-Bell telcos will give it, some by tarriff, some not. I got GTE Ohio to give it to me on my ground start PBX trunks by making arrangments with local managment. (I still cannot believe they did it) Ohio Bell says "no tarriff, not available". If you are a governmental agency or other large user, "special arrangement" tarriffs are used to get it. When the connections to the long distance carrier are direct and do not use telco provided switching equipment, answer supervision can be obtained from most long distance carriers upon special arrangment. This usually involves the use of a T1 feed for higher volume users. Note that AT&T does not like to provide answer supervision (seems odd to me) on Megacom. Now: if the telco won't give us answer supervision, why should we have to provide it to the telco by tarriff on DID lines? ;-) In article <5194@accuvax.nwu.edu> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 175, Message 2 of 9 [ Several discussions of various types of itemized and non-itemized billings deleted to prevent boredom....] Actually GTE Mobilnet may have the whole thing figured out for us: They charge an additional $2.25 per month to render an itemized bill (in the Cleveland-Akron market, at least) for their cellular telephone service. I'm not sure if I agree with this or not ... but at least there is a choice. 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) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: David Dyer-Bennet Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: David Dyer-Bennet Organization: Terrabit Software Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:52:25 GMT In article <5265@accuvax.nwu.edu> tanner@ki4pv.uucp writes: :Further, I can verify the readings on the meters for the power, gas, :and water by examining my meters. I can, if it pleases me, go out and :watch the dials turn and verify that they are turning at the right :rate. I can install my own meter (after the company's meter) if it :pleases me. You can not, in principle, do this with the phone. In England, which uses non-itemized message-unit billing, it is possible (though not normal) to get phones with a "message unit" meter right on them. I've run into them in short-term rental situations, where the people staying in a house want phone service, but it's different people each week. With this setup, the landlord can come by and check the phone meter and add your phone bill into the total when you leave. This is not meant to refute your basic point at all, particularly since it's not the normal setup and most likely costs extra. But, *in principle*, you can do most of this (not connecting your own meter) with the phone system. David Dyer-Bennet, ddb@terrabit.fidonet.org or ddb@network.com or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 9600hst/2400/1200/300 or terrabit!ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!terrabit!ddb ------------------------------ From: Daniel Karrenberg Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 20 Mar 90 11:17:53 GMT Organization: European Unix systems User Group tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) writes: >How can such a device work on a system where the PTT's counter runs at >different rates depending on distance, time of day, and so on? In the systems based on message units the local exchange (sometimes the toll exchange but never mind the details) will figure out to which charge band you are calling. As soon as call supervision indicates the call is completed it will send 16kHz pulses down the subscriber line. The pulses are spaced according to the tariff applying to the call. The pulses will reach a meter at the local exchange associated with your line. These meters (at least in Germany) mostly still are mechanical counters arranged in blocks of (I think) 25x25 which are photographed once a month. The photographs are used to key the meter counts into the billing system manually (believe it or not). Call supervision works on all national and most international calls. Some areas of the UK are a notable exception. In these cases you get billed for the ringing and there is nothing you can do about it. If you want a meter at home, the PTT whill remove the lowpass filter that blocks the 16kHz pulses and -voila- your meter starts ticking. Last time I saw them they were mechanical counters attached to a simple LC filter circuit. I am now living in the Netherlands and here they sell you counters with LCD displays. You can strap the unit price with jumpers and read them off in real $$s. Before anyone asks: Yes there is plenty of room for inflation in the design. :-) Daniel Karrenberg Future Net: CWI, Amsterdam Oldie Net: mcsun!dfk The Netherlands Because It's There Net: DFK@MCVAX ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 20 14:57:37 1990 From: fmsystm!macy Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5231@accuvax.nwu.edu> Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 5 of 10 Steve Swingler writes: > Enhanced 911 *CAN* be implemented from many large PBXs. It >simply requires the use of ANI trunks and an accurate database. It >has been done by several different groups...the one that comes to mind >is the City of Seattle. They use several NT SL-1 switches, and they >all provide accurate E911 data to the E911 Operator. > The problem with the previously mentioned apartment complexes is >the lack of pressure on the owners of the places to spend the money to >fully implement E911, just in case it is ever needed. Steve in correct in purely technical terms. Many PBX's have AIOD (Automatic Idenification of Outward Dialing) capability. The reason it is seldom used is refusal of the local phone companies to offer the service. Why? It lets the PBX vendor compete with Centrex. The phone companies boast about the billing info they can provide on Centrex stations, and use it as a marketing tool. They then refuse to offer AIOD to prevent equal capability to PBX vendors. The reason AIOD was developed was to let telco installed PBX's do this. I have fought this battle with Ohio Bell and GTE Ohio for over ten years. And now they are using E911 as another reason to buy Centrex. I have no problems with the telco doing this. They should be required to offer AIOD and DID lines tarrifed at reasonable prices as part of their Centrex offering, and not be allowed to set up a marketing advantage by denying these services. (Repeat of same argument applies to telco payphones and COCOT access lines: a level playing field should be required.) 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) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service Date: 20 Mar 90 18:56:00 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing In article <5370@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: >If they just don't want to be bothered, I could understand a high fee >for the first minute. But a zero fee for the first minute with some >fee thereafter is hard to comprehend, unless this is coupled with a >method for the tech-assistance folks to turn off the fee when they >recognize a valid problem or decide the time they are spending is >worthwhile to the company. Is that an available option for 900 calls -- >that the callee has a button they can push that tells the telco >"this call is free to the caller"? Being a former representaive for ATT/USWEST/Mountain Bell (during divestiture) I'll tell what I know about 900 numbers. When I worked there, 900 service was being billed as single-number service, or an alternative to having 2 800 lines (one for intra and one for inter state) It also had a vote taking feature whereby you could charge the customer for a vote that they cast. (I thought this would be great for demographics, you could see who was willing to part with a buck for little in return.) How all these Phone Sex etc... $5-$30 per call things got started, I don't know. As for Will's question I doubt very much that ATT or anyone else who sells 900 service would let the customers turn off and on their rates. -Dave ------------------------------ From: weave <@sun.acs.udel.edu:weave@sun.acs.udel.edu> Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service Date: 21 Mar 90 04:19:45 GMT Reply-To: weave <@sun.acs.udel.edu:weave@sun.acs.udel.edu> Organization: Delaware Tech College >Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance >for its PC based product 1-2-3. Yeah, sure... I can imagine me placing a 900 call from my office phone to a service like this. We've already gotten threatening memos about calling 900 or 976 numbers. (Every call we make causes a printer to print the extension it came from and the telephone # called, along with date/time.) My employer will be convinced I'm calling up Dan Quayle's Nintendo Tip Line. I hope other vendors don't use this scheme or if they do, still offer other maintenance arrangements. Ken Weaverling - Systems Administrator | Internet: weave@sun.acs.udel.edu Delaware Technical & Community College | Voice: +1 302 573 5460 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 08:03 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Interesting Use of 900 Number >Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance >for its PC based product 1-2-3. The rate structure is a reversal of >most 900 services... $0.00 1st minute, $2.00 each additional minute. >One is supposed to be immediately connected to a technical "high >trained engineer" for support. They are doing this on a trial basis. >It will be interesting to see if this works and/or spreads. Perhaps they put you on hold for a minute first :-) Consider who can use this... Most corporations have 900 numbers blocked (or should :-) We're down to the individuals then. This is a offer to an isolated number cruncher, say a private practice accountant, an investor, etc., to get an expert on the phone and, for the low low price of $120/hour, buy consulting time. I think it's overpriced. I also don't think it'll last. Ed Greenberg edg@cso.3mail.3com.com ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Recall / Flash Hook Date: 20 Mar 90 14:19:23 GMT Reply-To: Brian Kantor Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. In article <5379@accuvax.nwu.edu> vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) writes: >Quoting from the EIA Standard RS-464 Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Switching >Equipment for Voiceband Applications: > 4.8.3.5.1 If flash signals (momentary on-hooks) from > the remote terminal are used by the PBX to initiate internal calling > features, the PBX shall ignore an on-hook signal of 150 ms or less; > interpret an on-hook signal of 300 ms to one second as a valid > flash; interpret an on-hook signal of 1.5 seconds or greater as a > valid disconnect. Pity some didn't take notice of that when they were writing the software for their stuff: our campus MD-110 switch seems to think that just about any single pulse is a flash. You can't pulse-dial any number with a 1 in it. Played hob with the outdial modem pool until we managed to educate the users NOT to turn off tone dialing. Those with the older Racal/Vadic dialers that ONLY pulse-dial just had to upgrade.... - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 09:08:51 CST From: John Bruner Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees I've been wondering for some time about the 900 numbers which advertise a "TV sports trivia game show" (and similar programs for other subjects). You can win $100 just by making a telephone call, but of course, it's a 900 number and you're billed for the call. Is this really legal? The ads I've heard have never mentioned a method for "playing" the trivia game for free (or for the cost of a stamp). What's the difference between this and, say, playing blackjack by telephone? John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 19:20:01 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5228@accuvax.nwu.edu> Chip Rosenthal writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 2 of 10 >Not necessarily. I saw some tests of using V.35 modems with the three >LD carriers in Data Communications about a year back. In all tests >(BER, call completion, setup time, etc.) AT&T won, except for one. >Sprint had the best signal levels. I doubt it's a quirk so much as >different results for different conditions. About three years ago, I was working on a project that required me to send numerous faxen to Italy. I thus had a strong interest in signal quality comparisons between AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. I found that for voice communications, AT&T had a slight edge over MCI, with Sprint a distant third. For fax transmission, though, Sprint was the winner by a mile, if you could get a circuit. MCI was a close second, and had enough of an advantage on circuit availability to make it the overall winner. AT&T was left in the dust -- I almost never had a retransmission on either Sprint or MCI, but AT&T botched the send due to line noise about 65% of the time! I wound up programming our fax machine to auto-dial 9-10222-011-39-6-etc. (Of course, the person who reviews the phone bills sent my manager a note saying, "...but AT&T is our official long-distance company." When I explained the situation, though, my manager said, "Don't sweat it; do what works." Maybe his common sense was why he was laid off... 1/2 :-) Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #189 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08403; 21 Mar 90 4:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31768; 21 Mar 90 2:36 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae23716; 21 Mar 90 1:26 CST Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 1:06:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #190 BCC: Message-ID: <9003210106.ab16621@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Mar 90 01:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 190 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Legion of Doom [Gordon Meyer] Re: Phone Harassment [Lyle Seaman] Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Linc Madison] Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Peter Fleszar] Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area [Jeff Wolfe] Re: Defective "Bell" Phones [Steve Kass] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Mar 90 18:56:12 EST From: GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Legion of Doom Rebuttal to Moderator In Telecom Digest v10 #160 the moderator suggested that I retract my characterization of the recent LoD/Phrack busts as a "witch hunt" on the basis of of an allegation about LoD involvement in a supposed $66,000. theft from a Citibank VAX computer. (Legal note: This is heresay. I'm not suggesting that Citibank's computers have been comprimised. I know of no such instance.) Actually, this particular story is a _perfect_ example that it is indeed a "witch-hunt". A "witch-hunt", for those not familar with the term, usually refers to a situation where people are presumed guilty before being convicted, where associates of alleged "criminals" are harassed, intimidated, and discredited, with the whole thing being fed by culture misinterpretation and escalation by people whose opinions are based solely on what they have read in the newspaper and other media. All of this applies to the subject at hand. First off, no one has been convicted of any charges, at least not yet. The indictment for Neidorf and Riggs lists 5-7 "facts" about the Legion of Doom. All of which are heresay and should not be included as "evidence" of anything. Also, there is indeed a "hit list" of known associates of the LoD, and PHRACK contributors. (I don't know if our moderator is on it, but I do know that things he has written were published in Phrack. Perhaps w/out his permission but that's a moot point when putting together a list of "suspects". People who don't belive this aren't familar with CoIntelPro.) Finally, I have read the "How We Got Rich Through Electronic Fund Transfer" article by the Legion of Doom. It was published 11/27/89 in Phrack #29. As John Markoff surmised it is indeed _fiction_. The satire, humor, and obvious tounge-in-cheekness (sic) of it all is quite obvious if you are computer literate and attentive to the computer underground. If you're a techno-phobic news reporter or federal agent I could easily see how it could be believed, but one can't interpret humorous articles from an outside perspective. How many times have people made tounge-in-cheek comments in this digest that could, if taken out of context in terms of intent, be shocking to much of the tele-phobic :) populace? It is not my intent to write an apology for the computer underground. What I am trying to do is inject some sanity and perspective into the discussion (which seems to have died down, but it will be an issue we'll face again in the future.) Cultural ignorance, name-calling, and emotional attachment aren't going to get us anywhere. No one (at least not me) is doubting the seriousness of the charges. But just because the charges are serious doesn't preclude the possiblity that the recent actions undertaken against people known to associate with p/hackers aren't a "mean-spirited attempt to kill the fun of a couple of kids" (a tip of the hat to Gene Spafford in v10 #164). The stories reported here don't give the full picture. Intimidation, threats, disruption of work and school, "hit lists", and serious legal charges are _all_ part of the tactics being used in this "witch-hunt". That, my friends, ought to indicate that perhaps the use of pseudonames wasn't such a bad idea after all. It has occured to me that I should clarify something I said in a previous message. I belive that the events described in the LoD electronic fund transfer article are fictional. The article (and another in the same issue of PHRACK) does describe, in a narrative form, the process and format of overseas electronic fund transfers. That information may indeed be accurate. I simply don't know. I doubt that Citibank will confirm if it is or isn't. Many would say that it "isn't cool" to disclose the hows and where-fors of the EFT process. Perhaps so. But again I question the logical leap from _knowing_ how to divert funds, to accusing them of actually doing it. Thanks for letting me clarify that point. I'm sure it will save some bandwidth in the long run. Gordon Meyer 72307.1502@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your comments. I am not a contributor to Phrack, per se. If they were using articles from TELECOM Digest in their publication, I hope they at least were attributing the author and this publication. This Digest may be freely distributed anywhere. The operative word of course, is *freely*. You cannot charge for its distribution, nor pass it along to people or organizations you know will charge for reading the Digest. Exceptions are made for UUNET, systems with mailbox fees where the reader has asked me to deliver to a mailbox there, and public access sites like Chinet, Portal, etc. PT] ------------------------------ From: Lyle Seaman Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:44:43 GMT More on the phone harrasment thing. We were occasionally getting obscene phone calls at home, from (among others) an adult male with a very juvenile sense of humour. I say we, but the only one who ever received them was my wife. She was upset because they knew her first name. I suggested that they probably didn't know her, but had gotten her name from the phone book where it is listed, either before or after reaching our answering machine, which stated "You have reached the Seaman residence..." Anyway, this idiot left an obscene message on a ** tape recorder ** !! I've saved it in case these continued and the law was called in. ( I still can't believe it!) I since changed the outgoing message, and I haven't received any more calls since 3 months ago. On a tape recorder! Lyle sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From: lws@comm.wang.com (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws) (508) 967-2322 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 19:27:51 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5236@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Tamkin writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 8 of 10 >1. Can your local telco really block all outgoing long distance calls? >They can assign no 1+ carrier, but can they block 10XXX? [Perhaps the >link is not used for calls dialed via 950-YXXX or a carrier's 800 >dial-up, but use of those carries a surcharge that can outstrip the >subscriber line charge fairly quickly.] Oh, yes! (But, of course, they charge you extra for the privilege.) I know 'cause when I were a undergrad, we had a computer terminal in my eating club, with a modem for dialing up the campus mainframe. We were very concerned, though, about leaving a phone in a publicly-accessible area (especially 'cause it were a really cheap modem which required you to dial from a phone). NJBell arranged "toll blocking," which means that any attempt to dial any non-local call would result in re-order. Then again, they didn't actually do it when they said they had. In a similar situation more recently here in California (where I is a grad student), we have a Centrex system with forward-on-no-answer to a common answering machine. The answering machine line is blocked for all non-Centrex outgoing calls, but can receive calls from anywhere. We thus got (at *no* charge, even from Pac*Bell!) a service feature with a name something along the lines of Collect/Third Party Blocking, which prevents any incoming calls from being billed to the line. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Peter Fleszar Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) Date: 19 Mar 90 23:01:40 GMT Reply-To: Peter Fleszar Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY Well, in upstate NY calling areas are roughly congruent with county lines. The county seat (which in my examples is the same as the market center of the county; perhaps a systematic bias) can call all, or nearly all, of the smaller towns within the county, but often not other towns inside the same radius but not within the county. The smaller towns can call the next town inside the county and the county seat, but often not adjacent towns inside or (especially) outside the county. I'll illustrate this by discussing my home area of Cortland (Cortland) and Tompkins (Ithaca) counties; and add without further proof that this system seems to hold for Cayuga (Auburn), Onondaga (Syracuse), and Broome (Binghamton) counties. CORTLAND County seat: Cortland - (607) 749, 753, 756 - NYTel Can call (within county): Cincinnatus (607) 863, Truxton (607) 842, Marathon (607) 849, Virgil (607) 835 - Contel; McGraw (607) 836 - NYTel. Can call (town just outside county, but exchange includes significant area within county) DeRuyter (315) 852, Dryden (607) 844 - Contel; Tully (315) 696 - NYTel. Can call (entirely outside county, but town much closer to Cortland than to its own county seat): Sempronius (315) 496, McLean (607) 838, Groton (607) 898 - NYTel. (Note that these are served by the same local loop provider as Cortland.) Example town: Marathon, south of Cortland (exchange area includes a small rural corner of Broome county) - Contel Can call: Cortland (607) 749, 753, 756, [adjacent within county] McGraw (607) 836 - NYTel; [adjacent within county] Cincinnatus (607) 863 - Contel. Can NOT call the other adjacent exchanges: Dryden (Tompkins county) (607) 844, Richford (Tioga county) (607) 657, Whitney Point (Broome county) (607) 692. TOMPKINS County seat: Ithaca - (607) 253, 254, 255, [256 - disused], 257, 272, 273, 274, 277 - NYTel Can call (all within county): (607) 387 Trumansburg - Trumansburg Home Telephone Co.; Etna (607) 347, Dryden (607) 844, Slaterville Springs (607) [don't recall] - Contel; Lansing (607) 533, Newfield (607) 564, McLean (607) 838, Groton (607) 898 - NYTel. Can't call elsewhere locally. Example: Groton, 15 mi. from Ithaca and 10 mi. from Cortland, all inside Tompkins county as far as I know. Can call (within county) Ithaca (607) 2xx, McLean (607) 838. These are NYTel, as is Groton. Can call (outside county) Cortland (607) 7xx - NYTel. Can NOT call (adjacent within county) Etna (607) 347, Dryden (607) 844 - Contel; Lansing (607) 533 - NYTel. Can NOT call (adjacent outside county) Sempronius (315) 496, Moravia (607) 497 - NYTel. So, I guess this all means that 1) the county seat exchange can call within the county and some very nearby areas outside within its market area; 2) rural exchanges can call the county seat, the market center, and maybe one or two other towns close by, but not outside the county. Hope this helps someone. I'd like it if someone who *knows* would post some hard stuff to end the discussion (yea, right :) ). Peter Fleszar BITnet PODOP10@BINGVAXA Internet podop10@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu Compu$... 72000,1471 Ham Radio KB2CCL Phone +1 607 798-8769 Mail-home PO Box 32, McLean, NY 13102 USA. ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Tuesday, 20 Mar 1990 12:08:22 EST From: Jeff Wolfe Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area In article <5374@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) says: >Jeff Wolfe wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 182: >| from my house. To call them, I must dial 1-378-xxxx. But, to call Penn >| State's Scranton Campus, where I attend school, I can simply dial >| 961-xxxx. >What's significant are not so much the boundaries of your seven-digit >dialing area so much as those of your toll-free area. If I were >placing calls from Dalton, whether there were toll charges would be >more important to me than whether I had to dial eight digits or seven. I guess I should have specified that any number with a '1' in front is automatically a toll call in our area (except calls to the telco itself). I am indeed charged by the minute to call Lake Winola. My Scranton service is untimed and unlimited. The 'local toll' (I'm not up on teleco terms) rates are more expensive than AT&T's long distance rates.. I would gladly dial 50 digits if I didn't have to pay for a call that only went 7 miles! -- Jeff Wolfe JTW106@psuvm.psu.edu RelayNet node: Outer JTW106@psuvm.BITNET BBS (717)563-1279 HST ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 09:32 EDT From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." Subject: RE: Defective "Bell" phones In TELECOM Digest #186, Brad Isley writes: > This is no news to me. My wife works for Southern Bell. They had a > "special" offer for employees several years back for som phones made > by "Bell". She bought a cordless phone through this offer for a huge > discount. Later we discovered why the discount was so large. The > batteries would typically last about 10 minutes. Nice touch (brand > new). At most any time, though it only happened when we were asleep, > it would emit an ear-piercing squeal that would wake us up from the > other side of the house. I don't know what model you have, but it's a Southwestern Bell Freedom phone. I purchased one recently, and it had the same two problems you describe, but they were easy to remedy. The problem with the battery is typical of Ni-Cad rechargeables. You have to discharge it completely (leave the phone ON and set on TALK, with the base unit disconnected, for a day or so), then recharge it completely (again for a day or so, now with the base unit plugged in). The squeal was a bit harder to figure out. Of the four switches on the remote unit, one is OFF/ON and another is STANDBY/TALK. To use the phone, you must turn it ON, then set it to TALK. The other way round doesn't work. Conversely, when you end a conversation, you have to set it to STANDBY, then turn it OFF if you want (the remote won't ring if it's OFF). If you do it the wrong way, just shutting the phone OFF while leaving it on TALK, the base unit squeals at odd intervals (it happened while I was awake, fortunately). Maybe someone with a bit of technical knowledge can tell us why. I'm happy mine (model 1725), though the speaker phone in the base unit is pretty lousy, and programming numbers into the phone is awkward to do, and you can't program a # into a number, making it impossible to have a single button to retrieve my voice mail at work. I chose it over AT&T's model because the base unit is wall mountable. It's widely available on sale for about $149. In addition, SW Bell has a toll-free number for information about the phone. I called for a manual and got one within a few days. I expect my old 2500 set to outlast the Freedom Phone, but I don't regret the purchase. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Steve Kass "An amount in this box means :: :: Department of Math & Computer Science the fishing boat operator :: :: Drew University considers you self-employed." :: :: Madison, NJ 07940 /\/ -IRS Form 1099 :: :: ::::::::::::::::: :: skass@drew.bitnet 201-408-3614 (work, voice mail) :: :: skass@drew.edu 201-514-1187 (home) :::::::::::::: :: rutgers!njin!drew!skass :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #190 ****************************** ISSUES 191 AND 192 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 192 COMES NEXT THEN 191 FOLLOWS.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04758; 22 Mar 90 2:42 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18454; 22 Mar 90 0:48 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32330; 21 Mar 90 23:41 CST Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 23:38:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #192 BCC: Message-ID: <9003212338.ab21480@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Mar 90 23:37:25 CST Volume 10 : Issue 192 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery? [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Evelyn C. Leeper] Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Gordon Burditt] Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Lyle Seaman] Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [Lyle Seaman] Re: Phone Harassment [Gary Sarff] Re: White House Caller-ID [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [Jon Baker] Re: Calling North America From Overseas [Tom Hofmann] Re: Information Wanted on CNA [Lyle Seaman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Tue Mar 20 16:51:41 1990 Subject: Re: Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery? Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5311@accuvax.nwu.edu> : X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 182, Message 1 of 12 >I received one of those "you may have already won" calls on my voice >mail at work the other day (in fact, so did everyone else in the >office!) that told me that all I had to do to find out I was a winner >was to ring up their 900 number and they'd be happy to enter me in the >contest. The call would cost me $10. I got one of these on my cellular phone the other night on the way back from a customer site. Talk about sleazy! There was absolutely no way to identify the caller without calling the 900 number. And I had to pay airtime, too, 'cause I answered the call. Gad, I was steamed! They were obviously power dialing the entire 216-389-xxxx cellular exchange, and judging by the time, intentionally.... My friend in CO engineering at Mobilnet said they had no way to trace, its just another incoming trunk call to them from Ohio Bell. Cincinatti Bell is trying out cellular service where the caller pays for the airtime on incoming calls (Yes, a 1+ is required) (Its optional, BTW) Sounds pretty good to me...it would end this crap. Hmmm.... No wonder Ohio Bell just petitioned the PUC to drop 976 service. They don't want to be involved in this kind of crap. I do not like to espouse "there oughta be a law" very often, but this is worse than junk fax. 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) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 13:05:50 EST From: Evelyn C Leeper Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees Date: 20 Mar 90 18:05:39 GMT Reply-To: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > >[Moderator's Note: The fallacy in your argument is that charging for a > >phone call to reach the radio station lottery is violating rules > >pertaining to contests. Contests which have you mail in a coupon or > >ticket are not violating the law because the post office requires a stamp > >on the envelope. Both the postage stamp and the telephone charge are > >simply fees for transporting the message. PT] I missed the article that this was ttached to, but the original article was asking about 900 numbers, the cost for which is different from a "regular" call in that the "regular" call is being charged for what the call itself (supposedly) costs, while the 900 number can charge whatever it wants as a money-making proposition. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees Date: 21 Mar 90 20:28:43 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt [Moderator's Note: My original comments deleted. See above message. PT] States like Missouri aside, isn't the important part WHO GETS THE PAYMENT? When you mail in a sweepstakes entry, none of the postage goes to the contest operator, unless the USPS is running a sweepstakes, which I've never heard of it doing. Entering by a toll call doesn't involve any payment to the sweepstakes operator unless a phone company is running it, OR if the call is to a slime (976 or 900) number. (Note: slimeyness is in the billing method, not the subject matter of the phone call) In the case of a 976 or 900 number where the customer payment is non-zero, it sure looks like a payment to the sweepstakes operator to me, even if the payment just subsidizes the cost of the phone line, and especially if it's more than that. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: Lyle Seaman Subject: Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:39:09 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (John Lockard) writes: > A prompter directs the sending party to type a message on the >phone's dialing keypad. The deaf person receives the message on the >computer's screen and may then type a responce or send a prepared >message, which reaches the receiving party as a synthesized voice. >This caught me by suprise. It seems that very few words, English or >otherwise, would have the same sequnce of numbers. (I'm assuming that >they use 1 for Q, 0 for Z, * for a period, and # as a space.) Well, maybe they use 77 for Q, 9999 for Z, 1 for space, * for period, and # for end of letter. 44#33#555#555#666#15#666#44#66#1555#999#555#33#144#33#77#33#* HELLO JOHN LYLE HERE A lot of typing but workable. If you wanted to call someone deaf regularly, you might use one of these credit card sized dialers with a bunch of standard strings keyed in... Lyle sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From: lws@comm.wang.com (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws) (508) 967-2322 ------------------------------ From: Lyle Seaman Subject: Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 21:09:38 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Entel director Maria Julia Alsogaray said, "People who cannot afford >the new rates can give up their service, and share with someone else." >Her comments, along with the increases outraged Argentines who live >with substandard phone service to begin with. The phones go dead when >it rains, and even in nice weather it is difficult to get a dial tone >or the right connection on the first try. It seems that the US isn't the only place where the people think of telephone service as a necessity. As few as 10 years ago, I knew several families that didn't have 'phone service, due to its expense. (I've moved away, so I don't know the current status). Several years ago, when I was living alone, I did without a home phone without much difficulty. The GDTC wanted a $150 deposit just to install one. Incidentally, I didn't have a TV or stereo, just a clock radio. Amazing how much _productive_ stuff I got done. So it seems to me that a response of outrage really isn't warranted. Lyle sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From: lws@comm.wang.com (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws) (508) 967-2322 ------------------------------ From: Gary Sarff Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Date: 20 Mar 90 23:00:15 GMT Reply-To: sarek!gsarff@cs.utah.edu Organization: WICAT Systems Inc., Orem Utah I have been wondering something for some time about tracing of phone calls. This may not be possible since it doesn't seem to be done, but... When one makes a toll-call, the information about the call shows up on your bill. So, some equipment somewhere is communicating with a billing computer, and it seems to me that the billing informaation for the calls you make are, by necessity, stored for some period of time, up to the time of printing of your next bill. This could be as much as one month. So, to find out where a call is coming from, say in the case of harassment, or kidnapping ransom calls or some such thing, why can't the billing records of telco's be searched? If for example, you received a call, at 1pm in the afternoon, and say given as a starting point, that it is believed to have originated from the same state you are in, somewhere there could be (if it wasn't a local no-charge call) a billing record on someone else's phone bill with your number on it at a time of 1pm. Is this a jurisdictional thing? Technologically not feasible? It seems that it would be easier than trying to put a trace on a line at just the time needed to catch someone and hoping that the caller stays on long enough to complete the trace. signed, very curious. [Moderator's Note: For that matter, in ESS offices, even local calls are logged. Now and then to audit my bill I ask for a print out for the past month of all calls charged as 'units'. You'd think something similar to 'grep' could be used to scan a few million records in a fairly short time looking for all instances of calls to a given number. That's not to say they would always get an answer -- certainly not from non-ESS offices -- but frequently they'd get a very good idea of who was connected to whom, and when. PT] ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Re: White House Caller-ID Date: Wed Mar 21 12:27:18 1990 Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5200@accuvax.nwu.edu> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 175, Message 8 of 9 >Jody Kravitz wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 169: >| Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in >| the white house. The number was a 900 number. I had never heard of a >| 900 number before. I was curious then (and am now) if this was done >| for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id. >| Anyone care to comment ? OK, OK, here's the story... AT&T designated 900 as a "special services" area code in the mid-70's All classes of CO's were to route the call the the nearest toll center which then ticketed the call and sent it on the the Class 2's which would then translate and forward the call. In this case the 900 lines were used as choke exchanges thru the Class 2 and 3 offices (the end offices were not too smart back then). The offical use was a test of "mass calling" and resulted in a redesign of the 900 concept, both technically and marketing-wise. The 700 and 600 area code designation came about as a result of this. It should be noted that the local operating companies' management were less than thrilled with this experiment, they thought it to be disruptive. 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) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") [Moderator's Note: What is the '600 area code designation'? What is it for? PT] ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance Date: 21 Mar 90 06:01:22 GMT Organization: gte In article <5169@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@mvuxr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes: > NETCO, my local TELCO, also does this (and who out there thinks > they're squeaky clean?) and started charging me for added services > (e.g. call waiting) which I never ordered. They insisted that I just > must have said yes in such a call (or it just must have been my wife) > because this service could not have been supplied otherwise. After > further argument, they canceled the service and credited me the > overcharges (do TELCOs hire people who see arguing as a fringe benefit > or are they trained to never, never, never, give in before 20 minutes > are up) still maintaining that this just could not happen and that > mine was the only case they had ever encountered. Also happened to me a few years back - my long distance service suddenly changed to MCI, even though I had deliberately elected AT&T as my carrier. I called MCI about it, and they admitted to the practice of calling US West and bogusly reporting that customers wanted to change to MCI. The Telco wouldn't argue, for legal reasons and because they could charge for the switch. (As it happens, this was my first such switch, which was a freebie). I convinced the MCI rep that I'd keep their service if they'd credit me the $5 switch fee (which I wasn't actually charged) PLUS another $5 switch fee to switch back to AT&T if I didn't like MCI. I used up my $10 credit years ago, and have kept MCI since. Moral : cheap marketing tactic, but it worked. ------------------------------ From: Tom Hofmann Subject: Re: Calling North America From Overseas Reply-To: Tom Hofmann Organization: CIBA-GEIGY AG, Basle, Switzerland Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 07:06:11 GMT In article <5389@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Gottlieb writes: |I don't have their wallet-sized card, but here are the access numbers. |Liechtenstein 04605-1800 |Switzerland 04605-2928 (local call charge applies) |France 19 (wait for tone) 0590-1800 |Monaco 19 (wait for tone) 0590-2747 Strange that there are different numbers for Switzerland and Liechtenstein (France and Monaco resp.)---they belong to the same telephone system. Are you sure about the access numbers? Tom Hofmann wtho@cgch.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Lyle Seaman Subject: Re: Information Wanted on CNA Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 19:22:35 GMT >[Moderator's Note: Customer Name and Address Bureau (or Service) is .... stuff deleted >luck; they don't have it available on their terminals. As stated >above, most telcos do not offer this service to the public. Are there >others besides Illinois Bell, which also does it for Central Tel on >the northwest side? PT] Is there any legal restriction that prevents me from offering this service myself? It would be a simple matter to set up the database on a computer from the data contained in a (publicly-available) telephone directory. But would there be any market? How often does anyone need to get a name/address given a phone number? Lyle Wang lws@comm.wang.com 508 967 2322 Lowell, MA, USA uunet!comm.wang.com!lws [Moderator's Note: There is no legal restriction whatsoever ... just be sure not to copy in bulk from the phone book; it is copyrighted. And don't copy in bulk from Haines Criss Cross or similar; they are copyrighted also. Both Haines and the telcos put 'ringers' in their book; i.e. non-existent, phake, phalse entries. These are inserted only for the purpose of finding them in print in *someone else's book* later on, so they can sue them for copyright violations. Of course, most telcos will sell you the right to copy their books for the purpose you describe. Haines pays Ameritech BIG $$$$$$$$$$ annually for the right to key-punch their directories in reverse order once Ameritech compiles it. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #192 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04782; 22 Mar 90 2:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18454; 22 Mar 90 0:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32330; 21 Mar 90 23:40 CST Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 22:45:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #191 BCC: Message-ID: <9003212245.ab29922@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Mar 90 22:45:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 191 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Lyle Seaman] Re: Can This Be True? [Piet van Oostrum] Re: Can This Be True? [Michael Lyman] Re: New Sprint Bills [Linc Madison] Re: Enhanced 911 [Clayton Cramer] Re: Enhanced 911 [Gordon Letwin] Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Defective "Bell" Phones [Peter Weiss] Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV [Gary Sarff] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Tue Mar 20 16:03:39 1990 Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5268@accuvax.nwu.edu> >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 179, Message 9 of 12 >In article <4984@accuvax.nwu.edu> MHS108@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark Solsman) writes: >>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could >>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges? >I set one of these up once. Trying to dial into our office switch and >out again over an FX line didn't work because of degradation of the >signal, so I hooked two modems back to back and created a >"digipeater"! Well, I do this routinely in several different ways: First: Ncoast, my news feed and system I act as "fill in" sysop for, is located in Cleveland. I am in Medina 15 miles and an intra-lata toll call away. I call from home into our office system (fmsystm) in Medina and call out on another modem, using one of our Cleveland FX's at nite in order to access ncoast directly. Defintiely legal. Second: I can call our office PBX's Medina DISA line and use it to tandem thru the PBX to the Cleveland lines, too. We have a bit of transmission degradation this way, but since I am supposed to know about these things, I installed a two wire voice repeater on the DISA line to solve this. We also have an Akron line, and my wife uses this all the time to call her parents in Akron. (Saves me major bucks, too!) Third: We get a lot of calls from Akron. There is an exchange (Sharon Center) that overlaps local calling areas with Medina and Akron. We set up a Remote Call Forward line in Sharon Center targeting our Medina number and use it often. We even got the telco to set it up to allow more that one call at a time (not often done). Also quite legal. Result: we only need one FX for outbound calling to Akron, all our incoming call from Akron come in on our local Medina trunks via the Sharon RCF. I see no difference between two modems strapped back to back and the use of a PBX with DISA. Patrick, our moderator, commented that he thought the economics of such arrangments are marginal. I disagree, these arrangments work well for us, and by checking our SMDR records, we know they save us much money. It should be noted that all the lines involved are flat rate local lines...measured (per minute) local lines might impact the economics. We have set up similar arrangments for customers with metered Ohil Bell lines, with postive results. Note: in telephone terminology metered and measured lines are not the same. Measured: billed for usage by time. Metered: billed by call regardless of duration. In Ohio Bell its $0.09/call Flat: billed at a flat rate (per month) with no additional charge for usage. We have all three types in Ohio, depending on who the local telco is, and what type of line you get. Lots of fun! 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) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: Lyle Seaman Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 23:03:35 GMT eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: >According to a tariff writer for NE Tel, using call forwarding in >order to avoid toll charges is explicitly illegal. I don't know where >such a law is listed. Perhaps it is written into the tariffs >somewhere. If this is illegal, it's just another sign of what's wrong with our government. When I can use two services provided by a vendor, completely consistently with their design, at a net savings to me, then it's because the vendor is not pricing their services consistently. If this is really cheaper, then the vendor should just use this technique to provide long-distance service. If not, then it should be priced appropriately. Under no circumstances should the government have to step in and persecute [sic] me for utilizing simple capitalist and legitimate principals. But instead, the vendor uses its lobbying muscle to force the enactment of legal provisions supporting its non- competitive practices... ! [dismount soapbox] A while back, before divestiture (BD), there used to be a service that would provide to subscribers, cheaper long-distance calling. The way it worked, I think, is they bought an 800 number from AT&T, then would forward calls from subscribers to the desired goal. So for instance, if the 800 number terminated in Seattle, and I wanted to call my mother in Seattle everyday, I would buy this service. Now, what is the difference between that, and linking two local areas (or cheap areas) to avoid paying a higher cost? Lyle sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From: lws@comm.wang.com (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws) (508) 967-2322 ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: 21 Mar 90 15:14:39 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands `> I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told `> me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a `> paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance `> calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe `> the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to `> complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. In the Netherlands, telephone billing is, as in most European countries ``click-based''. You can have a counter at home to see how many clicks you have used. The telephone company then sends a puls over your line for each click. This pulse is between one of the signal wires and ground. This pulse is also used for payphones, to deduct the money from your deposit (on older payphones the click would cause the phone to swallow one coin). Some people found out a few years ago that you could disable the counting by grounding the microphone (just opening the moutpiece). Apparently the phone company changed all pay phones when they found out. 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!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31-30-513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ From: Michael Lyman Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: 21 Mar 90 18:22:49 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL tmt@osf.org (Tom Talpey) writes: >> I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told >> me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a >> paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance >> calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe >> the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to >> complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. Back in the "olden days" a cassette recorder and a payphone was all that was required for long distance chicanery ( plus a pocket full of spare change ). It was a simple scheme: deposit a dime, or any coin that would render dialtone (for kicks the method above was also used ), dial a digit thus getting rid of the dial tone. Now it got technical .... the cassette recorder microphone was held against the earpiece and while the recorder ran, coins (usually dimes or quarters ) were slowly but methodically deposited into the phone, recording the "ding-ding" as the coins dropped. When all the coins were deposited, the payphone was hung up. There was a time-out associated with the no-dial condition so the perpetrator had to be careful not to exceed this timeout, and above all, the whole operation had to be *quiet* in order to make a quality recording. The stage was now set! Someone would dial "0" and ask the operator to place a long distance call. The operator would ask to deposit $XX in coins for the first three minutes. At this point the recorder (which has been requeued to the begining) was held up to the telephone mouthpiece and the sound of the coins dropping was played back for the operator. When the required amount of $XX was reached, the recorder was stopped and the operator said "thenk-yew" and three minutes of conversation usually to a random number took place. I'm still not sure if it was the operator that had to listen for the chimes that the coins made or the recorder faked out some on-line equipment, but it was Iowa, it was the '60's and it provided no end of paranoia to the little burr-heads on the block that the phone police might one day be calling. Just another story.... -M.L. [Moderator's Note: In those days, the only way for the operator to verify your deposit was to listen for the 'ding' of the nickle, the 'ding-ding' of the dime, and the 'bong' of the quarter, as each went down the chute and caused a little metal arm inside to hit the bell. We also found in the early days of ESS that pressing the three and six keys at the same time created a pitch that 'sounded like a nickle' to the operator when a manual collection was required (usually when for some reason the equipment failed to capture the number being called and the operator had to bubble it in herself.) PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 19:59:58 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: New Sprint Bills Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <5323@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ken Jongsma writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 182, Message 9 of 12 >I just received by monthly residential Sprint bill. They've done a >pretty impressive redesign. Consider the following: ... page 2: Fon Manager .. .Tax breakdown by government unit. Verrry useful -- I discovered that my municipal utility tax is being illegally applied to *all* my calls, instead of only in-state. Sprint is investigating. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 20 Mar 90 19:10:55 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <5246@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gmc@mvuxr.att.com (Glenn M Cooley) writes: > >Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I > >believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and > >couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment. > I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my > hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario > than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the > phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install > under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.) But that's not the only scenario where 911 ANI is extremely useful. 1. A person manages to dial 911, and loses consciousness (or is interrupted by a blunt object) part way through the call. 2. A person hears a burglar in the next room, dials 911, and is afraid to speak loud enough to be clearly heard. 3. A person who isn't sure of the address of where they are because they were taken there against their will, or were too loaded to know where they are. 4. The case alluded to above, involving a panicked or small child, though, is probably a common one, and very worthwhile. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer No matter what other nations may say about the United States, immigration is still the sincerest form of flattery. Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ From: gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 22 Mar 90 02:31:10 GMT Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA In article <5143@accuvax.nwu.edu>, davidb@pacer.com (David Barts) writes: > Monday (12 March) an article appeared in the [Seattle Times] about the > impact of PBX's on Enhanced 911. > Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I > believe his/her mother was choking). The actual story was that the mother had the flu and felt "short of breath". Presumably she had the kid call 911. So folks, don't wait for an emergency, if you get a splinter in your finger, call 911! After all, they won't charge *you*, and you'll get all that free attention! Heck, it's more fun then watching soap operas. Gordon Letwin [Moderator's Note: Far be it from me to promote the abuse of 911, and in fact I teach that 911 should only be used in dire emergency, when intervention by the police, fire or medical personnel is needed immediatly. But let's not second-guess what 'shortness of breath' means. In Chicago not long ago, a grandmother had a heart attack; her five year old grandson called 911 to report 'gramma is breathing funny'. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 09:14:52 -0800 From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia In article <5404@accuvax.nwu.edu> contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: >Any examples of state-wide 911 yet? I think that California has state-wide 911 (probably with the exception of a couple of sites in Pinnacles :-) ). Did you mean 911 coverage state-wide (i.e. I can dial 911 anywhere and get help) or a central 911 dispatch center that serves an entire state (not very likely in a large state)? Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 21 Mar 1990 08:03:22 EST From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: Defective "Bell" phones As with all phones that depend on household electrical power, this should _not_ be your one and only phone available to you in an emergency. Interestingly enough, some vendors of these phones put this kind of warning in their instructions, and some do not. Peter M. Weiss | (this line intentionally left blank) 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | advertize here, reach Mega populi University Park, PA USA 16802 | Disclaimer :1 * applies herein ------------------------------ From: Gary Sarff Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV Date: 21 Mar 90 00:02:45 GMT Reply-To: sarek!gsarff@cs.utah.edu Organization: WICAT Systems Inc., Orem Utah In article <5158@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gutierre@oblio.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Gutierrez) writes: >You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on a >couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about that. I have been hearing this for about the past two years, and have not been able to find out anything definitive either. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place? Anyone have any real information about this? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #191 ****************************** ISSUES 191 AND 192 REVERSED IN MAILING. ISSUES RUN 190-192-191-193.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07357; 22 Mar 90 3:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22244; 22 Mar 90 1:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18454; 22 Mar 90 0:48 CST Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 0:33:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #193 BCC: Message-ID: <9003220033.ab18652@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Mar 90 00:33:05 CST Volume 10 : Issue 193 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Legion of Doom Rebuttal to Moderator [Gene Spafford] Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? [Bernard Rupe] Re: Odd Stuff at MCI [Rob Gutierrez] Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears [Steve Elias] Privacy in Printout [Leonard P. Levine] Want Info on Panasonic PBXs [Andrew Payne] Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive? [Andrew Payne] Telco Interface Guidelines Sought [Ray Berry] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene Spafford Subject: Re: Legion of Doom Rebuttal to Moderator Date: 21 Mar 90 16:14:05 GMT Reply-To: Gene Spafford Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Let me point out that the investigation that resulted in the four indictements of the LoD folks has also included a number of other indictments and arrests. All of this APPEARS to be one large-scale investigation into a pattern of repeated collaboration for purposes of illegal activity (in legal terms, criminal conspiracy). The information I have available from various sources indicates that the investigation is continuing, others are likely to be charged, and there MAY be some national security aspects to parts of the investigation that have yet to be disclosed. Now maybe there are one or two people on the law enforcement side who are a little over-zealous (but not the few I talk with on a regular basis). For someone to be indicted requires that sufficient evidence be collected to convince a grand jury -- a group of 23 (24? I forget exactly) average people -- that the evidence shows a high probability that the crimes were committed. Search warrants require probable cause and the action of judges who will not sign imprecise and poorly targeted warrants. Material seized under warrant can be forced to be returned by legal action if the grounds for the warrant are shown to be false, so the people who lost things have legal remedy if they are innocent. The system has a lot of checks on it, and it requires convincing a lot of people along the way that there is significant evidence to take the next step. If these guys were alleged mafioso instead of electronic terrorists, would you still be claiming it was a witch hunt? Conspiracy, fraud, theft, violations of the computer fraud and abuse act, maybe the ECPA, possesion of unauthorized access codes, et. al. are not to be taken lightly, and not to be dismissed as some "vendetta" by law enforcement. Realize that the Feds involved are prohibited from disclosing elements of their evidence and investigation precisely to protect the rights of the defendants. If you base your perceptions of this whole mess on just what has been rumored and reported by those close to the defendants (or from potential defendants), then you are going to get a very biased, inaccurate picture of the situation. Only after the whole mess comes to trial will we all be able to get a more complete picture, and then some people may be surprised at the scope and nature of what is involved. Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 13:57:07 CST From: Bernard Rupe Subject: Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? Reply-To: motcid!rupeb@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <5388@accuvax.nwu.edu> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >L.J.Dickey (ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu) writes: >> The phone company can install a device that will, on command, >> "lock in" the caller, so that, even after the caller hangs up, >> the phones are still connected. > ... I'd conjecture that the >device exists, but only for some types of switch. Would I be right? A feature that performs this exact function is called Malicious Call Hold. It is available to 911 systems, but can also be assigned to someone who is getting repeated "malicious" calls. The feature, when activated, will hold up the connection to the calling telephone line (if it's off of the same switch) or, if not, it will hold up the incoming trunk. This is really the limitation of the feature -- it cannot hold up a line from outside the Central Office. A feature such as Customer Originated Trace (CLASS), seems overall more useful. Also, I don't believe any equiptment is needed on the customer premesis. The feature is available with the DMS-100 (NTI) and, I think, also with the 5ESS (AT&T). Bernie Rupe 1501 W. Shure Drive Motorola, Inc. Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Cellular Infrastructure Division 708 632-2814 ...!uunet!motcid!rupeb ------------------------------ From: Rob Gutierrez Subject: Re: Odd Stuff at MCI Date: 22 Mar 90 04:19:40 GMT Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet Network Operations isis!isis.UUCP!tkoppel@uunet.uu.net (Ted Koppel) writes: > I was trying to make a call this morning (Denver --> San Jose) on MCI > from home. Got an intercept that said my call can't be completed at > this time - for further information call 1-800-888-1800. > Tried, of course, calling the 800-888-1800, but line was consistently > busy, so eventually I went to work. > Called MCI tonight to ask if they were having network problems this > morning, but the (low-level) clerk I spoke to of course didn't know > anything. > 1 - was MCI not working to the West Coast today, or did I have a > fluke? I can't get ahold of any of my friends at MCI. Denver is served by a switch called Denver Junction ("DNJ"), which is a DEX-600. Not as fast as the old swich Denver was mostly served by (a DMS-250). But, you did get one of the default recordings, so the FGD's to MCI were obviously OK, and the switch itself was working at least. Now, San Jose is a different story. It's a real old Wescom switch, and it did work fine, though it tended to choke out once in a while. But you dialed the trouble number (888-1800) and it was busy. The trouble number has a minimum of two T-1's serving it (48 trunks), and if you were getting busies, then it was major outage time. > 2 - what is the point of dialing the 1-800-888-1800 number; what > information might they have told me if it hadn't been busy? Nothing. The numbers just go right into residental customer service, and you're lucky if you can get two out of three rate quotes right. Anyway, surprise them and if you get though the next time, ask them to look at the 'bulletin board' (actually a TV monitor) and ask if there's any 'red flashes' or 'red alerts'. The monitors display three alerts at any given time, and are color coded (White = Non-service affecting, Blue = Service affecting, Red = Major Outage) ... if the monitors are working. The problem is the monitors are updated from Hayward (California), and if there's a cable cut, the data lines for them are cut too. Ja ne. Robert Gutierrez/NSIPO Network Operations/NASA Ames Research. ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 08:37:10 -0500 From: Steve Elias To all of you who think that it is not possible to have ear discomfort as a result of the telephone -- you obviously never been on the line when my Mum is talking. The pain can be quite real if we're on extensions in the same house... Even on a long distance call, 116 db of my Mum's voice seems to get through somehow (with US Sprint, of course.) Who needs speakerphones when you've got 116 db blasting out of the headset? :) ; Steve Elias ; work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@spdcc.com ; voice mail: 617 932 5598 ; ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Privacy in Printout Date: 20 Mar 90 22:12:48 GMT Reply-To: len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Is TDD printed output Information or just paper? From the [Milwaukee Journal], 3/18/90. A piece of TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) output was pried from the clenched fist of a deaf man, resulting in a life prison sentence for murder, according to an appeal being considered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The questions created by this case include: Was the paper obtained illegally? Is the TDD output to be considered public information or as private as a phone conversation? Since the TDD was in the sheriff's department office in Pierce County, Wisconsin, the paper is police property. Is the information written on it during normal use also police property? The facts of the case: Robert Rewolinski was picked up on a traffic charge in June 1987. He used the TDD in the sheriff's office to call his common law wife, Catherine Teeters, for a ride home. During the TDD conversation Teeters told Rewolinski "I am scared like hell you will do something to me or the kids. I don't want the kids to have short lives or hurt... I can't stand you anymore... You must understand that I don't want you and I don't love you." Three hours later the sheriff's TDD received a call with the message "Robert Rewolinski here. Lost my mind. Cathy's dead." The TDD printout of the earlier conversation was considered the critical evidence in convicting him of first degree murder rather than manslaughter. The prosecution contends that the deputy was simply retaining custody and control of police property. She could not have been looking for evidence of a crime since no crime had yet been committed. The defense contends Rewolinski deserves a new trial because the printout should not have been taken or used as evidence. It is clear that the paper belonged to the sheriff. Did the information on it belong to them too? The police do not monitor phone conversations in such circumstances, how about TDD communication? + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Leonard P. Levine e-mail len@cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + ------------------------------ From: Andrew Payne Subject: Want Info on Panasonic PBXs Date: 21 Mar 90 01:44:17 GMT Reply-To: Andrew Payne Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY I caught the tail end of the discussion a few weeks ago: I'm looking for info on the Panasonic PBX (KX------?) that will use plain old telephones as extensions. I'm interested in: - the model number(s) - summary of features - price range - supplier - someone to contact for more info Any info appreciated. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Andrew Payne Subject: Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive? Date: 21 Mar 90 02:11:50 GMT Reply-To: Andrew Payne Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY I hope this subject hasn't been beaten to death before, but why are in-state calls SO expensive? I got my last phone bill and it had a charge for a 15 minute in-state call (AT&T, daytime rates) for over $7! That's more than 40 cents a minute which is far more than the highest mileage rate (4251-5750 miles) listed on my AT&T rate schedule. And my state (West Virginia), isn't even a big state. I called AT&T and the person I spoke to had no idea why in-state calls are so expensive. A Sprint salesperson said it was due to "state taxes". MCI was even less helpful. A person from AT&T called to see if everything was ok with my service and I told him about the in-state rates. He didn't even know in-state calls were charged at a different rate! I guess my questions are: - Why are in-state calls so expensive? - Do the in-state rates vary from state to state? I'd guess they would. - Why does the issue seem to get swept under the carpet? None of the people at the various long-distance companies seemed very educated about the matter. I asked AT&T for their in-state rates and they sent me their standard rate schedule. It has a footnote: "Add 3% Federal excise tax and applicable state surcharges to all prices in this brochure." Their Reach Out America plan includes "a full hour of weekend/night calls to __anywhere__ [emphasis mine, of course] in the country..." After calling, I found that AT&T seems to define anywhere as anywhere but West Virginia. - How long will this rate structure continue to be reasonable? I realize states have the power to govern and regulate all trade within their borders, but with networks criss-crossing the country, it is reasonable to expect an in-state call to be carried on out-of-state networks. I know for a fact that my in-state call in question is carried almost entirely out of the state of West Virginia. - Is there any way to get around this? My parents live less than 5 miles from another state (Maryland). I live less than 15 miles from other states (Ohio & Pennsylvania). Both of us have out-of-state exchanges in our local calling areas. Its almost worth it for me to get a phone in Maryland with call forwarding, put some sort of box on it so I can set the call forward remotely, and use that setup to make in-state calls. I am puzzled. Comments appreciated. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu [Moderator's Note: Intra-state rates are generally higher because Bell is more successful at getting their way with local regulators in most cases. Over the years, chances are likely your local state utility commissioners have gotten friendly -- real friendly -- with the folks on the board of the local telco. Of the fifty plus Reach Out Plans offered by AT&T (Reach Out America; Reach Out ; etc., a few, such as Reach Out Illinois offer an 'interstate transparency' deal. For instance, I get intrastate Illinois calls in my plan; but technically I don't subscribe to Reach Out America; I subscribe to Reach Out Illinois, and I pay 85 cents per month for the 'interstate option'. Not all state regulators have okayed this neat little addition. And let me tell you, Reach Out is no big deal if you live in the central part of the United States: my most expensive nighttime calls would only be about 13-14 cents per minute anyway! Its a good deal for folks on either coast who tend to call the opposite coast, or to Alaska/Hawaii a lot, etc. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 17:00:28 PST From: Ray Berry Subject: Telco Interface Guidelines Sought I've accepted a short job (re)designing a consumer oriented appli- ance that connects directly to the PSTN. (== 'public switched telephone network' ??). Although I'm comfortable with general engineering topics, I do not have previous experience interfacing to the telco lines. Can anyone recommend a succinct and practical introduction outlining the 'rules' which must be followed? I have acquired a copy of RS-496 and done a first pass through it. Great reading, but I suspect it's a bit of overkill for what I'm doing. Any pointers/references etc will be appreciated. Ray Berry kb7ht uucp: ...ole!ray CIS: 73407,3152 /* "inquire within" */ Seattle Silicon Corp. 3075 112th Ave NE. Bellevue WA 98004 (206) 828-4422 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #193 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09780; 22 Mar 90 4:38 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14241; 22 Mar 90 2:59 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag22244; 22 Mar 90 1:55 CST Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 1:26:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #194 BCC: Message-ID: <9003220126.ab23317@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Mar 90 01:25:17 CST Volume 10 : Issue 194 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ain't Progress Wunnerful? [Paul Fuqua] CID on System 85 and More on Cellular Itemized Billing [Jeff Wasilko] Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service [Richard Snider] New Brunswick Gets Caller ID, CCS7, CMS, etc [David Leibold] Need Advice on Background Noise Problem [Roger Clark Swann] Cellular License Lottery [Gregory M. Paris] Vegas Gets CLASS [Ken Jongsma] Rochester Tel Enters Kansas [Lee C. Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 14:52:18 CST From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Ain't Progress Wunnerful? Texas Instruments in Dallas is in the process of junking its aging Centrex service in favor of some Northern Telecom device (I think a DMS-100), with NT Meridian phones, purveyed by GTE. Frankly, I'm not sure what TI is getting out of the deal. The system has the same old features (forward on busy/no-answer, hold, transfer, 3-way, etc), just with individual buttons. There's the expense of new phones, new wiring, and training for all users. There's the hassle that standard answering machines, modems, and the like won't work with this system. There's the apparently gratuitous change from 4-digit to 5-digit extension dialing (we can only get to the one exchange, so why have 5 digits?). In addition to all the changeover annoyance, the new system has a real human-factors botch: no tones are generated at the phone when dialing. Tones are generated after the call connects, but only for a fixed, short duration, so any remote device that needs long tones (like many answering machines) is difficult or impossible to access. How could Northern Telecom let such a stupid mistake out the door? The most telling comment may be from the GTE lady running the phone class. It seems that they have the same system in their office, with the same difficulty in checking remote answering machines. Their solution: their Fax machine is on an outside line, so they go over and use its phone. I do not have much hope that the problem will be resolved. Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 23:26:28 EST From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: CID on System 85 and More on Cellular Itemized Billing Our phone system here at RIT is a System 85. Some of the digital phone sets (like our receptionist's) have an LED panel that displays both the calling party's name and extension and the called party's name and extension. If the calling part is from off campus, the display shows 'D I D'. Is this implemented in a similar way to CID or is this just particular to the System 85? Can this be interfaced to the outside world (with CID info passing both ways)? Since I work part time at Albany Telephone/Cellular One, I thought I'd throw some more useless trivia about itemized billing. ATC customers get itemized LD charges for free, and pay $2.00/month for itemized airtime billing. Calls can be sorted chronologically or by number. Customers who are on the Bulk/Centralized billing plans get itemized biiling free. Buffalo Telephone/Cellular One customers pay $1.00/month and a penny a line item for airtime. If there's any interest, I can gather some background info on Roam America, a program similar to the Follow-Me Roaming program on the wireline systems. Roam America offers both automatic forwarding to the service area customers are roaming in and caller notification. Caller notification provides customer's callers with precise dialing instructions to reach roamers using an automated voice response system. Caller notification is offered in all but about 20-30 of the non-wireline cities. Jeff | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:jjw7384@ultb.UUCP____+ |INTERNET: jjw7384@isc.rit.edu |'claimer: No one cares. | [Moderator's Note: Yes please, send an article about Roam America. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 21:59:58 EST From: Richard Snider Reply-To: rsnider@xrtll Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries, Toronto, Canada After reading the posting about Bell Canada's ALEX system and recovering from the laughing fit that my boss and I had I decided to tell what I know about it. So here I sit staring at white on black letters on a 6 inch tall screen with my noseprints on it. Yes, I am staring into an "Official" Bell Canada issue ALEX terminal. The company I work for (Not the one on the Org. line in this message) is planning on being a service provider in the Toronto area when Bell here starts it up. I suppose I am the techie that will have to worry about how it is supposed to work. Let me tell you about it... The media hype session that was described bears no resemblance to what this thing is supposed to do (There isn't even a joystick or mouse provided with the terminal :-(. The idea is to clone the "Minitel" system that is in use in France and artfully reap the same sort of profits that they do over there. Bell Canada decided that they should go one better than a text only system and decided that they will support graphics as well using the NAPLPS protocol. These terminals run at 1200 baud feature a bothersome "Chicklet" type keyboard that would remind many of the original PET computers. The drawing rate (Not considering the data transmission rate) would not support refreshing the screen for any sort of animation unless you are prepared to wait about 10sec or more per page. You can get versions of the terminal emulator for your favorite flavour of PC as well if you wish. Its not all bad however, they have had for some period of time (months) run a successful trial of the system in Montreal with services such as: - Message boards and chat lines (The most popular of course) - Games (two player or more + against the machine) - All sorts of self improvement services (educational, health, sex) - Typical information (Weather, local travel, airline flights, etc) - Services (Do it yourself law, banking, accounting, taxes) Actually only recently they introduced a shop at home services and the like (without pictures of the products, or panning shots of the grocery store). As far as I know (haven't checked this month) there are no banks on line. It is fairly apparent that most of the services provided are along the message board and chat lines as a cheaper (or not) alternative to the 976 services offered for the same reasons. Lately they circulated a letter to all service providers (or would be ones) regarding the use of "Animators" on chat lines or message boards available who would talk to users as if they were another user. The remainder of the letter goes on to describe how one user talked for $32 worth of time to someone they thought was another user and tried to arrange to meet them. Obviously they wouldn't and then when the user found out that this person worked for the service provider he hit the roof and phoned up the company and caused a few heads to roll. I guess we will have to see how this goes in Toronto. If anyone is more interested I will be glad to describe whatever I can about it. Richard Snider I disclaim everything, but did I claim anything ? Where: ..uunet!mnetor!yunexus!xrtll!rsnider Also: rsnider@xrtll.UUCP An unbreakable tool is useful for breaking other tools. ------------------------------ Subject: New Brunswick gets Caller ID, CCS7, CMS, etc Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 22:43:07 EST From: woody [The following is from PunterNet's telco conference...] Msg # : 107 of 110 - Ref 95/139 From : BERNIE WILCOX To : SYSTEMS OPERATORS Posted : 2125h on 16-Mar-90 * CONF 130 Subject: NBTel Offers New Services From: NBTel News - No.1 Vol 21. ------------------------------- Some NBTel customers will have the opportunity to use their telephone service in a new way, beginining the first of March. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has approved NBTel's request to offer Call Management Services (CMS) in the Rothesay, Hampton, Norton and Springfield exchange areas. NBTel will be among the first telephone companies in Canada to provide the Call Trace, Call Return and Call Display features. Through Call Management Services residence and single-line business customers will be able to identify callers before answering the phone, return the calls they missed or were unable to answer and initiate traces on malicious calls. "With these features, customers will, for the first time, have control over their incoming calls," said Brian Reid,executive general manager of customer services for NBTel. "And, these services represent just the tip of the iceberg in a whole new generation of home information services that will be available in the 1990s." NBTel plans to expand Call Management Services over the next two-to-three years to those communities in the province that are served by digital switching equipment. Info contact: Martha Edwards, Editor NBTel NEWS Information and Public Affairs Section P.O. Box 1430, Saint John, N.B. E2L 4K2 *Foggy Town Bulletin Board* - Saint John, N.B * Node 95 Msg # : 108 of 110 - Ref 95/140 From : PIERO ROCCA To : DAVE LEIBOLD Posted : 1737h on 16-Mar-90 * CONF 130 Subject: NBTel has had CMS for 1 month Guess what: New Brunswick Telephone has had caller I.D. now for about a month. Not bad for the Maritimes. Piero Rocca Lakers #1 Oilers Rule! *Foggy Town Bulletin Board* - Saint John, N.B * Node 95 End of Msg 108 [Posters note: Bell Canada tried the service for experiment in Peterborough Ontario a few years back. Given that the New Brunswick communities involved in the CMS (Caller ID, etc) project are not major centres in that province, it is likely something of a trial project to work out bugs and that before it gets inflicted on more sizable centres like Moncton, Fredericton, St John, etc.] || David Leibold "Art is anything you can get away with" || djcl@contact.uucp - Marshall McLuhan" ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Need Advice on Background Noise Problem Date: 20 Mar 90 18:22:59 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA I need some advice with a small phone problem here. I am working in a noisy lab area where it is sometimes very hard to talk on the phone. The set is of the 2500 flavor, and the problem is that the mic is picking up the noise such that the incoming voices are covered and the remote parties are also getting excessive noise, making it hard for them to hear as well. I remember that there used to be noise canceling mics that would fit on a 500/2500 handset. So, I looked through my ATT equipment catalog and found this item called a 'Very High Noise Confidencer', #31050-12 @ $37. There are no details as to what handsets this will connect to or how it even works. Is it a replacement mic element or an electronic box that inserts in the handset cord or something else? There was no picture as it was listed next to the handsets under accessories. Anyone have further info on this other similar items? Anyone have additional ideas that might help? Note that an amplifier handset probably wouldn't do much but amplify the noise and make things worse, since the local noise is obviously getting into the voice circuit and interfering with things at both ends. Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ From: "Gregory M. Paris" Subject: Cellular License Lottery Date: 21 Mar 90 00:50:52 GMT Reply-To: Greg Paris Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division On Monday (3/19), I got a chance to talk briefly with one of the technicians at Metro Mobile cellular in Providence, RI while they changed my service from NYNEX Mobile Communications to them (I didn't like the quintupling of my monthly service charge that NYNEX implemented without warning). Of interest to me was why neither Metro Mobile nor NYNEX claim Aquidneck Island (the "Rhode Island" in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations) as part of their respective service areas. I was told that the FCC allocated a license for this area only just late last year. Further, that the FCC's procedure is to hold a lottery for the license and sell (right word?) it to the lucky winner. In this case, as apparently often happens, the license went to neither of the carriers in this area (unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the winner). So far, that company has not announced plans as to what they'll do with the license -- use it (unlikely), or sell it for many times what they paid for it. I don't understand two aspects of this process. First, why not allocate the license for the area right off? (I'd have appreciated that.) Second, what purpose does it serve to have a third party gain the license and make a quick but seemingly undeserved profit from it? One other thing the techs mentioned, which they debated amongst themselves, was whether the Wampanaog (I'm sure I spelled that incorrectly) Indians were successful in gaining the cell license for the Cape Cod, Massachusetts area. From what they said, the tribe claimed the license under their existing treaty rights. Anyone know more about this? Greg Paris {uiucdcs,uunet}!rayssd!gmp ------------------------------ Subject: Vegas Gets CLASS Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 7:39:03 EST From: Ken Jongsma Centel is scheduled to offer all CLASS features, including CLID to its Vegas area residents if the Nevada PUC approves. They plan on offering it with the optional selective blocking feature. They will be selling integrated display telephones for $140, external displays for $60 and renting the external displays for $4/month. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 90 09:56:42 PST (Wednesday) Subject: Rochester Tel Enters Kansas From: Lee_C._Moore.WBST128@xerox.com From the [Rochester (NY) Times-Union]: Rochester Tel Enters Kansas Continuing its whirlwind acquisitions, Rochester Telephone Corp. plans to purchase S & A Telephone Co. of Allen, Kansas. Today's announcement signals Rochester Tel's entry into a third new state within the past month, following deals for properties in Iowa and Alabama. The company said it signed a letter of intent to buy S & A from Arthur D. Biggs, president, and his family for stock, but did not disclose the amount. S & A serves about 800 access lines in a territory 30 miles southwest of Topeka. Through an associated company called ADB, S & A has a 13 percent interest in the Topeka cellular-telephone area - "an important consideration in our purchase," said David C. Mitchell, president of Rochester Tel's Telephone Group. "S & A will be a our 16th midwestern property, most of them acquired within the past year," Mitchell said. "We will continue to look at other companies in Kansas and the midwestern region." The purchase is subject to approval of regulatory agencies and Rochester Tel's directors. Biggs said S & A customers will benefit from affiliation with Rochester Tel. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #194 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12365; 23 Mar 90 5:02 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07112; 23 Mar 90 2:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03493; 23 Mar 90 1:12 CST Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 0:38:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #195 BCC: Message-ID: <9003230038.ab01645@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Mar 90 00:37:01 CST Volume 10 : Issue 195 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New 1-900 Number [David Barts] FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please [Benjamin Ellsworth] Call Answer [James Van Houten] Need Areacode + Exchange ==> City/State Translation [John L. Shelton] New AT&T Rate Plan [Ken Jongsma] CID Box Info Wanted [Ronald L. Fletcher] Special Issue This Weekend: 900 Comparisons [TELECOM Moderator] Canadian Prefix vrs. Location Charts] [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Defective "Bell" phones [Brad Isley] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Patricia R. White] Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Jeremy Grodberg] Update on the Southwestern Bell vrs. BBS Situation [Peter da Silva] Re: Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service [Peter da Silva] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Mark Solsman] Bellcore NUA PC [Gordon Meyer] Re: Cellular License Lottery [Scott Fybush] NYC Local Service [Carl Moore] Re: Can This be True? [David Schanen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:40:48 pst From: David Barts Subject: New 1-900 Number This is an excerpt from an article posted to rec.radio.shortwave: > From: henry@GARP.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch) > pinched from the [New York Times]: > . . . Additionally, nine-minute BBC world newscasts will be available > starting Thursday by calling a toll telephone number, (900) 988-4222. > "So if you are really crazy about world news, you can dial in for > under $1 a minute and hear an up-to-the-minute world newscast," Tusa > said. "The most recent bulletins won't ever be more than 51 minutes > old.". . . No mention on exact charges, but if I found myself on a trip sans portable shortwave radio and a major incident was developing, I'd use it. It might be easier to remember the number as 900-988-4BBC. David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb [Moderator's Note: And of course Henry Mensch, who wrote the article quoted is a long-time Digest contributor also. PT] ------------------------------ From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 11:57:37 PST > Have you heard that the FBI is investigating SPRINT for using > industrial espionage to obtain information from Martin-Marietta and > MCI to help win the FTS-2000 contract? Could we please get a source on this? (Have you heard that they have spotted B-52 bombers on Mars? ;-) [Moderator's Note: Perhaps Mr. Scott, who posted the original note on this will write again, with more details. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 90 07:40:56 EST From: James Van Houten <72067.316@compuserve.com> Subject: Answer Call Service There is a new service available from C&P Telephone (Bell Atlantic) called Answer Call. It is basically voice mail that will answer your calls if you don't. The interesing thing about Answer Call is that when you want to retrieve your messages you have to call a (301) 277-XXXX. This access number is the same for everybody with Answer Call. Is this a feature assoc. with CLASS at all?? James Van Houten (202) 917-2296 72067.316@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 15:54:15 PST From: "John L. Shelton" Subject: Need Areacode + Exchange ==> City/State Translation Anyone know where I can get this info on line? =John= ------------------------------ Subject: New AT&T Rate Plan Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 7:34:33 EST From: Ken Jongsma AT&T is offering a new billing plan called Select Saver. For $1.90 per month, subscribers will be able to make calls to a specified area code at a reduced rate from AT&Ts normal rates. Per minute prices for calls to the selected area code are as follows: Day: .20/min Night/Weekend: .12/min. Customers will also get a 5% discount on all other interstate calls. Customers can sign up now for the plan. It wasn't clear if multiple areacodes could be ordered. [Moderator's Note: This new service seems to be reviving the old 'Pick a Point' service some telcos used to offer. Yes, you can select more than one area code at $1.90 each, but if you pick more than two or three you might as well sign up for Reach Out America with the five percent day option (discount) instead. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ronald L Fletcher Subject: CID Box Info Wanted Date: 20 Mar 90 15:39:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Sometime back someone posted model numbers for Caller ID boxes and if I remember correctly one of them had an RS232 output. Of course I did not save this info and now I find I need it. Could some kind soul who did save it please email it to me. Thanks, Ron Fletcher att!mtgzy!rlf ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 1:31:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issue This Weekend: 900 Comparisons Jeff DeSantis has kindly sent along a lengthy report on 900 service, and the exact specifics of this controversial service from each telephone company which offers it for sale. I will transmit this sometime Saturday. My thanks to Mr. DeSantis for sending it along to the Digest. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 1:34:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Canadian Prefix vrs. Location Charts Some time ago, David Leibold, one of our contributors from Canada, sent several files to the Telecom Archives which match area code/geographic area for each area code in Canada, including 800 service. These are available in the Archives for anyone who wants to review them. They are in their own sub-directory because of their size. A couple days ago, he sent a revised chart for area 604 (British Columbia), and it is now available also. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Defective "Bell" phones Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..." Date: 21 Mar 90 08:15:40 EST (Wed) From: Brad Isley In article <5431@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 190, Message 6 of 6 >I don't know what model you have, but it's a Southwestern Bell Freedom >phone. I purchased one recently, and it had the same two problems you >describe, but they were easy to remedy. The problem with the battery >is typical of Ni-Cad rechargeables. You have to discharge it >completely (leave the phone ON and set on TALK, with the base unit >disconnected, for a day or so), then recharge it completely (again for >a day or so, now with the base unit plugged in). OK, I'll admit this one was easy, but the manual stated that the handset should be left on the base when not in use. This directly violates the ni-cad long-life rules. I naively assumed they had an intelligent charger in the base (one that cycles the batteries). AT&T specifically provides a non-charging base to rest the phone in between charges. >The squeal was a bit harder to figure out. Of the four switches on >the remote unit, one is OFF/ON and another is STANDBY/TALK. To use >the phone, you must turn it ON, then set it to TALK. The other way >round doesn't work. Conversely, when you end a conversation, you have >to set it to STANDBY, then turn it OFF if you want (the remote won't >ring if it's OFF). If you do it the wrong way, just shutting the >phone OFF while leaving it on TALK, the base unit squeals at odd >intervals (it happened while I was awake, fortunately). Maybe someone >with a bit of technical knowledge can tell us why. Nice to know this, but the rep could have explained this rather than have us send it in for repair. > I chose it >over AT&T's model because the base unit is wall mountable. AT&T's newer ones are wall mountable and MUCH better. We have one and it is great. I'll see if I can dig up the 'Freedom Phone' now that I know how to prevent the 'squeal'. Thanks for the tip! Brad Isley, yer local tools blacksmith. What, me worry ? YEAH! ------------------------------ From: "Patricia R. White" Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Date: 22 Mar 90 02:16:21 GMT Reply-To: "Patricia R. White" Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida The counters were available from the Bundespost when we were in Germany. Theirs ran at different rates depending upon the distance, time of day, etc. So your message cost was the same for each click, you just got more clicks for more expensive calls. GIs used them a lot in Germany (my brother-in-law had one because his wife kept calling the States - eventually he just had the phone taken out...) Tricia White ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 19:26:01 PST From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees Reply-To: jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) In article <5424@accuvax.nwu.edu> bruner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes: >I've been wondering for some time about the 900 numbers which >advertise a "TV sports trivia game show" (and similar programs for >other subjects). You can win $100 just by making a telephone call, >but of course, it's a 900 number and you're billed for the call. Is >this really legal? The ads I've heard have never mentioned a method >for "playing" the trivia game for free (or for the cost of a stamp). >What's the difference between this and, say, playing blackjack by >telephone? The difference is that TV Sport Trivia is a game of skill, not a game of chance. If you know every piece of sports trivia, then you cannot lose, so it is not gambling. This is perfectly legal. In fact, about 10 years ago Burger King had a trivia game like this, only since this was done with scratch-off cards, you could easily go to the library and look up the answer. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!" ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 15:46:46 GMT This is third-hand, but I think of interest to this group. Apparently the local BBS organisation, COSUARD, decided to cut a deal with the PUC where multi-line BBSes were to be regarded as businesses and single- line ones regarded as hobbies. This fell through, and now both SWBell and the PUC are going back to the position that all BBSes are businesses. Speculation: dividing BBSes up by # of lines makes no sense to me. About the only BBS I call regularly any more is a multiline BBS, run without fee on a hobby basis. It occurs to me that if this position seemed out of whack at the PUC as well it might have led them to believe the COSUARD folks were being hypocritical. At least the PUC seemed entirely on the BBS side until this deal was proposed... Now that SWBell has dropped out of the BBS business itself, with the demise of SourceLine, I really wonder why they're bothering to keep this whole affair alive. It's not for the money... they've spent far more on it than they could ever hope to recover, with no end in sight. _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 16:33:19 GMT Sounds just like SourceLine or US Videotel down here in Houston. I remember talking to a SourceLine rep in a mall who claimed the thing would drive BBSes out of existence. Now SourceLine has been shut down, and (as I said in my last message) Southwestern Bell is intent on driving BBSes out of existence anyway. _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thursday, 22 Mar 1990 17:57:15 EST From: Mark Solsman Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges I appreciate everyone's input in this subject. I have learned several things. I can't believe that I didn't think of just having call forwarding put on a common line. This sounded like the cheapest. The only disadvantage is you would be connected to the same number all of the time. (Unless there is a way to remotely program one-line call forwarding [service from telco]). ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 90 19:15:36 EST From: GORDON MEYER <72307.1502@compuserve.com> Subject: Bellcore NUA PC I just got through to Bellcore's PC that will give the state and exchange when you key in the info via DTMF. I note with interest that it doesn't know about the 312/708 split! Gordon Meyer 72307.1502@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 13:29:43 -0500 From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: Cellular License Lottery NYNEX mobile's ads in the _Boston Globe_ for the past couple of months have shown a coverage map that does not include Cape Cod. A small asterisk directs the reader to this statement, "Cape Cod coverage pending FCC approval." I don't know whether this just means they've applied, or whether they have the cp in hand and are building. Doesn't say anything about the Wampanoag (correct spelling) Indians, though ... Scott Fybush Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion. "Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 9:56:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: NYC Local Service In Digest 175 in the current volume, there was a note about there being no unlimited calling in NYC. An exception I noticed a while back in a Queens call guide (for what was still in area 212) was people who ALREADY had flat rate service there. ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: 22 Mar 90 19:55:54 GMT Reply-To: David Schanen Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing In article <5444@accuvax.nwu.edu> (The Moderator) writes: >[Moderator's Note: In those days, the only way for the operator to >verify your deposit was to listen for the 'ding' of the nickle, the >'ding-ding' of the dime, and the 'bong' of the quarter, as each went >down the chute and caused a little metal arm inside to hit the bell.... As I recall you could just put the reciever up to an adjacent pay phone and that worked great. Anyone ever read Abby Hoffman? =) -Dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #195 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12675; 23 Mar 90 5:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10161; 23 Mar 90 3:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07112; 23 Mar 90 2:19 CST Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 1:17:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #196 BCC: Message-ID: <9003230117.ab03598@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Mar 90 01:15:56 CST Volume 10 : Issue 196 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can This Be True? [Richard Pavelle] Re: 800 Costs [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? [Tom Perrine] Re: Cellular License Lottery [John R. Levine] Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [Glenn M. Cooley] Re: DDD History [Wm Randolph Franklin] Re: DDD History [Bob Smart] Need Info on Nationwide Pagers [Stephen J. Friedl] Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Jon Baker] Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Kevin Hopkins] Re: Phone Harassment [Carol Springs] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Pavelle Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Date: 22 Mar 90 11:29:22 GMT Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA I sent this last week and am posting it again after responding to the moderator's comments: I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance calls the same way instead of using calling cards. I did not believe the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds. Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world? P.S. I took away his paper clips and scolded him!!!!!!!!!! [Moderator's Note: Describe the payphone. Is this the older type where you put the money in and then get a dial tone, typically without an armored handset cable? ........ other way, collecting the coins. PT] These are modern payphones with armored handset cables. He can perform the trick on payphones that take dimes and those that require quarters. I should add that it sometimes takes a few attempts to be successful. Richard Pavelle UUCP: ...ll-xn!rp ARPANET: rp@XN.LL.MIT.EDU ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: 800 Costs Date: 22 Mar 90 06:18:34 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <5147@accuvax.nwu.edu> HANK@barilvm.bitnet (Hank Nussbacher) writes: >I heard that AT&T now has a new service called "International 800" and >so far there are about 15 companies that have applied and work (places >like some international money market fund, big name travel agents, >etc.). Anyone have list? 15 companies? Many many more than that I'm sure. When bored sometimes, I sequentially dial 0031 numbers here, and there are many. Most are fax machines so I don't know who they belong to. Others include voice mail systems and Cray Research tech support. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ or or Fax: +81-3-237-5867 Voice Mail: +81-3-222-8429 ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? Date: 22 Mar 90 19:21:07 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California >A feature that performs this exact function is called Malicious Call >Hold. It is available to 911 systems, but can also be assigned to >someone who is getting repeated "malicious" calls. The feature, when >activated, will hold up the connection to the calling telephone line >(if it's off of the same switch) or, if not, it will hold up the >incoming trunk. This is really the limitation of the feature -- it >cannot hold up a line from outside the Central Office. Trying to get the phone company to do this can be difficult, unless you really lean on them, at least that was my experience in the past. They used to (and many MAY still do) insist that you log the time of malicous calls for seven days, THEN they will investigate. But things MAY be changing: Last month my wife started getting repeated calls (1/min) at home from one of those @!#*&^%$ automated sales machines. (Everybody at my house knows what a modem sounds like; it wasn't a modem.) Not only was the thing calling again and again and again and again, but it was stuck at the end of its "record" tape (where it records your responses), so all we got out of it was silence; I couldn't get the name of the company that was calling us. I called Pacific Bell, and immediately asked to speak to a supervisor (Mom was a service rep for Mountain Bell and made sure her kids knew how the system worked.) I explained to the supervisor that we were getting harassing calls from a machine; my wife was home with a sick infant that needed sleep and I wanted that !@&*^!@ thing traced NOW; none of this "keep a log for seven days" stuff was acceptable. This lady was terrific. She suggested that I have the home phone left off the hook for one hour, which usually takes care of the calling machines. (It worked.) She said that if that didn't work they could try a "quick trace", which I think meant that they would try to trace it if was easy, i.e. from the same CO. She also *called back* later in the day to verify that everything was OK!! Tom Perrine (tep) Logicon (Tactical and Training Systems Division) San Diego CA (619) 455-1330 Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM GENIE: T.PERRINE UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep -or- sun!suntan!tots!tep ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular License Lottery Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:40:07 EST From: "John R. Levine" In article <5475@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >One other thing the techs mentioned, which they debated amongst >themselves, was whether the Wampanaog (I'm sure I spelled that >incorrectly) Indians were successful in gaining the cell license for >the Cape Cod, Massachusetts area. According to an article in the [Boston Globe] a month or two ago, they're still in the arguing stage. There are three contenders for the Cape Cod wireline cellular franchise. The first, of course, is New England Telephone, which provides service to 99% of the Cape and Islands (Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.) The second is the tiny Elizabeth Islands Telephone Co. which provides service on Naushon Island. They don't even have a switch, their 508-299 exchange is physically located in NET's switch in Falmouth, but they are a real telco that has been in business for a long time. The third is a company organized by the Indians on Martha's Vineyard expressly for the purpose of getting the cellular license. The Indians claim that they should have preference due to a bunch of long standing treaty issues the details of which I forget. The other two telcos claim that the Indians' company isn't really a telco since it doesn't provide phone service to anyone, and the cellular lottery isn't supposed to be rigged in anyone's favor. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: Glenn M Cooley Subject: Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill Date: 22 Mar 90 15:01:23 GMT Reply-To: gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I would like to hear some comments (and perhaps political support) on my local TELCO's (NETCO, a member of the NYNEX "family" :-) ) latest bill insert telling me about their great new program to offer a steep discount on phone service to certain groups of people, those on welfare, the elderly, etc. It also just happens :-) that NETCO has put in for a steep rate increase. Now I see this as just another tax increase that is being hidden (nothing new to MA residents). If people on welfare need/deserve/should have more money then simply give them a bigger check. If there is no money to give them a bigger check then raise taxes. I get concerned when I see creative energy going not to "find a cure for cancer" but for finding ways to get more money from the public covertly. (Flamers take note, I'm not commenting on welfare, the poor, etc. but on this approach of the emperor's new clothes.) And speaking of political support, every time I contact the DPU to convey my desires (as though I think that the government works for me :-) ) this happens: DPU: Sorry, its too late, we just had a hearing and you weren't there. ME: Well, when is the next hearing? DPU: Sorry, it is not scheduled yet. --- time passes-- DPU: Sorry, its too late, we just had a hearing and you weren't there. ME: You didn't tell me about this hearing when I last called, when is the next one? DPU: Sorry, it is not scheduled yet. Is there any other way to get the DPU to listen to the public (or what I guess I really mean the the common person)? ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Re: DDD History Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 22 Mar 90 22:58:46 GMT In article <5004@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Lesher writes: >When the British advance (in the Bridge Too Far in WWII) was pinned >down, the Resistance offered >several times to put them in contact with British units elsewhere in >the country, only to be told to "go away" perhaps because the Brits >did not understand/believe them. Perhaps because, in the biggest failure of Allied intelligence in WWII, for much of the war the Dutch resistance movement was really being run by the Germans. Even today it's not certain whose side certain Dutch resistance leaders were really on. Therefore it's understandable that the British units might not trust the Dutch later on, even after the deception was discovered. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: Bob Smart Subject: Re: DDD History Date: 23 Mar 90 01:05:14 GMT Organization: Verdix Corporation, Chantilly, VA In article <5004@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) says: > (Description of Market Garden Airborne operation) > Seem as if the advanced paratroops had been dropped without the > correct {or maybe ANY!} crystals for their radios. In any case, they > had no communications. Correct, wrong crystals in some, others broke during the para-drop. A decision to leave the backup systems (Carrier Pigeons) in England confounded the problem > When the British advance was pinned down, the Resistance offered > several times to put them in contact with British units elsewhere in > the country, only to be told to "go away" perhaps because the Brits > did not understand/believe them. > Such is the irony/tragedy of war. I remember reading of a similar incedent in Granada. An 82nd Airborne squad was pinned in a house with radios that could not reach anyone. Someone jokingly picked up the phone and got dial tone. A Sergeant used his calling card to place a call to the unit orderly room at Fort Bragg NC who called Division HQ on the other side of base who used high powered command radios to call the Advanced HQ in Granada ( I was told separatly that this was a satelite link) who used field phones to call the Artillery command post who issued fire orders to a battery. Artillery was called and corrected for over half an hour with no mistakes. I have always had two questions. Was the NCO allowed to put the phone call bill into Uncle? And why didn't AT&T use it in an ad? (When your call has to go thru first time don't rely on .. :-)) Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 20:46:02 -0500 From: mtndew!friedl@uunet.uu.net Subject: Need Info on Nationwide Pagers Hi folks, I will be doing a moderate amount of travel this summer, and I am thinking about getting a nationwide pager. I have info from SkyTel (with SkyPager service) and it looks pretty good. I would like to hear from others who have used it on how you like or dislike it. Info about other services (if any) would be appreciated as well. Respond via email, I will summarize and post. Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl "How in the world did Vicks ever get Nyquil past the DEA?" - me ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers Date: 22 Mar 90 14:51:44 GMT Organization: gte In article <5181@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bukys@cs.rochester.edu writes: > I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for > long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or > not. The University has a ROLM phone system internally. It does > "least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers. Sounds like a problem internal to the University Of Rochester, having nothing to do with tariffs or regulations. Find out if the local Telco is billing UofR for the uncompleted calls, and your Facility/Billing/Whoever is just passing that charage on to you, OR if the local Telco is NOT charging for the incomplete call (which they shouldn't be) but your Facilities Dept. (or whoever takes care of the Rolm) is concocting up these bogus charges just to milk the departments for more money (really just 'funny money' anyway, since it all stays within the U of R). ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 17:28:46 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins In v10i180 Herman R. Silbiger said: -> For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who -> want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call -> costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter. This counter -> will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the -> end of the month. A friend hired one of these from BT in the UK three years ago or so. It increments the counter by using signalling from the CO, along the lines of that used to notify payphones that a message unit has been used (and to demand more money). If I remember correctly BT would only rent this device as the rental charge included the cost of the signals from the CO to the subscriber's meter. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | 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: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Date: 22 Mar 90 16:57:19 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In article <5427@accuvax.nwu.edu> lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) writes: >Anyway, this idiot left an obscene message on a ** tape recorder ** !! >I've saved it in case these continued and the law was called in. ( I >still can't believe it!) I since changed the outgoing message, and I >haven't received any more calls since 3 months ago. >On a tape recorder! Yes, this happens. I once arrived back home after a weekend away to find a double blinkenlight on my (older-model) answering machine. I had to sit through the first message, which was from an obscene caller, in order to hear the second. At one point the guy paused in his unimaginative anatomical fantasies to say angrily, "Why don't you pick up the phone -- I *know* you're listening." I was glad I did leave the thing running, because, as it happened, the second message was from a friend's mother about a family emergency. I turned the tape over in order to keep the first message around, but fortunately I never had any trouble with the caller again. Guess he got tired of all those people who just liked to listen... :-( Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #196 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12866; 23 Mar 90 5:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10161; 23 Mar 90 3:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07112; 23 Mar 90 2:19 CST Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 2:06:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #197 BCC: Message-ID: <9003230206.ab06911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:05:42 CST Volume 10 : Issue 197 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Fictitious Listings With NETel [Hagbard Celine] How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Will Martin] Camp-on-busy in a Centrex? [Will Martin] Wanted: V&H Coordinate Database Source [Timothy Coddington] Two Questions (One Easy, One More Difficult) [W. L. Ware] Switch Two Devices by Ring? [John R. Levine] DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For Deaf) [Carl] "Choke" Lines [Bruce E. Howells] Hotel/Motel Charges [Scott D. Green] What Will Happen to 10XXX+ ? [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hagbard Celine Subject: Fictitious Listings With NETel Date: 22 Mar 90 07:16:37 GMT Reply-To: Hagbard Celine Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA I know this has been discussed (or at least mentioned) before, but I can't seem to find the article(s) in question... I'm adding another line in my house. I want to list the number under a fictitious name, but have it billed to my real name and address (of course.) I DO NOT want the number non-published, but I DO NOT want it under my name. My understanding was that it was perfectly legal/OK to list a line under anything the customer wanted ... especially if it's a normal-sounding (but false) name, like "Alan Waterman," or similar. It was also my understanding that despite this permissiveness, LEC CSRs are typically uninformed/uncooperative about actually doing so. I talked to a woman at NETel, and then her supervisor, and was told that "we don't allow things like that." Do I have any recourse? Any help/suggestions/things to say to the people at NETel would be much appreciated. I read this newsgroup, so they CAN be posted ... but I rather suspect that all concerned would appreciate private mail. Thanks in advance, Andrew Reynhout (Internet: reynhout@wpi.wpi.edu) | I should be a polar (BITNET: reynhout@wpi.bitnet) | bear. But it's im- All hail Eris! (uucp: uunet!wpi.wpi.edu!reynhout) | possible. -R.Smith [Moderator's Note: Maybe you talk too much and know too much about the rules for your own good, where NETel is concerned. Maybe what you need is to have a roommate move in -- even if he is just a figment of your imagination. And your roommate needs to be listed in the phone book also, you see, and you will go ahead and keep paying the bill, but list him on the second line, which is in his bedroom. They want to talk to him? Well, he is out of town this week, but you can have him call later. Don't try to impress them with your knowledge of the rules, 'cause you don't impress them, you actually scare them out of their wits. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:37:54 CST From: Will Martin Subject: How To Identify Your CO Equipment In Telecom Digest #184, Mark Earle wrote: >Subject: Re: CLASS Phone Features >Which features are dependant on switch level (7ESS for the "good" >ones?) How do I find out which level is installed here? Is there a >requestable listing (Bellcore?) or a code/number one can use to >interrogate the servicing CO that gives me, the subscriber, a way to >find out what I have serving me...? What he is asking is something I have been wondering for years, and meant to ask on the list several times, and just never did. I've been waiting to see any replies. Unfortunately, nothing has yet shown up. Essentially, the question is "How do you identify your CO's equipment?" Every now and then, someone will mention , in the course of their posting on some subject or another, that their exchange's CO has a "#4 ESS" or a "#3 ESS". How do they know that? As Mark asks, is there a special test number you dial that tells you the equipment and software version? That seems unlikely... Do you just have to know what strange sounds are generated by this or that piece of gear when you do "x" or "y" with your telephone? If it comes down to an answer of "you ask the telco" I'm going to belabor somebody about the head and shoulders with a rubber chicken... For that matter, how do you tell what equipment you have servicing you if it is pre-ESS? Can you tell from the sequence of noises when you dial? (But all BOCs are fully ESS now, right? Only odd private telcos still have non-ESS gear -- am I right in saying that?) Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:53:59 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Camp-on-busy in a Centrex? Some years ago, I posted to Telecom my wish for a telephone-service enhancement -- that I could buy the capability for my telephone to just hang on the line when I reach a busy signal, and then my call would be put through and the called phone ring when it became un-busy. I was told that it wasn't possible because the connection wasn't really made across the network when the called phone was busy -- my call just got as far as my CO, which queried the network which in turn checked the called phone line first; if it was busy, the network connection was dropped and the "busy" tone was generated by my local CO. I assume that is still true; let me know if it isn't. Anyway, this explanation does not tell me why I can't have this same function within a Centrex. Don't some PBXs offer this to the phones they service? Since all the lines in a Centrex are off the same CO, the "across-network" business doesn't apply. Why isn't "camp-on-busy" offered as a standard Centrex feature? If I call another office inside my Centrex and get a busy signal, why can't I just keep holding on and get a ring as soon as they hang up? Why do I have to hang up and call over and over, even if I have a machine doing that hanging up and redialling for me, like some telephones allow? Within the CO, why can't the "potential" connection be kept up as easily as "live" connections? If this IS possible, how would hunting affect this? If I call an office with four rotary lines and all are busy, I have already been shunted from line 1 to line 2 to line 3 to line 4 and am getting the busy from line 4. If I am "camped" on that busy, what happens when line 2 is hung up? Is there something that could make my call go back to the beginning of the hunt group and get completed when any of the lines open up? Or is this why the service isn't offered -- because there isn't any way to loop back to the beginning of the hunt group once you end up at the last one? If some PBXs DO allow this, how do they handle hunting? Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: Timothy Coddington Subject: Wanted: V&H Coordinate Database Source Date: 22 Mar 90 21:08:54 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon Univ (Software Engineering Institute), Pgh, PA I'm looking for a source for the V&H coordinate database. This is very large table used to compute the distance between the two end points of a phone call. The table is searched using the area code and exchange as the keys. From that combination a V and H coordinate is obtained and used in calculating the distance (similar to an X and Y coordinate system). Is the table/database available online somewhere? Who might I contact to get it? Thanks for any help. Tim Coddington 412-268-7712 or 244-8557 tac@sei.cmu.edu ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Two Questions (One Easy, One More Difficult) Date: 22 Mar 90 17:53:56 GMT Reply-To: W.L. Ware Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York First, where are the telecom archives stored? Second, when I bought my last celluar phone, on a Sunday ... The dealer typed in quite a few digits on the phone, gave me 5 phone #'s to choose from and then entered that number. Can anyone give me some info on how Celluar Phones are programmed and what exactly the dealer has control over? ************************************************************************ *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * [Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives are located a MIT. They are accessed via 'ftp lcs.mit.edu', then 'cd telecom-archives'. Use anonymous login. Regards cellular phone programming, I'd like more information myself if one or more readers will comment on it. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Switch Two Devices by Ring? Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:46:31 EST From: "John R. Levine" My local telco has started to offer a service where you can have two or three phone numbers assigned to a single line and distinguish them by the way they ring. It's quite inexpensive, $3/month for one extra number or $5/month for two. It occurs to me that a fine way to put a fax and a modem on the same line would be to use a box that listened to the ring and connected to one of two or three ports depending on the ring pattern. Since it would connect to the right device before the phone was answered, it avoids the problems of boxes that answer the phone and then try to tell who or what is calling. For outgoing calls, if a device picks up the phone it should seize the line until it hangs up. Does such a device exist? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 17:33:40 -0500 From: Carl Subject: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For Deaf) I'm surprised no one has mentioned this scheme for sending alphanumerics and punctuation via DTMF. I've seen it used on at least two computer systems, one of which was the University of Michigan's old MTS system, which years ago had a DTMF input line that would respond with an amazing (for the time period) recorded voice that could, by real-time splicing of magnetically-recorded (presumably on a drum) phonetic sounds (plus a large number of complete words), pronounce a huge vocabulary of words. This was in the mid-70's, and it was far more technologically impressive than the Votrax voice they replaced it with later. (I'm not sure if they still have the DTMF input line; the number I had was changed a long time ago.) Anyway, the scheme is this: each character has a unique two-digit DTMF code. For the letters other than Q and Z the first digit of the code is the touch-tone button on which that letter appears, and the second digit is the place- ment (1, 2, or 3) of the letter in that group. For example, A is 21, B is 22, C is 23, D is 31, and so forth. Q is 70 and Z is 90. The digits 0-9 are 00-09 respectively. The non-alphanumeric characters are composed of codes which have mnemonic two-letter combinations. Some of the codes and their text equivalents, along with the mnemonic words, are: Code Character Mnemonic ---- --------- -------- 25 (space) BLank 26 , COmma 39 ! EXclamation point 73 . PEriod 78 ? QUestion mark (Q = 7) One would enter a message by typing the two-digit codes in sequence, without intervening digits: H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L . (^ = space) 4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9 (on the MTS system the sequence #9 was used for RETURN. Other sequences were #2 for repeat line (like ctrl-R), #6 for backspace, and I think #0 for cancel line.) That long series of digits looks pretty intimidating for such a short message, but the scheme is actually quite simple once you get used to it. Carl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 22:24:53 EST From: "Bruce E. Howells" Subject: "Choke" Lines Living in the New York area, I've been pretty heavily exposed to "choke" lines for radio call-in contests. Here, they're in the 955 prefix. I'm wondering what sort of hardware is used for these - special switches dedicated 24 hours, or do they move the higher capacity stuff around? It would seem to make sense to have a few high-capacity switch/hardware sets, and move it from number to number as needed, but is the savings in hardware worth the difficulty of co-ordination? And how are these handled long-distance? Is the peak loading low enough that LD doesn't need to worry? (Not that I'm worried that some day 3 stations will say call 955-whatever all at once and melt a switch somewhere,just curious...) Thanks for any information... Bruce E. Howells, beh@bu-pub.bu.edu | engnbsu@buacca (BITNet) Just a random Engineering undergrad... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 10:00 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Hotel/Motel Charges OK, travelers, we've read about AOS's, exorbitant surcharges levied by hotels, blocked access to LD carriers, etc. I am in the dubious position of managing one of those "hospitality" PBX's, and let me first state that our 1+ carrier is Sprint, and 0+ is AT&T. However, we do surcharge many calls. My question to all of you is, "What's Fair?" I'm not entirely comfortable with aspects of our rate structure, but the business folks are pleased with the revenues, and of course there's a certain amount of overhead associated with providing the service. Knowing that you are an astute group of phone users with an understanding of the bizness, what do you think? Please address any or all aspects of the service as it relates to the guest - dial tone, untimed local, timed units, DDD, 0+, 950-, 800-, 10xxx-. I will detail our charges later; I don't want to color your responses. Eagerly anticipating your input. scott green ------------------------------ Subject: What Will Happen to 10XXX+ ? Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 21:55:41 EST From: woody It will be interesting to see what would happen should Canada be successful in getting a competitive long distance system, what with the CNCP/Rogers proposal to provide another long distance network to challenge the existing Telecom Canada monopoly. [Aside - already, Bell Canada is having its operators identify themselves as "Bell Operator", even though competition is nowhere in sight, yet. Some preparatory moves on Bell Canada's part? ] However, given different jurisdictions involved, what would happen if someone on Sprint wanted to call Canada, but Canada has a choice of two carriers? Could we see a dialing go like this: 10777 + 10xxx + 1 + (Canadian #) for Telecom Canada -- or, 10777 + 10yyy + 1 + (Canadian #) for CNCP/Rogers (Cantel) That is, once it crosses the border, allow another selection of carriers. Presently, Canada does not have the 10XXX+ to allow a choice of U.S. carriers when calling America. I don't know if all calls (1+) to USA are stuck with AT&T, though I think there was a "Teleplus" service tried that used the access code 1022+ to get at MCI (?) for a while. Meanwhile, 1 800 950 1022 can be dialed from Canada to get MCI access. Unknown about access to Sprint, Allnet, Value-net of Waco, etc, though I understand that those calls (to 950) are to be blocked at this time. Even within the U.S., there are already interesting possibilities what with the regional and local long distance carriers involved. What happens if competition is to be accessed if other countries decide to break their long distance monopolies? || David Leibold "Millions of people who have never died before will be || djcl@contact.uucp instantly killed " - William Shatner, Star Trek outtake ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #197 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14202; 23 Mar 90 6:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12216; 23 Mar 90 4:34 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad10161; 23 Mar 90 3:30 CST Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 2:41:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #198 BCC: Message-ID: <9003230241.ab07384@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:40:06 CST Volume 10 : Issue 198 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson My Two Cents Worth [Ed Naratil] Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! [Victor Schwartz] Re: UK Telephone System Questions [Todd Inch] Re: Answering Machines [Todd Inch] Data Ports at Airports [David Leibold] 900 Numbers in 1977 [David Leibold] Where is This Package Hiding At? [Francis N. Godfrey] How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled? [David Tamkin] Time Zones [Carl Moore] Re: Enahanced 911 [Kim Greer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Naratil Subject: My Two Cents Worth Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 12:32:16 EDT Two thoughts: 1. Regarding cheating pay phones: I heard it said (:>) back when pay phones only cost a nickle (yes, only 5 cents!) to make a local call, the call could be made for only a penny. What you would do is carefully place the penny in the nickle slot, hold it there with a car or house key, and then using the key give the penny a quick rotary spin. This would cause the penny to rotate down the slot activating whatever mechanism was used to decode the nickle. 2. Regarding tracing offensive or obscene telephone calls by the telephone company: Yes, the means exist, and have existed for many, many, moons. The biggest problem is that unless forced into it by courts or law inforcement agencies, the telephone companies don't want to get involved in court cases directly or indirectly. Ed Naratil (All standard disclaimers apply) AMPR: W3BNR@N3LA.#EPA.PA.USA.NA ean@gvlv3.gvl.unisys.com ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 90 07:59:07 PST (Thursday) Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! (1 hour free on U.S. From: Schwartz.osbunorth@xerox.com For those of you who passed this stressful test on the many uses of WD40 and won an hour of free calling on U.S. Sprint: I also won, and received my FON Card some time ago. I used it on one occasion from a pay phone, and just received the bill. As I had been warned, I am still charged the surcharge (about 80 cents, I believe) for remote access, but the time charge (1 minute, in this case) was not shown on the bill. There was no indication of how much credit remained, so I guess the only way I'll know when I've used up my 1 hour of free calling (aside from keeping all my bills and running a private total) is to wait for the first bill which includes time charges rather than just surcharges. All-in-all, it's not a bad deal. If I had used my MCI calling card, I would have paid the same surcharge PLUS the time charge. The only draw-back is that it's yet another bill which arrives each month. I think I get about 4 separate telephone bills each month now! Victor Schwartz Xerox Corporation ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: UK Telephone System Questions Reply-To: Todd Inch Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc. Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:51:41 GMT In article <5219@accuvax.nwu.edu> doug@letni.lonestar.org writes: >This is probably going to open a can of worms, but ... what problems am >I going to encounter using U.S. telephone equipment, specificly a >Trailblazer T2500 modem in the U.K.? >The power supply is an easy fix, the question is more directed to >different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So what the heck are these? I've always wondered. Have anything to do with the bell being across tip and ring vs. earth-ground and ring, or maybe detecting off-hook? Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu "I dreamed you gave birth to apples. A huge Red Delicious, a Gravenstein, a Johnathan, and a Granny Smith - they came out of the mylar hole." - my wife ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: Answering Machines Reply-To: Todd Inch Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc. Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 05:27:10 GMT This is from rec.humor. I thought it might be worth cross-posting here. >In article <9533@wpi.wpi.edu> wildone@wpi.wpi.edu (Insomnia Inc.) writes: >from:marrs_w@apollo.com >This was off of the sub-genius mailing list A particularly insidious kind of sales call now appearing in several cities is one which is initiated by computer, and contains recorded questions ... that requires answers in simple digits or "yes" and "no". A voice recognition circuit then processes your answers and asks further questions based on your former answers. The sales pitch is usually disguised as a survey of some kind. The despicable thing about these things is that they won't leave you alone. If you hang up, they will just call back again.> One day my wife got a call from one of these computer systems, and her answering machine answered. The conversation that followed was hilarious, as it consisted of two machines talking to each other without having the slightest idea about what each other was saying. The conversation wound up in an endless loop, as follows: [PHONE] *RING* [ANSWERING MACHINE] "...At the tone, please give your message. BEEEEEP." [PHONE] "Hello. This is [company_name], and we are taking a telephone survey ... when I ask a question, wait for the beep, then please speak plainly. I will repeat your answer back to you, and verify it. First, what is your phone number? BEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." (The answering machine, upon hearing the beep, got confused and thought it was a play-back command, and generated another beep in response.) [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [PHONE] "Thank you! Your phone number was 443-28347-47756-377764-22222. Is that correct? BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [PHONE] "Thank you! Do you have any children? BEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [PHONE] Thank you! What is the age of your first child? BEEEEEEEEEEP." [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [PHONE] "Your first child is 1,222 years old. Is that correct? BEEEEEP." [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [--------------- BEGIN ENDLESS LOOP ----------------] [PHONE] "Thank you! Do you have any more children? BEEEEEEP." [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [PHONE] "Thank you! What is this child's age? BEEEP." [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [PHONE] "This child is 4,233 years old. Is that correct? BEEEEP." [ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." [---------------------END LOOP -----------------------] My wife, upon noticing that the answering machine had been going for over half an hour, turned up the volume to find out what was going on. When she discovered this endless loop (by now she had over 200 children, all over 1,000 years old), she switched off the answering machine. The computer never called again. >Yes! We have no parameters, | jen Wiley wildone@wpi.wpi.edu >We have no parameters today! |/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >cigarette: n; a fire at one end, a fool at the other, and a pinch of tobacco > in between. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu "I dreamed you gave birth to apples. A huge Red Delicious, a Gravenstein, a Johnathan, and a Granny Smith - they came out of the mylar hole." - my wife ------------------------------ Subject: Data Ports at Airports Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 21:45:47 EST From: woody Ken Jongsma had a message some time back about data ports at an Atlanta airport (if memory serves correctly). There was a terminal set up at Pearson airport in Toronto that was supposed to give access to services like Datapac, iNet and that. It consisted of a keyboard, screen, and free access to the data. Supposedly, one could have direct connect to the Datapac public dial port with this, however I have never seen this thing actually work (I've tried it, and it appeared to be broken whenever I've seen it). Now, if they could have payphones with keyboards and screens, so that Usenet or BBSes could be dialed on the run ... then again, the telcos might give us the nightmare of having it COCOT-style. || David Leibold djcl@contact.uucp ------------------------------ Subject: 900 Numbers in 1977 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 21:39:29 EST From: woody Scott Fybush wrote about the 900 number Jimmy Carter could be reached at during a phone in back in 1977. There was a Canadian phone-in using a 900 number (it used 1 900 975 9811 (or dial 112+ from British Columbia and parts of Saskatchewan). The latest table I have for the 900 exchanges indicates a carrier code of 'ALN' (AllNet?) for recent years. This 900 number was a free call, and it had to do with soliciting the public for opinions about public issues or something like that. Another toll-free 900 number happened just when 900 service was officially started up in Canada a few years ago, when Coca Cola decided to switch from classic to Pepsi-clone. The 1 900 200 COKE number could be called free to register support for a classic version of coke as well as the new version (listed carrier as AT&T). Otherwise, Canadian access to 900 services have generally been for polls and tame recordings, and not generally for the high-priced consulting services (Bell Canada would like to introduce that within a year or so) || David Leibold djcl@contact.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:34:22 EST From: "Francis N. Godfrey" Subject: Where is This Package Hiding At? Reply-To: "Francis N. Godfrey" Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY I do not check this group very often. So please respond via E-mail, the address is valid. I am trying to find a package for my Unix system called tiny_talk (or is it tiny_world) in which it will help the system connect to many of those "tiny...." what ever thingys. Any help appreciated. Please respond via E-mail. Francis N. Godfrey |Computing and Network Services|"An undergrad with time..." Syracuse University|Micro Cluster Support |"We bring servers to you. " |fgodfrey@rodan.acs.syr.edu "I want to be *dainty*, darling." -- Lt. Worf from Star Trek: The Next Regurgitation ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled? Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 10:52:04 CST Macy Hallock wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 192: | In article <5311@accuvax.nwu.edu> [someone else had written]: | >I received one of those "you may have already won" calls on my voice | >mail at work the other day (in fact, so did everyone else in the | >office!) that told me that all I had to do to find out I was a winner | >was to ring up their 900 numbe. The call would cost me $10. | I got one of these on my cellular phone the other night on the way | back from a customer site. Talk about sleazy! There was absolutely | no way to identify the caller without calling the 900 number. And I | had to pay airtime, too, 'cause I answered the call. | They were obviously power dialing the entire 216-389-xxxx cellular | exchange, and judging by the time, intentionally.... What a great argument in favor of Caller ID on cellular phones; if you don't recognize the calling number, or if it is blocked, let it get forwarded on no answer to an answering machine or voice mail. | Cincinnati Bell is trying out cellular service where the caller pays | for the airtime on incoming calls (Yes, a 1+ is required) (It's | optional, BTW) Sounds pretty good to me...it would end this crap. Sounds like a very good idea to me too, but I wonder whether the billing arrangements could be made if the incoming call is inter-LATA. And of course, if a person answering a cellular line accepts the charges to receive a collect call, those will include the airtime. There is a cost involved, I should think, for the receiving cellular company to transmit airtime cost information to the telco from which the call was placed. And unless the receiving cellular company is provided in ALL cases with the calling number, such information cannot be batched but must be sent separately for each call. (Remittances back to the receiving cellular telco can, of course, be batched. I'd hate to think of separate payments for every call to a cellular number!) Furthermore, on a call placed from one cellular line to another, the caller pays double airtime. That's fair, I guess, but steep. As for 1+, that would make a difference only under both of two conditions: (1) the caller doesn't already have to dial 1+ and (2) the call is being placed from an area code that has no N[0/1]X prefixes and still can allow eight- and ten-digit dialing. Here in 312 and 708 very few cellular prefixes are NNX, and prepending a 1 would make most of them look like the lead-in to inter-NPA dialing; and if the call is being placed to another area code, the 1+ is needed anyway. What I think are needed here are separate prefixes for cellular customers who do and do not bear airtime costs on incoming calls, so that people placing calls can be aware before they dial. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 23:09:45 EST From: MOORE <00860@vax1.udel.edu> Reply-To: Carl Moore Subject: Time Zones This was prompted by a question (NOT affecting anything I have in progress) I have regarding Voicemark (AT&T). Do phone prefixes have "noise" around time zone boundaries as they do around county lines? I have now used the Voicemark system, and in the interactive part I am told what time (and time zone) it is at the receiving end of the message. This is after I punch in the receiving phone number. ------------------------------ From: klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) Subject: Re: Enhanced 911 Date: 22 Mar 90 10:17:28 GMT Reply-To: klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC In article <5246@accuvax.nwu.edu> gnn@cbnews.ATT.COM (glenn.m.cooley,wi,) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 178, Message 5 of 14 ++Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I ++believe his/her mother was choking). The child was panicked and ++couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment. +I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my +hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario +than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the +phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install +under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.) Do you really expect the six year old mentioned above to be able to read? Maybe some can. And while many kids this age have had their name and address drilled into them, in a panicked setting, its likely to go right out the door with the cat. I would rather my tax dollars go for something that can literally save lives, as opposed to a lot of (IMO) garbage that taxes are used for. I noted the :-) above, so I'm not sure how anti-911 you or anyone else is. What, other than perhaps cost, do people really object to with (E)911? Is "anonymity" more preferred in life&death situations than getting help to someone? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #198 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06512; 24 Mar 90 3:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23094; 24 Mar 90 1:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30972; 24 Mar 90 0:40 CST Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 0:23:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #199 BCC: Message-ID: <9003240023.ab17219@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Mar 90 00:22:28 CST Volume 10 : Issue 199 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Jerry B. Altzman] Re: Data Ports at Airports [John R. Levine] Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation [Steve Nuchia] Re: Phone Harassment [Gary Wilson] Re: Phone Harassment [Heath Roberts] Re: Choke Lines [Gregory W. Isett] Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Chris Johnson] Re: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please [Will Martin] Re: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please [Benjamin Ellsworth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry B. Altzman" Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" Organization: mailer daemons association Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 18:37:02 GMT In article <5514@accuvax.nwu.edu> asuvax!gtephx!mothra!bakerj@ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) writes: >Sounds like a problem internal to the University Of Rochester, having >nothing to do with tariffs or regulations. Find out if the local >Telco is billing UofR for the uncompleted calls, and your >Facility/Billing/Whoever is just passing that charage on to you, OR if >the local Telco is NOT charging for the incomplete call (which they >shouldn't be) but your Facilities Dept (or whoever takes care of the >Rolm) is concocting up these bogus charges just to milk the >departments for more money. (Really just 'funny money' anyway, since it >all stays within the U of R). At Columbia, we have a (large) ROLM switch. The university here does the same thing that Rochester does, except the wait is an even 45 seconds, answer or not. This is a real problem when, for example, calling overseas, when you can wait 40 seconds for a connection, or to some domestic points (I have a friend who is constantly fighting with the telecom office about calls to home that don't get answered, but for which she gets charged anyway.) It isn't always funny money that gets tossed around. It wouldn't be so bad, either, except the switch goes down at least once a week for repairs on short notice. DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them. //jbaltz jerry b. altzman "We've got to get in to get out" 212 854 8058 jbaltz@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixf!jbaltz (bang!) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Data Ports at Airports Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 12:02:22 EST From: "John R. Levine" A few years ago at Logan Airport in Boston, New England Tel had an experimental pay phone terminal. It had a 24x80 screen, a membrane keyboard, and a coinless payphone built in. Its modem ran at 1200 bps which at the time was the fastest anyone used. Someone had even chained a chair to it so you could sit down while you hacked. You paid only for the call, there was no surcharge for the terminal. Needless to say, this was pre-divestiture. My recollection is hazy but I think it had some on screen dialogs to help you call into Telenet, Tymnet, Compuserve, and the like. I used it a few times and it worked pretty well. I dialed into various computers to pick up my mail, and even called the on-line airline guide to check and change a reservation. My main complaint was that since most of the numbers I called were local to the airport, if the phone had a coin slot I could have called for a dime instead of using my calling card and paying 12 cents per minute. Computers with 800 numbers could of course be called for free, but there weren't many of them. Sadly, it went away after about a year. As far as I can tell, I was the only person ever to use it -- I got a few bewildered stares while I was typing at it, but never saw anyone else even try to use it. I've seen nothing like it since except for some TDDs which are hardly the same thing. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: Steve Nuchia Subject: Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation Date: 23 Mar 90 15:12:55 GMT Reply-To: Steve Nuchia Organization: Houston Public Access In article <5499@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >This is third-hand, but I think of interest to this group. Peter, it would not have been difficult to check on things. As a member of the COSUARD board, I feel it necessary to respond to this. Peter's version has most of the right facts, but scrambled in a way typical of "third-hand" information. >Apparently the local BBS organisation, COSUARD, decided to cut a deal COSUARD was formed specifically for this issue. It may have a life as a BBS organization after this issue is resolved, but for now our attention and resources are completely devoted to doing battle with Southwestern Bell. >with the PUC where multi-line BBSes were to be regarded as businesses The PUC wouldn't even have been an interested observer if we hadn't filed a complaint before them. This fight was started by SWB and is between COSUARD (what a name!) and SWB. >and single-line ones regarded as hobbies. This fell through, and now You would not believe the number of different positions SWB has taken over the last two years, and the slimey ways they've repudiated them. At the point at which our case was filed, and continuing through the cutoff of intervention (addition of plaintiffs), SWB held that all BBSes were businesses and had not raised number of lines as an issue in the (several) settlements we had agreed to. After it became impossible to add a multi-line BBS to the group of intervenors SWB decided that a single line was an absolute and immutable feature of any settlement. They have moved all over the map on the other main issue (definition of compensation), but have never wavered on single line. It is interesting to note that their spokesman, in a public meeting held to discuss settlement possibilities, described the one line restriction as "arbitrary". Nevertheless, the absolutely will not budge. Our speculation is that they this is either an attempt to protect their information service business or an attempt to renege on their settlement with Bruce Penny. I'm not fully briefed on how the Penny case is thought to influence their position, and this is speculation anyway. The important fact is that a single line has become an unavoidable feature of any possible pre-trial settlement, and it is very possible that we do not have standing to argue that issue before the PUC. In any case negotiations are continuing, and I can't talk about the current status (mostly because things are changing too fast for anybody outside the intervenor group to keep up with.) But the first serious one-line settlement proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority vote of the members present at a regular meeting. Since then we have continued to negotiate, and the dividing line on compensation has wavered all over the map, but SWB has remained firm on one line. >both SWBell and the PUC are going back to the position that all BBSes >are businesses. SWB has always had that position, although at various times various representatives of SWB have agreed to other things, they keep returning to that. On many occasions their representatives have stated that eventually they will be billing all BBSes as businesses -- this causes us to be rather concerned about the longevity of any settlement we agree to. The PUC had no position on the matter until we brought the case to them. The case is in pre-hearing before an examiner, and has not yet been heard by the commissioners. We have some idea how the members of the commission individually feel about the issue, and it is too close to call. Until they hear the case and make a ruling the PUC will not have any official position on the issue. >Speculation: dividing BBSes up by # of lines makes no sense to me. It makes a great deal of sense to me. SWB is attemtping to divide up COSUARD's support base. From a technical and legal standpoint it is preposterous. >About the only BBS I call regularly any more is a multiline BBS, run >without fee on a hobby basis. It occurs to me that if this position Where were you when we were begging for intervenors? >seemed out of whack at the PUC as well it might have led them to >believe the COSUARD folks were being hypocritical. At least the PUC >seemed entirely on the BBS side until this deal was proposed... This is complete gibberish. The one line position is Bell's, not ours, and if it weren't for the presumption-of-reasonableness that the utilities enjoy (extra-legally) with the commision they very probably would view it as "out of whack". >Now that SWBell has dropped out of the BBS business itself, with the >demise of SourceLine, I really wonder why they're bothering to keep >this whole affair alive. It's not for the money... they've spent far >more on it than they could ever hope to recover, with no end in sight. Some believe that they just have a tiger by the tail -- I do believe they seriously underestimated, on several occasions, our resolve and ability to remain organized. Heck, its surprised me several times. But the (bbs) revenue is not and never has been the important factor for Bell. After all, they are a regulated monoply, and will make their money no matter what. The issues are: 1) Purity of tariff. They seem to believe, deep in their beady little hearts, that BBSes are really businesses, and that we're trying to pull a fast one on them. They have a responsibility to enforce the tariff, and are justified in being forceful about it. However, I believe we have presented overwhelming evidence that we are not businesses, and the case goes on. They are simply not interested in (or capable of understanding?) our point. 2) Establishing a Precedent. They would like to do away with the distinction between business and residential service altogether. On several occasions they have stated that universal measured service is their ultimate tariff goal. Also, data communications is the only part of their regulated business that has a potential for rapid growth. So, they are trying to carve out as much ground in datacom as they can for businesses rates, by establishing a precedent in this case. They are also trying to weaken the tradition of free local calls and low residential rates as much as possible. Thank you for permitting me this rebuttal. steve ------------------------------ From: wilson@ccop1.ocpt.ccur.com Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Date: 23 Mar 90 19:18:26 GMT Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport,NJ In article <5427@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) writes: > received them was my wife. She was upset because they knew her first > name. I suggested that they probably didn't know her, but had gotten > her name from the phone book where it is listed, either before or > after reaching our answering machine, which stated "You have reached > the Seaman residence..." From a crime prevention point you should not have your last name on your mailbox, front door or answering machine. All of these make it that much easier for a burgular to determine if anyone is home. My answering machine says "Hi this is Gary. I can't answer the phone right now but ", etc. Gary Wilson PS: Notice I didn't mentioned my wife's name at all. ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 21:05:49 GMT In article <5457@accuvax.nwu.edu> sarek!gsarff@cs.utah.edu writes: >I have been wondering something for some time about tracing of phone >calls. This may not be possible since it doesn't seem to be done, >but... [stuff deleted] >So, to find out where a call is coming from, say in the case of >harassment, or kidnapping ransom calls or some such thing, why can't >the billing records of telco's be searched? >[Could the telco just search for] a billing record on someone else's phone >bill with your number on it at a time of 1pm. Is this a jurisdictional >thing? Technologically not feasible? It seems that it would be >easier than trying to put a trace on a line at just the time needed to >catch someone and hoping that the caller stays on long enough to >complete the trace. With Northern Telecom switches, this is easy... all calls are logged. But if you're expecting someone to call and you notify the telco, a switch operator can tell the switch to log any calls to or from your line to a printer. They get notification about a half second after the call's completed. Can't speak to ATT or others, but I'd assume they have similar capabilities. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: "Gregory W. Isett" Subject: Re: Choke Lines Date: 23 Mar 90 19:47:33 EST Organization: HRB Systems Could someone tell a novice user what exactly a "choke line" is? Gregory W. Isett Internet: GWI@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: GWI%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet State College, PA. USA UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!gwi (814) 238-4311 ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges Date: 23 Mar 90 23:31:34 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN Someone had mentioned a device that would automatically forward calls from one line to another line in response to the subject above. Just for anyone who is interested, I saw just such a thing advertised in Radio Shack's litter box liner circular yesterday for about $50. Chris Johnson DOMAIN: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. VOX: +1 612 452 9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612 452 3607 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 13:43:45 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please See the newspaper GOVERNMENT COMPUTER NEWS for March 5, '90, page 3. This has an article, "Suit Stirs Up Speculation About FTS 2000 Vendor". This thing is far too long to type in and I don't have a scanner. To summarize: this is a "qui tam" suit which is some sort of high-secrecy legal foofaraw, under seal to protect whistle-blowers. Everybody is "no comment"ing about it. Some unnamed "defense industry newsletter" broke the story on Feb. 12. The names of those filing the suit are secret but are reported to be two "current or former Sprint" employees. A copy of it somehow has gotten to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which is investigating GSA procurement practices. This has reopened interest in the FTS-2000 procurement, which is a massive action that has been going on for years, it seems, and is reported on in excruciating detail in the papers aimed at the federal computer community. The suit reportedly accuses US Sprint of setting up a special team to spy on rival FTS bidders AT&T and Martin Marietta. It also accuses the company of tapping into a computer (it isn't clear just *whose* computer this was) and using the data to prepare its best-and-final price offer. The FBI is investigating; Sprint denies it did any such thing. (Sprint got 40% of FTS-2000 and AT&T got the rest, in December '88.) Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 12:49:20 PST Thanks. I'll see if I can dig up the article and read it. Sounds like it could be a juicy court case if it gets that far. Ben ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #199 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09646; 24 Mar 90 4:19 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26534; 24 Mar 90 2:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23094; 24 Mar 90 1:46 CST Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 1:11:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #200 BCC: Message-ID: <9003240111.ab31766@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Mar 90 01:10:59 CST Volume 10 : Issue 200 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Steve Kass] Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [David Lesher] Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [Jeff Carroll] Re: Answer Call Service [Bernard Rupe] Re: Misinterpreted Numbers? [Jon Baker] Re: Phone Harassment [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: White House Caller-ID [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.] Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! (1 hour free on Sprint) [Ajay] Re: Can This Be True? [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 14:14 EDT From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." Subject: Re: Hotel/Motel Charges In Telecom Digest, Issue #197, Scott D. Green writes: > Subject: Hotel/Motel Charges > My question to all of you is, "What's Fair?" I'm not entirely > comfortable with aspects of our rate structure, but the business folks > are pleased with the revenues, and of course there's a certain amount > of overhead associated with providing the service. When I check into a hotel, I ask about phone charges immediately. If there are ANY surcharges, charges for local calls*, blocking, etc., or, as happens most often, if the receptionist doesn't know what the charges are, I use my AT&T card from a payphone. And if there are two comparable hotels to choose from, the phone policy makes my choice. I want a phone that holds no surprises (I find few, sad to say). Sure there's overhead associated with providing phone service, but there's overhead associated with providing electricity, clean sheets, hot water. What's next, gas, electric, cable TV and water bills attached to my hotel bill when I check out? If I eat in the hotel restaurant, have a drink in the hotel bar or use room service, by all means bill me for the service. But when it comes to the phone, don't charge me a cent more than you get charged for the calls I make, and absorb the overhead into your room rates. Whatever policy you settle on, make absolutely certain that it's given out in writing to everyone who checks in and that the hotel staff understand it well. I realize businesses don't usually get free local calls. I can stand a nominal charge for these, say, anything up to what local pay phones cost, if they're costing you money. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Steve Kass "An amount in this box means :: :: Department of Math & Computer Science the fishing boat operator :: :: Drew University considers you self-employed." :: :: Madison, NJ 07940 /\/ -IRS Form 1099 :: :: ::::::::::::::::: :: skass@drew.bitnet 201-408-3614 (work, voice mail) :: :: skass@drew.edu 201-514-1187 (home) :::::::::::::: :: rutgers!njin!drew!skass :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 18:14:06 EST From: David Lesher Subject: Hotel/Motel Charges Reply-To: David Lesher I spent several weeks at the Residence Inn in Arlington VA last fall. They wanted a minimum of $0.75/call, any call-800, 10xxx, 950, local. Note that DC has flat rate local calls, ~7.9 cents per, I recall. I made it a point to make ONE local call per day. Of course, it was 4+hours long and went to my local Usenet access machine. For everything else, I walked to the lobby and used the LEC coin slot. I'll pay $0.25/local call, and zero for access. Anything else is a rip, AND MAKES ME REEVAULATE IF I WANT TO STAY THERE. Remember, Econ-lodge has *free* local calls everywhere I have stayed. Remind your beancounters that motel guests vote with their feet. 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: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service Date: 23 Mar 90 01:24:06 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <5420@accuvax.nwu.edu> weave <@sun.acs.udel.edu:weave@sun. acs.udel.edu> writes: >>Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance >>for its PC based product 1-2-3. >Yeah, sure... I can imagine me placing a 900 call from my office phone... (stuff deleted) >My employer will be convinced I'm calling up Dan Quayle's Nintendo Tip >Line. I want to put a stop to this vicious rumor. I know both Dan Quayle and the Nintendo Game Master. They are separate people. They just *look* alike. :-) >I hope other vendors don't use this scheme or if they do, still offer >other maintenance arrangements. At the rates Lotus is charging, I hope not too. Sounds like it would cost you at least $50 to get any useful information out of this service. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 11:02:25 CST From: Bernard Rupe Subject: Re: Answer Call Service Reply-To: Bernard Rupe Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <5489@accuvax.nwu.edu> 72067.316@compuserve.com (James Van Houten) writes: >There is a new service available from C&P Telephone (Bell Atlantic) >called Answer Call. It is basically voice mail that will answer your >calls if you don't. The interesing thing about Answer Call is that >when you want to retrieve your messages you have to call a (301) >277-XXXX. This access number is the same for everybody with Answer >Call. Is this a feature associated with CLASS at all?? No, I don't think so. Although CLASS would probably work, a link called Simplified Message Desk Interface (SMDI) is used to pass ANI type information to the voice mail system. This allows the system to play the appropriate personal greeting when it answers a call and to know who is calling in for messages (if you call from your home phone). By the way, AT&T uses the term SMSI, and not SMDI. Bernie Rupe 1501 W. Shure Drive Motorola, Inc. Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Cellular Infrastructure Division 708 632-2814 ...!uunet!motcid!rupeb ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Misinterpreted Numbers? Date: 23 Mar 90 20:28:02 GMT Organization: gte In article <5312@accuvax.nwu.edu>, pc@flash.bellcore.com (Peter A Clitherow) writes: > I recently made a call from a COCOT outside an eatery in Key West (on > South Beach, perhaps the southernmost payphone in the cont. US), which > had no number listed on it - and had 10288+ dialling disabled. Upon Per recent Judge Greene rulings, this will be illegal soon (perhaps this summer). Equal access will be required via pay phones. > I guess what I'm asking is what is sent to ATT - a logical phone > number, or some physical identifier that has to be matched for billing > purposes? If I call that number, will it ring in Orlando or Key West? Undoubtedly, a logical DN. [Moderator's Note: Actually, it is illegal now for COCOTS to block 10xxx access, and the ruling came from the FCC. PT] ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Fri Mar 23 10:00:17 1990 Subject: Re: Phone Harassment Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5457@accuvax.nwu.edu>: Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 192, Message 6 of 10 >I have been wondering something for some time about tracing of phone >calls. This may not be possible since it doesn't seem to be done, >but... >When one makes a toll-call, the information about the call shows up on >your bill. So, some equipment somewhere is communicating with a >billing computer, and it seems to me that the billing informaation for >the calls you make are, by necessity, stored for some period of time, >up to the time of printing of your next bill. This could be as much >as one month. >So, to find out where a call is coming from, say in the case of >harassment, or kidnapping ransom calls or some such thing, why can't >the billing records of telco's be searched? [addtional examples of this use deleted for brevity...] >[Moderator's Note: For that matter, in ESS offices, even local calls >are logged. Now and then to audit my bill I ask for a print out for >the past month of all calls charged as 'units'. You'd think something >similar to 'grep' could be used to scan a few million records in a >fairly short time looking for all instances of calls to a given >number. That's not to say they would always get an answer -- certainly >not from non-ESS offices -- but frequently they'd get a very good idea >of who was connected to whom, and when. PT] Ah, you are both are correct ... sorta. Yes, in many ESS offices, the billing tapes show the calling and called no., along with the time and duration of the call. However, not all types of offices do this. As I recall...it was possible to configure most ESS machines to only do the equivalent of "peg count" a local call, like crossbar and SXS offices, in order to save tape and maintain compatibilty with telco billing equipment. The telco had to consider the amont of billing computer capacity that would be required to process all these detail billed local calls as well. Now, you and I know that most of the ESS machines output this info on their raw billing tapes ... and use the detail for traffic study and network design. The detail is dropped on the first pass thru the billing computer, though ... and NOBODY outside engineering and plant ever, ever gets to scan raw billing tapes. (OK, maybe a few computer center types,too...) Now the telco records are often supeonaed (sp?) by the courts and law enforcement ... but the telco always provides "cooked" printouts without the local calls (the telco says local calling info is not available). In fact the telco security dept. are told that local calls can only be trapped with an active or passive (software) trap. The fact is, this info could _sometimes_ be gained from a scan of the raw billing tapes. Of course, will never be permitted to occur if the telco has anything to say about it. Since this info is highly "compartmentilized" in the telco, most of the other staff members are unaware of this fact, too. I cannot even say this is totally intentional and not just a byproduct of telco bureacracy. Retention time of raw CO billing tapes varies. Its also worth noting that some telcos are experimenting with "real-time" recording of billing info via internal X.25 type networks to speed up and centralize data collection/billing. This might change some of this nonsense. I'd love to see a court put a few telco engineering and computer center types on the stand and ask these questions, rather than the usual security dept. and public relations people they tell the court are their "experts". I'm so tired of the telco's attitude of "we know about this and you don't" they have gotten away with for so long. Even the government itself cannot pull this one off anymore. Well, if this posting doesn't get me a call from the phone police, I don't know what will ... maybe I'll tell them I'm a LfoD right wing reactionary and use John Higdon's name or something ... the press would love that one! 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) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Fri Mar 23 10:57:11 1990 Subject: Re: White House Caller-ID Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <5458@accuvax.nwu.edu> : Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 192, Message 7 of 10 >[Moderator's Note: What is the '600 area code designation'? What is it >for? PT] AT&T and Bellcore don't tell me all their secrets anymore, but ten years ago areacode 600 was reserved for "government services". I was told this was for FTS related access and public access to government agencies...something like 800. I have no idea if anything is currently in the works to use this. I also recall that areacode 500 was also reserved, but I never knew what for ... anyone else know? Hello, Bellcore, are you on the line? Also, can someone send me the six or seven reserved office codes along with their recommended use, i.e. 976, 950, 940, etc. ? 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) (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem") [Moderator's Note: Well as of about a year ago, '710' was being used for those special government services, according to Harry Newton in [Teleconnect Magazine]. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 90 20:04:14 GMT From: ins_bac <@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:ins_bac@jhunix.bitnet> Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! (1 hour free on Sprint) Reply-To: jhunix!ins_bac@uunet.uu.net Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF When I switched over to US Sprint, they gave me 30 free minutes of Long distance service (what else?). I thought ... great!! my phone bill will be lower this month (Jan). Well, somehow they forgot to discount my bill and I called and complained, well after waiting 18 minutes on hold, a rep finally greets me and I tell her the problem, shes says sorry..blah blah and she will credit my bill for a lousy 3.74, surely 30 minutes of off-peak ld calling is worth a little more than this? well to make it short, I was dissappointed and very annoyed at the length of time required to get a rep. I also tried to get the WD40 quiz credit but thats for non-Sprint subscribers. So the free 60 minutes may not be as much as your hoping. Just a little buzz-kill... -Ajay [Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, my first bill did come from Sprint, and the credit was not there, but the charges were. On calling I was told the credit (all four dollars and something of it) would be applied to my *third* bill. In the meantime, they'd appreciate it if I would pay my current bill. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 18:02:56 EST From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Can This Be True? Reply-To: David Lesher re: Dong, dong, ding... !As I recall you could just put the receiver up to an adjacent pay !phone and that worked great. They wised up and only put short cords on the handsets -- what a pain. I recall that if you were at a garage (remember THOSE?) and just happened to step on the air hose ............ 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #200 ******************************