Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27436; 14 Apr 90 1:31 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04317; 13 Apr 90 23:44 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13676; 13 Apr 90 22:40 CDT Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 21:49:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #251 BCC: Message-ID: <9004132149.ab15137@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Apr 90 21:49:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Credit Card ID [Steve Glaser] Re: Credit Card ID [Mike Van Pelt] Re: Quirk With "The Universal Card" [C. Harald Koch] Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup [Jan Hinnerk Haul] Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco [Bob Stratton] Re: The Card [Dave Esan] Re: MCI Mail Introductory Offer [Paul Wilczynski] Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Macy Hallock] Re: Networking in the Soviet Union [sovamcccp@cdp.uucp] A Real "555" Exchange [Will Martin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 12:24:52 PDT From: Steve Glaser Subject: Re: Credit Card ID >In a related vein (to the problems about AT&T needing SS#), I recently >read an article that quoted the head of CitiCorp's credit security. >He said that thousands of retailers all over the country had started >asking purchasers to supply a home phone number along with credit card >purchases. He stated that this had no purpose, because the merchant >is always payed by the card company, and that there was no need for >the merchant to call the customer. Actually, if you listen carefully, much of the time they ask for "a phone number". If they aren't specific about asking for "your phone number", you can can follow their instructions to the letter and give them any random phone number you feel like (though I think some salespersons might notice something strange about getting a 976 or 900 number). They may also ask for "a home phone number" instead of "your home phone number". I heard this from my boss who's been doing it for years. Steve Glaser glaser@starch.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ From: Mike Van Pelt Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 12 Apr 90 20:16:07 GMT Reply-To: Mike Van Pelt Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology In article <6295@accuvax.nwu.edu> cpqhou!scotts@uunet.uu.net writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 249, Message 10 of 13 >... the head of CitiCorp's credit security ... said that thousands of >retailers all over the country had started asking purchasers to supply >a home phone number along with credit card purchases. He stated that >this had no purpose ... > ... the reason they ask is simple. It is a great way to advertise. I came across another reason a few weeks ago. I went out for lunch with several people at work, and one person paid with a credit card. After we got back, he got a phone call telling him that he had left his card at the restaurant. At first he wondered how on earth they had gotten his work number, then he remembered that that's what he had written down when they asked for a phone number. Almost every place that accepts credit cards asks for a phone number. But I can't recall having gotten junk calls from any but a few big chain stores. Certainly not from restaurants. Mike Van Pelt Windows + Icons + Mouse Headland Technology/Video 7 + Pointer == WIMP. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 13:58:22 EDT From: "C. Harald Koch" Subject: Re: Quirk With "The Universal Card" Reply-To: "C. Harald Koch" Organization: Alias Research Inc., Toronto ON Canada In article <6210@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Probably the customer service representative was >'so haughty' because they perceived they were dealing with still >another in the growing number of people who mistakenly believe the >credit grantor *has* to give them credit no matter what. Credit >grantors are entitled to set any criteria they please -- save certain >illegal criteria -- and your options are to meet their criteria or do >without their credit. Credit is a privilege, not an automatic right; >and provided all applicants must meet the same requirements, there is >no unlawful discrimination; i.e. you have no valid complaint. You >chose not to identify yourself to their satisfaction. PT] [ While this does not have direct bearing on telephones, it is an issue that has been brought up here a few times now. ] In Canada it only legal to require a SIN (Social Insurance Number) for things involving taxation or benefits from Revenue Canada (Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance, etc). It is illegal to require a SIN for any other purpose, including all credit applications (although most companies have a SIN box on their forms). I am not sure about the legality of requiring a social security number for identification in the US, but for credit it is most certainly unecessary and 'immoral'. While I agree that a credit grantor does not have to give credit, they certainly must have just cause to refuse you credit. If they do not have a good reason, (and not giving your number is not a good reason) then they are practicing discrimination, which I am lead to believe is discouraged in the US... :-) C. Harald Koch Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada chk%alias@csri.utoronto.ca chk@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu chk@chk.mef.org ------------------------------ From: Jan Hinnerk Haul Subject: Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story? Date: 10 Apr 90 21:25:35 GMT Organization: Me, Myself, and I - Wedel, West Germany dmwatt@athena.mit.edu (David M Watt) writes: >I read elsewhere on the net that Deutsch Bundespost has recently been >split into three parts, and is now competing under market conditions. True. One part for postal services ("Postdienst"), one for financial services (no-credit checkbook and savings accounts, "Postbank") and one for telecommunications ("Telekom"). >I understand that modems faster than 1200 baud are illegal (!) in the >FRG because of regulations that were promulgated and enforced by D.B. Not true. You can rent modems up to 2400 bps (V.22bis) async and 4800 bps sync. You can buy (sligthly modified) Trailblazer 2500s as "Logem T2500" from Kabelmetal Electro here. And you can (provided you live in one of the ten bigger cities, the rest of the country following until '93) go ISDN and use a PC Board (64 Kbit per second, about DM 2500, that's 1300-1400 US$) or terminal adapter (38.4 kbps, about DM 1250) if you like fast transfer rates for ordinary phone charges (national long-distance about 0.01 DM/second peek time). >I also heard that many, many people in Germany were disobeying those >rules. Could someone provide some background and history about all of >this? What does it mean to the German modem punter? True :-) Well, since the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court, like the Supreme Court in the U.S.) cancelled the law the Bundespost used to sue "inofficial" modem owners, subsequently another court decided that the use of a modem (or other telephone device) allowed by the P.T.T. of any European Community country is not legal, but you cannot get punished for doing so :-) The legal hassles will be somewhat unclear till midyear 1991, when all telephone equipment legal in one EC country will be legal in Germany. I hope this clarifies the situation a bit. Jan Hinnerk Haul ------------------------------ From: Bob Stratton Subject: Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco Date: 11 Apr 90 19:48:29 GMT Reply-To: Bob Stratton Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article <6204@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: >P.S.: I'd like to ask the Moderator to please not refer to X.131 >addresses on X.25 networks as "a network address on Telenet." [excellent clarification deleted] >Only numbers beginning with "3106" are "on Telenet." Just a quick correction: The DNIC for Telenet is 3110, Tymnet's is 3106. Bob Stratton | UUCP: strat@cup.portal.com, strat@well.sf.ca.us Stratton Sys. Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32 Delphi: RJSIII Prodigy: WHMD84A Alexandria, VA | PSTN: 703.765.4335 (Home Ofc.) 703.591.7101 (Office) ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: The Card Date: 12 Apr 90 19:14:56 GMT Reply-To: Dave Esan Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY In article <5757@accuvax.nwu.edu> PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter Weiss) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 215, Message 2 of 12 >I just applied for the above credit card. They wanted to know the >number of years at my current residence/job, address of home/job, my >bank name, my approx. salary, my mother's maiden name, how I heard >about the 800 number. I too applied for the card. They wanted my social security number. From too much reading of Misc.consumers I decided that it wasn't required for them to know that. If they were reporting interest paid to me they would have legitimate claim, but they don't give me money, I pay interest to them (if I am late with a payment). So I told them that I wouldn't give it to them. Well, Jim-Bob Good-Ole-Boy, who could barely read the prepared script, got real bent out of shape. He sent me off to his supervisor (a man whose voice gave the mental image of Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary) who told me that VISA and MasterCard had given ATT permission to ask for SS numbers. I replied that requiring the number was a violation of federal law. He said everything was confidential. I replied that only the IRS and interest paying institutions required my SS number, and repeated the federal law statement. He again ignored me and told me that they would not tell anyone, that it was okay, he was aware of this problem. They decided to mail me an application. Six days later I am still waiting for that mail. Sure would like that card. Sure would like supervisors with some brains. --> David Esan {rutgers, ames, harvard}!rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 14:53 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: MCI Mail Special Offer David Tamkin writes ... > MCI Mail is running a special introductory offer; I'm not sure how > much longer it will be on. They are waiving the $25 annual fee for > the first year of the account and posting a $100.00 credit usable > toward email and, I believe, paper mail (but not, I think, fax or > Telex). The offer is good until the end of April (it was extended one month from the end of April). The credit is good until the end of May, so the sooner you sign up the more time you have to spend the credit. The credit is good on email, paper mail, fax, and telex. The only thing it's not good on is Dow Jones News Retrieval (and Tymenet access to MCI Mail, which you don't need to do in the continental U.S. because access is available via 800 numbers. I'd be happy to provide more information ... drop an email note or call (800) 648-3581. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services Authorized MCI Mail Agency ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Wed Apr 11 21:16:42 1990 Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina (where's that?) Ohio USA In article <6111@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 235, Message 7 of 11 >>George Horwath writes: >> 2) Depending on how bad glare is/ground start trunk availability/costs/etc. >> loop start trunks can be marked as one-way incoming or one-way >> outgoing but now more trunks are needed. This feature also depends on >> the brand of PBX. >In the real world of modern CO switches (1ESS or newer) glare is a >negligible problem. Unlike SXS and crossbar, electronic/digital >switches apply ring current simultaneously with the connection to the >called party. Once any PBX sees that ring, the trunk is instantly >taken out of the pool for outside calls. Therefore, even systems with >loop start trunks need not segregate the available lines for incoming >vs outgoing. (It may not seem as though ring is applied instantly, >since all electronic/digital switches will at least occasionally >provide ringback which is out of phase with the actual ring voltage >cadence applied to the called line.) John, what you say should be true. Immediate ring is supposed to be a feature on those new-fangled electronic CO's, but it doesn't seem to work that way every time. On most CO's, one of the design parameters involves distributing the ringing load on the ring generator supplies. This is done by only ringing a portion of the lines at once...usually in four or five split groups. The "clocking" (if you will) of the groups always running, so when a line is to be rung, the CO assigns it to one of these groups (using whatever logic it has been given to select which group) and the line rings when the ring cycle time (1 on, 4 off) comes around. This is almost the same situation that would occur in Xbar and SXS offices. The primary difference is what happens during the glare interval ... some electronics CO's are not supposed to "land" the call until the ring cycle begins. Now, one of the features that came out with the more sophisticated Xbar system, and was to be continued with ESS was immediate splash of ring. This feature put a brief splash of ring out on the line just as the call "landed". This works well, but many newer CO's seem to drop this feature when they are busy. You often hear a funny, mis-timed "ring-ring" when the call lands, the splash of ring occurs and then the normal ring timing cycle takes over. In the past few years, I notice that fewer CO's have this feature. I wonder if they are phasing it out in the new generics? Another problem is intentionally slow ring sense in key systems and PBX's. Several people have mentioned in the Digest that their phones make an odd sound (a beep or click) and any line loop status indicators they have blink in the middle of the night. This is caused by the telco's automatic line test equipment, which changes the voltages on the line when it scans the line. This test scan voltage change can look like the first part of a ring to a phone system, and if the system is not properly designed, a false incoming ring state will occur. (Just try and get the telco to take the blame on this one! I have a couple of residence key systems that had this problem, and it was a real fight with the telco to prove it!)) So most phone equipment manufacturers design their equipment to ignore the first 0.5 second of ringing. Some even ignore the first ring altogether (Ugly! Ugly!) to prevent false rings. The better designed PBX's will prohibit an outgoing call from seizing a trunk during this 0.5 second interval, but its not too common. So, ground start lives, and will be with us for quite a while yet. It should be noted that I find very few lines give loop disconnect supervision anymore, except in older offices. The telco will sometimes give you loop (CPC) disconnect on a loop start line, on request, but don't count on it. Ground start is still the only reliable way to prevent call collisions and get reliable disconnect. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!usenet.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: Fri, 13 Apr 90 08:35:27 -0700 From: sovamcccp@cdp.uucp Subject: Re: Networking in the Soviet Union Yes, you are right Robert. Complete name is Institute for Automated Systems. SovAm Joint venture occupied second floor at the same building in Moscow, so I'm here right now (-; Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 8:15:55 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: A Real "555" Exchange Reply-To: wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil We're going to move our offices in mid-summer, and all our phone numbers will change. I just learned that our new Autovon exchange is going to be "555". Now, nobody will believe us when we tell them our Autovon numbers... :-) :-) :-) Regards, Will ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #251 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29101; 14 Apr 90 2:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00284; 14 Apr 90 0:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04317; 13 Apr 90 23:44 CDT Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 22:54:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #252 BCC: Message-ID: <9004132254.ab29074@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Apr 90 22:53:01 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 252 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Urban Legend About Eavesdropping Using Key Telephone Lamps [Larry Lippman] Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Bruce Waldman] Telco Procedure for Installing DID [Steve Elias] Looking For Frequencies Used By Cordless Phones [John Hoekstra] Naushon Island, Mass. [Carl Moore] Telecommunications Standards [Paul Maclauchlan] Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries [John R. Covert] Voice/Modem Switches [mvm@cup.portal.com] Band Aids (TM) For the "Drug War" Hemorrage [John Boteler] Ground Start *Phones* [Edward Greenberg] Need Translators [Leonard P. Levine] Looking For Modem Design [Mike Jarvis] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Urban Legend About Eavesdropping Using Key Telephone Lamps Date: 12 Apr 90 01:06:31 EST (Thu) From: Larry Lippman In article <6195@accuvax.nwu.edu> Leichter-Jerry@CS.YALE.EDU@venus.ycc. yale.edu writes: > It's claimed that the reason Ma Bell was so slow to replace the little > incandescent bulbs in multi-line phones with LED's was a security > problem. It seems that voices on the line modulate the power > available to the indicators. The reluctance of the old incandescents > was high enough that no useful information could be gotten from > them, but it was alleged that the LED's provided a nice clear signal > which could be read, say, with a decent telescope and a little > equipment, from the building across the street. Just when I thought I'd heard them all... :-) In a 1A, 1A1 or 1A2 key telephone system, which is the only apparatus having incandescent lamps that fits your description, there is absolutely *no* connection between any voice path and the 10 VAC circuit which operates the lamps. Replacing the 51-type lamp with an LED isn't going to make any difference. The only device which *could* modulate lamp power is the 3-type speakerphone, where the lamp is powered from the same unregulated, rectified DC which feeds the amplifier circuitry. However, only gross variations on level with excessive receive gain to the point of distortion (not likely) could cause enough supply voltage fluctuation to be visible on the lamp. Even under these extremely rare circumstances, I doubt that any intelligence could be demodulated using a photometric detector aimed at the ON lamp - even if the ON lamp were an LED. By the time LED's became common, the 4-type speakerphone had already replaced its 3-type predecessor. Incidently, modulating lamps in a manner undetectable to the human eye has been used as a transmission medium for eavesdropping devices. However, there is no factual basis or connection to the particular urban legend which you relate. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 || 716/773-1700 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 || 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 01:09:25 EDT From: Bruce Waldman Subject: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective I have recently been receiving various sorts of threatening calls from an anonymous person. I reported it to the police, and they offered to put a tap on the phone, etc. But I am wondering about the possibilites. One of my friends tells me she used to get regular calls from someone where nothing was said, and the person then hung up. New England Telephone registered her line in some sort of "capture" system. After she got one of these calls, she was supposed to call an 800 number immediately, and the origination of the previous call would be recorded. She had to sign some sort of agreement stating that she would press charges against the caller once he or she was identified. My friend was told that the length of the call did not matter, this would all be done automatically. Is this possible, and how? Only in special exchanges? (Apparently the caller was never identified or else New England Tel did not choose to communicate this information to my friend.) In my own case, what are the possibilities? How difficult would it be for the phone company to identify callers? Would it make a difference what sort of exchange the call originated from? Would it make a difference whether the call originated locally or from a long distance carrier, and would it make a difference which long distance carrier it was? As you can see, I am rather naive about the capabilities of the phone company. In the movies, the police always try to keep the ransom-demanders on the phone for enough time that they can physically trace the calls I guess, but is this now unnecessary? I'd be grateful for relatively non-technical enlightenment. Bruce Waldman, bw@harvarda.bitnet waldman2@husc4.harvard.edu ...!harvard!husc4!waldman2 ------------------------------ Subject: Telco Procedure For Installing DID Reply-To: eli@spdcc.com Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 08:04:08 -0400 From: Steve Elias A friend of mine who makes voice mail & auto attendant systems for a living told me the standard procedure for getting DID lines installed: o Telco person arrives and says he can't find your line and isn't really sure what DID is, anyway. o A few days later, telco person arrives and says you aren't providing battery. o A few days later, telco person arrives and says you aren't providing wink. o A few days later, telco person says everything is working, but your equipment doesn't see any DID digits. o Telco person says, we are sending digits. You say: aren't. He says: are. o Finally, after a few weeks and possible iterations of all this, they get everything right! Currently, I'm on step three above. I'll have 100 incoming fax numbers here at work if the telco and my operating system ever get it together! Now, that's a big opportunity for incoming junk fax, eh? :) ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com. !! MAIL TO eli@spdcc.com ONLY !! ; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, computerfax 508 671 7447, realfax 508 671 7419 ------------------------------ From: John Hoekstra Subject: Looking For Frequencies Used By Cordless Phones Date: 12 Apr 90 12:59:22 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Someone posted a little while ago the ten frequencies assigned to cordless phones. I thought that I saved that article but I apparently failed to do so. Could that person repost those frequencies again? Mucho appreciated. What are the optimal channels for cordless phones? I just bought an AT&T 5200 cordless phone which uses channels seven and nine. When using channel seven I get an occasional buzzing hum but I do not get that hum when using channel nine. I first thought the cause was our Fisher Price baby monitor which uses channels A and D (I have no idea what the correlation of A and D have to the ten channels that the FCC allocates). The buzzing hum occurs for channel seven regardless if the baby monitor is set to channel A or D or if the baby monitor is turned off. This eliminates our baby monitor as the cause or so it seems. This leads to some questions: 1. Does anyone have a good explanation to why channel seven may be experiencing that buzzing hum? 2. Are there some of the ten channels that can be considered more optimal than others? The Phone Center that I went to only offered phones that consisted of either the channels seven and nine combination or the channels six and eight combination. Not much of a choice. I still would like to know because I can always go to another Phone Center store. 3. Does anyone know what frequency channels A and D use for the Fisher Price monitors? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. John Hoekstra Motorola, Inc. General Systems Group uunet!motcid!hoekstra ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 10:12:15 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Naushon Island, Mass. There was a recent article about the 299 exchange on Naushon Island, Mass. in this Digest. (Now in area 508.) I was again able to use the Bellcore number for prefix punch-in, and got Falmouth (on the nearby mainland) for 508-299. Getting a town name does not mean that the prefix serves the town proper. ------------------------------ From: Paul Maclauchlan Subject: Telecommunications Standards Organization: Moore Corporation Limited, Toronto ON, Canada Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 15:26:32 GMT We are in the process of establishing some minimum uniform standards for telecommunications. The standards are expected to define the requirements for development, operation, reliability, effectiveness and security. Does anyone have published standards within their organization that they would be willing to share with us, for the purpose of evaluation and providing a guideline for our own document? Our initial task is preparing standards for problem tracking. After that we plan to move onto other areas that should be addressed by the standards. Any suggestions? Any general comments on how you have established standards will also be appreciated. Please email any information you are willing to share. With permission from the authors, I will summarize and post my findings. Thank you. .../Paul Maclauchlan Moore Corporation Limited, Toronto, Ontario (416) 364-2600 paul@moore.UUCP -or- ...!uunet!attcan!telly!moore!paul ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 20:35:10 PDT From: "John R. Covert 12-Apr-1990 2335" Subject: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries AT&T has begun direct dial service to the following ten countries: 964 Iraq (service being restored after several years of interruption) 95 Burma 685 Western Samoa 686 Kiribati Republic 262 Reunion 253 Djibouti 226 Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) 232 Sierra Leone 223 Mali 248 Seychelles The official due date is 15 April, but in most cases you'll find that it's in. I suspect everyone has heard the news that Albania will be able to be reached by AT&T international operators (currently manual transit through Italy is required) as of May. Direct dial service (355) will begin in September. Likewise Mayotte, currently transiting through France, will get direct operator service in May and then become dialable (269) at some future time. Mayotte has been dialable via Sprint for some time, but has only been reachable on direct access lines or in a few places (states near Minnesota) where the C.O.s put the code in without an order from AT&T. Sprint doesn't tend to request local telco installation of codes; in addition to Mayotte, Sprint provides difficult to reach direct dial service to 674 Nauru and 677 Solomon Islands. With AT&T's addition of Western Samoa and the Kiribati Republic, Sprint customers get access to Sprint's previously difficult to use direct dial service. /john ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!MVM@uunet.uu.net Subject: Voice/Modem Switches Date: Thu, 12-Apr-90 21:00:59 PDT Here in Southwestern Bell country (Oklahoma), new to the CENTREX offerings is Personalized Ring. It is known under different names in different locations, but what is offered (for a monthly fee, of course here, $10/month for three) are two or up to four (maximum) distinct rings/numbers via one telephone line. I have a modem answering device; it will answer via modem and store data in RAM to be retrieved later with your PC (or mini or frame). Unlike a fax, a calling modem does not generate a tone to trigger a switch, which is how ALL of the "automatic" fax switches work, i.e., the calling fax's tone switches the switch. No manufacturer I have queried can provide me with an "automatic" switch for a modem/voice line. The closest to such is one which can recognize a modem tone from the calling party, which means all users would have to be trained to call me in the answer mode. No way, Jose. (I cannot even get my clients to sign their names on the correct line!) Does anyone know of a switch which can do what I need? Or is my only answer to mortgage my soul for eternity to Southwestern Bell at $10/month for its Personalized Ring service (after buying an appropriate switch to switch among the rings)? mvm@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Subject: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 3:59:41 EDT From: John Boteler [ discussing US West's dial replacement program in the Minneapolis area to thwart drug dealers ] With the cash these boyz carry around with them, it is trivial to walk into Radio Shack, plunk down US$20 for a pocket tone dialer, and thumb their coca-stained noses at US West and the knights in shining badges. Changing the COS to outgoing only seems much more effective if callbacks are the MO. (Acronyms included for Robert's benefit.) John Boteler {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 10:10 PDT From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Ground Start *Phones* John Higdon writes: >Except for some lineman's sets, there are no "ground-start phones". >Ground-start trunks are for PBXs and other complex equipment, not >for ordinary telephone sets. It's true that (almost) nobody would order a ground start line for a POTS (plain old telephone service) line, but here's a situation where a 2500 set (standard touch tone desk set) was equipped with a grounding button: In most PBX installations, when both power and backup power fails, certain stations are direct-connected to certain trunks. This allows, for example, the main number to ring at security, and one phone in each functional area to receive dial tone, for the duration of the power outage. This feature is called power fail transfer. In one installation, the sets designated for power fail transfer were equipped with grounding buttons, since the lines that they'd be receiving in case of outage were ground start lines. Those who "needed to know" were briefed that in case of switch outage, they needed to press the button to receive a dial tone. edg@cso.3mail.3com.com ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Need Translators Date: 14 Apr 90 01:27:52 GMT Reply-To: len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu A student of mine works in the Miwaukee Bone Marrow unit and recently had a difficult experience with a patient who came from Brazil and spoke no English. No Portugese (sp?) speaking staff were available. I recall that some arm of ATT supported operators who had multilingual experience. Might they be pressed into service in a medical problem such as this? What are they called, where, etc. It is probably best just to email me this, as it did appear earlier and may not be of general interest. 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: mjarvis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Mike Jarvis) Subject: Looking for Modem Design Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 21:36:6 GMT Reply-To: mjarvis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Mike Jarvis) Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407 I am looking for a modem kit to put together for a Manufacturing Processes course here at Cal Poly. If anyone has built their own modem and would be willing to share the schematic and other info for it, I would appreciate it. I would also be willing to pay for it. Plagiarism is not a factor here as this course emphasis production and not design. I will have to put the design onto our CAD/CAM system for production so legible schematics are needed. If you know of a design published in any magazines or kits available, these would also work. I am looking for a design for a 9600 bps (or 2400) external modem with it's own power supply contained in it and working led's providing status information. The connection would, of course, be through a RS-232 port using serial communications. Hayes compatible command set would be nice, but is not necessary. Please send all responses to mjarvis@polyslo.calpoly.edu Thank you. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #252 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04066; 14 Apr 90 4:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25300; 14 Apr 90 2:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26706; 14 Apr 90 1:49 CDT Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 1:10:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #253 BCC: Message-ID: <9004140110.ab27076@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Apr 90 01:08:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 253 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa [Shawn Lipman] Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Leo Williams] Re: Call Trace Question [Eric J. Johnson] Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Andrew Freeman] Re: US West and the War on Drugs [John Higdon] Re: Dutch, British Telecom [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Kelly Goen] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [John Boteler] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 20:20:41 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria From: tuvie!gargoyle.uchicago.edu!tabbs!shawn (Shawn Lipman) Subject: Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa In TELECOM Digest 10/231, Peter J. Dotzauer writes: > > Does anyone have a list of toll-free services for foreign countries, > > such as the 800 service in North America and the 0130 service in > > Germany? South Africa has been testing tollfree systems for a short while now. The first test system (which will continue operating for approximately six months) is the 0100 system. This system allows users to call a number anywhere within SA (which is registered as tollfree) for the cost of a local call. This is only a small system which allows 999 numbers ie 0100-xxx (where xxx is from 001-999) A newer, more advanced system has just been introduced called the 080 system. The country is divided into five regions, of which each is assigned a region number (similar to that of the area dialing code). As an example here is an imaginary tollfree Johannesburg number .. 08011-10001 (where the 080 is the tollfree identifier, 11 the region code and the last five digits the actual number). One thing that is different to other tollfree systems in other countries is that the software running the system has been loaded onto the existing exchanges ... ie; no extra equipment has had to be put in place. Shawn ------------------------------ From: williams@cs.umass.edu Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground Date: 11 Apr 90 19:16:49 GMT Organization: COINS, UMass, Amherst In article <6122@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) writes... >There was another type of fraud that seemed to be common a few years >ago in San Francisco. The {direct} victim, however was the user. >Someone was opening the one side of the line. Folks would come up, not >bother to listen for DTF, and drop in money. The powerless >one_arm_bandit would hold onto the money. After half a day or so, the >thief would come back, reconnect the pair, and collect all the money >spilling into the return chute. An even simpler version of this scam is used in many countries - just jamming the return path somehow. Broken phones that appear functional are favorite targets because none of the money is "lost" by the crook to a completed call, but in lots of places you don't get a dial tone until after you put in your money anyway. This scam is especially common in places that have lots of foot traffic and people in a hurry - train stations, info centers, etc. You can be on the lookout for such scams by noticing people hanging around waiting for a particular phone even when another phone becomes free. Another clue is when someone in a phone line lets you go ahead of them. These guys need to hang around to watch the phone and grab the money after every few attempted calls, otherwise some other con artist might beat them to it. In Amsterdam, it was a steady source of income for a bunch of train station regulars - from teenagers to old folks. The phone company keeps redesigning the phones to make it more difficult. When they made the return slot doors harder to jam, these guys started carrying screwdrivers and bars and just bent the doors to jam the return. When they changed the doors again to a cast material to prevent bending, they would jam the slot with gum or toilet/tissue paper coated with various disgusting and discouraging matter. The phone company recently replaced half the phones in the city with phones that only accept "phone cards". These are paper cards containing a magnetic strip with a number of pre-paid "call units" encoded on it. That way the phone company gets its money in advance and there's no money in the phone for the crooks. On the other hand, if you don't have a phone card and the adjacent regular phone is broken (very common), you're out of luck! Vandalizing phones seems to be a national sport in Holland - but that's another article. Trying to find a functional phone is a city can be very difficult. Often the best solution is to use a phone in a bar or hotel, but then you'll pay twice the normal rate. 8-( Leo c/o williams@cs.umass.edu ------------------------------ From: "Eric J. Johnson" Subject: Re: Call Trace Question Reply-To: "Eric J. Johnson" Organization: U S West Communications Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:20:18 GMT In article <6246@accuvax.nwu.edu> smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 246, Message 9 of 12 >Along with the Caller ID feature, NJ Bell quietly implemented a Call >Trace feature. By pushing a certain code (I think it's *79), the last >number that called will be saved and provided to the police; each >trace costs $1.00. 1. At least here, call traces cannot be provided to the police (or anyone else, for that matter) without a court order. NO EXCEPTIONS. To do otherwise would be an invasion of privacy. 2. COT traces will, however, be saved in a database to be used in the event of a security investigation/court order. >Now for my question: if the originating exchange does not support >Caller ID, etc., does anybody know what number will be provided if COT does not depend on 'Caller ID' being available. >Call Trace is activiated? Obviously it can't be the phone number that >just called, but will it be a "blank", or will it be the last number >for which a trace was available (and if it is, I don't even want to If the traced call originated outside the common channel signaling area, (SS7 area), the subscriber may receive an announcement informing them that the trace could not be performed. The current recommended message is: 'A complete trace cannot be generated for your last incoming call. Please contact your telco for further assistance.' In most cases, the fact that the trace was not complete will be recorded with as much information as possible, for instance the calling number may not be available, but the incoming trunk may be. This is still quite useful in a security investigation. >think about the legal implications of the telco reporting the wrong >originating number to the police)? I do not understand where you see a 'wrong number' being applied here. All COT traces are logged separately. Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@null.uucp The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and in no way reflect the will of Landru. (or U S WEST Communications) ------------------------------ From: drew@pro-europa.cts.com (Andrew Freeman) Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections Date: 13 Apr 90 03:36:08 GMT In-Reply-To: message from john@zygot.ati.com I have Sprint and I have not ever been disconnected. I guess that is pretty strange. I am probably going to subscribe to the AT&T new LD service. Pay $2 a month and receive 20-25% off all calls! That is a pretty nice deal. Drew uucp: crash!pro-europa!drew arpanet: crash!pro-europa!drew@nosc.mi inet: drew@pro-europa.cts.com bitnet: pro-europa.uucp!drew@psuvax1 america online: Drew5 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs Date: 13 Apr 90 10:51:29 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Clayton Cramer writes: > Don't laugh -- last year a Congresswoman from Maryland introduced a > bill that would make it a 3-year prison sentence for selling, renting, > or lending a pager to someone under 21. I think US West (by installing rotary phones) and our congresscritters (as mentioned above) are going about this all wrong. Without incurring the ire of anyone except possibly the curmugeons reading this forum, the area could be declared a "COCOT Zone" and only COCOTs would be allowed there. This would effectively prevent any useful communications to or from any drug dealers. I don't know how many times a COCOT has prevented me from checking my voice mail. The same roadblocks would also prevent activation of pagers! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision) Date: 13 Apr 90 03:26:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <6125@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > windowless room that had an entire wall of mechanical digital > counters. I was told that these were for traffic analysis, not for > billing. You are right, that's what they were used for. Interestingly enough, these counters were made in Geneva, Switzerland by SODECO. They were probably the same counters used by the PTTs for billing. I still have a few in a cigar box in my workshop. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: Kelly Goen Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming Date: 13 Apr 90 09:21:39 GMT Reply-To: Kelly Goen Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Well Patrick, again you suprise me. Supporting end user programming of cellular phones doesnt sound like you ... but I LIKE it ... Are we allowed to publish openly for this contest??? I will contribute the magic numbers and sequences for the GE Mini and the Mitsubishi 800 if so. Also there is a master guide for about 795.00 per year with monthly updates available to service shops hard copy only as far as I know at this point, but I am hoping to find it published on CD ROM; I will let you know. If enough people contribute we can have our own independent archive. Seriously though I have found the best way to gain access and photocopies of these instructions is to tell the dealer that you are installing a dial tone simulator for cellular data transmission such as a tellujak. They instantly fall into NIH and hand over the instructions as most of this equipment requires several custom options you have to twiddle. Cheers, Kelly p.s. There's hope for you yet... [Moderator's Note: I'm glad you are optimistic about my condition. Do I in general support the rights of cell phone owners to program their units in a *non-fraudulent* way? Yes. Am I naive about the use some people would make of the programming information? No. Read the next message. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 4:05:13 EDT From: John Boteler It should no more be permissible for customers to be able to change their cellular phone programming at will than it is for phone customers to be permitted dialup access to their ESSs to change their features at will, en masse. Unless chaos is the desired goal. In fact, some user-interface features are programmable, especially in the newer phones. The ones dealing with security and like concerns are clearly not included in this set. John Boteler {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 23:00:00 CDT There is no legitimate reason for a user to change the serial number identification of his unit. There are legitimate reasons to be able to change the phone number and Home Default, to name two options. Consider this: If I travel frequently between two or three cities, and I use cellular service in each, my options now are to have two or three phones (one homed in each city), or have one home city and pay (sometimes) outrageous roaming rates in the other two cities, or pay a dealer to reprogram the unit for another city as its home in the event I have an actual number there. Why can't I subscribe to cellular service (and have an actual phone number) in each city I routinely visit, with the numbers going to voice mail when I am not in town? When my plane lands, I, (me, myself rather than a dealer) reprogram the phone to let's say home on 00020 for Ameritech/Chicago or 00001 for Cellular One/Chicago. I put in the phone number I am paying for in this city, and proceed to do business with my (now) home carrier. The carrier already has my serial number, of course, since they got that when I first signed up for service in their city. Instead of roamer rates, I get home carrier rates. Why do I have to go to a dealer for that? Why would 'chaos' result from this any more than it results from me moving my landline phone from one apartment to another and plugging it in the jack? Why did the telcos replace hardwired phones with modular jacks if they were worried about chaos? People with the knowledge of how to defraud the cellular carrier are probably the same people who -- if they live in an older, rapidly decaying inner city area like myself -- also know how to go to the basement of their apartment building and snatch the pairs for anyone in the building and half the people on the same block. Should I be forced to live with a hardwired phone and a terminal box I can't get into merely because I *might* put calls on your line? Should I have to call telco installation if I want to move the wires from one place to another on my premises for the same reason? Does chaos result when people run new wires from the telco demarc to their apartment? If anything, cellular service is more secure than landline simply because unlike the wire pair, the cellular equivalent of the pair (the serial number) is virtually unchangeable. Program whatever phone number you like; if the ESN does not match -- at least in local service -- the call won't go through. I agree there are some problems with the absolute use of the serial number as the identification of last resort when roaming, but this is gradually being corrected by most carriers. Unlike what Geoff Goodfellow said in his article on cellular security (see TELECOM Archives), the manufacturers now are really keeping the serial number very secure. The chip is buried under wax on my unit, for gosh sakes! And even if it were not, would YOU want a bunch of ostentatious dip-switches or micro-toggle switches on your unit to show what you were up to? A hard-core phreak can/will break into anything telecom-related. But the honest cellular user should be able to adjust his phone for the city he is in and carrier he is using in the same way a subscriber of regular telco services picks up his phone, carries it across town and plugs it in right away. If I go to New York or Boston, and have a hardwired phone installed, I don't have to pay special 'roamer' rates, nor do I have to pay an installer to put the phone in to insure I don't cheat New York Tel of their due. Of course, if there were detailed, descriptive messages here in the Digest explaining how to do it model by model, it would only be a short time until some nitwit at the [New York Times] ran an article headlined 'Northwestern University computer used by phreaks to steal cellular phone service.' Mark my words. Or else one of television's Talking Heads; I call them the men with the fifty dollar hairdoos and the fifty cent brains. I have limited financial resources: I cannot afford a lawyer, and the cost of bribing a federal judge or the FBI here in Chicago is more expensive than a lot of places. I see nothing wrong with messages regarding topics such as the four or five digit carrier identification numbers; how Access, Group and Class values are assigned; or how Overload is handled. But let's keep quiet about the actual keyboard sequences typed in to enter program mode, eh? Either you know them or you don't. I haven't been in jail for so long I've forgotten what a Bologna sandwich tastes like. I'd like to keep it that way. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #253 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07671; 14 Apr 90 7:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09654; 14 Apr 90 3:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25300; 14 Apr 90 2:54 CDT Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 2:41:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #254 BCC: Message-ID: <9004140241.ab25784@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Apr 90 02:40:21 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines" [Larry Lippman] International TTY for the Deaf [Roy Smith] Duplexors (was: "Cellular Tech Questions") [Rob Warnock] Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Don Lewis] Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [John Higdon] What Long Distance Company Does Patrick Use? [Dan Jacobson] Special Issues This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines" Date: 12 Apr 90 01:03:09 EST (Thu) From: Larry Lippman In article <6176@accuvax.nwu.edu> Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Robert Savery) writes: > >I saw a phone once ( Bell system 2500 ) that had a push to talk switch > >in the handset..... > When I was in the Air Force, I worked in a whole building of these > things. I can't remember who made them, but as the whole system was > older than the hills, I'm sure they were Bells. While Western Electric and the Bell System had the lion's share of the *fixed* installation military telephone communications market, Stromberg Carlson (div of General Dynamics) and Automatic Electric (later a div of GTE) were also well represented. I personally have a "souvenir" red secure telephone that I "rescued" from a DPDO scrap pile many years ago; this is a 4-wire device with PTT handset made by Stromberg Carlson. > As the entire building was a restricted area, quite often we'd be > discussing classified information when the phone rang. The PTT switch > was an added precaution to ensure that the person calling in didn't > hear anything they weren't supposed to. Since the phones were on > unsecure lines, you could never tell when Ivan might've been > listening! While the PTT switch may have appeared to benefit security, this was most likely not its intended purpose. Chances are the stations which had the PTT handsets were 4-wire with connection to AUTOVON and/or dedicated command circuits. While AUTOVON requires a 4-wire circuit and 4-wire station set, a PTT handset is not required. However, dedicated command circuits (i.e., "hotlines" which ring a predefined set of stations without requiring dialing), which are invariably 4-wire, often create a fixed conference arrangement with a large number if stations. The PTT handset is used to eliminate what could be a horrendous amount of background noise if the common receive path summed the ambient noise from all of the station transmitters. In addition, dedicated command circuits usually have a multiplicity of alternate routing possibilities to assure reliability. Such routings may range from landline to HF to UHF to troposcatter to microwave. In the particular case of the HF and UHF options, the PTT handset assures positive transmitter control instead of relying upon VOX. Since the telephone station set does not know what communication medium it is feeding at a given time, a PTT arrangement assures compatibility with all of the above media in a manner which is transparent to the user. Furthermore, many military fixed installation station sets are multiple-line, in which case if one line requires a PTT switch, then its operation carries over to all lines appearing on such a station set - even if they don't require it (like an AUTOVON line). While I have seen multiple-line station sets with an internal switching relay for 2-wire/4-wire operation depending upon the line selected, I have never seen one which enabled or disabled a PTT switch - i.e., the PTT switch was always enabled. Incidently, 4-wire stations with PTT handsets are not limited to the military, NASA or the FAA. While they are now being replaced with alternate methods of communication, for many years 4-wire conference circuits were extensively used by interstate trucking companies for coordination of dispatch, tracing and OS&D operations. This type of 4-wire conference circuit was commonly called a "full-period line" (somewhat of an anachronism) or "hoot-n-holler line" :-) [really!]. The most common implementation of this circuit involved one or more 4-wire station sets (sometimes with PTT, sometimes not, at discretion of facilities design engineer) at each location, along with 106-type loudspeakers in close proximity to the stations. The net result was that every station could be heard on *every* other station and *every* loudspeaker. When one station wanted to call another, they would pick up their telephone and announce in a loud voice whom they were trying to reach. The recipient would hear their name or location on the loudspeaker and then pick up their station to converse. Some of these circuits later used selective signaling (but not selective *talking*) such as SS1 or later variants to eliminate the loudspeaker. I betcha at least one TELECOM Digest reader has at one time worked for an interstate trucking company and used a "hoot-n-holler" line. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 || 716/773-1700 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 || 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: International TTY for the Deaf Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:36:56 GMT One of our faculty here in New York wants to communicate with his deaf parents in New Zealand. They have some sort of modem-and-TTY device, but we are unsure how to connect to it with the equipment we have here. Obviously, it would require an international phone call. I know that a similar service exists in the US (TDD, I think they call it) but I don't know much about it. Are the modems used compatable with any of the common data modems (v.22/bis, 212A, or 103J)? Is the system used in NZ the same as the system used in the USA? Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 10:27:24 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Duplexors (was: "Cellular Tech Questions") Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <6236@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: | I assume that any cellphone has to have an RF duplexor... These are usually | mechanical cavity resonators. At 900Mhz these would be about 8cm tall. | But in a cellphone, they must use something more sophisticated, | because the transmitter and receiver both have to be frequency-agile. No problem. All of the receiver freqs are above all of the transmitter freqs, so each is agile only on it's own side of the fence. A simple duplexor will do. John Covert gave the formula for the frequencies in <6156@accuvax.nwu.edu> (Telecom-Digest: V.10, I.239, Msg 5 of 6): | receive_freq = (if channel<991 then 870.030 MHz else 869.04) !chan 1/991 | + 30kHz x (channel - 1 or 991) | transmit_freq= (if channel<991 then 825.030 MHz else 824.04) !chan 1/991 | + 30kHz x (channel - 1 or 991) Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ From: Don Lewis Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne, FL Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 06:27:46 GMT In article <6358@accuvax.nwu.edu> fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: >Now, one of the features that came out with the more sophisticated >Xbar system, and was to be continued with ESS was immediate splash of >ring. This feature put a brief splash of ring out on the line just as >the call "landed". This works well, but many newer CO's seem to drop >this feature when they are busy. You often hear a funny, mis-timed >"ring-ring" when the call lands, the splash of ring occurs and then >the normal ring timing cycle takes over. This reminds me of a problem I was having with my home phones. Periodically, I would get one of these funny rings, then silence. It sounded sort of like someone had called and hung up on the first ring. I found out that if I answered the phone anyway, the party calling me was still on the line. I believe sometimes I didn't get a ring at all. Trying to explain this to the repair people was usually interesting. What was frustrating was that this tended not to be very reproduceable, and when the repair person called back it would work fine. Usually they would then go off and check it out anyway, and then it would work for a few months before breaking again. It seems to be fixed now, it's been working ok for the last nine months or so. Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 UUCP: rutgers!soleil!thrush!del Melbourne, FL 32901 Phone: (407) 729-5205 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro Date: 14 Apr 90 00:04:19 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: > John, what you say should be true. Immediate ring is supposed to be a > feature on those new-fangled electronic CO's, but it doesn't seem to > work that way every time. > [...] > Another problem is intentionally slow ring sense in key systems and > PBX's. Ah, this is where you have me! While I experimentally determined that my CO (a 1ESS) hit the called line with ring voltage immediately 100% of the time, sometimes it was very short indeed, sometimes not even enough to be seen by my KX-T1232 (which is very quick). So if that first ring is missed, it would be several seconds before the next ring would come along and glare could easily occur. > So, ground start lives, and will be with us for quite a while yet. Just so there's no doubt, the two ITT3100s that I take care of have nothing but ground-start trunks (and design trunks at that). That is of course the real professional way to go. Naturally, glare is never a problem and the system has positive sense of when dial tone is actually seized. This makes things go much faster when the ARS works. But there is a sad truth. Ground-start is a USA phenomenon. As I'm sure our non-US readers will confirm, ground-start is not generally available worldwide. (I'm sure it's available in Canada.) It might be interesting to find out where, other than North America, a PBX user can hook up to ground-start circuits. > It should be noted that I find very few lines give loop disconnect > supervision anymore, except in older offices. The telco will > sometimes give you loop (CPC) disconnect on a loop start line, on > request, but don't count on it. Ground start is still the only > reliable way to prevent call collisions and get reliable disconnect. More and more, I am hearing that telcos are becoming sensitive to this. There are just too many devices out there that depend on loop current interruption for disconnect. Every switch used for CO service is capable of providing it, assuming that it is equipped with the proper line cards and the correct programming options are invoked. Repair service will listen to you now about that. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: danj1@cbnewse.att.com Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 15:32 CDT Subject: What Long Distance Company Does Patrick Use When He Calls Grandma? Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA OK, what long distance company does Patrick use when he calls grandma? (I can't resist asking.) [Patrick, honestly you had better not tell us for fear of never-ending flame-wars, etc.] Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM +1-708-979-6364 [Moderator's Note: He who controls the mailbox never has to worry too much about flame wars. Grandmother has been gone a few years now; she left us December 31, 1986. I have AT&T Reach Out for my outgoing calls on both lines. I have a couple of 800 numbers from Telecom*USA. I have a Sprint FON card which was awarded to me for my achievements and the depth of my knowledge of WD-40 and its many uses. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 1:46:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issues This Weekend Two special issues of the Digest are planned for this weekend. You will receive them sometime Saturday evening or overnight Sunday morning most likely. In one, Peter J. Dotzau has provided us with a comprehensive listing of the Minitel dialup numbers (and the appropriate baud rates for each) throughout the world. Yes, the whole world. Most of you will find a local access number to use in trying out the Minitel service. In the other, John G. DeArmond takes considerable exception to the remarks of Larry Lippman, which appeared in this space last weekend. Here are just a few excerpts: >In this article, Larry the Lid, henceforth referred to as LL, ........ >wrote a scathing personal attack against me regarding an article I >had posted earlier describing my use of an infinity transmitter in >my first job with the government in the mid 70's. As if to >add credence to his story, he preceded this attack with an exposition >of his rather limited knowledge of the generic family of devices >referred to as "Infinity transmitters". ........ >LL concluded his post with a couple of paragraphs of pontificating >regarding my obvious violation of the law by using this fairy tale >device ........ >from the Ham Radio Database in some sort of effort to further discredit >me because of my age. ........ >And yet he makes a slanderous attack on my character. What a guy. ........ >So here we have a situation where a pompous ass named Larry Lippman >has decreed from his throne that a rather detailed description of >an infinity transmitter I used years ago was a lie simply because >HE had never heard of it. ........ >And finally to Pat The Moderator. Let's see if you precede this posting >with all the fanfare and glee you greeted Larry's with. After all, >fair's fair. >John De Armond, WD4OQC Of course I will! To me, glee is glee! Gimme a big stick and I'll always stir the pot. As the headline on the [Honolulu Advertiser] said on Saturday morning, December 6, 1941, the day ** before ** the 'surprise' bombing of Pearl Harbor, "Severe attack expected over weekend". You betcha! Give 'em hell, John. And so, with strains of Elgar's 'Pomp and Circumstance' in the background, I invite you to call again tomorrow for another edition of these pompous circumstances known as TELECOM Digest. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #254 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25794; 14 Apr 90 18:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11656; 14 Apr 90 16:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03446; 14 Apr 90 15:00 CDT Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 14:48:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #255 BCC: Message-ID: <9004141448.ab00961@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Apr 90 14:47:22 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson List of Magazines and Publications [Dave Leibold] Sprint / Network 200 Marketing [A Sprint Employee, via Steve Elias] More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [submitted via Steve Elias] Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries? [Marc O'Krent] Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Mark Earle] Re: Credit Card ID [Charles Buckley] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Mark Earle] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Michael Gersten] New Areacode Script and Countrycode List [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: List of Magazines and Publications Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 11:42:19 EDT From: woody I have a very partial list of periodicals and publications relating to the telecommunications industry. This is incomplete, and has a leaning towards Canadian sources. I would like to form a larger list of these publications; if you see anything that's missing or incorrect here, please mail me (djcl@contact.uucp) and I will collect the addresses. After a few weeks, I can post a revised listing based on new contributions. Submit these direct to me and I will make an updated article for the Digest. -=-=-=-=-=-= Telecom Magazine and Newsletters The following magazines are available for those interested in telephones and telecommunications. Some of these free offers are restricted to telephone professionals; but others are simply free for the asking. Thanks to Nigel Allen of 89:480/501 and Sir Dep for supplying many of the addresses and publication names that you'll see below... ----- If you would like to receive a free subscription to TELECOMMUNICATIONS magazine, just write to: Circulation Department Telecommunications, 685 Canton Street Norwood, MA 02062 USA. They'll send you a questionnaire to fill out and return, and once you've done that, you'll start receiving the magazine regularly. ----- CommunicationsWeek is a weekly tabloid newspaper for the telecommunications industry. It's free. If you'd like a subscription, just write to: CommunicationsWeek, Circulation Department, P.O. Box 2070, Manhasset, N.Y. 11030 U.S.A. ----- Bell Canada publishes Solutions, a free magazine distributed primarily to its large business customers. (You don't have to be a large business customer to get Solutions, though.) It's obviously intended to get people to buy or rent Bell equipment and services, but it's still fairly interesting. If you'd like to receive a free subscription to Solutions magazine, telephone toll-free 1-800-268-9100. ----- If you would like to receive a free subscription to Network World, just write to: Network World P.O. Box 1021 Southeastern, PA 19398 U.S.A. They'll send you back a questionnaire to fill out and return, so that you can receive your free subscription. ----- Here's a magazine about telemarketing, and has features on automatic call distributors (ACDs), 800/900 multi line services, how to keep people waiting on hold, etc. Address is: Inbound/Outbound 12 W 21 Street New York, NY USA 10160-0371 This address is for the Telecom Library folks who also publish magazines called "LAN" and "Teleconnect". There may or may not be freebie deals on those as well, depending on the type of work you do. Ask for subscription information in any case if you're interested. ----- Telesat Canada, the company that operates Canada's domestic telecommunications satellites, publishes a free newsletter called Telesat Report. If you would like a free subscription, write to The Editor Telesat Report, Telesat Canada 1601 Telesat Court Gloucester, Ontario K1B 5P4 telephone (voice) 1-800-267-1870 or, in Ottawa, (613)748-0123. ----- Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory phone (301) 871-5280 or write to: Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory Editorial Services Limited P.O. Box 6789 Silver Spring, Maryland 20906 ----- Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory telephone (313) 961-2242 or write to: Editor, Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory Gale Research Inc. Book Tower Detroit, Michigan 48226 ----- Telephony Magazine is published weekly by Intertec Press. I must say that while I don't see much change from the old company that used to publish it, at least the last time I subscribed I didn't have to prove that I did, like the previous two times before with the old company. Anyway, the address for Telephony is: Telephony P.O. Box 12948 Overland Park, KS 66212-9940 The subscription rate is currently $35.00 per year. They no longer offer 2 or 3 year subscriptions. ----- Telecom Gear is a publication, published Monthly. It is a plain jane newsprint type magazine (no slick pages). It runs $15.00 per year. Telecom Gear has ads in it for various brokers, etc for almost any type of telephone equipment ever made. (New and Used equipment.) The address for Telecom Gear is: Telecom Gear 1265 Industrial Highway Southampton, PA. 18966 ----- Subscriptions to Datamation, a U.S. computer magazine, are available free by writing to: Datamation P.O. Box 17162 Denver, Colorado 80217 U.S.A. This offer is not available to students. ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint / Network 200 Marketing Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:21:03 -0400 From: Steve Elias [ This message is from an anonymous source within US Sprint. ] I don't quite understand what the deal is with these Network 2000 guys to be perfectly honest with you. I know that they are an outside marketing organization for one thing. I can only say that the operation is probably not set up and managed by Sprint. As a matter of fact I'm fairly positive it's not -- it's too complicated for our commission people. What probably is happening is that Sprint is paying a revenue commission of say 7% on any revenue generated by Network 2000 dudes. They give it to Network 2000 to do with as they please. Network 2000 gives 1% to each level down to 6 levels and keeps 1% for itself. These percentages are hypothetical but I'm reasonably sure this is what is going on. It makes sense to get as many people working on commission only plans as possible because it lowers overhead and only pays for results. Since Sprint doesn't have to deal with commission distribution it makes it simpler for Sprint. Believe it or not, says that we get less complaints about these guys than most of our other marketing means. [ end anonymous message ] [Moderator's Note: Steve Elias asked me to note that this message, and the one that follows were NOT written by himself but are merely being passed along. He HAS agreed to forward replies to the originator, who for whatever reason wishes to remain anonymous. PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:24:47 -0400 From: Steve Elias [ this is from an anonymous source within US Sprint ] A few months ago, ATT wiped out more than 50% of ITS TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE, AND THEY COULDN'T MAKE CALLS FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 17 HOURS!!!!!! SPRINT NEVER DID THAT!!!!! A MONTH AFTER THAT, ATT DID THE SAME THING WITH ONE OF THEIR 800 EXCHANGES! Seriously, how quickly they (those who slam everyone but ATT) forget a major catastrophe like that! The fact remains - right now, we are the only 100% digital fiberoptic network there is PERIOD. ATT wrote down losses of >$6billion at the end of 88 for accelerated depreciation of old equipment for a REASON. They just are not as great as everyone thinks! They have 10 times the money that we do, but if you think they would have spent it on upgrading their equipment if they weren't responding to competitive pressure, you're nuts! Digital technology has been around for a long time; certainly before Sprint started using it. ATT had the opportunity to upgrade to digital technology many years ago, but they did not. The fact is, Sprint, MCI, and ATT all offer quality service these days. That wasn't always the case. But the service that you get from any of these carriers now is much better than the service you would have gotten from ATT six years ago. You should thank Sprint, rather than slamming them, for having the balls to push the modernization of America's phone system. And by the way, the probability of you getting disconnected on a Sprint call is certainly no greater than getting disconnected on an ATT call. Also, the long distance calls you make today cost you on average 40% less than they did six years ago. Maybe you should ask ATT to give you the service and higher prices that you had six years ago if that's what you want. (Note: The signalling system which ATT was deploying which caused the crash of 50% of their network has already been deployed at US Sprint for over a year!) [ end anonymous message ] ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com. !! MAIL TO eli@spdcc.com ONLY !! ; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, computerfax 508 671 7447, realfax 508 671 7419 [Moderator's Note: I think this person makes some valid comments worth consideration. What I don't understand is why they felt it had to be anonymous. Since Steve Elias has assumed responsibility for replies, I agreed to post it, but Sprint employees should note they are as welcome to participate here as anyone. PT] ------------------------------ From: Marc O'Krent Subject: Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries? Date: 14 Apr 90 07:22:21 GMT Reply-To: Marc O'Krent Organization: Cochran&Associates, Menlo Park, CA We have toll free service in the UK via an 0800 number. This is distingushed from their 0898 service which is the reverse: caller-pay. Marc O'Krent The Telephone Connection Internet: marc@ttc.info.com MCIMail: mokrent Voice Mail: +1 213 551 9620 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 08:47:45 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs Patrick, Well, that's interesting. I wonder how quickly the paging companies will offer rotary operated service. It is available, but not generally used, because at peak times (lunch) it keeps the paging terminal tied up; fewer people can complete pages, since it takes longer w/rotary. But it *is* available. On a related note, in my little corner of Texas, built a decoder which monitors the paging channel with a receiver, and displays on screen what numbers were sent. The format is widely published. I further ran it through a simple data base. This showed pager addresses (no idea what phone number went w/what address; but it let me see who got a lot of pages) and could flag other than seven digit entries, i.e., non-phone numbers. Lots of fun. I suspect just from the traffic pattern alone, lots of 'interesting' things must be done via pagers! I'm sure if I figured out how to do this, it can be done by any professional/law enforcement type. Guess the rub would be getting such collected data admitted as evidence, in light of the ECPA, Comm. act of 1934 as amended, etc. I guess the drug dealers don't like voicemail, since retrieving the messages would be admittable evidence if they did it from a court approved wiretapped line ... no, wait, they could playback their voicemail with a cell phone ... yeah, that's it, since cell phone calls are sacred and private! Then all the 'customer' needs is a phone, no signalling at all ... and the 'dealer' just uses his cmt, say, once an hour, to scoop up the messages ... wonder if this will come to pass ... you heard it here first. RE: voicemail. Here, most paging/cmt provideres offer voice mail in conjunction with your pager/cmt, or as a stand alone, for about $10/month per mailbox. It's a cheap way to get a remote-controlable answering machine, special number for promotions, etc. I liked it in lieu of giving out my digital pager number. The caller had time to leave a detailed message, and I got the benefit of short term storage for later replay, and all msgs were date-time stamped -- great for a service person with a limited response time, prevents fudging the 'start of notification of trouble' time. Mark Earle Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 11:24:26 PDT From: Charles Buckley Subject: Re: Credit Card ID From: glaser@starch.enet.dec.com (Steve Glaser) >He said that thousands of retailers all over the country had started >asking purchasers to supply a home phone number along with credit card >purchases. He stated that this had no purpose, . . . >Actually, if you listen carefully, much of the time they ask for "a >phone number". As it has been explained to me, this is a writing sample - digits are easier to use in forgery detection than a signature, which is so different that it lends itself to being practiced. One writes so many digits in one's life that it's hard to unlearn, even with practice. What kills me is that the merchants aren't told this by the credit card companies, so some of the more obsequious ones, in trying to make your job of purchasing lighter, ask you for the phone number, and write it on themselves! In my experience from having three credit cards stolen from my PO Box before I could collect them, the fraudulent user unashamedly writes another number, although I couldn't get the postal investigation organization to verify if it belonged to the thief. Guess they protect their own. [Moderator's Note: Addressing only the last paragraph of your message: Not really, they don't. The Chicago Main Post Office has had a few scandals over the years. The postal inspectors come down very hard on postal employees who steal from the mail. A major ripoff of Amoco Credit Cards by postal workers in the early seventies was dealt with very harshly. In those days, the Amoco Credit Card Processing Office was in downtown Chicago. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 10:42:11 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Reprogramming Cellular Phones I think it would be a good idea to collect/post the programming information with regards to various cell phones programming. My interest is from the viewpoint that the phones probably have a lot of capabilities that advanced users may wish to enable, but the dealer/service provider has no interest in turning on. At least being *aware* of the capabilities might help one pursuade the dealer to turn on that feature, or let the buyer make a more-informed purchase decision. The decision to buy which unit would be influenced by what features they all have. I have a personal interest since in the next 60 days I will be buying "something". Even with the possible advent of digital technology, I need something now not later. Mark Earle Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 90 10:28:19 PDT (Sat) From: Michael Gersten I am in favor of posting information on reprogramming cellular phones. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 14:02:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Areacode Script and Countrycode List Alexander Dupuy of Columbia University has submitted a new areacode script to the Telecom Archives for interested parties. This is far too lengthy to include here (20K) and even includes a manual page, should you wish to put it up on your site. It is stored in the archives as 'areacode.script.new' if you wish to get a copy. REGULAR FTP: ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous, then give name@site.domain as password cd telecom-archives get areacode.script.new FTP MAILSERVER: Write to 'bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu' or 'bitftp.pucc.bitnet'. Put your FTP commands in UPPER CASE at the left margin, one to a line, i.e.: FTP lcs.mit.edu USER anonymous name@site.domain ASCII CD telecom-archives GET area.code.script.new GET index.to.archives BYE Within a few days -- maybe a week -- you will have the files. This new file is rather nicely done, and I think you will like it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #255 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11808; 15 Apr 90 2:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15155; 15 Apr 90 0:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11402; 14 Apr 90 23:17 CDT Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 22:50:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: DeArmond Response to Lippman BCC: Message-ID: <9004142250.ab25761@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Apr 90 22:48:00 CDT Special: DeArmond Response Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Infinity Transmitters, Larry Lippman and the BIG LIE [John G. De Armond] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Infinity Transmitters, Larry "the LID" Lippman and the BIG LIE Date: 11 Apr 90 01:30:22 EDT (Wed) From: "John G. De Armond" To comp.dcom.telcom readers: Over the weekend, Pat the Moderator posted an article from Larry Lippman titled "Infinity Transmitter: Fact, Fiction, and Fairy Tale", an article preceded with significant fanfare in the days beforehand. In this article, Larry the Lid, henceforth referred to as LL, wrote a scathing personal attack against me regarding an article I had posted earlier describing my use of an infinity transmitter in my first job with the government in the mid 70's. As if to add credence to his story, he preceded this attack with an exposition of his rather limited knowledge of the generic family of devices referred to as "Infinity transmitters". In particular, he related the history, dated in the 60's, of the originator of the infinity transmitter, Manny Mittelman. After this brief history lesson, LL proceeds to extrapolate from the microscopic particular to the general and claim that the infinity transmitter I described could have NEVER existed and that I had simply made up a fairy tale (his words.). His justification was simply that he had never heard of the device I described and therefore it could not have existed. He further justified his opinion by citing the mid-60s technology he had previously described as making my kind of device impossible to implement. He went on to describe the details of a particular telephone switch and then extrapolated again to the general and stated that when a coupling capacitor was removed from a particular switch, no infinity transmitter anywhere could work. Even those connected to switches quite dissimilar to the one for which he had purported knowledge. And of course, all of this was sprinkled with the glut of obscure buzzwords, equipment model numbers, and figures for which LL is known. Well Hey, it works for the government. LL concluded his post with a couple of paragraphs of pontificating regarding my obvious violation of the law by using this fairy tale device (I'll bet LL NEVER phreaked - ever.) He then made reference to my age as gleaned from the Ham Radio Database in some sort of effort to further discredit me because of my age. Normally I ignore such LIDS as Larry when they make personal attack. At the most, I'll post something argumentative back just to poke fun at the poster. But this case is different. Larry is regarded in some circles as a very knowledgeable person. He is quite a prolific poster and can usually obfuscate the the subject with obscure details. Lastly, his attack was intensely personal. He basically called me a liar. I don't quite understand this state of affairs. Even though I've seen Larry post some pretty bad data, I've never commented on his postings either publicly or in private. This was a shot literally out of the blue. This was the kind of attack for which there is little defense. I obviously do not still have the device in question, having left it in place when I left the government service in 1979. There was another person involved in planting the device but since he still works for the government and since revelation of his participation could result in his being fired, I must respect his privacy and allow him to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, some important facts remain: 1) Larry has absolutely no knowledge of my activities other than by my postings on the net. He certainly knows nothing of my government career. 2) Larry has absolutely no knowledge regarding the origin of the infinity transmitter I used. He knows not, for example, whether the device was purpose-built, was a prototype or was an "off-the- shelf" unit. 3) Larry had absolutely no knowledge of the environment under which the device was used. For example, it was used on the relatively controlled environment of an old crosspoint PBX and not a Bell subscriber loop or phone. He did not know this, as evidenced by his description of a CO switch. 4) Larry displayed a rather complete lack of knowledge of the then-state- of-the-art in infinity transmitters, particularly the ones that might not fit into his preconceived notion of what one is. And yet he makes a slanderous attack on my character. What a guy. One of the central themes of LL's posting was that my device must be a fairy tale because the technology did not exist to make such a not- easily-detectable device. After stewing on this for a day or two, I decided to get proactive and prove that indeed such a device was not only feasible but easy to make. I decided to dig out the old Proto-Board and dedicate an evening to the project. Here is what I came up with in about 6 hours' work. The design criteria for my "bug" are as follows: 1. Be undetectable by DC means. This implies a quiescent current draw under 100 microamps. 2. Be undetectable by AC means applied to a subscriber loop. This implies a high AC impedance, preferably over 100kohms. 3. Be undetectable via emitted or induced EMI. In other words, no oscillators and no inductors. 4. Use technology available in 1975. My device was probably built closer 1977 or '78 but '75 is conservative. 5. Be small enough to fit in a network. An additional criterion was that I had to be able to breadboard it from junkbox parts in an evening. I modified the functional design a bit from the one I used a decade ago in the interest of simplicity and perhaps in the interest of added security. This device is designed to respond to a pair of tones alternately applied to the line at a moderate switching rate. Out of convenience, I used the tones of 1209 hz and 3266 hz alternated at a 7 hz rate. I'll explain why later. The design I arrived at uses a pair of cascaded 2nd order bandpass filters driving a precision rectifier whose output trips a micropower relay. One should note that the design presented here is meant to be a proof-of-concept exercise and is by no means a finished product. I have a HUGE "junk box" (actually, about 2500 sq feet of floor space) and a large library so I have a wide selection of parts to choose from and a good library that dates back to the late 60s (Yes, Larry, when I was in my early teens.). The filter design came from a book titled "Manual of Active Filter Design" by Hilburn and Johnson, copyrighted in 1973. This book is essentially a collection of nomographs used to design filters cookbook-style. I modified the filter shown on page 100. My active device is my old favorite of the linear devices, the 74C04 hex inverter. Yes, sportsfans, a digital CMOS part. This device, when properly biased and fed-back, is an excellent low power audio and low RF amplifier. According to my 1975 edition of the National Semiconductor CMOS data book, this device is rated at 0.01 microamp, 15 microamps max, with DC input. I would have expected the consumption to go up a bit when linearly biased. It does indeed but with the advances in processing since the early 70s, the consumption is much lower. I measured the consumption at 5 volts with a Keithley Model 614 digital picoammeter. With inputs grounded, this particular part consumed 0.002 microamp. With an input tied to an output to bias the device linear, the current rose to 0.015 microamps. Nitpickers will note that I am characterizing a modern part. That is because I don't have an ancient specimen of the part. The circuit is as follows: The input from the line is coupled in through a small capacitor (selected, about 200-500 pf) to a resistive power divider that feeds 2 sets of bandpass filters. Each set of filters uses 2 gates of the 74c04 The output of the filter drives a half-wave rectifier and smoothing filter and the 2 smoothing filter outputs are summed into another gate that serves as a summing junction. The output of this gate is fed to a last gate that is unbiased and serves as a comparator. The output of the comparator is fed to a sensitive relay from the junque box. This relay picks up at about 100 microamps and probably came out of an old piece of process control equipment. It has 2 dpdt dry contacts. The power supply for this device consists of 4 1n4742 12 volt, 1 watt zeners in series feeding a bridge rectifier whose output is clamped by a 1n4735 6.3 volt, 1 watt zener. A 10 uf capacitor provides sufficient reserve for switch activation and a 100 kohm resistor limits current draw to about 20 microamps. (A long ways from your 3 milliamps, eh Larry?) At the currents involved, the 12 volt zeners drop about 10.3 volts and the 6.3 volt zener drops about 5 volts. Both diodes are characterized in my 1967 edition of the Motorola Semiconductor Handbook. Bridging the zener string and the 100k resistor is one set of the relay contacts. The second set of contacts is used as seal-in contacts once the device is activated. One should note that the entire device could be powered for months from a 4.5 volt mercury battery that would fit inside the network. There would then be ZERO load on the phone line. The design purpose of this arrangement is for the circuit to draw zero current until the applied voltage reaches about 40 volts. This prevents the device from being detected by applying an ohmmeter to the terminals of the phone. It also prevents the device from being activated or detected by the application of 24 volts, a value common to phone test boxes. The relay contact is used to pick up the line when the device activates and to draw loop current. When activated, the device represents about 6 extra volts' of drop across the set. This could possibly be a detection avenue, though not very likely. This design assumes that battery will be at least 48 volts, a safe assumption in the era before solid state switches. Voltage at the facility in question ran nearer to 58 volts most of the time. Not implemented in this mockup but necessary for a real device is a block to prevent the simultaneous application of the 2 tones or white noise from activating the device. This could be implemented with a couple of mosfet transistors or another cmos gate. One should probably budget another 10 microamps for this part of the circuit. The tone activator for this circuit consists of an old touch-tone pad incorporating a Motorola MC1440 T-T encoder (1976 Mot. CMOS data book). The 1209 hz tone is generated by grounding the C1 lead of the chip. The 3266 tone is the 2nd harmonic of the 1633 hz tone generated by grounding the C4 lead of the MC1440. The tones are alternated by connecting 2n2222 transistors between the leads and ground and driving them with the input and output of a 74C04 inverter. The inverter is driven with a 7 hz squarewave from a GC electronics bench function generator. The frequencies were chosen because: a) They are easy to generate for this test. b) They are not harmonically related. c) There is little speech energy in the 3266 hz range. d) There is little repetitive energy in speech in the 7 hz range. The time constants of the filters and rectifiers are chosen so that the comparator triggers when both filters detect energy in their respective bandpasses. As mentioned before, white noise or simultaneous application of both frequencies would also cause activation absent the interlock circuitry. The remainder of the test setup consisted of 2 Western Electric Model SD-81824-01 key system power units connected in series and powered through a variac. Each power supply produces 24 vdc. The Keithley 614 picoammeter was placed in series with the ground return to measure the current draw. All component values were optimized using decade boxes and substitution boxes to minimize quiescent current draw. A standard carbon microphone was wired in series with the loop to allow testing for voice falsing. The test tones were introduced with a 600 ohm 1:1 transformer in series with the loop. The power supplies and picoammeter were bypassed with 0.1 uF caps. The vital statistics are: 1) Quiescent current draw - 22 microamps. 2) No current draw until the applied voltage reached 38 volts. 3) Reliable activation with no voice-falsing occurred with about 600 mv of tone. Summary I have proven that with about 6 hours of work and using components from the junk box, a proof-of-concept Infinity transmitter can be built that is substantially in conformance with the one I described in my first article and which would be practically undetectable with ordinary means. It would certainly resist LL's VOM assault. There is one (or 2) chip(s) involved and a handful of discrete components. All would comfortably fit in a network housing. Missing from this design are stabilizing components, the hook interlock, spike protection and the like. Perhaps this could be added with another 6 hours' work. A bit more work would result perhaps halving the power consumption, making the device even harder to detect. One should note that the entire device could be powered for months from a 4.5 volt mercury battery that would fit inside the network. In terms of physical concealment, the whole works could be potted in the network housing. Potting is not atypical. If one were worried about X-Ray detection, a cadmium-copper-lead foil sandwich around the inside of the box would stop all X-Rays in the range of about 30 to 80 kev and would severely attenuate higher energy rays. The opacity could arouse suspicion, of course, but if suspicions have been raised to the point of X-Raying the phone, it is probable that other techniques such as simply monitoring the line have already detected something abnormal. It is true that abnormal busy signals to callers could tip off the target. The solution is simply to use discretion when activating the device. In my case, I had a secretary who would tell me when a certain individual would visit the target. She was also the one who alerted me to the developing problem after she overheard in person a conversation about me. Editorial and Ad Hominem Attack. So here we have a situation where a pompous ass named Larry Lippman has decreed from his throne that a rather detailed description of an infinity transmitter I used years ago was a lie simply because HE had never heard of it. In reply to his accusations, I spent an evening's worth of spare time and designed a device such as according to Larry, could not exist and then built it using parts from the era. I think that part of the problem is that Larry does not approve of my use of the device. If he had stated his case as such, we could have acknowledged a difference of opinion and continued respecting each other. I rather imagine that Larry is being a bit two-faced about this. I'd not be surprised at all to find that Larry has phreaked as much as I have. I used phreaking as an educational tool, never stole a dime's worth of services, and freely admit my activities. I used my knowledge outside of the law exactly once in order to protect my career. At that point in my life, I thought that my government job would literally last me 'til retirement and that I would have to protect it at all costs. So I had a mistaken concept of work life. After all, as Larry has so noted, I WAS young. So Larry, let's get to the point. I've not only demonstrated that an "impossible" device could be built in an evening, I've also described the use of a professionally built unit. Let's see if you are as assertive and aggressive in you apology and retraction as you were in your slanderous assault on my character. And finally to Pat the Moderator: Let's see if you precede this posting with all the fanfare and glee you greeted Larry's with. After all, fair's fair. John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems , Inc ...!emory!rsiatl!jgd Marietta, GA (404) 578-9547 [Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent presentation. I am left speechless at this point. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: DeArmond Response to Lippman ****************************** From telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Tue Apr 17 23:07:08 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA28944; Tue, 17 Apr 90 23:07:03 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9004180307.AA28944@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 9:21:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #256 Message-Id: <9004150921.aa05709@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 22:05:13 CDT Resent-From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Resent-To: ptownson@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Apr 90 09:20:35 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Press Release: Telecom*USA Merger [Curtis Abrue] More on Coin Telephone Fraud [Larry Lippman] Ordering Unix From AT&T [David Gast] Central Office Wiring [Ajai Steel] Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage [Glen Overby] Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [John Higdon] Re: Problem With Northern Teleco [Patricia O'connor] Re: Us Sprint [Patricia O'connor] Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Robert Gutierrez] Re: Infinity Transmitters [David Gast] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 20:31 EST From: Curtis Abrue / MCI ID: 278-8283 Subject: MCI Press Release: Telecom*USA Merger Here's the press release on TELECOM*USA: CORPORATE NEWS BUREAU IMMEDIATE Kathleen Keegan 1-800-289-0073 TELECOM*USA, INC. Alysia Taylor (404) 250-5881 Mark A. Kaiser (404) 250-5950 MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION TO MERGE WITH TELECOM*USA WASHINGTON, D.C., April 9, 1990 -- MCI Communications Corporation and Telecom*USA, Inc. today announced the signing of a definitive agreement that will merge the two telecommunications companies. Under the agreement, MCI will acquire all outstanding shares of Telecom*USA's common stock for cash at a price of $42 per share, for a total purchase price of approximately $1.25 billion. The two companies' Boards of Directors have approved the transaction, which is also subject to Telecom*USA shareholder approval. "The prospect of merging two dynamic, high-growth companies with similar cultures is very exciting," Bert C. Roberts, Jr., MCI president and chief operating officer, said. "Both organizations have played a major role in advancing technology, developing innovative services, and meeting customer requirements. Combining their strengths will benefit shareholders, customers and employees alike. "We look forward to having Telecom USA management and employees assume roles in the new structure, and welcome the opportunity to serve its customers." O. Gene Gabbard, Telecom*USA chairman of the board and chief executive officer, said, "MCI recognizes that Telecom*USA's creative approach to product development and marketing is invaluable in this marketplace. Both parties stand to gain by teaming employees, facilities and services, and as a unified force, working to further enhance the ability to provide the highest value services in this rapidly growing and demanding industry." Merrill Lynch Capital Markets has acted as financial advisors to MCI in connection with the merger. Goldman, Sachs & Co., acted as financial advisors to the Telecom*USA Board of Directors. The complete terms of the merger will be included in the proxy statement to be mailed to the Telecom*USA shareholders. The transaction is also subject to applicable regulatory approvals and Hart-Scott-Rodino Act clearance. It is expected to be concluded as expeditiously as possible. MCI Communications Corporation, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is the nation's second largest long distance services provider. With approximately 19,500 employees and 1989 revenue of $6.5 billion, MCI serves residential and business customers with a wide array of long distance, voice, data and messaging services, both domestically and internationally. Telecom*USA, the nation's fourth largest long distance company, provides a wide range of telecommunications services to customers throughout the country. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, the company has 5,000 employees and 1989 revenue of $713 million. # # # # ------------------------------ Subject: More on Coin Telephone Fraud Date: 15 Apr 90 00:40:26 EST (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In article <6325@accuvax.nwu.edu> onymouse@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John Debert) writes: > > >Most coin stations today are DTF (Dial Tone First) and no > > longer resemble a ground-start line. A DTF coin line behaves similar > > to that of a loop-start line (it is actually more complex than that, > > but this will suffice for the purpose of this discussion); i.e., a > > ground on a DTF coin line will not facilitate any fraud. > Grounding is still used on many coin phones to detect the presence of > coins. This in combination with a a sequence of idle tone pulses to ID > each coin dropped is used to validate a call. It is possible to fool > the phone into thinking that enough coins have been dropped through a > very simple procedure using one nickel. It is not trivial to spoof the initial rate test on a DTF coin station, but it is indeed possible. The timing would be really tricky, though. When the initial rate is deposited the totalizer operates a contact which prepares a path from the network "B"-terminal through the totalizer reset relay through the coin control relay through the coin hopper trigger contact through a break contact of the "A"-relay to ground. The "A"-relay is operated by loop current of normal polarity, so the ground is actually lifted during dialing and talking. The CO tests for initial rate by opening the ring lead, which causes the "A"-relay to release, permitting the ground connection IF the initial rate has been deposited. The CO then applies -48 V battery to the tip lead (reverse line polarity) and makes a test for the presence of this ground. It's been a few years, but I seem to recall that during the initial rate deposit test, the CO coin control trunk tests for ground PRIOR to reversing polarity, meaning that it can ascertain if ground is present at some time *other* than when it *expects* ground to be present. If such a foreign ground is detected, then a "stuck coin" alarm may be indicated in the CO and the call may be routed to an operator, or be not further processed. Given an understanding of the above conditions, it is going to be difficult to achieve the timing necessary to spoof the coin control trunk. However, anything is possible when it comes to people bent upon committing fraud. :-) > It is also possible to induce > the appropriate signals onto the line once ground has been > established, as was once demonstrated to me. An experienced operator can usually ascertain if a coin is actually deposited (as opposed to playing a coin tone simulator) since the speech circuit is muted during legitimate totalizer tone readout. The difference is background noise during totalizer readout can usually be recognized by the operator. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 || 716/773-1700 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 || 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 03:05:13 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Ordering Unix from AT&T Dave Levenson provided an interesting tale of trying to order Unix from AT&T about two months ago. In 1984 I went with a client to look at AT&T's Unix machines. Forget the fancy room where they showed this vacuous movie (the kind designed to make you feel good about the company without saying anything about the product you want to buy); forget that the salesman crashed the system once perhaps five times during his demo, and I had to show him how to do what he wanted to demo. The most interesting aspect of the entire meeting was that their business cards did not have a phone number on them. Let me repeat: AT&T's business cards did not include the phone number of their office. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 18:56:30 PDT From: Ajai Steel Subject: Central Office Wiring In a typical C.O., when T-carrier trunks are MUXed by bays in the switch it self do house cables carry the signal to the transmission equipment in the Carrier room or are their special cables for this task? ------------------------------ From: Glen Overby Subject: Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage Date: 14 Apr 90 20:02:26 GMT Reply-To: Glen Overby Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo In article <6369@accuvax.nwu.edu> csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: [ discussing US West's dial replacement program in the Minneapolis area to thwart drug dealers ] >With the cash these boyz carry around with them, it is trivial to walk >into Radio Shack, plunk down US$20 for a pocket tone dialer, and thumb >their coca-stained noses at US West and the knights in shining badges. They could also easily add notch filters on the DTMF frequencies (even just half of the frequencies should be enough to make it really inconvenient) to prevent their pocket tone dialers from working correctly. Glen Overby uunet!plains!overby (UUCP) overby@plains (Bitnet) ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee Date: 14 Apr 90 18:38:15 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon An anonymous source within US Sprint writes: > A few months ago, ATT wiped out more than 50% of ITS TOTAL CUSTOMER > BASE, AND THEY COULDN'T MAKE CALLS FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 17 HOURS!!!!!! > SPRINT NEVER DID THAT!!!!! A MONTH AFTER THAT, ATT DID THE SAME THING > WITH ONE OF THEIR 800 EXCHANGES! No, Sprint just screws up in minor ways day, after day, after day. It's hard to say where one case of trouble ends and another begins. > Seriously, how quickly they (those who slam everyone but ATT) forget a > major catastrophe like that! No, but it WAS only one (or two), not continuous trouble. There are several places in the country that I consciously avoid calling on Sprint because the chances for screwup is so great. Calls to Sprint repair are taken by bimbos who tell me they'll get right on it and then nothing is ever done. I have yet to talk to anyone at that organization who seems to feel that my calls (as opposed to my money) have any importance to them whatsoever. > The fact remains - right now, we are the > only 100% digital fiberoptic network there is PERIOD. Makes great advertising copy, but when I have been transmitting a large file for an hour and suddenly the connection is broken (and the hour's worth of time and money goes up in smoke), I really couldn't care less whether it's digital, or tin cans and string. > And by the way, the probability of you > getting disconnected on a Sprint call is certainly no greater than > getting disconnected on an ATT call. Oh, yeah? Come use Sprint on my phone sometime. Talk for about an hour and then tell me that again. Have I complained to Sprint? Of course. Have they done anything about it? Hah! > (Note: The signalling system which ATT was deploying which caused the > crash of 50% of their network has already been deployed at US Sprint > for over a year!) Well, then it should just be a matter of time. Then let's see if it's all brought up again within 17 hours, or whether it takes days or weeks. Of course, I probably couldn't tell from here. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Patricia O'connor Subject: Re: Problem With Northern Teleco Date: 14 Apr 90 02:21:14 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA Hi Jesse, What you describe is what happens when you enter your login ID in upper case. However, if you are using a four-digit number ... Patricia O'connor - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!sun!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Patricia.O'connor INTERNET: Patricia.O'connor@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Patricia O'connor Subject: Re: Us Sprint Date: 13 Apr 90 14:47:58 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA Until divestiture, the local companies did the billing for AT&T long distance, so there were no billing mechanisms in place. Since then, AT&T has built some financial centers and intends (last I heard) to begin doing their own billing soon. Meantime, AT&T contracts billing from the local companies. PatiO Patricia O'connor - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!sun!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Patricia.O'connor INTERNET: Patricia.O'connor@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Robert Gutierrez Subject: Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective Date: 15 Apr 90 04:57:15 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC waldman2%husc8@harvard.harvard.edu (Bruce Waldman) writes: > I have recently been receiving various sorts of threatening calls from > an anonymous person... > New England Telephone registered her line in some sort of "capture" > system.... > As you can see, I am rather naive about the capabilities of the phone > company..... A 'call-record' as recorded on a telephone switch is very informative. When I worked for MCI, I performed call-record 'searches' on our west coast switches. I can basically search by _anything_ that is needed (time, telephone numbers, circuts, type of call, route, etc...). Doing a search on an "easy" switch (DEX-600) can be performed in about 10-15 minutes if you give a 5 minute window (plus or minus 5 minutes of the time of the call) during the day, and 15 minute window on nights/weekends. The following is a possible situation. I receive a call saying that somebody made a call from Oakland, Calif. to Los Angeles. I ask the time and phone numbers ... hmmm, no numbers? Which circut did it come in on (I can search down to the 'port', or individual T-1 channel). No channel number ... well, which C.O.? You'd be surprised on how *few* calls could go with the above variables. Try between 5-10 calls in a 10 minute span. Daytime? Say 20-40 calls. Lessee, CNA's on the line also, well ... here's the closest call to the time you gave ... it belongs to Ivan Boseky??? Well, as they say in Las Vegas ... Jackpot! Did I say that the switch also records any uncompleted calls. You wanted to call somebody, and, you dial their number ... ooops, forgot that tap on the phone and the 40 FBI agents watching your house ... you slam the phone down ... too late, we already got the MF digits from Pac Bell, and now we got your number! Oh, we can also tell which way answer supervision terminated (who slammed the phone down first). Robert Gutierrez/NASA Science Internet Network Operations. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 01:07:05 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters If I understand one of the objections to the device described by Larry Lippman correctly, then I don't believe it is a significant problem. > The network is *riveted* to the base, and it would not be that easy to > duplicate the riveting during a clandestine installation. Furthermore, > early 425-type networks had some wires from the hookswitch soldered > directly to them, further complicating a clandestine installation. I don't believe that a clandestine operation at least as commonly thought is really necessary. Here's what did happen: the Agency involved contacts the appropriate teleco; the teleco causes the subject's line to go out of order; the subject calls up the phone company, it sends out a repairman who installs a new, bugged phone, everything is now fine. (At least Briish Intelligence used this ploy according to Peter Wright). David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast P.S. It may turn out that Lippman knows the device described by Armond, only Lippman calls it a lexus, not an infinity. :-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #256 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28583; 17 Apr 90 3:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29989; 17 Apr 90 2:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18365; 17 Apr 90 1:11 CDT Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 0:30:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #257 BCC: Message-ID: <9004170030.ab00797@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Apr 90 00:30:10 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 257 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Jon Baker] Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Julian Macassey] Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Heath Roberts] Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud [John Higdon] Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Jeff Carroll] Re: LD Billing Tale [Lang Zerner] Re: Reinstalling Dial-Type Coin Phones [Lang Zerner] Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Tom Neff] Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List [Norman R. Kraft] Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: The Card [Peter Weiss] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro Date: 16 Apr 90 15:28:49 GMT Organization: gte In article <6274@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gtisqr!toddi@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu (Todd Inch) writes: > Whats the difference in the phone sets for ground start vs loop start? > (Does anyone even make a ground-start phone, or do they always get > "converted" to loop by the PBX's?) A ground start instrument will have some manner of button or switch on it which connects tip to ground, signalling an off-hook. The ground source is local, not from the CO. I have not found any manufacturer of ground-start phones. However, GTE supply (at least used to) sells a conversion kit for modifying a typical (loop-start) instrument to ground-start. > For example, how would you use a butt set to connect and place a call > on a loop start line? Do you need an earth-ground connection, or > temporary earth-ground connection? I assume you mean ground-start line. Yes, you need some sort of external ground. > If you were to build a ground-start phone, would it need three wires? Two wires to the CO; one wire to ground. > Also, are ground-start lines available from all CO's? Are they the > same cost (typically) as a "business" POTS/loop-start line? Ground start lines are available on the GTD-5. Don't know about cost. > Are ground-start lines ever used for residential service? Yes. Typically in rural applications, where the distance to the CO is very great. J.Baker. ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro Date: 16 Apr 90 22:13:55 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <6388@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: Mucho stuff deleted > But there is a sad truth. Ground-start is a USA phenomenon. As I'm > sure our non-US readers will confirm, ground-start is not generally > available worldwide. (I'm sure it's available in Canada.) It might be > interesting to find out where, other than North America, a PBX user > can hook up to ground-start circuits. In the UK, Ground start is available. But you have to consider that the Brits call Ground Earth. They call ground start "Earth Calling". It may be available in other Euro countries. I must admit that I have never seen a Ground Start line in the UK. But next time I am over there near a PBX, I will sniff around. 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: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 18:11:08 GMT In article <6362@accuvax.nwu.edu> waldman2%husc8@harvard.harvard.edu (Bruce Waldman) writes: >My friend was told that the length of the call did not matter, this >would all be done automatically. Is this possible, and how? Only in >special exchanges? (Apparently the caller was never identified or >else New England Tel did not choose to communicate this information to >my friend.) In my own case, what are the possibilities? How >difficult would it be for the phone company to identify callers? >Would it make a difference what sort of exchange the call originated >from? Would it make a difference whether the call originated locally >or from a long distance carrier, and would it make a difference which >long distance carrier it was? >As you can see, I am rather naive about the capabilities of the phone >company. In the movies, the police always try to keep the >ransom-demanders on the phone for enough time that they can physically >trace the calls I guess, but is this now unnecessary? I'd be grateful >for relatively non-technical enlightenment. IF the call originates and terminates on the same switch and IF it's a new (read digital) switch, call trace is very simple ... in fact, I can sit down at a terminal, tell the switch to display the status of your line, and tell when you pick up, when you get dial tone, when you're connected to a tone decoder, what you dial, what the disposition of the call is, etc ... (assuming I work for the telco and have access to the switch) all in real time. It's a bit more complicated if the call originates from another switch, but still possible. If both are NT switches and directly connected by fiber, it works basically the same way. (I don't know about ATT switches-probably the 5ESS has a similar capability). If it's another situation, the call may or may not be traceable ... it's possible to go through call completion tapes and find out what trunk the call came in on, then work your way backwards. For a real case to be brought against someone, you need a voice recording in addition to telco records to prove _who_ actually made the call -- the switch only records what line it came in on. Probably what happened when your friend called the 800 number is that a computer recorded that she's called and time-stamped it. Then someone had to look back for a call completed to her number right before the computer record. Generally traces are possible no matter the call duration. The movie thing about keeping the caller on the line comes from step-switches, when someone had to go through the frame with a test set and find each switch that was part of the circuit and note what position it was in. If the call went between CO's, it took longer, because the technician had to call a buddy at the next CO and tell him what trunk it was on, and the process starts all over. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program heath@shumv1.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud Date: 16 Apr 90 13:36:46 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Larry Lippman writes: > An experienced operator can usually ascertain if a coin is > actually deposited (as opposed to playing a coin tone simulator) since > the speech circuit is muted during legitimate totalizer tone readout. > The difference is background noise during totalizer readout can > usually be recognized by the operator. Ok, but what about money collected by automatic equipment for non-local calls? Virtually all station-to-station intraLATA and AT&T-handled calls are completed without any operator assistance. No one can convince me that the automatic "one dollah please" lady listens to background noise or anything other than the coin deposit beeps. What I would buy is if a ground or other signal is placed on the line at the moment the beeps are transmitted. Is this the case? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections Date: 16 Apr 90 23:43:49 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <6323@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >The conclusion I am drawing is that one or more of the following >conditions exist. Sprint has inferior connections (maybe even analog) >to the San Jose area. Pac*Bell has provided Sprint with inferior >interfacing to the POP for San Jose. The incredibly ancient CO >equipment in this area cannot handle the more modern technology used >by Sprint. AT&T has been dealing with this area longer and somehow >makes do better. >Anyone really have knowledge about the inferior Sprint service in San >Jose? >David Robbins of Waltham, MA, >Ranjit Bhatnagar of Pennsylvania, and >Steve Elias apparently of Mass. have written: >To say that they have had great luck with Sprint. Do you notice >anything in common with all of the above? Hint: East Coast. Sprint has >apparently not put such care into its facilities out here, no? With all due respect to the redoubtable Mr. Higdon, I have to report that, having been a Sprint customer since very near the beginning, I have never (to the best of my recollection) been cut off by Sprint in the manner he describes. This includes about seven years of service in Seattle, and one year in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In the early days, before the Fiber Optic Network, Sprint service to Seattle was provided via leased land lines and a Bay Area satellite installation. Then the quality was truly dismal at times. When we switched our dial-1 service to Sprint from AT&T, the audio quality *improved* considerably. Now all my LD calls sound local (just like the TV commercial :')). Since I'm ten miles from downtown Seattle, I assume that I'm pretty close to the USWest/Sprint interface. I don't have any idea what service would be like to outlying areas out here. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: langz@khayyam.EBay.Sun.COM (Lang Zerner) Subject: Re: LD Billing Tale Date: 13 Apr 90 21:16:13 GMT Reply-To: langz@khayyam.EBay.Sun.COM (Lang Zerner) Organization: The Great Escape, Inc. In article <6227@accuvax.nwu.edu> Robert.Savery@p0.f666.n285.z1. fidonet.org writes: >...It would also seem to me, the LD carriers would >want combined billing as a money saving measure. As long as the charge >the teleco wanted to do this was not more than the cost of maintaining >their own billing dept, then their profit margin would be higher. In fact, this is not the case. All those flyers your dad received with his separate mailing generate revenue for the service provider by increasing sales. This is one reason AT&T is so hungry to sign up Universal card holders; when billing through the local telco, they cannot use the bills for direct mail marketing. When Universal card holders receive their bills, they can count on getting ATT-revenue-generating tips and suggestions for making their lives better. Be seeing you. Lang Zerner ------------------------------ From: langz@khayyam.EBay.Sun.COM (Lang Zerner) Subject: Re: Reinstalling Dial-type Coin Phones Date: 13 Apr 90 21:50:17 GMT Reply-To: langz@khayyam.EBay.Sun.COM (Lang Zerner) Organization: The Great Escape, Inc. In article <6247@accuvax.nwu.edu> ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal. com! Allyn@uunet.uu.net writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 246, Message 10 of 12 >I heard this on NPR (National Public Radio) this morning... >US West is replacing DTMF coin phones with dial-type coin phones in >certain neighborhoods that have a lot drug-dealing activity. Why? >The dial-type phones prevent the use of paging systems (i.e. can't >punch in the call back phone number). There have been many attempts to curb drug sales by crippling public phone service in areas where the phones are used by dealers or customers. This is another case of policy-makers trying to make it look like they are coming up with solutions to problems in order to hide the fact that they have created no solutions. In parts of New York, ringers on public phones were disabled when neighborhood residents reported that dealers were taking calls on the phones. As a result, in neighborhoods where public telephones are the only incoming phone service that many residents can afford, the service was denied. "But the move will curb drug traffic." Nonsense. The dealers then spent $10 extra a month to get pagers. "Well, then, if we further cripple public phones by removing DTMF, drug users won't be able to page their dealers." Great, so the dealers spend a few dollars extra per month to get voice pagers, or voicemail systems which will automatically notify the pager of a waiting message. What next? "Umm, how about disabling the microphones on public phones so that callers can't send voice messages to their dealers?" The communication tools are not the problem, folks. Be seeing you. Lang Zerner ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs Date: 16 Apr 90 03:04:55 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff Couldn't these rotary payphones also be set to block DTMF tones, like some PBX's? Then pocket DTMF generators wouldn't work either. ------------------------------ From: nkraft@pnet01.cts.com (Norman Kraft) Subject: Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List Date: 16 Apr 90 06:18:37 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA Okay, now that we have the MINITEL phone number lists, what do we do with them? All I get when I call is a # prompt that does nothing. Am I missing something (obviously, since I don't even really know what MINITEL is). Thanks in advance for settling my curiosity. Norman R. Kraft | UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!nkraft Kensington Data Systems | ARPA: crash!pnet01!nkraft@nosc.mil P.O. Box 880762 | INET: nkraft@pnet01.cts.com San Diego, CA 92108 | VOICE: (619) 277-4475 ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story? Date: 15 Apr 90 13:27:30 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <6354@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wedel!pirx@apple.uucp (Jan Hinnerk Haul) writes: > The Bundespost used to sue "inofficial" modem owners, subsequently another > court decided that the use of a modem (or other telephone device) > allowed by the P.T.T. of any European Community country is not legal, > but you cannot get punished for doing so :-) It was explained to me in Germany as follows: While it is not illegal to connect to the telephone line, it is also not allowed. I also noticed that a department store had a display of a large variety of telephone sets for sale, with a sign that said: "These items may be used for decorative purposes only." As far as the distinctions between permitted and allowed go, I was told the following story. In Russia (this was before perestroika) nothing is permitted, not even those things which are allowed. In Germany, nothing is permitted, except for those things which are specifically allowed. In France, everything is allowed, except for those things which are not permitted. In Italy, everything is allowed, even those things which are not permitted. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 15 Apr 1990 12:10:29 EDT From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: The Card Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)? Does MasterCard need that info for something (or the sales clerk?)? Inquiring minds want to know. 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 -* +* applies herein [Moderator's Note: I can't imagine anyone giving an iota what the sales clerk 'requires'. The reason for both numbers being present is that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing number and pin. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #257 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00249; 17 Apr 90 4:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21463; 17 Apr 90 3:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29989; 17 Apr 90 2:15 CDT Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 1:40:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #258 BCC: Message-ID: <9004170140.ab29306@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Apr 90 01:40:10 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 258 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Operator Liability [Mike Riddle] Phone Replacement [Jeffrey Silber] What is a Switch 56 Line? [Dick Busch] Phone Management on Macs [Brian Capouch] IMTS: A Look Back [Larry Rachman] Rates For Cellular Phones [Michael Fetzer] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Rob Warnock] Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [John Higdon] DeArmond-Lippman Childishness [David Svoboda] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 21:09:06 EDT From: Mike Riddle Subject: Operator Liability Reply-to: Mike.Riddle@p0.f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: Inns Of Court, Papillion, Ne. 402-593-1192 In researching some things recently I ran across leads to the following articles. Considering recent postings in this newsgroup, I thought I'd pass them along. Recommended reading list for sysops: Hernandez, ECPA and Online Computer Privacy, 41 Fed. Comm. L.J. 17 (1989) Comment, An Electronic Soapbox: Computer Bulletin Boards and the First Amendment, 39 Fed. Comm. L.J. 217 (1987) (authored by Eric C. Jensen) Comment, Computer Bulletin Board Operator Liability for User Misuse, 54 Fordham L. Rev. 439 (1985) (authored by Jonathan Gilbert) Soma, Smith & Sprague, Legal Analysis of Electronic Bulletin Board ACtivities, 7 W. New England L. Rev. 571 (1985) I've read the Hernandez, Jensen and GIlbert writings, and found them all to be of value in clarifying the liabilties we face and precautions we could and arguably should take in operating our BBSes. I'm searching for the Soma article, but expect it also to be of benefit. Check your local law library for the above. The journals are copyrighted, most of them aren't available in electronic form, and I don't have a scanner. Take care, y'all. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.1 * Origin: [1:285/27@fidonet] The Inns of Court (402) 593-1192 Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Mike.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Silber Subject: Phone Replacement Date: 16 Apr 90 13:48:21 GMT Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY I have been asked to replace my mother's rented phone with a purchased one. I understand the ins-and-outs of typical phone service but this has a wrinkle which confuses me -- she is on a four party line. Are there any do's or don'ts regarding the installation of phones on party lines ... is the wiring the same? Thanks for the advice. Jeffrey A. Silber/silber@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science & Engineering [Moderator's Note: Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco itself? I know answering machines and modems are forbidden on party-line service; what about just a typical Radio Shack phone, for example? Doesn't our reader, under law, have to keep his hands off entirely when it is a party line? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 00:20:16 -0400 From: Dick Busch Subject: What is a Switch 56 Line? Reply-To: Dick Busch Organization: E.I.E. I/O Can some one tell me what a switch 56 line is and how does it differ from a four wire leased line (conditioned 3002 line?). From what it sounded like (that can be dangerous) the modem sales rep was saying ... a four wire leased line could act as a switch 56 line if it happens to go through the right brand of central office switches. But thats sounds too far out since I though the conditioned 4 wire leased line is analog and the switch 56 is digital. See I'm confused - please someone explain. Also if you have any idea of the relative price difference between the two services (is one a lot more, about the same - ball park stuff). Thanks in advance, Dick Busch rcb@phx.mcd.mot.com noao!asuvax!mcdphx!biff!rcb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 22:34:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Brian Capouch Subject: Phone Management on Macs I read some time ago (and wish I could remember when) about a PC-based call-management system. I seem to remember that it had some personal-type name, like "Herbert" or somesuch. It handled incoming call traffic, forwarded calls, etc. Am I remembering this correctly? Could anyone out there refresh my memory? I'm starting a small business, and need to find some friendly way to manage traffic on our 2-3 lines, which will have to handle a dynamic mix of voice/data traffic, without spending a lot of $$. We are going to have a Mac, with an Abaton fax modem. Could some smart person out there point me in some starting directions? I know this message is a little vague; I wish I could remember the system I read about here, because it looked like a PC-based version of exactly what I'm after. Thanks. Brian Capouch Networking Specialist Saint Joseph's College brianc@saintjoe.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 90 20:58:16 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: IMTS: A Look Back In a recent issue, Macy Hallock writes: >I'll start a discussion of IMTS if anyone is interested ... I spent >a few years working on these animals. Well, lets encourage him!! I first ran into IMTS when I was in high school, and car phones were still the sign of 'having arrived'. I lusted after one of these for more than a few years, finally finding an old Motorola at a ham flea market. The beast was about 6" by 12" by 20", and consisted of a duplex UHF tranceiver and a so-called sup-pack, a pair of hinged cards containing many dozens of transistors set up as discrete logic. Fortunately, it sat in the trunk, attached to a rotary dial (!) control head that looked sort of like a princess phone with clamps to keep the handset from falling off. I guess that the problem the design engineers had in the '60s was: "We have to design an operator-less mobile telephone system, but microprocessors won't be invented for another 10 years or so ... what do we do??" The answer was fascinating -- data handshaking was done via 10/20 pps rotary-dial style FSK signalling. When idle, your mobile would scan your 'home' channels for the calling channel, marked by a high tone. Incoming calls were signalled by the tone shifting between two frequencies at rotary dial rates, sending the area code plus last four digits of the phone number. If the digits matched the wire jumpers set in the phone, the phone would send a burst of tone back to the base, which the caller would hear, along with a burst of squelch noise, before the phone rang. This was kind of neat, because the caller could tell when you weren't there, before the recording came on. Picking up the handset sent yet another tone (memory fails me as to the particulars) and you could begin talking. When you hung up, the phone would send a burst of tone that rapidly shifted between two frequencies, and which the caller would hear for about half a second before the equipment recognized it and disconnected. The sound was neat way to punctuate the end of your call, and I sometimes think of kluging a simulator onto my cellular phone :-). Outgoing was equally interesting; when you went off hook, your mobile handshook to seize the marked channel (and shake off the other mobiles waiting for incoming), and then transmitted your area code plus last four digits at 20 pps, toggling between high-tone-low-tone and high-tone-no-tone, as a rudimentary form of parity checking for billing security. If the base was satisfied, it returned dial tone, and you could then dial the call. Pulling the dial away from the normal position sent high tone, and the dial-pulsing contacts shifted it to a lower frequency in time with the pulsing. I had great fun with this thing for several years, despite the fact that the control head barely fit in the glove compartment of my Toyota, and the radio took up most of the luggage space. Back then, nearly everyone was impressed by the sound of a real metal telephone bell issuing forth from the glove compartment. I could go on (and on, and on...), but I'll leave the next batch of stories for other writers. Larry Rachman 74066,2004@compuserve.com ...or fax, at 516-427-8705 ------------------------------ From: rider@pnet12.cts.com (Michael Fetzer) Subject: Rates For Cellular Phones Date: 15 Apr 90 06:36:08 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA I may be mistaken, but I think I've made the observation that cellular phones are much cheaper to own and operate in the Pacific North West (read: Portland, OR) than in California (read Sandi Eggo). When I was up there (in Portland) a few weeks ago, I saw the basic cellular phone for car installation on sale for less than 130 bucks. Down here, SD, the cheapest I see is over 400. How can this be? Also, I was told that the rates for cellular calls are fairly high in SD, and I'm not sure about the monthly fee. In Portland, on the other hand, the monthly charge is supposed to be under $30 a month, and the per minute charges are supposed to be low. My questions: does anyone have factual information on the rates and costs of phones? Can someone tell me why there is this large difference in cost for the basic phone? The monthly charges? The call charges? Mike UUCP: ucsd!serene!pnet12!rider or ucsd!mfetzer ARPA: crash!pnet12!rider@nosc.mil INET: rider@pnet12.cts.com or mfetzer@ucsd.edu BITNET: fetzerm@sdsc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 09:21:12 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <6285@accuvax.nwu.edu> nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov writes: | Although the instructions clearly stated "Not to be provided to | end-user" on them, he allowed me to copy down the important | information -- the "magic code" to put the phone into programming | mode. (It's a Nokia Mobira handheld -- the same thing that Radio | Shack sells. But it may not be exactly the same. A Mobira saleperson I ran into said that the Radio-Shack unit is not a standard Nokia/Mobira model, though it's close. They sold R-S the design, and it's being manufactured by a third party in Korea. (Still, I've been happy with mine.) However, as with any of their products, R-S will sell you a service manual, which includes some (or all?) of the programming info (as well as schematics, and lots of interesting details, like the transmit power-limiting stuff). But to do most of the interesting ops, the R-S phone has to be put into a special "local" mode by grounding a pin on the battery pack with a certain resistance, which *cannot* be done (at least, not very easily) with the standard battery installed -- you have to use a special bench power supply that plugs in where the battery goes, and accesses extra pins the battery doesn't pass through to the outside. By the way, the "security code" (that lets you change the "unlock code") comes programmed as "12345", and the "unlock code" (that lets you unlock the phone if you've locked it) comes as "1234". Shades of "login: root, password: root"! And you can't change the "security code" except in "local" mode. (And of course my R-S saleman didn't ask if I wanted to change the "security code".) But at least you can't change the unlock code without the phone being unlocked, and the phone stays locked across power-down/up. So if you change your unlock code to something other than "1234" (which a user *can* do) and leave it locked all the time, there's *some* protection... if you believe 4 digits is "protection". Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 [Moderator's Note: Actually, in the Radio Shack CT-301, which is the model you are referring to, the 'local mode' is entered through a very simple entry directly on the keypad. This code which you enter on the keypad includes the five digit security code (12345) when it comes from the factory. But the five digit security code itself is one of the parameters you can set while in local mode. And the schematics and other technical data you can get on this unit does not include the programming stuff. The Radio Shack Cellular Tech Support Line is 817-878-6980. PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee Date: 15 Apr 90 11:21:29 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Steve Elias writes for an anonymous poster: > Also, the long distance calls you make today cost you on average 40% > less than they did six years ago. Maybe you should ask ATT to give > you the service and higher prices that you had six years ago if that's > what you want. This is the one point that must be conceded. Competitive forces have no doubt improved service overall and caused the decline in long distance rates. No one would disagree with that. But while MCI and Sprint have been fighting their noble fight, AT&T has certainly kept up with the pack. But the lower rates simply cannot compensate for the non-AT&T deficiencies. I just made some test calls to the east coast. All three carriers (at least to NY) are now using digital technology. A month ago, MCI was still analog. AT&T's setup time was consistently 3 times as fast as either MCI or Sprint. One of the Sprint calls never went through. Both MCI and Sprint were somewhat "grungier" than AT&T in audio quality. And from past experience, if I had remained on the line long enough, the Sprint calls would have suffered from "auto-disconnect". This brings up another important consideration: service. When I have had difficulty with data transmission through AT&T, I have received numerous call-backs and and resolution within twenty-four hours. Recently, I discovered that no call placed to 704/648 would go through on Sprint. Do you know what their service department's solution was? Preceed my dialing with "10288"! When I pressed the matter, the answer FROM A SUPERVISOR was, "well, there really isn't a lot of demand to call that area [Canton, NC] so it will be much simpler for you to just use AT&T for those calls." It certainly is reassuring to discover that there are areas of this country that are not important enough to worry about. So while I concede that competition has benefitted the American public, it must also be conceded that the competitors were given an enormous amount of space to build their companies when AT&T was there to handle calls when they really had to go through. Yes, AT&T had a major 17 hour outage. But as I have explained to salestypes, better one outage every 50 or 60 years than just generally mediocre service. Granted, competition has kept AT&T on its toes. And when some other company can demonstrate that it really is better, I will be first in line to sign up. Until then, I'll just settle for the indirect benefits. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 11:16:15 CDT From: David Svoboda Subject: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness I berate both of these gentlemen for their very childish attitude. I have great respect for their knowledge of telecommunications, but I feel that the personal attacks in both cases were completely uncalled for. Perceived falsehood deserves correction, not slander, Mr. Lippman, and one bit of slander needs not require another, Mr. DeArmond, only the truth. Your attitudes erode the strength of your arguments, gentlemen. And to the moderator: I read this forum regularly and feel in general that the moderation of this group is superior to any other; but in this case, I am disappointed that you did not save these gentleman their embarrassment. -David Svoboda uunet!motcid!svoboda [Moderator's Note: Mr. Lippman has already responded to the rebuttal by DeArmond with a follow up message 25 *thousand* -- count 'em! -- bytes in length. I'll decide what to do with it soon. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #258 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19392; 18 Apr 90 3:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02524; 18 Apr 90 1:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15392; 18 Apr 90 0:33 CDT Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 23:52:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #259 BCC: Message-ID: <9004172352.ab26632@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Apr 90 23:50:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 259 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Card [Peter Weiss] Re: The Card [Johnny Zweig] Re: The Card [Brian Kantor] Re: The Card [Matt Simpson] Re: Phone Management on Macs [Martin B. Weiss] Re: Phone Management on Macs [Michael Fetzer] Re: Phone Replacement [William Kucharski] Re: Phone Replacement [John Cowan] Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [Mark Harrison] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Robert Stratton] Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [John Higdon] Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries [Jeff Carroll] Re: Credit Card ID [Jim Gottlieb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Penn State University Date: Tuesday, 17 Apr 1990 08:26:43 EDT From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: The Card In article <6441@accuvax.nwu.edu>, PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter Weiss) says: >Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to >emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)? >Does MasterCard need that info for something (or the sales clerk?)? >....that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card >number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls >in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of >phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing >number and pin. PT] Just for the record, _The Card_ does not mention VISA, only MasterCard, and seems to be from the Universal Bank, POB 1977, Columbus, GA 31902. MAC access is thru the Plus System; the operative phrase above is _emboss_. /Pete ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: The Card Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 15:21:52 GMT PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter Weiss) writes: >Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to >emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)? >Peter M. Weiss | (this line intentionally left blank) >[Moderator's Note: I can't imagine anyone giving an iota what the >sales clerk 'requires'. The reason for both numbers being present is >that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card >number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls >in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of >phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing >number and pin. PT] Yes. The calling card number is different from the VISA account number (they are unrelated and have a different number of digits). It may even be that the VISA number is on a different track from the c-c number so that the Right Thing happens when you stick it into a phone with a swipe reader. BTW, when I called +1 800 423 4343 to have them correct my name and address (who the zark spells Jonathan as "Jonathon", anyway?!) the guy had to ask me three times for the corrections, finally giving up on entering the stuff into the computer and writing it on a piece of paper. He promised me he'd type it in later. AT&T is batting 0 for 1000 as far as software goes lately, in my estimation. Johnny ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: The Card Date: 17 Apr 90 16:53:08 GMT Reply-To: Brian Kantor Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. In article <6441@accuvax.nwu.edu> PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter Weiss) writes: >Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to >emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)? I assume you are asking "as opposed to just printing it on the card". That would take another pass through another machine, and then the surface of the card would have to be protected in some way to keep the printing from deteriorating in the harsh environment of the typical wallet or purse. It's much cheaper to just emboss ALL the individualized lettering on the card. Only the "boiler-plate" is laminated into the card at manufacture. That the embossing prints information on credit card slips that isn't really needed there probably isn't their concern. You are certainly able to peen it down so that it doesn't print if you don't want it to. - Brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 15:41:27 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Re: The Card I applied for the card immediately after reading about it on the Telecom Digest, I think it was about 3 weeks ago. As I posted earlier, as soon as I gave them my home phone , they already knew all about me, and told me I was pre-approved for a $3000 credit limit. Meanwhile, I have been enviously reading reports from those who have already received The Card, while awaiting my own. Yesterday, it arrived - or so I thought. Eagerly tearing open the envelope, I found a computer-generated letter thanking me for applying, and regretting that I couldn't have a card because "Your credit history does not meet the program requirement" . They generously provided the name and address of the credit bureau they used, in case I wanted to contact them. And they sweetly told me that if I had an AT&T Calling Card, I could of course continue to use it, and that they valued my continued business. So I called AT&T, and asked how I could be rejected after being "pre-approved". The guy mumbled something about "pre-approved" just meant they were looking at me, or something. Then he wanted to know who told me I was pre-approved. Unfortunately, I didn't remember the woman's name. So then I asked him just what "program requirement" my credit history didn't meet. He asked my name again, although I'd given it to him twice, then asked how to spell it. He appeared to be trying to find me in some data base. I heard him mutter something to himself that sounded like "closed". Then he told me that due to overwhelming customer response, he was unable to answer my question, but thought that maybe my credit history just wasn't complete. I asked him how I could give him complete info if he couldn't tell me what was missing. At that, he told me to call back in 7-10 working days. I wrote this guy's name down, in case the next person asks me who I talked to, since that seems to be one of their favorite questions. ------------------------------ From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: Phone Management on Macs Date: 17 Apr 90 14:21:40 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services I am not specifically familiar with this product, but I do wish to refer you to the April 1990 issue of IEEE Communications. One article in this issue describes a Mac-based system for managing telephones and voice mail. Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ From: rider@pnet12.cts.com (Michael Fetzer) Subject: Re: Phone Management on Macs Date: 18 Apr 90 00:36:06 GMT Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA Let me warn you about the Abaton FAX/modem. It's a great unit, I have one, but if it's turned on (i.e., if it's software tells it it's turned on) it will answer all calls as though they were a fax. The only way to get voice is to pick up the phone before the abaton does, or, if you've hooked your phone through the abaton, after it's annoyed the called with fax noises. What you need, I think, and what I'm looking for, is a device that sits before the fax modem, and makes the decision whether to pass to call to fax or voice. Also not, you can't have your abaton answer both fax and modem calls. Either, or. Mike UUCP: ucsd!serene!pnet12!rider or ucsd!mfetzer ARPA: crash!pnet12!rider@nosc.mil INET: rider@pnet12.cts.com or mfetzer@ucsd.edu BITNET: fetzerm@sdsc ------------------------------ From: William Kucharski Subject: Re: Phone Replacement Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 14:32:45 GMT I believe that installing your own phone is allowed, but modems and answering machines are not for the simple reason that they are incapable of surrendering the line in case an emergency call needs to be made. | ARPA: kucharsk@Solbourne.COM | William Kucharski | | uucp: ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk | Solbourne Computer, Inc. | = The opinions above are mine alone and NOT those of Solbourne Computer, Inc. = ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Phone Replacement Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 19:37:09 GMT Our esteemed Moderator writes: >Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook >anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco >itself? I know answering machines and modems are forbidden on >party-line service; what about just a typical Radio Shack phone, for >example? Doesn't our reader, under law, have to keep his hands off >entirely when it is a party line? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Taconic Telephone 4- and 7-line service, as I have noted before, uses different ringing signals (whether voltages or frequencies, I know not, but I would conjecture frequencies) to ring different parties on the line. A phone cannot be connected unless it is tuned to respond only to the correct ring. Taconic Telephone permits the connection of foreign equipment only if they themselves have checked it out and certify it suitable for their lines; mere FCC certification will not cut it. Furthermore, automatic equipment cannot be used either, as it is unable to yield the line in case of emergency as required by law. ------------------------------ From: Mark Harrison Subject: Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee Date: 17 Apr 90 13:37:37 GMT Organization: NEC America Inc. SSD, Irving, TX > [ this is from an anonymous source within US Sprint ] > (Note: The signalling system which ATT was deploying which caused the > crash of 50% of their network has already been deployed at US Sprint > for over a year!) Is this the Good News or the Bad News? (many :->) Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply... ------------------------------ From: Robert Stratton Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming Date: 17 Apr 90 13:32:28 GMT Reply-To: Robert Stratton Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA In article <6448@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Warnock writes: >However, as with any of their products, R-S will sell you a service >manual, which includes some (or all?) of the programming info (as well >as schematics, and lots of interesting details, like the transmit >power-limiting stuff). >[And the schematics and >other technical data you can get on this unit does not include the >programming stuff. The Radio Shack Cellular Tech Support Line is >817-878-6980. PT] At least they will sell you something now ... When I worked for good old Radio Shark, as a management trainee (chuckle), we had memo after memo warning us of nefarious characters who ripped off CMT's, and came in to the Shack for all sorts of technical support. These memos tended toward the histrionic, and in the event that someone came in to get his/her PROM burned, without having bought the phone at the store in question, I recall suggestions to run screaming to the gendarmerie. It's good to find out who's making these phones, as that's half the reason I worked there briefly (to find out who made what in the product line). I would simply caution those seeking tech support, especially those who didn't buy a phone from R.S. - to be aware that there are a bunch of paranoid managers out there, who don't understand the technology and are afraid of those who do. (Why does that sound familiar..?) [Moderator's Note: I note when you call them in Texas the first question they ask is, are you a customer or a store. If you claim to be a store, they want the store ID, etc. PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones Date: 17 Apr 90 09:50:24 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon rider@pnet12.cts.com (Michael Fetzer) writes: > My questions: does anyone have factual information on the rates and > costs of phones? Can someone tell me why there is this large > difference in cost for the basic phone? The monthly charges? The > call charges? Pricing is based on "what the traffic will bear" as presented to the individual state's PUC or eqivalent. The price of equipment is purely "what the traffic will bear". I would imagine that Oregonians are somewhat less eager to have that universal status symbol and hence will not pay the usary rates charged in California. In CA, the "standard" rate is $45.00 per month and $0.45 per minute on peak and $0.20-$0.27 off peak. There are discount plans such as the one that has $25.00 per month, $0.90 on peak, $0.20 off peak; or the sign up for a year plan which has $39.00/month, $0.45 on, $0.20 off, and included all custom calling. These rates are among the highest in the nation for one simple reason: utilities can get away with anything with the California PUC. Why do you think they call it the "Public UTILITY'S Commission"? Why do you think Pac*Bell can get away with its usary rates and its hopelessly outdated plant? Why do think PG&E (Pacific Graft & Extortion) gets away with not only the highest electric rates in the country, but a level of service that makes one envy your average third-world country? (My computer and phone system are powered through a UPS. It's not luxury; it's survival.) Anytime you have a rate or service question (or amazement) in California, just remember that the Golden State has the most incompetent, least public-responsive PUC in the country. We would be better off to submit all matters to the monkey cage at the San Diego Zoo. Whatever the output, people would be served more effectively. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries Date: 17 Apr 90 06:57:25 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <6367@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: >Likewise Mayotte, currently transiting through France, will get direct >operator service in May and then become dialable (269) at some future >time. Mayotte has been dialable via Sprint for some time, but has >only been reachable on direct access lines or in a few places (states >near Minnesota) where the C.O.s put the code in without an order from >AT&T. I'm sorry. I consider myself geographically well informed, but I am completely stumped here. Where the hell is Mayotte? And is there some reason why people in Minnesota want to call there? (Is Mayotte possibly out in the middle of Lake Superior?) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 17 Apr 90 10:23:32 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <6351@accuvax.nwu.edu> glaser@starch.enet.dec.com (Steve Glaser) writes: >you can can follow their instructions to the letter and give >them any random phone number you feel like When I'm in the U.S. and am asked to write down my number on a charge slip, I always write "011 81 3 237 5868". Not once has anyone said anything. [Moderator's Note: The way I usually avoid this is to tell them I don't have a phone. There's a pay phone at the cut-rate liquor store on the corner from my house; I go there if I need to make a call, but I don't know what the number is. If they still don't catch on then I become obnoxious and specifically challenge them,"Are you refusing to make the sale?". They always back down, just to get me out of the store. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #259 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19412; 18 Apr 90 3:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02524; 18 Apr 90 1:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15392; 18 Apr 90 0:34 CDT Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 0:24:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #260 BCC: Message-ID: <9004180024.ab14709@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Apr 90 00:23:47 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 260 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud [Wolf Paul] Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud [Karl Denninger] More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing [Larry Lippman] Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco [Kristian Koehntopp] Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T [Thomas Neudecker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wolf paul Subject: Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 12:08:49 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria This is about coin telephone fraud in Austria, and describes two methods which no longer work. Austria used to have pay phones for local calls which accepted the standard phone coin, a one Schilling piece (currently about $ 0.09). You had to insert a coin in order to get dial tone, and this would also start a pointer moving across a semi-circular window; it would take 3 minutes to move all the way across, and then it would cut you off. There was no way of adding more coins and thus extending the length of the call; your money was held in a special receptacle until you pressed the "pay button" or the three minutes was up, then it would drop into the coin box. Until you pressed the pay button, you could hear dial tone, ringing or busy, or the answering party, but the answering party couldn't hear you; and if you hung up without pressing the pay button before the three minutes was up, your coin would be returned. Among other things, this permitted toll-free access from pay phones to a long list of taped messages, such as weather reports, snow reports (during the ski season), APA-News (Austria Press Agency), etc., and meant also that you didn't pay for no-answer or busy (there never was any credit for wrong number, nor was there ever toll-free access to emergency numbers). As I said, these phones were intended for local use only, but the only way this was enforced was that the one shilling deposit would not last long enough on any long distance call to permit any reasonable conversation. A popular way of defrauding these pay phones consisted in drilling a small hole through the pointer window about halfway across the path of the pointer, and sticking a pin through, which would stop the pointer moving and thus prevent it from cutting you off at the end. Apparently there was no easy way of detecting this, short of inspecting the phone physically. A well-known case involved such a phone at the American International School in Vienna. Postal officials noticed that even though the phone was almost constantly off-hook, hardly any money collected in the coin box. The hole had been drilled so skillfully, with such a fine drill, and a pin inserted, that it was not immediatley visible. Students would take the phone off-hook at the beginning of longer breaks, insert a shilling, and then proceed to make long distance calls, usually to North America (the AIS is sponsored by the American and Canadian embassies). A more recent pay phone permitted the use of different coins, and allowed cumulative insertion, for longer or long distance calls. The coins would increment an electronic counter, and the charge impulses coming over the line from the CO would decrement it. The counter could be manipulated by means of piezo-electric cigarette and gas stove lighters. Of course, the counter circuit was changed as soon as the PTT realized that this was happening. Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud Reply-To: Karl Denninger Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 14:38:36 GMT In article <6434@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 257, Message 4 of 11 >Ok, but what about money collected by automatic equipment for >non-local calls? Virtually all station-to-station intraLATA and >AT&T-handled calls are completed without any operator assistance. No >one can convince me that the automatic "one dollah please" lady >listens to background noise or anything other than the coin deposit >beeps. Correct. The automated attendant ("please deposit one dollar and twenty-five cents for the first three minutes") listens only to the tones; it doesn't know whether you >really< inserted coins. The same holds true for the computer voice that tells you insert more money during a long-distance call. It is, however, highly sensitive to the tones being >exactly< correct. If they're not, you get a real live operator who can check that there are really coins in the slot, and/or refund them for you to re-insert the coins. If you get a real live operator then you can't play your tape or device, as the operator can listen for background noise and may also be able to query the totalizer directly. The automated equipment does not do this. I've seen this technique demonstrated with a tape recorder; it worked. It's rather commonly used at colleges and other places where you tend to have a payphone that can't be connected to any particular person. The person demonstrating it said that it does >not< work for local calls on DTF phones -- only long distance "1+" calls, which of course are the calls that most people are going to bother trying fraud with -- why bother getting caught and/or going to jail for a quarter? This entire thing is, needless to say, rather risky unless you're calling payphone-to-payphone; should you get caught doing it they'll undoubtedly have some rather pointed questions for the person you were calling, even if they can't identify the call originator. :-) Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" ------------------------------ Subject: More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing Date: 17 Apr 90 20:59:51 EST (Tue) From: Larry Lippman In article <6434@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > > An experienced operator can usually ascertain if a coin is > > actually deposited (as opposed to playing a coin tone simulator) since > > the speech circuit is muted during legitimate totalizer tone readout. > > The difference is background noise during totalizer readout can > > usually be recognized by the operator. > Ok, but what about money collected by automatic equipment for > non-local calls? Virtually all station-to-station intraLATA and > AT&T-handled calls are completed without any operator assistance. No > one can convince me that the automatic "one dollah please" lady > listens to background noise or anything other than the coin deposit > beeps. What I would buy is if a ground or other signal is placed on > the line at the moment the beeps are transmitted. Is this the case? While I cannot speak from recent experience, I can speak with familiarity from about 10 - 12 years ago when extensive implementation of ACTS (Automated Coin Telephone Service) and LCOT (Local Coin Overtime) began in many areas of the country. Also, this information has little or no applicability to COCOTS, and to other microprocessor- based coin stations. However, it should still be applicable to most DTF (Dial Tone First) coin stations using WECO and Northern Telecom 1C and 1D type or equivalent coin stations. In the case of ACTS, to which the above poster referred, the coin station is connected to a coin control trunk which is part of the TSPS Coin Station Signaling and Announcement Subsystem. ACTS is a part of TSPS, connects to the TSPS network, and is ultimately controlled by the same No. 1 SPC (Stored Program Controller) which runs TSPS. After ACTS makes the announcement as to the amount of the coin deposit, the coin control trunk places +48 V (*positive* battery) on the ring side of the line, while connecting ground to the tip. This action enables the totalizer for readout, and also operates the "B" relay in the totalizer which *disables* the speech network. The coin control trunk then counts dual-tone pulses from one or more deposited coins until the proper amount is entered. If a preset time is exceeded before the required amount is deposited, the coin control trunk aborts the collection effort and the call, places a recorded announcement on the line, and refunds the coins deposited so far. After the requested amount is deposited, the coin control trunk then applies -48 volt battery to the tip, with the ring open, to check for the presence of a coin. Admittedly the coin control trunk will be satisfied on the latter test if only one coin is present. At this point, while the money is in the coin hopper, it has not been collected. If answer supervision on the call is detected, the money is collected immediately after the call is completed. If no answer supervision on the call is detected, the money is refunded when the handset is replaced. Usually the collect or return function is delayed until the handset is replaced, but it *can* occur with the handset off-hook, and may do so in some CO's. The defense against fraud in the above scenario is that the speech network is disabled by the CO during the coin deposit interval, which precludes use of a tone generator held to the handset transmitter. Furthermore, the CO apparatus will not "listen" for coin pulses until it is ready for them, so an attempt to introduce coin tones through the handset transmitter prematurely will fail. An attempt to introduce coin tones late will also fail because the call has already been aborted following timeout. LCOT is similar to the above, with the exception that LCOT does NOT involve TSPS, but is provided through other CO coin control trunks. In addition, LCOT expects to collect only ONE coin, for which it not only counts tone pulses but explicitly makes a ground test (ring open, -48 V on tip) after each coin. Furthermore, LCOT then *collects* the coin on the spot, while the station is off-hook and the call is in progress. Some early LCOT apparatus did not count coin pulses, but merely tested for the presence of a coin; this was before inflation made the 5-minute LCOT interval more than a nickel in some areas. :-) It is rather difficult to commit fraud under the above conditions, unless one has access to the tip *and* ring of the coin station line - a condition against which precautions are usually taken. Mere access to one wire somewhere in the speech network, as from a pin poked through the transmitter, will not, to the best of my knowledge, facilitate any type of fraud with this coin station. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 || 716/773-1700 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 || 716/773-2488 ------------------------------ From: kris@tpki.UUCP (Kristian Koehntopp) Subject: Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco Date: 17 Apr 90 16:55:17 GMT Organization: TopPoint/ix Mailbox, Kiel, BRD In article <6204@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: > Remember that BTX, like all European videotex (not to be confused with > teletext or videotext) systems, does not speak normal ASCII. It uses > the European CEPT graphics display language, usually built into > videotex-ready television sets. Trying to talk to it without a > television set or other device containing a CEPT display translator is > doomed to failure. Though it is true that BTX uses the Europaen CEPT Graphics Standard, nearly no one uses TV sets or special BTX equipment for connection to the BTX System. In the last few years BTX-emulation-software for standard computers has been developed and is available by commercial and public-domain distributors. Complete BTX-Solutions are available, among others, for the IBM PC, the Commodore Amiga and the Atari ST. These "intelligent solutions" have many advantages to the "dumb decoder" solution: a modem already at hand can be used (*) and the advanced capabilities of a full-scale computer can be used to automatize the dialogue to the BTX System. BTX-Emulators usually have macro-capabilities, screen save-n-replay, hardcopy and some even have a powerful batch-processing language. Have you ever thought of writing a macro, which sends in 150,000 correct solutions of an "What is the brand name of the spinach with the 'blub'"-quiz? Well, a friend of mine did. The organizing company of this quiz was unable to download the resonses they got to their local machine per X.25 and instead decided to get a tape from German telecom. He got a special prize for "the most correct solutions". Hardware requirements for German BTX are fairly high: BTX offers more than one characterset displayed at once, with parts of some even rdefined and more than 2 colors per character. The color-palette is 16 fixed and 16-out-of-4096 at the same time at an effective resolution of sowewhat about 480 by 280 pixels, so you need either VGA, Amiga or Atari STE to get the full palette. As you can imagine, building up a screen with loads of graphics can be sloooooooooow. Characters can be two or three phase blinking, double height or width, hidden (shown, when "reveal" function-key is pressed), so you obviously you better have some cpu-seconds for decoding. Since BTX is so colorful, it contains 90% ads. The remaining 10% are chatting-lounges (of mostly sexual alignment) and the online phonebook of German telco. Not so much use at all, if you don't want to shop. This is also the reason, why BTX has not so many users as was expected by German telco. The development of BTX user figures was overestimanted by factor 5-10 by German telco. Hope my English is not that bad, this is my first posting in a foreign language, Kristian (*) German telco, the "Bundespost", offers an absolutely Low-Cost-Modem dedicated to communication with BTX. The infamous DBT-03 is a 1200/75 bps Modem with no intelligence at all. When switched on, it dials BTX and sends a hardware identification string, then goes transparent. If you have faster modems at home, which also have the capability of sending *ANY* desired identification instead of a built-in, why bothering with inferior equiptment? Kristian Koehntopp | kris@tpki.UUCP == ...!unido!tpki!kris Harmsstrasse 98 | FRG-2300 Kiel | ZERBERUS: KRIS@KBBS.ZER +49 431 676689 (v) | "There is more to it!" [Moderator's Note: Your command of English is good, and I thank you for writing and sharing with us. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 18:54:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Neudecker Subject: Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T In a recent posting from David Gast >The most interesting aspect of the entire meeting was that >their business cards did not have a phone number on them. Let me >repeat: AT&T's business cards did not include the phone number of >their office. Several of my friends who are sales reps for hardware and software companies keep two sets of business cards. The cards in the left pocket has the phone number and address and the cards in the right pocket do not. If they get trapped by a pest at a trade show the card from the right pocket is exchanged. If a hot sales lead comes along the cards comes out of the left pocket. Tom Neudecker Carnegie Mellon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #260 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23943; 18 Apr 90 5:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23119; 18 Apr 90 3:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20455; 18 Apr 90 2:43 CDT Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 1:37:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #261 BCC: Message-ID: <9004180137.ab19948@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Apr 90 01:37:19 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson File Recovery (was Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee) [Tom Neff] Telecom*USA Question [David Svoboda] MCI PrimeTime [SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu] LD Land Lines [SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu] AT&T Mail and GEIS QUIK-COMM Forge X.400 Link [psrc@pegasus.att.com] Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe [Skip Morris] Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Colin Plumb] Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Douglas Mason] Information and Equipment Needed [The Blade] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Neff Subject: File Recovery (was Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee) Date: 17 Apr 90 03:58:12 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff In article <6426@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Makes great advertising copy, but when I have been transmitting a >large file for an hour and suddenly the connection is broken (and the >hour's worth of time and money goes up in smoke), I really couldn't >care less whether it's digital, or tin cans and string. I just want to point out here, as a practical matter, that if you can arrange to use ZMODEM file transfer, the hour need not be wasted. ZMODEM has partial file recovery: you reestablish the connection and start sending the file again with the -r switch and ZMODEM picks up where it left off (after CRC'ing part or all of the file to make sure it's the same one). You lose only a few minutes that way. ZMODEM file transfer is definitely available for UNIX, VMS and DOS -- maybe for other environments too, I haven't kept up 100%. I am not defending inferior phone service. I'm just suggesting that as a user the best strategy is to be able to cope with outages. Chuck Forsberg (UUCP ...omen!caf or try Internet caf%omen@uunet.uu.net) can answer more authoritatively. I have no affiliation except as a satisfied customer. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:35:51 CDT From: David Svoboda Subject: Telecom*USA Question Several years ago I worked in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for the R&D department of a long distance and telemarketing company called Teleconnect. When I started there, the company was privately owned but went public soon after. When I left, they neglected to cancel my corporate long distance account. This continued for about two years, when I received in my bill a note that said that they had CHANGED their name to Telecom*USA. At that point they noticed my account and changed it over to a public account. I dropped them at that point. Now I hear that MCI has (merged/bought-out) Telecom*USA. And that Telecom*USA is based in Atlanta, GA. I seriously doubt that they would move their (big) corporate offices from Cedar Rapids to Atlanta if ownership were unchanged during the "name change". My question is; what is Telecom*USA exactly? Did they buy out Teleconnect back then, or was that actually a corporate name change? Is this a different company completely, or does the old Teleconnect have anything to do with this? -Dave Svoboda uunet!motcid!svoboda ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 1990 11:58:22 MDT From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: MCI PrimeTime MCI recently changed the hours of their discount PrimeTime plan to compete with AT&T's Reach Out America. The plan now starts at 5:00 pm weekdays instead of 7:00 pm. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 1990 12:21:23 MDT From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: LD Land Lines A friend wants to make some modem calls from Hawaii to the mainland and wants to use land lines to avoid the satellite delay. Is there any way to ensure that a specific LD call does not travel via satellite? Do any of the LD carriers not use satellites? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: psrc@pegasus.att.com Date: Tue Apr 17 15:26:22 EDT 1990 Subject: AT&T Mail and GEIS QUIK-COMM Forge X.400 Link (The following is the text of a public announcement; the author said I could send it out to the world. It's obviously aimed at AT&T Mail users, but I thought the information was of general interest to the Telecom Digest. Paul) AT&T and GE Information Services (GEIS) have interconnected their electronic mail services, allowing both companies' e-mail customers to exchange messages for the first time. AT&T Mail and GEIS's QUIK-COMM(TM) service have been interconnected using the international X.400 standard for connecting dissimilar e-mail systems. AT&T Mail NOW interconnects with thirteen major e-mail systems. We are the industry leader in providing domestic X.400 connectivity to our customers. For a complete list of commercial X.400 interconnections between AT&T Mail and other public service providers, refer to the AT&T Mail on-line help files and type: help admds. To address electronic mail messages to a GEIS QUIK-COMM(TM) subscriber, you need their X.400 address. The address includes: Country Code = US ADMD Name = Mark400 Personal Name = Recipient's name as registered on GEIS Organization = QUIKCOMM Organization Unit = Recipient's organiztion unit Following are some addressing examples: TO: mhs!mark400/pn=john_smith/o=quikcomm/ou=geis (Mark400 is a "gatename" assigned by AT&T Mail which includes a Country Code and an ADMD Name) OR TO: mhs/c=us/ad=mark400/pn=john_smith/o=quikcomm/ou=geis For more information on addressing GEIS QUIK-COMM(TM) subscribers, please contact the AT&T Customer Assistance Center: In the U.S. call 1-800-624-5672 and outside the U.S. call 201-668-6548. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 17:22:33 PDT From: "Skip" Subject: Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe The following story was in the Boston Globe a while back (I just got a chance to type it in). I am under the impression that making any use of information gained by listening in on a phone call is illegal. And since the Globe is a publishing business the printing of information gained by eavesdropping on crosstalk would seem to fall in this category. However since the Globe interviewed Kevin White about the incident it may be that the Globe could claim that the story is really the result of the interview, not just the listening in on a phone conversation. Anyone care to comment as to whether or not Mike Barnicle and the Globe violated any laws? /Skip Morris ------------------------ From the "Political Journal" on the Editorial Page (a while back). The Loner in Love With His Phone by Brian C. Mooney 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. ------------------- [Moderator's Note: We ran this story earlier, but without the questions you are posing. Anyone have any comments? PT] ------------------------------ From: ccplumb@lion.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 04:29:34 GMT In article <6056@accuvax.nwu.edu> kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: > Most coin stations today are DTF (Dial Tone First) and no >longer resemble a ground-start line. A DTF coin line behaves similar >to that of a loop-start line (it is actually more complex than that, >but this will suffice for the purpose of this discussion); i.e., a >ground on a DTF coin line will not facilitate any fraud. The Moderator refused an earlier submission giving details, but as of the last time I tried it (2.5 years ago), this was not true for the standard DTF, well-maintained, Ma Bell, touch-tone pay telephone in downtown Toronto I used. It may be a different trick, but I grounded something and made a "25 cent" local call using no coins. I learned it from friends of my brother who did it habitually at his high school. (I only did it that once when I was out of change, but the one time I tried it, it worked.) Paul Colley writes: >> I have a friend who can pulse-dial phone numbers by rapidly tapping >> the hang-up button. >> He claims, though I've never seen it, that this works at pay phones >> without having to pay. I didn't believe this, so I just tried it (the pay phone in question is (519) 746-9368, on the third floor of the University of Waterloo math building), and it doesn't seem to work. Calling 885-1211 by tapping it out on the switchhook (the university switchboard; it should give me a recording saying they open in the morning) waits for seven digits and gives me fast busy. So does dialling the same thing using the touch-tone pad. Misdialling the phone next to me (the funny looks from the janitors made me pause in the middle of a digit) gives me an intercept recording. ("The number you have dialled is not in service; please check the number and dial again.") Switching to a spectator-free location, calling from one pay phone (746-9500) to another next to it (746-9309), and again I got fast busy. Just to check, I called 411 and 1-800-555-1212 (the last to make sure I could dial '0' reasonably reliably) and got through fine. So as far as my experimentation can tell, there's no difference in the way tapping and touch-tones are handled. In article <6166@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >I would like to see him do this at pay phones. For one thing, why >bother? Use the TT pad; it works with or without coins being deposited >in dial tone first phones. The other problem concerns how the hook >switch is implemented in coin phones. To prevent (in the old days >before "real" dial tone first) fraud in the manner you describe, they >started using mercury switches instead of leaf contacts. The mercury >cannot possibly follow the speed required to pulse dial numbers with >the hook switch. Well, you can always come and watch me. The main giveaway is the loud hammering as I pound away on the switchhook very fast. But, despite your experience, the pay phones around here have sufficiently fast switches. (It is not even that difficult. Just tap as fast as you can, get full travel and don't lose count - it works fine.) Just another data point. -Colin ------------------------------ From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones Reply-To: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 11:37:54 GMT In article <6447@accuvax.nwu.edu> rider@pnet12.cts.com (Michael Fetzer) writes: I may be mistaken, but I think I've made the observation that cellular >phones are much cheaper to own and operate in the Pacific North West >(read: Portland, OR) than in California (read Sandi Eggo). When I was >up there (in Portland) a few weeks ago, I saw the basic cellular phone >for car installation on sale for less than 130 bucks. Down here, SD, >the cheapest I see is over 400. How can this be? Here in Western Michigan you can purchase the newer three-watt GE cellular phones for about $79 from most of the appliance stores. The catch that they and most everyone else uses is "service contracts." Around here and in most places, when you buy the phone you have to sign a contract with a local cellular service provider for anywhere from about 90 days to a year or more. In return, the cellular company kicks back as much as $300 to the appliance store, which uses that to bring the price of a $400 phone down to $100 or less. While a long contract can lock you into a bad deal, the shorter ones (ie: < 90 days) are worth the few hundred you save off the phone. Around here, the two "biggie" providers are Cellular One and Century Cellunet. Their rates are identical and suprisingly haven't changed since I first bought a cellular in 1986. Rates are $7.50 a month for basic service (no detail billing, etc) and $.00.35/minute peak and $0.15/minute off-peak for air-time. When I was in Ohio about a year ago their rates jumped from like $15 a month to like $25 with .45/.18 for airtime. What's it like in the "big cities"? Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | [Moderator's Note: Our two providers here are Ameritech (telco) and Cellular One (owned by SW Bell). Other than the occassional very sleazy and misleading promotion (virtual giveaway of phone by Fretters with an advance payment of $1000 to Ameritech for service), Ameritech generally is good. The monthly basic fee is $29.95, and the rates are in the 30/35 cent range for peak time, and the 20/23 cent range for off-peak. The 'Ten Cent Plan' costs $19.95 per month and allows off peak calls at 10 cents per minute, with peak minutes costing 65 cents. Cellular One has slightly lower airtime rates; but they nickle-and-dime customers with service charges and other fees. Off-peak time is very skimpy for both: 9 PM to 7 AM plus weekends. PT] ------------------------------ From: The Blade Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 23:05:08 PDT Subject: Information and Equipment Needed Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM I am in great need of the following information for starting a business: I need equipment to do the following -- I need hardware (non-digital), preferably used, that can process calls and bill them accordingly. The switch needs to be able to handle up to 100 calls at once (100 trunks) and it needs ONLY to be able to call INTRA-LATA (within the area code) numbers. I do not need equipment for long distance, only local. The switch also needs to handle billing, being able to print billing also. Here's what I want to happen: Dial the 950 port (as long as Bell allows); Enter subscriber code (i.e. such as 950 0488, 1022, 1033 etc..) After code verify give another dialtone; then subscriber will enter the seven digit (i.e. 234-1000) number. Then the system will complete the call, and start billing accordingly. I would like to do this as inexpensive as possible. People have been telling me that used equipment is the best bet. I would think so also, due to the fact I do not need any digital features (i.e. Feature groups). The equipment will be housed in NJ. Would you know if NJ Bell allows other companies to re-sell intra-lata service? I would think they must, under the provisions of the tarrifs. Do you know of any service that re-sells intra-lata service? [To Moderator: If you can post this, that would be fine also, or maybe you could direct me to someone who works with this type of equipment. I am in the process of setting this thing up, and ANY information is greatly appreciated. This has nothing to do with Hacking or Phreaking. I guess you could say I am using my Telcom experience and using it for good intentions. I can't really say why I'm doing this (you probably could figure it out) but that's why I'm trying to start it up, becuase its a good idea. I have financial backing, and again, any information is GREATLY appricated. Please respond.] Blade darkside.com [Moderator's Note: Are you *sure* this has nothing to do with Hacking or Phreaking? Do you think anyone reading this list would be smart enough to figure it out, or just me? No, I don't think telcos have to allow competition in the local community as of now. Perhaps one or more readers will respond directly to you and help you with your project. Why did you include the hacking/phreaking disclaimer in your message, anyway? If you reside in New Jersey, why do you correspond through a site in northern California? PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #261 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13161; 19 Apr 90 3:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27599; 19 Apr 90 2:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10551; 19 Apr 90 1:00 CDT Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 0:35:43 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #262 BCC: Message-ID: <9004190035.ab31382@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Apr 90 00:35:12 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 262 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Service and Rates in Hong Kong [John R. Covert] Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [Robert Michael Gutierrez] Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Randal Schwartz] Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 11:48:57 PDT From: "John R. Covert 18-Apr-1990 1436" Subject: Cellular Service and Rates in Hong Kong Cellular Service in Hong Kong is the most impressive example of how good the technology can be that I have ever seen. People in Hong Kong are in love with the phone, and it shows. Landline phones provide colony-wide unlimited service at an incredibly low price, prompting shops and restaurants to provide banks of phones for their customers to use as part of their service. This addiction to telephones has helped to make cellular service near-perfect in Hong Kong. There are three carriers: Hutchison Telephone: AMPS and TACS CSL (HongKong Telecom): TACS Pacific Link ETACS They provide service to every inch of the colony; while roaming on Hutchison during my week in Hong Kong my no-service light only came on in tunnels or in the subway. The phone worked every time I tried to use it, and there was not a single person who called me who failed to get through on the first try. While walking around the streets of Hong Kong, everywhere I turned I saw people talking on portables. In restaurants, there were always phones on many of the tables, and they were being used. While riding ferries to outlying islands, people (myself included) were making and receiving calls. Hutchison, the only carrier providing AMPS service, can provide roaming service to North American customers. CSL can provide service to UK customers. Details follow. AMPS roaming ------------ North American customers (and other people with AMPS phones) can roam with Hutchison Telephone at the following rates: HK$20 (US$2.56) per day Billing is via HK$2.50 (US$0.32) per minute American Express only. There are no roamer ports; you will be assigned a temporary local number which callers may use to reach you. You can be told your temporary number in advance. Customers of CanTel may make all their arrangements in advance by contacting CanTel customer service; the phone will work upon arrival. All other customers must present their phone at Hutchison Telephone's offices and sign an agreement prior to activation. At the time of my trip, Hutchison and NYNEX were involved in a joint venture, and I was able to make special arrangements. This required me to get NYNEX customer service to send Hutchison a FAX with the details of my phone and AMEX card, and I, too, was activated a few hours prior to my arrival. UK <-> Hong Kong Roaming ------------------------ Racal Vodafone and CSL Hong Kong Telephone have a roaming agreement (of sorts). It works (in both directions) as follows: UK subscribers going to Hong Kong will contact Mr. Foxwell at 0635 55 0000 x5516. He will obtain a Hong Kong number for you. You must take your phone to a service center to have it reprogrammed (unless you know how to do it yourself). This will cost about UKL25 (prices vary). (Apparently TACS switches cannot do number translation the way AMPS switches can -- my phone didn't have to be touched.) CSL will bill you through Racal Vodafone: Each Connection HK$500 (US$64, UKL37.35) Service charge HK$400/month (US$51.20, UKL31.90) prorated for time used. HK$1.50/minute (19", 11p) Hong Kong CSL subscribers going to the UK will contact Hilda Chan on 828-8492. No info on reprogramming charges. Racal Vodafone will bill you through CSL: Normal tariffs: UKL50 for the connection, UKL25/month (prorated), Call charges as normal. Based on a conversation with Cellnet, it appears that Cellnet customers in the U.K. do not have the option of roaming in Hong Kong, nor do Hutchison's TACS customers or Pacific Link's customers in Hong Kong have the option of roaming in the U.K. If this is not the case, an update would be appreciated. Comparison ---------- The AMPS prices from Hutchison can be compared with the TACS prices from CSL. The HK$500 connection charge is what really hurts UK visitors who are there for a short stay. My total bill for eight days was HK$576.54, US$74.53. That includes HK$160 in daily fees, HK$59.04 in IDDD charges, and HK$357.50 in airtime, 143 minutes. A U.K. visitor would have paid HK$500+(HK$400/30*8)+HK$59.04+HK$214.50 or HK$880.21, about US$112.70 or about UKL66.30. For longer visits, it begins to get more economical for a UK visitor; assuming four times the usage in a full month, I'd pay HK$600+HK$236+HK$1430 = HK$2266, compared to the UK visitors HK$500+HK$400+HK$236+HK$858 = HK$1994. Local Subcriber rates --------------------- Hutchison Telephone provides three rate plans for local subscribers: Plan Monthly Charge Free Extra Minutes A HK$100.00 (US$12.80) Nil HK$4.00 (US$0.51) B HK$450.00 (US$57.62) 100 HK$1.25 (US$0.16) C HK$900.00 (US$115.24) 600 HK$1.25 (US$0.16) Call Forwarding/Call Waiting/No Ans Xfr/Three-Way calling are each HK$25/month or HK$75 for all three. There is a HK$500 (US$32) connection fee if you purchase your phone from them (typical price for a portable was around HK$12,000 or US$1536). If you were to bring a phone into the country, you would have to provide proof that you had presented it to customs and would have to pay a HK$3500 (US$448) activation fee. CSL describes two rate plans: A. HK$400 (US$51) per month including three features. First 400 mins at HK$1.50 (19 cents). Additional time is HK$1.20 (15 cents). B. HK$400 with 75 mins of airtime but no system features. First 400 mins after the 75 included are HK$1.50. Additional time is HK$1.20 (15 cents). The initial connection is HK$500 (US$64). Pacific Link's plans and rates are similar to Hutchison's. The first two plans are identical; the heavy use plan is HK$600 with 250 minutes included. ------------------------------ From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service Date: 19 Apr 90 03:23:21 GMT Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez Organization: NASA ARC As promised, I said I would review cellular service for GTE Mobilnet in the San Francisco area after I got my first bill. My first bill was $117 and change. This, though, included two months of basic charges because GTE bills in advance. I signed up for the so-called Personal Club, which is a 1 year contract (and the contract specifically states that I am automatically signed up for successive 1 year contracts if I do _not_ send in a notice requesting that I do not want to continue ... you can bet the *registered* letter will be in the mail 2 months before it's up!). The 'Personal Club' knocks off $2/mo off Personal Basic service, and gives the custom calling features free, along with billing detail. Still, the daytime rate is the most expensive in the country (.90 cents/minute, 7am-7pm) except Los Angeles, which is the same. That's @ $23/month. The 'Business Club' rate is $40/mo, .45 cents/min daytime. Both offerings charge .20cents/min at night/weekends. John Higdon went through some of this in a previous posting. The bill itself is a standard telephone bill. I was charged Federal tax, but no state tax. No 911, Deaf Devices or Univeral (cheap service subsidy) taxes. Also, no FCC Access chages, even though I can call long distance. I was charged City tax, but Hayward (California) has no city tax. Forgot to ask about this... The first page shows totals in minutes used and dollars for each for Peak, Off-Peak, and Night ... but GTE has no night rate! Maybe something in the future? I racked up 2 hours off peak and 1/2 hour peak (a lot more than I expected!). The following pages are the billing detail. Times are in 'military' time (24 hour format). If somebody called you, it shows as a call to your cellular number. It shows the time called as MM:SS (minutes and seconds), but GTE bills in 1 minute increments. I assume they're using a standard billing service that other companies also use (some companies bill in 6 second increments). The 'City Called' for my phone shows up as Palo Alto, but Pac Bell shows it in their TOPS operator database as Oakland, and it shows as a toll call (calls to both celluar carriers are considered 'toll-free' from the celluar coverage area, basically all of the San Francisco LATA). The operators will quote a toll rate to you if you ask if it's a toll free call. None of this applies to BOC pay phones, as you're charged the toll rate outright. (John H ... do you have a copy of GTE's tariff or Pac Bell's??? Does it specifically exclude pay phones?) GTE will give you a 1 minute credit for a 'dropped call' if you call the same number back within 3 minutes, and is indicated on the bill with an asterik next to the call. For this to work, though, the called party has to answer on the callback. If you get a busy signal or no answer on the callback, you're charged for the call, then you have to note it and call GTE when you get your bill. This happened to me on this bill. This also works the other way when I called into a radio contest, and made it into the contest lines twice (!) (I didn't win, though). The first call was credited as a dropped call (showed up as MIN-0:00, AMOUNT-.00), and the 2nd once charged like usual. They don't charge for calling attempts to the 'choke' exchanges (415-478-XXXX and 408-575-XXXX in the Bay Area). GTE says they do not charge airtime until the called party answers the phone, but they will start charging if you let it ring more than 1 minute (average 11 rings). Poo-poo! This is probably for calls to places that don't return answer supervision (like 800-555-1212), so they have to charge one way or another, or they fail to get supervision for any other reason. Long distance is another can of worms. Of the 9 L.D. calls I made, 2 are for Directory Assistance (no, GTE does not give any 'free' D.A. calls, you get charges airtime + D.A. charges @ .25/each), 3 regular L.D. calls, and 4 for Mtn. View, California, a local call! Seems that NASA Ames new prefix (415-604-XXXX) is giving fits to everybody (including lots of COCOTS I've run across) including GTE, since it is the first N0X prefix in the Bay Area. They credited me for that. The 3 L.D. calls were to Upland (Rancho Cucomonga), California. 2 calls were made at 9pm & 10pm, on a Friday. The rate they charged was .31/first, and .20/addtl. AT&T's rate is .24/.16!!! Just what I need, a COCOT on my celluar phone! So much for L.D. on my cellular phone. I'll ask tomorrow if they admit to charging more than AT&T's rate. The service itself is only O.K. I use last years Panasonic transportable (the ??-950, the one that takes Matsushita camcorder batteries) and the Radio Shack 3db-gain rubber-duckie. Usually, in my car, I don't hook it up to an outside antenna (though one is mounted). Reception on the Panasonic is poor, though it seems to transmit well, and can get out of some solid concrete areas. The squelch circut is set very high, hence I tend have a lot of cutting out (flutter, or 'picket fencing'), and this sometimes can get annoying. The other called party can hear me fine, though. I seem to meet with the all channels busy tone (a reorder tone generated by the phone itself) when I initally power up or come back 'in service' (from a tunnel or BART [subway tunnels]). If I wait a minute, it's not a problem. I suspect this is because the phone seized the first available paging channel, though it most likely is not the closest, and fails on the handshake to open a channel. Then it re-scans for a stronger paging channel, and it makes it though on the next attempt. The handset of the Panasonic has a signal-strength meter, but I've learned not to trust it, since it's the paging channel it shows for, and not the actual channel you get assigned for the call until the call is set up and voice is cut through. Today, though, when I was calling Customer Service, I was dropped (disconnected). I was talking to the CSR, and then she could not hear me, but I could hear her fine. Then I came back in, but cut back out (for her) 20 seconds later. I then was outright dropped from the call. I didn't hear any base commands to increase power, or hear a termination command either, just complete silence. Do I suspect that I entered a cell that was 'maxed out' (no channels to allocate because of excessive calls)? This may be possible, even though I could hear her fine, the last cell I was being received was losing me, and could not crank up power because of the same channel in use somewhere else, or I just got too far from the cell and it lost me, period? I hope this is not a common occurance. Maybe some new channels need to be added to some exisiting cells sites for GTE. Ja ne. Robert Gutierrez/NASA Science Internet Network Operations. Moffett feild, California. ------------------------------ From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 13:16:37 GMT In article <6509@accuvax.nwu.edu>, douglas@ddsw1 (Douglas Mason) writes: | [Moderator's Note: Our two providers here are Ameritech (telco) and | Cellular One (owned by SW Bell). Other than the occassional very (Chicago area description followed) Portland, Oregon, GTE Mobilnet, 1-year contract at $15.00/month, $0.31/min prime (7am-7pm weekdays), $0.13/min non-prime; includes voice-mail/call-forwarding package; calls are billed for actual talk-time only (no pay for ring time). Cellular One in same coverage area is slightly higher, I'm told, and charges for air time (rings and no-answers), not talk time. Just another addicted cell user (dunno how I got along without it :-), 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 | ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones Date: 18 Apr 90 12:38:50 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Douglas Mason writes: > Around here and in most places, when you buy the phone you have to > sign a contract with a local cellular service provider for anywhere > from about 90 days to a year or more. In return, the cellular company > kicks back as much as $300 to the appliance store, which uses that to > bring the price of a $400 phone down to $100 or less. While a long > contract can lock you into a bad deal, the shorter ones (ie: < 90 > days) are worth the few hundred you save off the phone. The Pretty Useless Comedians in California put an end to that practice as a result of whining from independent service resellers. They claimed that the equipment giveaway deals were stealing all their business, since the ultra-low-appearing phone prices were attracting all the customers away from dealers who couldn't respond in kind. Now, when you go cellular phone shopping, you will see notices to the effect that the price of the phone is not dependent on service activation, but that service is available through [name of provider/affiliate]. This disclaimer is also spoken on all radio advertising for cellular phones. Oddly enough, I do believe the kickbacks are still in place. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #262 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14931; 19 Apr 90 4:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31136; 19 Apr 90 3:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27599; 19 Apr 90 2:06 CDT Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 1:33:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #263 BCC: Message-ID: <9004190133.ab28383@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Apr 90 01:33:12 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 263 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T [Julian Macassey] Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List [Chris Davies] Re: Telecom*USA Question [David Tamkin] Re: Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe [Evan Eickmeyer] Re: London Area Code Change [Joel B. Levin] Re: London Area Code Change [Carl Moore] Re: More Comments From A US Sprint Employee [Patricia O'connor] Re: Credit Card ID [W.L. Ware] Re: The Card [mperka@netxdev.dhl.com] Re: The Card [Peter Weiss] Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Kim Long] Re: DTMF and Cindi [Steve Hoffman] Re: Information and Equipment Needed [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T Date: 18 Apr 90 13:58:19 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <6501@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tn07+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Neudecker) writes: > Several of my friends who are sales reps for hardware and software > companies keep two sets of business cards. The cards in the left > pocket has the phone number and address and the cards in the right > pocket do not. If they get trapped by a pest at a trade show the card > from the right pocket is exchanged. If a hot sales lead comes along > the cards comes out of the left pocket. What I would like to know is how these sales bi-peds can tell the difference between a pest and a hot sales lead. It seems to me that most sales dweebs spend much time "qualifying" sales leads. They often get it wrong. In the early sixties a young boy from Kentucky walked into a Jaguar showroom in Manhattan. He was wearing jeans and was polite and rather shy. The salesman decided that he wasn't going to waste his time with this hick and ignored him. In the young man's jeans was all the cash he needed for a new Jaguar E Type. He made the money from making hit records - his name was Phil Everly. He later bought a Cadilac. 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: Chris Davies Subject: Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List Date: 18 Apr 90 14:06:20 GMT Reply-To: Chris Davies Organization: VisionWare Ltd., Leeds, UK > MINITEL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY >Location Number >United Kingdom ------------------- > +++ London 01-437-4393 > +++ London 01-439-4055 As from May 6th the 01-437-4393 number will become 081-437-4393. As from May 6th the 01-439-4055 number will become 081-439-4055. This is due to reorganisation of the London numbers, replacing 01 by either 081 or 071. Yes I'm sure (most of) you knew, but I thought I'd better remind you :-) Chris VISIONWARE LTD | UK: chris@vision.uucp JANET: chris%vision.uucp@ukc 57 Cardigan Lane | US: chris@vware.mn.org OTHER: chris@vision.co.uk LEEDS LS4 2LE | BANGNET: ...{backbone}!ukc!vision!chris England | VOICE: +44 532 788858 FAX: +44 532 304676 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Telecom*USA Question Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 12:08:12 CDT David Svoboda asked in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 261 | My question is; what is Telecom*USA exactly? Did they buy out Teleconnect | back then, or was that actually a corporate name change? Is this a | different company completely, or does the old Teleconnect have anything to | do with this? Telecom*USA is the name that came out of the merger of Teleconnect and Southern Net in the spring of 1989. I was already a customer of Teleconnect at the time, and all advertising, bills, and correspondence I've received have continued to come from Cedar Rapids. I'd never heard of Atlanta as its headquarters until the announcement about the MCI tender offer appeared in the Digest a few days ago. (I'd heard news items about the offer but they did not say where Telecom*USA was based.) Perhaps there are offices in Cedar Rapids to serve the area Teleconnect handled and in Atlanta for service to Southern Net's area? [I'm not positive of the spelling of Southern Net; there might have been no space or only one n.] David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us MCIMail:426-1818 GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer Subject: Re: Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe Date: 18 Apr 90 19:47:09 GMT Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California The point of this story is that people on here have been saying how interesting it is to hear other conversations sometimes . . . but we have to remember that X people could be listening to our conversation on any given phone call as well! Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer University of Southern California eickmeye@alcor.usc.edu Los Angeles, California ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 08:51:21 EDT Subject: Re: London Area Code Change As of a week ago, all three LD carriers I can try from home were correctly putting through calls to 011-44-81-964-xxxx. Sprint and MCI both correctly report errors if you use the invalid 71 city code, informing me that the "1" has been changed to "81" for the number I was calling(*). (Last time I reported Sprint just said invalid city or country code.) Sprint's recording is in its numbered series (85-93) and is spoken with an American accent, but it uses the term "city code". MCI's recording is spoken with a British accent but refers to the "area code". Hmm. AT&T continues to report as its error that "Due to the earthquake in the area you are calling, we are unable to complete your call." I am curious to know if AT&T nationwide is reporting this peculiar condition, or if only we in the northeast are getting hearing about it. /JBL (*)Of course this is not officially true till May. Nets: levin@bbn.com Pots: (617)873-3463 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 20:48:35 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: London Area Code Change (TELECOM readers: the number used here, which has appeared previously in the Digest, is an office which is not answered after hours, and it thus was OK to do the following at a ghastly hour for the UK.) I tried calling the 941-2564 London-area number (U.K.) tonight various ways. Apparently both the old city code 1 and the new code 81 (for outer London) are currently working. (Inner London will become 71, with 1 being discontinued.) My home phone defaults to AT&T. 011-44-1 and 011-44-81 were OK (got ringing signal in UK). 011-44-71 got recording; I got (twice) "Due to circumstances beyond our control, your call cannot be completed. Please try again in 20 minutes; you will not be billed for this call." followed by (twice) "Your call cannot be completed at this time in the country you are calling. Please try your call later." 10222-011-44-1 and 10222-011-44-81 were OK, as above. 10222-011-44-71 also reached the UK, judging from the accent in the recording: "The London area code 1 has been changed to 81 [' eight one '] for the number you have dialed. Please redial, replacing 441 with 4481." An unusual (to me) thing here was that I got this message 2 times; i.e., I started off during the message, then got the message one whole time, then the message cycled back again, and was cut off just a little after I reached my starting point! AT&T seems to be "smart" enough to catch the (in this case) incorrect 71 city code at this end. MCI is sending the call thru to UK. ------------------------------ From: Patricia O'connor Subject: Re: More Comments From A US Sprint Employee Date: 16 Apr 90 19:15:12 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA >Also, long distance calls made today cost you on average 40% less than >they did six years ago. Maybe you should ask AT&T to give you the >service and higher rates that you had six years ago if that's what you >want. Our anonymous angry Sprint employee neglected to mention that AT&T was heavily subsidizing local residence telephone service six years ago, and to lessening degrees for four years thereafter - something Sprint and MCI did not have to build into their rates. It was an integral part of the universal service concept that everyone should be able to afford to have a telephone in their home. Prices were kept low by transferring revenues from AT&T long distance to local companies. Patricia O'connor - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!sun!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Patricia.O'connor INTERNET: Patricia.O'connor@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 19 Apr 90 00:29:27 GMT Reply-To: ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.rit.edu!wlw2286@uunet.uu.net Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York >In article <6351@accuvax.nwu.edu> glaser@starch.enet.dec.com (Steve >Glaser) writes: >>you can can follow their instructions to the letter and give >>them any random phone number you feel like On a similar note, here in Rochester when you buy things at large department stores, with a check, they call DA to verify your phone #. Unfortunatly mine is unlesited, and this inevitably causes a major scene. I usually just tell them I can take my business elsewhere, AND get better service ;) *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: The Card Date: 19 Apr 90 00:51:43 GMT Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va. In article <6441@accuvax.nwu.edu> PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter Weiss) writes: >Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to >emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)? [Moderator's Note: I can't imagine anyone giving an iota what the sales clerk 'requires'. The reason for both numbers being present is that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing number and pin. PT] I took the question to mean, "Why is the calling card number *embossed*?", not why is the calling card number present on The Card. Since the number is embossed, it is likely to show up on imprints made of The Card, spreading calling card numbers (or their base phone number) that many people would like to keep private. Has anyone griped about this to AT&T? ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 18 Apr 1990 07:22:59 EDT From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: The Card In article <6482@accuvax.nwu.edu>, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) says: >I assume you are asking "as opposed to just printing it on the card". >That would take another pass through another machine, and then the >surface of the card would have to be protected in some way to keep the >printing from deteriorating in the harsh environment of the typical >wallet or purse. Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and interestingly enough, on the obverse side, they did EXACTLY that with the International C.C. number! i.e., printed the numbers (though slightly raised, but certainly not embossed). That print does not seemed protected. Pete ------------------------------ From: Kim Long Subject: Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective Date: 18 Apr 90 22:43:46 GMT Reply-To: Kim Long Organization: University of Maryland, College Park One evening very late, I received a series of disturbing calls. The next day I talked to the phone company about what I could do. My area recently instutited caller-id and so there were several options I could choose, rather than change my phone number. 1) Buy the Caller ID equipment and install it on my phone. Monthly charge for service and initial outlay for the equipment. 2) Call Trace: Dial a two digit code after the caller hangs up and you will hear a recorded message telling you the call was traced and logged. $1 charge per trace, only charged if you have a "completed" trace. Caller-ID has not been installed in all areas here so I was warned it may not work, yet. 3) Call Block: Enter a four digit code after the call is completed and the number is blocked forever. A $4 charge per month. I don't know if this goes up if you block multiple numbers or not. Also, this wouldn't work if the person originating the call didn't have Caller-ID in their area. klong ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 16:07:56 PDT From: Subject: Re: DTMF and Cindi Peter Holsberg asks, in TCD #244, about using DTMF with a Cindi system. Peter, you might want to contact Cindi's manufacturer, Genesis (aka VCS), at 916-632-3232. Steve Hoffman "hoffman@vox.enet.dec.com" ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Information and Equipment Needed Date: 18 Apr 90 16:17:27 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon The Blade writes: > I need hardware (non-digital), preferably used, that can process calls > and bill them accordingly. The switch needs to be able to handle up > to 100 calls at once (100 trunks) and it needs ONLY to be able to call > INTRA-LATA (within the area code) numbers. I do not need equipment > for long distance, only local. The switch also needs to handle > billing, being able to print billing also. Something this size to do what you describe later in your article will probably end up being digital. Other than very small systems, where digital speech is not practical, everything with any capability at all will use digital speech. The only exception that comes to mind would be some old crossbar equipment with major electronic add-ons. Even if you could find such a beast, housing it would be a major concern. None of the analog electronic switches that you might find would have the physical capacity. Of course, you might be able to wait in back of my CO when they toss the 1ESS in the trash :-) Be sure you don't get hit in the head by the crossbar as it comes sailing out as well. > Do you know of any service that re-sells intra-lata service? A company call "Centex" resells intra-LATA service in the Bay Area. As you might imagine from the name, it's done by reselling CENTREX lines and then using the ARS capabilities of CENTREX to provide both intra and inter-LATA long distance service. They use a combination of WATS, FXs, and a host of carriers to accomplish this. This is currently the only way that I am aware of that provides for reselling intra-LATA service legitimately in California. Other states, of course, may vary. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #263 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16821; 19 Apr 90 5:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31003; 19 Apr 90 4:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31136; 19 Apr 90 3:07 CDT Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 2:03:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #264 BCC: Message-ID: <9004190203.ab06178@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Apr 90 02:02:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 264 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number [Kee Hinckley] Receiving German Teletext Into a PC [Joseph C. Pistritto] Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [Joseph C. Pistritto] ==>Appeals Court Orders Seized Computer Returned [Clarinet]<== NOT AVAILABLE Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Nigel Allen] (SEE NOTES) Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? [Nigel Allen] Cellular Phone Service in Canada [Marcel D. Mongeon] Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30 [John R. Covert] "Mileage" Charge Question [John Parsons] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number Organization: asi Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 00:27:15 GMT This weekend I got an automated call from some company offering a list of companies which would give me credit if I had trouble getting same. My policy on those calls is to tell them that I will never do business with any company that uses automated calling. I usually do that either when they ask for info in the call (in which case I'm sure my comments just get ignored) or by calling the number they give and telling them there. This time however, I don't seem to have that option, at least not cheaply. The return number they gave was a 900 number with a $19.95 usage fee. I called the operator and asked her how to get the address associated with a 900 number. She said that I could call 900 information, but that they wouldn't give it to me. I called 900 information and discovered that "they" was a recording of all the 900 numbers (*that's* an information service?). So. How do I go about finding the address associated with a 900 number? The company info, for what it's worth: Family Shoppers Union Credit Card Program 1-900-741-GOLD (4653) $19.95 | Alphalpha Software, Inc. | Voice/Fax: 617/646-7703 | Home: 617/641-3805 | | 148 Scituate St. | Smart fax, dial number. | | | Arlington, MA 02174 | Dumb fax, dial number, | BBS: 617/641-3722 | | nazgul@alphalpha.com | wait for ring, press 3. | 300/1200/2400 baud | ------------------------------ Subject: Receiving German Teletext Into a PC Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 10:16:58 MESZ From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" Does anyone know of an interface device to pick off the Teletext signals that are sent over most European television channels and input them to a PC? I have a decoder in my television, but I thought it would be neat to store the teletext info on my PC for searching, etc. Joseph C. Pistritto (jcp@brl.mil -or- cgch!bpistr@mcsun.eu.net) Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland Tel: +41 61 697 6155 (work) +41 61 692 1728 (home) GMT+2hrs! ------------------------------ Subject: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 11:19:23 MESZ From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" My Panasonic do-everything answering machine has four settings for length of message, Fixed (1 minute), VOX, and the two I don't understand, CPC1 and CPC2. When I used this machine on a 5Xbar exchange, I experimented and found that CPC2 gave the best performance for always ending the recording when the caller hung up. CPC1 didn't work at all, and the VOX mode often recorded several seconds of 'if you wish to place a call, please hang up...' before ending the tape. In the manual it says that the CPC settings are for 'Calling Party Disconnect which is provided by some exchanges'. What is this? Reverse battery perhaps? And why are there TWO types of algorithms? Incidentally, now that I live in Europe, neither of the CPC's seems to work reliably ... What kind of Disconnect supervision (if any) is returned by modern exchanges over here (Switzerland). I belive the equipment we use is made by Siemans. Joseph C. Pistritto (jcp@brl.mil -or- cgch!bpistr@mcsun.eu.net) Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland Tel: +41 61 697 6155 (work) +41 61 692 1728 (home) GMT+2hrs! ------------------------------ (Appeals Court Rules on Computer Seizure) THIS ARTICLE NO LONGER AVAILABLE. IT WAS A COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE SENT TO THE DIGEST BY AN ANONYMOUS PERSON. BRAD TEMPLETON, OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT COMPLAINED AND ASKED THAT IT BE REMOVED. SEE ISSUE 274 LATER IN THIS FILE FOR SPECIFICS. CLARINET OWNED THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WHICH APPEARED IN ONE OF THEIR NEWS GROUPS. ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 0:48:00 EST Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground In a message of <11 Apr 90 12:16:49>, williams@cs.umass.edu writes: >Vandalizing phones seems to be a national sport in Holland - but >that's another article. Trying to find a functional phone is a city >can be very difficult. This is why, when I'm feeling conscientious (or obsessive), I write down the number of vandalized or otherwise non-functional pay telephones, and report them to the telephone company's repair service. Someone may need the pay phone in an emergency, and if I don't report the out-of-service pay phone, nobody else will until a telco employee visits a month later to empty the coin box. There are no COCOTs (non-telco pay phones) in Canada yet, so I don't have any horror stories about trying to get in touch with the owners of COCOTs to ask them to fix their phones. As I understand it, COCOTs tend to be located indoors, and hence are probably less likely to be vandalized than ones on streetcorners. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canremote.uucp 52 Manchester Avenue Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 voice: (416) 535-8916 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ont. (1:250/438) Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST Internet: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 3:06:00 EST Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? watcher@darkside.com (the Watcher) writes: > 511 would be an ideal replacement for the "555-1212" used to get > information in another area code (ie, 1-617-511 for eastern MA > information) danji@cdbnewse.att.com (Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM) writes: >Why not 411: 1-617-411 ? At one point, long distance operators used to dial directory assistance calls as (area code) + (city code, sometimes) + 131. Similarly, if the assistance of an operator at the distant end of the phone call (an "inwards operator") was needed to complete the call, it would be dialled as (area code) + (city code, sometimes) + 121. I'm not sure whether 141, 151, etc. were meaningful in this context. In Northwestel's operating territory (the Yukon, the western half of the Northwest Territories, parts of northern British Columbia), 511 was the number you called to send a telegram, and 811 was the company's business office. The three-digit number for the telegraph office requires some explanation. Telecommunications service in Northwestel's operating territory used to be provided by CN Telecommunications, the telecommunications division of the Canadian National Railway Company. CN Telecommunications also provided telegraph and telex service in the rest of Canada. (Subsequently, CN Telecommunications spun off Northwestel to take over its northern Canada operations and Terra Nova Telecommunications to take over its Newfoundland operations. The remaining company was merged with Canadian Pacific's telecommunications division to form CNCP Telecommunications. Northwestel was eventually purchased by BCE Inc., the holding company that owns Bell Canada and half of Northern Telecom Ltd.) * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ont. (1:250/438) MaS Relayer v1.00.00 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST Internet: nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org UUCP: ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Cellular Phone Service in Canada Date: 19 Apr 90 01:13:54 GMT Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. Recently, there has been a lot of traffic on the subject of Cellular Phone Rates and the wide variation in service levels between different clellular carriers. I thought that it might be interesting to give this group the view from Canada. Having travelled in the United States with my cellular phone and also in Canada, I have found the service levels to be far superior in Canada (and this isn't just a lot of patriotic nonsense!) Read on.... In Canada there are essentially only two nationwide cellular carriers: The land-line telephone company (approximately 11 across the country although there are a few dominant companies like Bell Canada which provides all service in Ontario and Quebec) and the other cellular company: Cantel. I am a subscriber to the latter and I would like to tell you what my service gets me. Cantel has a nationwide network. Obviously the network doesn't extend into very sparsley settled areas of the country (at least yet!). However, most major cities across the country are now covered and in certain provinces extensive parts of those provinces. For example, in Ontario and Quebec, Cantel provides *continuous* service from Windsor (next door to Detroit) through to Quebec city in the east (about as far away from Detroit as New York city is!). To the north the coverage reaches up to Sudbury (look it up on a map) with continous coverage along all the major highways and pretty good coverage along the lesser travelled areas. WHen I say continuous, I mean that you can start a call in Windsor and you won't have any drop outs in the call all the way to Quebec (barring the usual gremlins). If the area of coverage isn't surprising enough, then the call following feature might grab your attention. If you are on the Cantel system *ANYWHERE* in the country where service is provided, the call to your local number will find you without you having to punch in any follow me codes in the out-of-town city. The technological implication is somewhat staggering - every time a call is made every cell in the country can conceivably put out a page for the phone in question! (Although I haven't verified this with Cantel, I think that they are starting to use the registration system which is part of the cellular protocol.) Phone rates on Cantel are extremely reasonable 50 cents per minute for the first 50 or 100 then 35 then 25 cents (There are actually a number of different plans which include the base monthly rate and packages of minutes so it is difficult to precicisely give details.) And remember these are Canadian cents! Within Canada when in an out-of-town city there are no roaming charges other than the obvious long distance charges if you call back to your home district. There are ROAM numbers all throughout the system but these are little used as the normal number can always get you in the country. Then I go to the United States; (Minneapolis Minnesota) to be exact. I notice from my roaming guide that there is service in both Minneapolis and Rochester. Since the town I am going to is half way between on the major road between them, I figure there should be no problem with service so I take my portable. Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed when 20 miles out of MSP, the phone goes dead... not part of the service area! I figure that this is because Minnesota is a back water. Then I travel from Detroit to Chicago the next month and its tyhe same darn thing. No problem in the major cities, but get too far out of town and BANG -- no service. How do you guys live with it? Of course, the big surprise was waiting for me on my next bills when I get the roaming charges!! Have you thought about complaining to the FCC about what is happening in Cellular service? After all, how could the Canadians be beating you at something as simple as this?? (Lots of :-)'s and ;-)'s ) ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 12:08:12 PDT From: "John R. Covert 18-Apr-1990 1450" Subject: Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30 As an owner of a Nokia P-30 and a former owner of a Radio Shack CT-300 (the 666 channel version of the CT-301), as well as the service manuals for both of them, I can provide facts: >But [the setup code] may not be exactly the same. A Mobira saleperson I >ran into said that the Radio-Shack unit is not a standard Nokia/Mobira >model, though it's close. It's very close. The RS CT-300/301 and the Nokia P-30 are made in the same plant in Korea. And the code for going into setup mode is the same in all three, and involves the original Radio Shack catalog number for the CT-300. >But to do most of the interesting ops, the R-S phone has to be put >into a special "local" mode by grounding a pin on the battery pack >with a certain resistance, Nope. Just has to be shorted, and this can be done with the battery pack installed. >[Moderator's Note: Actually, in the Radio Shack CT-301, which is the >model you are referring to, the 'local mode' is entered through a very >simple entry directly on the keypad. _Actually_, Patrick, local mode does require the ground. The mode you are referring to only allows you to program the phone, not to do other test operations available in local mode, such as taking signal strength readings on specific cells' setup channels (which I often provide to my carrier's engineering department when complaining about service problems). Both the RS and Nokia maintenance manuals are identical except for the cover and the parts list at the end (different parts numbers for the grey vs. black case, the keypads, and the battery pack and charger), and both of them fully document setup and local mode. The RS maintenance manual costs $16, but the Nokia manual costs $30. /john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 13:07:23 mdt From: John Parsons Subject: "Mileage" Charge Question I'm building a house in a small development 4 miles outside the present city limits, and recently asked US West about initializing phone service. I was told that in addition to the usual one-time connection fees, there would be a one-time "mileage" charge of $200 for the first line (already paid by the developer). I wasn't too surprised, since I know it costs $$$ to run new cable. But when I was told that there would be an additional $450 fee for _each_ additional line, I nearly bruised my jaw on the desktop. I've lived in the city all my life. How do these fees compare to other rural areas? Thanks, John Parsons ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #264 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01816; 20 Apr 90 2:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17512; 20 Apr 90 0:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29289; 19 Apr 90 23:21 CDT Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 23:21:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #266 BCC: Message-ID: <9004192321.ab19890@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Apr 90 23:20:53 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 266 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: London Area Code Change [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: London Area Code Change [John Pope] Another Area Code for New York City? [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Phone Replacement [Daniel Senie] Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List [Lang Zerner] Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries [Dave Levenson] Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [John Higdon] Re: More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing [Karl Denninger] Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number [Skip Morris] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 09:10:02 PDT From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: London Area Code Change Reply-To: jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) Concerning dialing U.K. city code 71 via ATT, Joel Levin writes: >AT&T continues to report as its error that "Due to the earthquake in >the area you are calling, we are unable to complete your call." I am >curious to know if AT&T nationwide is reporting this peculiar >condition, or if only we in the northeast are getting hearing about >it. Here San Francisco, dialing 011-44-71-974-0000# gets me the "Due to the earthquake..." message too. Using city code 81 instead of 71 gives me something like "Your international call cannot be completed as dialed...." which is the same message I get if I use city code 1, presumably because 974-0000 is not a valid number. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com ------------------------------ From: john pope Subject: Re: London Area Code Change Date: 19 Apr 90 14:30:40 GMT Reply-To: john pope Organization: British Telecom Research Labs I'll probably be lynched for sticking my head up but here goes: On this side of the pond there's no problem dialing either (0)1-254-xxxx or (0)71-254-xxxx, and similarly (0)1-876-xxxx or (0)81-876-xxxx From the provinces. I recently tried from Morocco and not only could I not get a UK no., I could not get any (correct) number apart from some obscure Moroccon banque - it was much easier to drive the 80km/50miles to confirm the flight! Perhaps the problem is at your end (some numbers, ie. the unallocated new numbers, will be invalid). There is at least one conversion programme I know of which tells you the new number. If you haven't seen it already and I'm permitted to send it, I will be happy to do so. Perhaps then again I shouldn't have opened my news editor (especially considering who I work for). John Pope e-mail jpope@axion.bt.co.uk (...mcvax!ukc!axion!jpope) 'phone UK +44 473 646651 Royal Mail RT3114, BTRL Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH, Suffolk, UK in person Room G24b SSTF ------------------------------ From: S M Krieger Subject: Another Area Code for New York City? Date: 19 Apr 90 12:58:12 GMT Organization: Summit NJ I just heard on the news this morning that New York City will need a third area code in three years (the area code they mentioned was 917, but I thought that was already assigned?). Despite the splitting off of Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens into the 718 area code five years ago, the increase in telephone numbers due to mobile phones and FAX machines is causing what is now 212 (Manhattan and the Bronx) to run out of central office codes. The specifics of the split have not yet been determined. According to the news item, it could be as simple as just moving the Bronx to the new area code, or having both area codes serve the same area, with the new area code assigned to FAX machine and mobile phone numbers. Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk ------------------------------ From: Daniel Senie Subject: Re: Phone Replacement Date: 17 Apr 90 22:13:16 GMT Reply-To: Daniel Senie Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc. Having the misfortune to have dealt with four party service, I think I can add something to this discussion. You are forbidden from hooking up a phone to the line. BUT: You are allowed to use your own phone. The TELCO will (for a fee, I believe) alter your telephone for four party service. Note that EACH phone on a four party service is wired differently from the other three. We did the wiring ourselves, and had no trouble. Since the phone was rented from AT&T, it went back and that ended that. Since AT&T is no longer connected to the local TELCO, the local folk got no report. If you want additional phones in the house, you can pull the appropriate wires so the bell doesn't ring. A word of caution: DO NOT use electronic based phones. You need to be able to get at the wiring to make the phone behave for the four party service. Failure to do this will result in either no ringing or ringing when any of the parties gets a call. ALSO, never connect an answering machine to a party line. Someone did this on our party line once. A quick call to the telephone company yielded a man with a truck to CLIP THE WIRE to the offending house. Daniel Senie UUCP: uunet!lectroid!dts Stratus Computer, Inc. ARPA: dts@lectroid.sw.stratus.com 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 18:24:32 PDT From: Lang Zerner Subject: Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List Organization: The Great Escape, Inc. In article <6439@accuvax.nwu.edu> nkraft@pnet01.cts.com writes: >Okay, now that we have the MINITEL phone number lists, what do we do >with them? All I get when I call is a # prompt that does nothing. Am I >missing something (obviously, since I don't even really know what >MINITEL is). There is a free Minitel front end available for users of IBM PC, AT and compatible machines which I have just obtained from a local BBS. I will tar it and send it off to our moderator unless he requests otherwise. A Macintosh front end may also be available. The only voice contact number I have for Minitel (in the US) is 914/694-6266. I've tried the front end. Minitel is a no-minimum service redistributor. When you first log in, the system gets contact and credit card info from you and gives you a temporary user ID and password (permanent ID and password are mailed to you). There is an index of available services with rates set by the individual providers. You pay only for the services you use. There is no charge for examining the index of services. Naturally, you are responsible for the telco charges for connection to the Minitel system. Like Prodigy, before Minitel will provide your temp ID and password, you are walked through an on-screen agreement which does its best to keep Minitel out of trouble. You must type the word AGREE to get past the last screen of the agreement or you are logged out of the system. Unlike Prodigy, there is no minimum monthly fee; on the other hand, there is no limit to what you can spend. I did not have a chance to browse the service index, so I can't tell you much more. The front-end system is a little bit clumsy to use at first, but it took me only a few minutes to grow accustomed to its little quirks. Be seeing you... Lang Zerner ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries Date: 20 Apr 90 03:48:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <6495@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington. edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: >And is there some reason why people in Minnesota want to call there? >(Is Mayotte possibly out in the middle of Lake Superior?) It's actually out in the middle of Lake Wobegon, isn't it? 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground Date: 19 Apr 90 10:18:36 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org writes: > There are no COCOTs (non-telco pay phones) in Canada yet, so I don't > have any horror stories about trying to get in touch with the owners > of COCOTs to ask them to fix their phones. As I understand it, COCOTs > tend to be located indoors, and hence are probably less likely to be > vandalized than ones on streetcorners. Sorry to report that the distribution of COCOTs relating to location is similar to BOC phones. In other words, there are plenty of COCOTs located in outdoor locations. One of the spotting techniques is to look for funky walk-up enclosures. There is, however, a greater percentage of COCOTs vandalized, for reasons that should be obvious. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing Reply-To: Karl Denninger Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 16:14:03 GMT In article <6499@accuvax.nwu.edu> kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: Not to argue with Larry, but his description is in conflict with that I have experienced around the country; including Michigan, Illinois, Florida, and elsewhere. > After ACTS makes the announcement as to the amount of the coin >deposit, the coin control trunk places +48 V (*positive* battery) on >the ring side of the line, while connecting ground to the tip. This >action enables the totalizer for readout, and also operates the "B" >relay in the totalizer which *disables* the speech network. The coin >control trunk then counts dual-tone pulses from one or more deposited >coins until the proper amount is entered. This is not in line with my experience. Try it in your area of the country; after the announcement, blow into the mouthpiece. I've always been able to hear sidetone (the echo of your noise), which tells you the voice circuit is quite open! If it wasn't, how would you hear the recorded announcement? Granted, the "mic" side wouldn't have to be open, but it always has been in my experience. The only exceptions, in the last five to seven years, have been in GTE-served places that don't complete the "mic" circuit until you deposit coins. Those are real annoying, as your called party often hangs up before you can finish depositing the local-call money ("Hello.... hello? Click!") and leaves you with a call you paid for but didn't get any utility from. >If a preset time is exceeded before the required amount is deposited, >the coin control trunk aborts the collection effort and the call, >places a recorded announcement on the line, and refunds the coins >deposited so far. This is also not in line with my experience. In my experience (which occurs when I'm short of change!) after a short delay I'll get a recording which says something to the effect of "deposit thirty more cents for the first three minutes please", followed about fifteen seconds later by a (live) operator who will repeat the request. You can then say "I don't got it" and change the billing to credit-card or collect (the operator then refunds the already-collected money you had inserted, presumably by manipulating the ring/tip voltages to tell the phone to give back the cash). >At this point, while the money is in the coin hopper, it has not been >collected. If answer supervision on the call is detected, the money >is collected immediately after the call is completed. If no answer >supervision on the call is detected, the money is refunded when the >handset is replaced. Usually the collect or return function is >delayed until the handset is replaced, but it *can* occur with the >handset off-hook, and may do so in some CO's. It usually is delayed. The only exception I've seen is if you go "overtime", in which case the CO will collect the funds you have already deposited just prior to the (computer) voice coming on the line to ask for more money. > The defense against fraud in the above scenario is that the >speech network is disabled by the CO during the coin deposit interval, >which precludes use of a tone generator held to the handset >transmitter. Again, not in my experience. The speech circuit is muted DURING the deposit of coins, presumably to prevent you from taping the coin sounds locally. But that muting doesn't occur until you actually deposit the coin into the slot, and un-mutes immediately after the tones are sent over the line. You >can< hear them nonetheless, although the level is low enough to be useless for anything other than confirming that the coin didn't get stuck. That doesn't stop someone from calling one pay phone from another and taping from the >second< phone's handset. >Furthermore, the CO apparatus will not "listen" for coin >pulses until it is ready for them, so an attempt to introduce coin >tones through the handset transmitter prematurely will fail. Correct. >An attempt to introduce coin tones late will also fail because the call >has already been aborted following timeout. Actually, you usually are connected to a real live operator at that point, so attempting to introduce coin tones to defraud late will probably bring the blue-and-red lighted cars to your location rather quickly -- and you will then get what you deserve. :-) > It is rather difficult to commit fraud under the above >conditions, unless one has access to the tip *and* ring of the coin >station line - a condition against which precautions are usually >taken. Mere access to one wire somewhere in the speech network, as >from a pin poked through the transmitter, will not, to the best of my >knowledge, facilitate any type of fraud with this coin station. I've never seen one of these coin stations you have described. In my travels, which included Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, and many other states, all DTF (dial tone first) phones operated by a Bell phone company behaved exactly as I have described above -- both rotary and touch tone units. The only exceptions have been COCOTs and GTE-served units, which are often real strange (and skilled at collecting money and delivering NOTHING to the caller). Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 08:03:30 PDT From: "Skip, @BUO/E54, DTN 249-4704" Subject: Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number >This weekend I got an automated call from some company offering a list >of companies which would give me credit if I had trouble getting same. >The return number they gave was a 900 number with a $19.95 usage fee. >So. How do I go about finding the address associated with a 900 number? What I would do is to: 1. Call the 900 number, ask to speak to a supervisor, and inform them exactly why you don't intend to do business with them, and additionally you don't intend to pay for this call. (Get the name of the supervisor too.) 2. When the phone bill comes refuse to pay that portion of the bill that contains the charge for the 900 call. The phone company will simply report the payment as "uncollectable" to the 900 service. If the 900 service sends you a bill (since the phone company couldn't collect), refuse to pay it on the grounds you didn't receive or make use of the service. /Skip ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #266 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02229; 20 Apr 90 2:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17512; 20 Apr 90 0:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29289; 19 Apr 90 23:21 CDT Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 22:47:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #265 BCC: Message-ID: <9004192247.ab14450@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Apr 90 22:45:54 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 265 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments [via Steve Elias] Yet Another Sprint Comment [Joel B. Levin] Local Subsidies For LD Carriers [via Steve Elias] Symposium: Broadband Fiber to the Home and Office [Jane M. Fraser] Special Test Numbers [Joel B. Levin] ATT Billing via Local Telcos [David Barts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 08:21:39 -0400 From: Steve Elias [Hhere's a rather long response from our Sprint pal. He uses some terminology below (PDD for one) that I don't understand. eli] ---- begin forwarded (and slightly edited) text --- It certainly would make sense that ATT should keep up with its competition and do what's best for their customer base. Had ATT been proactively attending to these all important customers, making sure that they were correctly suited with the proper products, there really wouldn't have been a need for the largest customer in the country, the Federal Government to even think about rebidding to redesign its antiquated telephone network. (The FTS contract was the largest non-military contract ever awarded by the Federal Government). Honestly, it is absolutely astonishing that this actually happened. I can assure you that Sprint was not chosen because we were the lowest bidder (we weren't). You would not believe the number of banded circuits, a truly outdated product, which still exist out there. I personally consider this to be a serious deficiency in the area of service. In response to your statements concerning your test calls, I cannot speak for MCI, (although I am sure that they are using digital). I can assure you that the entire US Sprint network is entirely digital. I am sure that there are pockets of accessibility where we utilize the facilities of other providers (MCI, AT&T, Lightnet)? Canton, NC may very well be one of those. I know that Charleston, WV is one until we put in our own point of prescence. We are in the phase of fine tuning the domestic network and I admit, during the past five years we have not been able to amass the equivalent amount of route endpoints (central office termination points) that ATT has amassed over the last 100 years. But we're working on it. You [Mr. Higdon] stated that call setup time was consistently three times that of ATT for both MCI and Sprint. I would have conceded this without an argument two or three years ago but at present I have a real hard time accepting it -- unless something is dreadfully wrong. I am sure that we are originating and terminating in all likelihood through a tandemed arrangement with the local telcos at both ends simply because the number of central office specific termination points we have to date is very limited. In other words, you are probably going through anywhere from three to eight central offices in the local networks on both ends during the course of your call. (I know specifically of a circuit in Houston that does in fact go thru eight c.o's at 1.544mbs before getting to the customer). This of course adds to increased call setup time as well as degraded line quality at times. But we're working on these situations and even so, the overall advantage that ATT has over us, nationwide, according to the PDD tests that are run every month, is less than one second for 10333 dialup access. PDD tests that have been run out of my office to over 200 plus responder numbers accross the country found that we did better than those guys by a fraction of a second! Hence, I think something else is probably amiss. I am however glad to find out that you receive good quality service when you call the AT&T boys. Coming from the customer service environment myself originally, I feel that it is very important. I however, usually did not usually achieve as fortunate results when interfacing with AT&T on behalf of my customers. (In fact, in certain instances involving a mutual customer for which AT&T was also the equipment vendor, we uncovered blatant sabotage moves by the r-mats guys, ie: not setting up the Sprint T1 for slip/error detection, maintenance mode etc, while the megacom sitting behind it was.) In general, we are not ashamed to admit when we have a problem. It would be silly to think that any carrier would be problem free. And to that end, it is common practice for our acd customer service as well as our star account customer service groups to recommend using the 10288 carrier code. The philosophy is that the most important thing is that you get your calls through. And quite honestly, we don't have a problem referring you to the competition if that's what needs to be done. When you think about it, it makes good business sense to piss you off as little as possible if you help pay our bills. If I recall correctly, it took ATT approximately twelve hours to come to this conclusion during their crisis. I can't explain the reaction John got from the Sprint supervisor. The supervisor may be a bonehead; there are definitely some in this company, as I'm sure there are in every company. But then again, maybe he just wanted to get off the phone with John because he didn't understand why John was hassling him for recommending to use the competition while he investigated your problem. We are not perfect. But overall, we try damned hard. And all things considered, we still have a lot to do, and a lot of our people still have a lot to learn, but we're eons ahead of where we were just three years ago and we're proud of it. I assure you, we worry about all areas of the country twenty-four hours a day. We were given a lot of leeway to develop. But then again, I don't think you could beat a Harley with your ten-speed either. And to be perfectly honest with you, one of the primary reasons for divestiture was to bring on the information age by pushing the deployment of new technology thru competition (for this reason, Charlie Brown, former chairman of ATT, eventually welcomed it). Had AT&T aggressively deployed the technology they admittedly had a large hand in developing in the first place, there probably never would have been a divestiture. I know I sound like I'm knocking AT&T a lot, but it's obviously a tremendous company. It's just that with $36+ billion in annual revenues, they should have been doing a hell of a lot more a long time ago. Therefore, I just don't think they are *the greatest*. I have a lot of respect for the Esreys and the Hensons and the Smiths [executive dudes] of US Sprint for really taking the tremendous risks that they did by sinking so much money into the "bleeding edge" of technology (as it was referred to here in the early days) before even making a dime. I will leave you with one final note: we don't claim to be the best in everything, but we are working to be. And to that end, if you ever want want a company to demonstrate superiority in video conferencing, give us a call. AT&T's Accunet reserve can't even come close. ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Yet Another Sprint Comment Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 08:52:48 EDT Yet another comment on Sprint's quality of service: I have been using Sprint casually for some years and switched to it as default when they offered $25 of free calls for signing up for their discount plan. In the area of price, I have no basis for judging; I went from no discount plan to an appropriate discount plan which is surely an improvement regardless of which companies were involved. In the area of performance, three things: (a) I have not suffered disconnection (on any LD company). (b) Audio performance is not so much better or worse that it calls itself to my attention; it has been acceptable, neither superb nor terrible, for all the companies since I stopped having to use FG-A(?) access (call a local number, get a tone, dial eighteen digits). (c) Connection time is noticeably longer with Sprint and MCI than with AT&T. I timed calling Arizona from the click that "accepts" the number locally to the sound of distance on the line (you know when you have a trunk) before it starts to ring. True, it's twice as long, but normally I don't care about four seconds instead of two. (Ten instead of five I would probably notice.) Of Mr. Higdon's possible reasons that he is getting such poor performance from Sprint, I think the problem is most likely the interface provided to Sprint by Pac*Bell in his area. As to service, I am sure that AT&T is best equipped and if one thinks one is likely to require service, that is an important consideration. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com Pots: (617)873-3463 ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 16:27:46 -0400 From: Steve Elias [ from US Sprint employee -- in response to someone who claimed the 'alternative' carriers had some sort of subsidy advantage with regard to local access charges for long distance calls. ] Although it is true that AT&T did heavily subsidize the local telcos before divestiture, it is absolutely incorrect to say that MCI and Sprint did not have to "bake" these subsidies into our rate structures. All LD carriers, including Sprint and MCI are charged by the telcos for the originating and terminating portions of every single long distance call. It has always been this way and remains so today. We pay a tremendous amount for access charges but interestingly enough, it is vastly less expensive today than it was right after divestiture. I am fairly sure that when divestiture first became a reality, the local telcos were not regulated too strictly with regard to the level of access charges they could bill the L.D. carriers simply because there was no way to adequately break down the extremely complicated system of cross-subsidization. The Ma Bell operation itself was not exactly efficient from the business perspective. This is evident from the numerous layoffs that have occurred within these companies in the past several years. It is also interesting to note that in recent months, the federal Justice Department has ordered a number of operating companies, NYNEX being one of them, to rebate a substantial amount of "overbilled" access costs that were passed on to consumers (L.D. carriers are also considered to be consumers). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 14:32:22 edt From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Symposium: Broadband Fiber to the Home and Office The Center for Advanced Study (CAST) at the Ohio State University announces a one-day symposium ``Broadband Fiber to the Home and Office: Economic, Political and Cultural Implications." The symposium is May 15, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM on the OSU campus in Columbus. Registration (including lunch) is $20. Send a check made out to CAST/OSU to CAST, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1271. Parking is available at the Ohio Union Garage. A nearby, reasonable hotel is the Holiday Inn on the Lane: 328 West Lane, Columbus, 614-294-4848. For more information, call Jane Fraser at 614-292-4129. Preliminary program: Morning session and lunch at The South Terrace, The Ohio Union, 1739 N. High Street. 8:00 AM - Coffee, juice, muffins. 8:30 AM - Welcome and introduction. 9:00 AM - ``Framing the Broadband Issues -- The Players and the Stakes." Robert Pepper, Acting Chief, Office of Plans and Policy, Federal Communications Commission. 11:00 AM- Top industry spokesperson look at the issues. Speakers include: Barry Nelson, Senior Director of Broadband Technologies, Ameritech Services. Cable industry representative. Chuck Sherman, Senior Vice President, Television NAB. 12:30 PM- Lunch. Afternoon session is at The Wexner Center for the Visual Arts, 30 West 15th Avenue (short distance from the morning session). 1:30 PM - ``Framing the Cultural and Social Issues -- New Technologies in Old Bottles." James Carey, Dean, College of Communication, University of Illinois. 3:00 PM - The Year 2010 -- which future will emerge for broadband fiber to the home and office. Academic, industry and government researchers respond to possible broadband futures. Panelists include: John M. Fraser, Telecommunciations consultant, Bell Labs, Hughes Communication Satellites, retired. Raymond W. Lawton, Associate Director, National Regulatory Research Institute. P.T. Lele, Telecommunications marketing consultant, AT&T, retired. Christopher H. Sterling, George Washington University. ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Special Test Numbers Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 08:55:28 EDT New England Telephone (well, at least eastern Mass. and southern New Hampshire) seems to like area code 200 for this function. Twenty years ago, I think you could get your own number in Cambridge identified by dialing a three digit code (225 sounds right) if you were on an older switch (one that could still have letters in the exchange). About the time Harvard went Centrex the rest of Cambridge modernized to ESS of various types. We somehow discovered that 1-200-NXX-XXXX provided the function; probably the seven digits were irrelevant, but we assumed the NXX had to look legal. As far as I can tell this is still true. When I moved to Dunstable, Mass. (Tyngsborough exchange 617-649, now 508-649) in 1983, the above number didn't work. However, a friendly NET installer putting in my second line told me that while it was supposed to work, the number that did work was 200-2622. As far as I know this is still the case. Now I'm in New Hampshire (603-880), it took me a long time to figure it out (a little bit of "Duhh!" factor, if you know what I mean). Whenever I dialed 1-200-NXX-XXXX I got a recording that said I had to dial a 1 to call beyond the local area! Finally I got wise and dialed 200-NXX-XXXX and got my number back. (1 is required on all L.D. calls.) Ringback is a different proposition. Everywhere I have been in eastern Mass it has been (a) dial 981-XXXX (where XXXX MUST BE THE SAME as the calling phone's last four digits); (b) receive a tone (maybe dial tone) (c) dial a digit or pulse the line (d) hang up and listen to the ringing. In some places, if at (b) you received a standard DTMF dial tone you could dial all the digits on the keypad in a certain order and receive back two pulses in the dial tone to signify correct reception. Here in NH I always receive a standard busy signal when I try 981- plus my last four digits. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com Pots: (617)873-3463 63 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 10:00:19 pdt From: David Barts Subject: ATT billing via local telcos Patricia O'connor writes: > Until divestiture, the local companies did the billing for AT&T long > distance, so there were no billing mechanisms in place. Since then, > AT&T has built some financial centers and intends (last I heard) to > begin doing their own billing soon. Meantime, AT&T contracts billing > from the local companies. Well, billing via the local telco is *the main reason* that ATT is my long distance company. Less bother, paperwork, and postage stamps for me to hassle with. If ATT starts doing their own billing, I'll just switch to Metromedia<>ITT or Sprint, thank you. David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #265 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03814; 20 Apr 90 3:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10879; 20 Apr 90 1:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac17512; 20 Apr 90 0:29 CDT Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 0:17:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #267 BCC: Message-ID: <9004200017.ab12517@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Apr 90 00:17:30 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 267 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada [Jeff Wasilko] Why Cellular is Screwed Up in the U.S. [John R. Covert] Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Jody Kravitz] Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Rob Warnock] Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada Date: 19 Apr 90 10:30:02 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: > Have you thought about complaining to the FCC about what is happening > in Cellular service? After all, how could the Canadians be beating > you at something as simple as this?? (Lots of :-)'s and ;-)'s ) This is one of those cases where we diehard supporters of the free enterprise system have to look the other way. Since the implementation of cellular service has been a project of private enterprize, first to last, the inferior service we have in the US is much to be expected. Considering the capital expenditure to set up cellular systems, you would have to expect that investors want large returns quickly. This means putting efforts in large population centers and more or less ignoring the backwoods. Eventually, this could change as companies see new revenue opportunities from say, traffic on I-15 between LA and Las Vegas. Or if they are forced to respond to heat from subscribers who are tired of the limited use of their phones. The terms "universal service" and "private enterprise" are largely mutually exclusive. Since cellular is regarded as anything but a necessity, one of the last concerns of the FCC would be whether the service is comprehensive or convenient. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 17:47:02 EDT Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada In his posting to the Digest, Marcel D. Mongeon talked about the large coverage area that Cantel provides. The reason that US coverage isn't as good right now, is that the FCC only sold licenses (or whatever) for the the metro areas. Now that the Rural Service Area (RSA) lottery has been held, I'm sure that the US metro situation will improve. This will be a godsend for the upstate NY area, where there is almost complete coverage from Buffalo to Albany on the Celluar One network. Right now, there is a brief period between cities where calls can't be placed, or are dropped. When the rural sites are up and running, it should be possible to drive from Buffalo to Albany without re-placing the call. Also, as it stands right now, Cellular One customers can have their calls automatically follow them in any of the Empire cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse/Rome/Utica*, Albany). If the customer chooses, they can also be paged over the Cantel network. *(While Syracuse/Rome/Utica are a Cellular One affiliate, they are not owned by the same company as Buffalo, Rochester and Albany. Due to this and the fact that they are using Motorola switches instead of those Swedish wonders (-: Ericsson, the paging system is a bit more clunky and troublesome. The interface to Cantel is very clean due to their usage of Ericsson switches. This mini-follow me roaming package costs $9.95/month, and gives discounted roam rates in the Empire area ($.55/min, no per day charge), 50 free minutes of long distance (which almost/does cover the $9.95 cost, depending on usage) and the full Roam America Caller Notification and Transparent Call Forwarding.) 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. | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 15:25:41 PDT From: "John R. Covert 19-Apr-1990 1756" Subject: Why Cellular is Screwed Up in the U.S. >Have you thought about complaining to the FCC about what is happening >in Cellular service? Yes. But it will do little good. There are two parts to the problem. The first part is the lack of coverage outside major metropolitan areas. The second part is the lack of interconnection between the systems in different areas. The FCC bears the full responsibility for the first part. Unlike Canada, where the decision was made to grant the cellular licenses for the "B" carrier to the local phone company and a nationwide "A" carrier license to CanTel, the FCC decided to go through either a competitive bidding process or a lottery in each of several hundred metropolitan service areas (MSAs) followed by a lottery in each of several thousand rural service areas (RSAs). The MSAs were all licensed a few years ago, and by now, both carriers are operating in almost all of them. The RSAs were only licensed within the past few months, and construction will not begin for another three or four months, until an appeals period ends. Judge Greene bears most of the responsibility for the second part. One of the restrictions placed on Baby Bell companies as part of the break up of the Bell System is a prohibition on carrying inter-LATA traffic. This means that, except in a few cases where the Justice Department has granted waivers, a cellular company owned by one of the RBOCs is prohibited from networking with adjacent systems outside the LATA. For example: The "A" carriers from Connecticutt to Delaware are fully networked, even though this involves more than five different companies. However, this interconnection ends before reaching Boston or Balto-Wash, because in both of these cities the "A" carrier is Southwestern Bell, doing business under the name Cellular One. On the other hand, the Justice Department _did_ grant a waiver to NYNEX to operate a single system which covers all of two LATAs (Eastern Mass and Rhode Island) and part of another (Rockingham County, NH). But permission has been denied to interconnect with Contel in Hillsborough County, NH. I have written to Judge Greene, to the FCC, and to Senators and Representatives about the problem. The only reply I've received was from Fritz Hollings, who wrote to tell me that cooperation between the carriers would end the problem. I wrote back and pointed out that the carriers were being prohibited from cooperating, and that NYNEX and Contel were simply waiting for an approval from Judge Greene to connect their fully compatible systems together. Fritz again replied that he believed that cooperation would solve the problem. I also called the chief of the mobile services division of the FCC, who was amazed that there was a consumer who understood the problem or even cared, but told me that it was not the FCC's prerogative to override the rulings of a federal judge. There is one more element to the interconnection problem, and it's evident in Canada as well, on the "B" carrier side. Cellular switches from different manufacturers are not yet technically fully compatible. A standard called "IS 41" is being worked on by several switch manufacturers and is in early implementation stages. So far it only addresses hand-off from one system to another, but in another few years it should address call delivery. I don't expect the cellular mess in the U.S. to be straightened out before 1995. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 18:26:34 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones rider@pnet12.cts.com (Michael Fetzer) writes: >I may be mistaken, but I think I've made the observation that cellular >phones are much cheaper to own and operate in the Pacific North West >(read: Portland, OR) than in California (read Sandi Eggo). It is my understanding that the California PUC has outlawed kickbacks for "contracts", but U.S. West is still appearantly paying a "commission" for each "new number". The contract we signed when we got our service didn't have a minimum time associated with it. However, the price of the phone would lead be to believe that we didn't provide the dealer with all his profit. Jody Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 03:45:25 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <6448@accuvax.nwu.edu> Rob Warnock and the Moderator write: | ...But to do most of the interesting ops, the R-S phone has to be put | into a special "local" mode by grounding a pin on the battery pack | with a certain resistance, which *cannot* be done (at least, not very | easily) with the standard battery installed -- you have to use a | special bench power supply that plugs in where the battery goes, and | accesses extra pins the battery doesn't pass through to the outside. | [Moderator's Note: Actually, in the Radio Shack CT-301, which is the | model you are referring to, the 'local mode' is entered through a very | simple entry directly on the keypad. This code which you enter on the | keypad includes the five digit security code (12345) when it comes | from the factory. But the five digit security code itself is one of | the parameters you can set while in local mode. And the schematics and | other technical data you can get on this unit does not include the | programming stuff.... Well, I have the CT-301 Service Manual (catalog number 17-1050/604/602) right here, which I bought quite openly from my local Radio Shack by simply asking them to order it for me, and I have a CT-301 Model 17-1050 in my hand, and the service manual *does* contain the "programming stuff". And to do anything but function 48 (NAM programming), you do in fact have to ground the LOCAL line (and then type a short code given in the book). [If someone knows differently *for sure*, please let me know. There are some read-only things I'd like to get to from the keyboard -- see below.] Maybe the confusion was over what I considered "most of the interesting ops". It is true that the 15-key-sequence-which-includes-your-security-code (call this "key-local" mode?) can be done without grounding LOCAL, and it gets you straight to function 48 (NAM programming), and that lets you examine/change: - home system identification (5 digits) - access method (1 or 0) - local control option (1 or 0) - mobile number (10 digits) a.k.a. "NAM" - home paging channel (3 dig) - overload class (2 dig) - group identification (2 dig) - security code (5 dig) But there are another 32 (documented) functions besides NAM programming, which *do* require the hardware grounding of LOCAL, and do such "interesting" things as: - ROAST: Transmits at maximum power on Channel 1 until you hit "END" - LOAD-SYNTH: Type in a 4-digit channel number to select - SET-ATTN: Select R.F. power level (0-8) [seems to be ~4dB steps up to the max for the unit, which for the CT-301 is step 6 = 480 mW] - DTMF: Type a digit or # or * and get continuous DTMF until "END" - IC test: continuously test RAM, serial number, and NAM memories. - Display the output of an A/D converter on one of: - Battery - Xmt power - Rcv signal - STAT (a wire that external options pull on with various R's) - Display the manufacturer ID and serial number (NIM?) - Turn on&off various things: TX audio path, RX audio path, external speaker, external mike, loudspeaker volume, supervisory audio tone, etc. - Display the locking code - Activate continuous transmission on the data sub-channel of a 48-bit test pattern - Channel flip: set synthsizer alternately to channels 991 and 799 - Display software version & date Obviously, many of these can do anti-social (and/or illegal) things unless your antenna is terminated in a dummy load. But I was just a lttile bit disappointed that harmless things things like "display A/D converter" couldn't be done from the keyboard: I'd really like to be able to know how the battery was doing sooner than the infamous "3-minute warning" chirps you get (when the battery drops below 7.0 volts). And receive carrier level might help one to know whether the weird reception you're getting is from a weak signal or from bad multipath. Etc... Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 23:57:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Something of interest has been noted about Cellular One service in Chicago, and perhaps someone has an answer. I think I am correct in saying that when you place a call on a cellular unit, both the phone number (easily changeable by experienced users) and the serial number (usually not so easily changeable) are transmitted to the carrier. If the serial number is on a 'hot list', or otherwise does not match up on the carrier's records, then the call is denied. Right so far? Reports have reached me that certain telephone numbers at Cellular One here (and perhaps other carriers?) are set to *not bother checking serial numbers*, but to simply accept the transmission and place the call. Tests showed that when the phone (in this case, a CT-301) was otherwise 'properly' programmed to show Cellular One as the home carrier -- meaning the Home Default was set to 00001 -- and the phone number programmed were certain numbers on prefixes assigned to that carrier, calls both into and out of the phone were processed without question! If someone from a landline dialed the newly programmed number, the cell phone rang. If the cell phone made a call out, it was processed. In many cases, long distance access was restricted, however, for lack of choosing an LD carrier. In the test, the cell phone would then be immediatly programmed to another number in the same exchange, the landline would dial that number, and the same thing would happen. On most Cellular One lines, the serial number obviously was checked, since the cell phone dialing a number would result in a tower picking up the call, followed by perhaps five seconds of air time and then the tower would drop the connection. But that handful of numbers, in both the 312 and 708 areas would always place calls and receive calls, no questions asked, provided the cell phone at least was programmed to give the same phone number. Any ideas why some numbers are apparently exempt from serial number checks? Could it be they are used by employees at Cellular One who want to be able to use several phones at their disposal without having to reprogram the system each time? Could it be the 'free lines' are used for promotional purposes by dealers who would have several phones to demonstrate, each with different serial numbers? What about numbers used for temporary assignment to roamers in the area using something like Ameritech's 'follow me' and 'Fast Track' services? There is no practical way to check serials on those lines either, is there? Of the lines found which are apparently not checking serial numbers, some, but not all, were found to have a subscriber identified with the line. This was noted when a landline dialing the number while the experimental cell phone was turned off reached a voicemail box of someone. Yet, turn the phone on, and subsequent incoming calls came to the falsely programmed phone. Ideas and comments welcome. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #267 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08657; 20 Apr 90 5:21 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18525; 20 Apr 90 3:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26812; 20 Apr 90 2:35 CDT Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 1:46:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #268 BCC: Message-ID: <9004200146.ab17166@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Apr 90 01:46:03 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 268 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Credit Card ID [John Higdon] Re: Credit Card ID [Steve Wolfson] Re: The Card [Tom Neff] Re: The Card [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!) [John Braden] Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? [Carl Moore] Re: LD Billing Tale [Dave Levenson] Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [David Leibold] Request For Switch Manufacturers [C. David Covington] 716-789 in Steadman, NY [Carl Moore] A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? [Brad Templeton] WANTED: BBS Near Monroe, Michigan [Jan Steinman] Area Code 917 in New York City [David Tamkin] Specials This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 18 Apr 90 12:26:36 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Jim Gottlieb writes: > When I'm in the U.S. and am asked to write down my number on a charge > slip, I always write "011 81 3 237 5868". Not once has anyone said > anything. I don't mean to be argumentative, but over the years I have put my true and correct [listed] phone number on charge slips. Two calls have resulted from this "naive" practice. One was from the merchant who requested that I return to the store *at my convenience* to have my card run through again because the number had been mutilated. When I went back, he showed me the slip and tore it up in my presence and imprinted another slip. Completely legit. The other was from the restaurant that I had patronized. The caller wanted to inform me that I had left my cellular phone in the booth and that it was being held at the podium for me. Have people really had bad experiences in putting phone numbers on charge slips? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 19 Apr 90 19:18:40 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL >[Moderator's Note: The way I usually avoid this is to tell them I >don't have a phone. I just write 555-1212 Steve Wolfson uunet!motcid!wolfson [Moderator's Note: Has anyone ever questioned this at all? PT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Neff Subject: Re: The Card Date: 19 Apr 90 02:54:42 GMT Reply-To: Tom Neff I wonder if you could put something like clear nail polish or epoxy on top of the embossed calling card number on THE CARD and thus keep it from appearing on pressure sensitive charge slips. If it's not officially required as part of the transaction, it shouldn't matter. [Moderator's Note: I wonder if you could get in trouble on the federal level for tampering with a credit card to change the manner in which it prints out? I've seen cases where people tried to blitz the part of the imprint which gave the (long since passed) expiration date of the card. I'd be careful about using a credit card I had altered in any way. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 08:05:03 PDT From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: The Card Reply-To: jgro@apldbio.com (Jeremy Grodberg) In article <6557@accuvax.nwu.edu> mperka@netxdev.dhl.com writes: >Since the number is embossed, it is likely to show up on imprints made >of The Card, spreading calling card numbers (or their base phone >number) that many people would like to keep private. My calling card number is not the same as my phone number, and I can't imagine why I should care if other people get it. The PIN is not printed on the card, and although I haven't received my PIN yet, I expect it will be at least four digits, which, although not perfectly secure, seems like it would be good enough. N'est pas? Jeremy Grodberg jgro@apldbio.com "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!" ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!) Date: 16 Apr 90 17:48:54 GMT Reply-To: John Braden Organization: Stratus Computer, Hardware Engineering In article <6126@accuvax.nwu.edu> albert@endor.UUCP (David Albert) writes: >I just received my AT&T Universal Card, a week and a day after >applying for it -- what service! It has the AT&T and VISA logos, the ... >The credit agreement seems to be as previously described; 25-day grace >period on merchandise purchases if you always pay in full, 18.9% >initial interest rate if not paid in full (adjustable to 8.9% above >prime), 2% charge for cash advances (yuk!), and all calling- card >charges interest-free (if paid by the due date) even if you carry a >balance on your merchandise purchases. I also received my card, and agree it's a good deal, but there is one item in the small print which made me sit up & take notice. Failure to pay the minimum amount due by the due date results in a "late charge" of $10.00 (in addition to any interest which may be due). This could come as a nasty shock to those of us who occasionally procrastinate a little too long in getting the payment in the mail. You would need a balance of $635.00 to rack up $10.00 in interest (at 18.9%), so get those payments in on time!!! At least I'll now have access to all of those blue AT&T card-only phones which seem to be popping up in convention centers & airports... There are places my MCI card just won't work. John Braden, Stratus Computer, Marlboro, Massachusetts braden@lincoln.hw.stratus.com -or- John_Braden@es.stratus.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 14:11:56 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? I believe 511 was used, at least in Philadelphia, for information regarding the Bicentennial in 1976. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: LD Billing Tale Date: 20 Apr 90 04:01:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <6436@accuvax.nwu.edu>, langz@khayyam.EBay.Sun.COM (Lang Zerner) writes: > .... This is one reason AT&T is so hungry to sign up > Universal card holders; when billing through the local telco, they > cannot use the bills for direct mail marketing. When Universal card > holders receive their bills, they can count on getting > ATT-revenue-generating tips and suggestions for making their lives > better. When we get billed by NJ Bell, they include the MCI inter-lata billing on a separate page. We always get two stuffers: one from NJ Bell, and one from MCI. Are you trying to tell us that NJ Bell is unwilling to stuff for AT&T but they'll stuff for MCI? 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: woody Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (David Leibold) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 03:36:39 GMT In article <6508@accuvax.nwu.edu> ccplumb@lion.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) writes: >Paul Colley writes: >>> I have a friend who can pulse-dial phone numbers by rapidly tapping >>> the hang-up button. >>> He claims, though I've never seen it, that this works at pay phones >>> without having to pay. >I didn't believe this, so I just tried it (the pay phone in question >is (519) 746-9368, on the third floor of the University of Waterloo >math building), and it doesn't seem to work. Calling 885-1211 by >tapping it out on the switchhook (the university switchboard; it >should give me a recording saying they open in the morning) waits for >seven digits and gives me fast busy. So does dialling the same thing >using the touch-tone pad. It used to be that the Northern Telecom payphones would allow coinless calls to operator, 411, 611, 911 by allowing only the first three digits to be dialed before cutting off the connection. In some areas where 4104 is used for repair, this was four digits. Because of the timing of the switchook used in the payphones, it wasn't terribly possible to pulse out anything other than '1' (ie. attempting to pulse out a '2' resulted in disconnection, or '11', or just a long '1'). Thus, if K-W payphones allowed for four digits, getting to 885.1211 would have been possible. However, Bell Canada cut over the payphones using this method on the 88x exchanges (which were crossbar) onto new digital 746 numbers. This meant that the 411, 611, etc pass-through would be done at the switch and no longer at the payphone. Thus, the fast busys when a local number was attempted (the switch needs to be pacified with coin signals). Areas that used to have digit-absorbing step-by-step systems could be prone to this kind of bypass, depending on how many digits were allowed, and how many 1's in the number. (A side effect is that, if long distance calls were dialable, you would need coin deposit first). Meanwhile, perhaps someone should take the trouble to tell Northern Telecom that the Canadian Mint has just introduced dollar coins. They have only been out for the past two or three years or so, with much advance fanfare. Meanwhile, Bell has been busy fitting many of their Toronto area phones with metal touch tone keypads (perhaps to go along with the changeover requiring the area code to be dialed within 416??). Meanwhile, in Australia, I know someone travelling through there who had stories about payphones that allowed overseas calls to go through without charge or interruption. This situation was apparently fixed up eventually. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 17:06:43 -0400 From: "C. D. Covington" Subject: Request For Switch Manufacturers I would like a list of switch manufacturers with call processing capability. The switch can be either analog or digital. I am particularly interested in low-end machines (read cheap). C. David Covington (WA5TGF) cdc@uafhcx.uark.edu (501) 575-6583 Asst Prof, Elec Eng Univ of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 22:03:20 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: 716-789 in Stedman, NY Does anybody know where Stedman, NY is? I cannot find it in the Buffalo, NY area, and I'm rather limited by distance in my access to phone books for western New York state. I'd ap- preciate receiving mailing addresses for places served by that exchange (it does not necessarily mean that I will call, write, or visit such). ------------------------------ Subject: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 2:04:30 EDT From: Brad Templeton Can anybody suggest a good introductory work (if any exists) on the nuts and bolts of telecom and particularly datacom these days? I don't work directly in that industry, so I've had to learn everything hit and miss. Or if there isn't one, perhaps somebody might write a short one for the TELECOM Digest. For example, I know what a T-1 is (1.54 mb/s digital circuit) but just how is it implemented in a physical sense in most places? What sort of modems, if you can call them that at that speed, interface to hard physical wires and send data along at those speeds? How do those modems talk to computers? (Only through special interfaces, I assume, but what are they like?) What about at the lower speeds of 56 kbps and ISDN's 64kbps? I have a 4 wire unconditioned line from my office to my house that I run at 4800 bps using some cheap pseudo-modems. What can you pull out of these 4 wire circuits? Are there modems that give you 56 kbps out of them? If not, how does Bell do it at their overpriced rate? What are the different types of conditioning that go on a line? What kind of equipment multiplexes these faster lines to share them and how does it work? How do smaller networks work that establish "points of presence" in telco switching offices and then lease out lines to customers connected to that office? etc., etc. etc. Too many questions to ask in one posting, which is why I wonder if there's a book of some sort... ------------------------------ From: Jan Steinman Subject: WANTED: BBS Near Monroe, Michigan Date: 18 Apr 90 18:58:08 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. I just bought my Dad a Mac XL and modem, and would like a few BBS numbers in southeast Michigan so he can bootstrap into the wonderful world of computer bulletin boards. Although I subscribed to the groups queried, please reply via email, since this is not of general interest. I'll forward what I discover to anyone expressing interest. Thanks! Jan Steinman - N7JDB Tektronix Electronic Systems Laboratory Box 500, MS 50-370, Beaverton, OR 97077 (w)503/627-5881 (h)503/657-7703 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 17:33 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Area Code 917 in New York City There have been news reports today that, like Los Angeles's need for area code 310, New York City may require a third area code to accommodate the growing numbers of beeper, fax, modem, and cellular numbers. NYTel apparently has NPA 917 reserved already. There was no mention of which geographic areas or which types of customers would get the new area code. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us MCIMail:426-1818 GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 0:27:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Specials This Weekend One of the special issues planned for this weekend is the Spring, 1990 issue of [Telesat Report], forwarded to us by Dave Leibold (woody). You will receive your copy sometime Saturday. 'Larry the Lid', as he is now known :) agreed to greatly reduce and edit his response to the rebuttal from Mr. DeArmond. On publication, that will make two each: DeArmond's original article, Lippman's reply, DeArmond's rebuttal, and Lippman's rebuttal. And that will close the topic. This will also be a special issue, to be filed wherever you keep these things. Another topic being closed at this time: 'The Card', and variants. This is not a forum to discuss credit card billing practices, and in the past few days over a dozen messages have had to be declined and returned to the senders because they were at best marginally related to telecom. No offense, folks, but misc.consumers is a better forum for it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #268 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10328; 20 Apr 90 6:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02967; 20 Apr 90 4:45 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18525; 20 Apr 90 3:40 CDT Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 2:35:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #269 BCC: Message-ID: <9004200235.ab14697@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Apr 90 02:35:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson FTS 2000 Privacy Issues [Will Martin] Re: Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30 [Rob Warnock] Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [John Higdon] You Asked To Be Reminded [Tom Ace and the Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 13:21:48 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: FTS 2000 Privacy Issues Ran across the following short piece while scanning this several-issues-back periodical prior to disposing of it; thought the list might find this interesting: GOVERNMENT COMPUTER NEWS, March 5, 1990, p. 24: FTS 2000 POSES PRIVACY PROBLEMS By S. A. Masud, GCN Staff The General Accounting Office has recommended the development of a policy to protect the privacy of federal employees because FTS 2000 will track individual long-distance calls closely. Unlike the old Federal Telecommunications System, which the General Services Administration is phasing out, the new one generates call-detail records with much more information about individual employees' telephone calls, a recent GAO report said. The new system's database will record for all calls placed through the system the calling number, the number called, the time, date, and duration of the call and the location of the number called. The availability of the detail records could cause legal conflict, GAO reported. The Freedom of Information Act could cause some call detail records to be made public. At the same time, the Privacy Act could allow agencies to protect such information. GSA, in light of the privacy concerns, has indicated to GAO that the FTS 2000 contractors could omit the last four digits of called numbers from the call detail reorts. However, this would be contrary to federal requirements that agencies maintain enough details of transactions to support their expenditures and permit audits of the transactions, the report pointed out. GSA has established an advisory committee to consider whether the agency should issue guidelines regarding the privacy of call detail records. ***End of article*** As a federal employee, I find this sort of mystifying. All long-distance calls are already supposed to be solely on government business, and we are supposed to log (on paper) and report each month to our supervisor's office any and all LD calls made, including WATS-line calls; these records are then bounced against the telco-provided LD billing and any LD calls billed for but not so reported show up on a list and have to be justified. If it turns out to have been a personal call, not only does the employee have to reimburse the gov't for the cost of the call, but there is also a surcharge ($7 or $15, I forget which) as a penalty and to cover the bookeeping costs. So all the data cited above is already being kept. Actually more, because the calling individual's name is on our reporting now, in addition to all the data listed in the article. Maybe this is because DoD always was more hard-nosed about this than the civil agencies? I suppose the people at HUD who were lining their pockets with embezzled funds didn't stay virtuous about using their phones... :-) And when you get up to upper-level political-appointee managers, I guess the line between what is "official" and what isn't gets pretty fuzzy. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 05:36:31 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30 Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <6569@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 18-Apr-1990 1450) writes: | As an owner of a Nokia P-30 and a former owner of a Radio Shack CT-300 You may be interested in the scheme I devised for deep-discharging the batteries to "cure" them of memory problems. Since the phone warns you at 7 volts, and since the really sharp knee in the discharge curve is down below the phone's cutoff voltage of 6.4 [I have seen a badly "memorized" battery hold at 5.7 volts for an hour at ~100ma discharge(!) before it suddenly sagged for real], the batteries can easily develop the classic NiCd "memory" problem, which is a sudden drop of about a volt just as you hit the spot in the curve where you stopped the last several discharge cycles (curve not completely to scale): 7.9 |+ |+ 7.7 | + "true" | + discharge 7.3 | + + + + + + | | + V 6.9 | + + + + + | + 6.5 | A + | | + 6.3 | "memory" + Unfortunately, that one volt drop can often look to the phone like low battery (or even "shut down"), so if you recharge it just as it starts "chirp"ing, it just reinforces the problem. The most noticable symptom is that the batteries "just don't seem to keep a charge like they used to". So every so often, one should discharge the batteries down below the "real" knee. WARNING: Never discharge a multi-cell NiCd battery below about 1.0 * (N - 1) volts, N = #cells (6 for the CT-301 ==> 5.0v), or one of the cells might become reverse-biased, which really *can* damage it permanently. Anyway, I discovered that when the phone (or just the battery by itself) was plugged into the charging stand, two of the pins on the RJ-45 on the back (that normally goes to the "hands free" interface) are connected to the battery (which is convenient, since the actual battery connector is so weird). So I cobbled together a few resistors and LEDs on a piece of perf-board, and put a modular plug on the end. Sort of like this: +V --+-------+-------+-------+-------+ | | | | |"+5" \ \ \ \ \ / 330 / 680 / 1k / 1.5k / 40 ohm 2 watt, made out of \ \ \ \ \ <--- a 16-pin "220/330" terminator <-- to / / / / / resistor pack == 550 / 14 ohms RJ-45 | | | | |"GND" (gets HOT!) +-->|---+-->|---+-->|---+-->|---+--+ Red Red Green Green | LED LED LED LED | | -GND -----------------------------------+ When you plug this into the charging stand -- WITH THE A.C. ADAPTER INPUT CABLE DISCONNECTED -- for a fully charged battery, all four LEDs come on (maybe a little too much). If the phone has started "chirp"ing about low-battery, the leftmost red LED will be out (or nearly). When the battery's down to about 5 volts, both red LEDs will be out, but the greens will still be on. STOP HERE! (DON'T let either of the green LEDs go out.) Then unplug the RJ-45, and plug in the A.C. adapter power cord, and charge normally. This "treatment" will cure a battery, and you'll start getting the full 16 hours of standby time again ... until a few more cycles go by. Then it's time for another treatment. Radio Shack *says* they're coming out with a discharging accessory "real soon now". Theirs will probably have some shut-off protection against discharging too far, which my little kludge doesn't. You have to check on it every 10 minutes or so. (I have forgotten, and in fact have discharged a battery "way down", without apparent ill effects... but I may have been lucky. Don't risk it yourself!) Similar "dischargers", adjusted for battery voltage and drain, can be built for nearly any device that uses NiCd batteries, and can substantially increase the battery's apparent life. Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service Date: 19 Apr 90 02:13:46 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon Robert Michael Gutierrez writes: > $23/month. The 'Business Club' rate is $40/mo, .45 cents/min daytime. My "Business Club" bill shows the monthly at $39. > The bill itself is a standard telephone bill. I was charged Federal > tax, but no state tax. No 911, Deaf Devices or Univeral (cheap service > subsidy) taxes. Also, no FCC Access chages, even though I can call > long distance. I was charged City tax, but Hayward (California) has no > city tax. Forgot to ask about this... Don't know about the city tax, but since GTE Mobilnet is not a LEC, it is not obligated to collect for 911, Deaf, Lifeline subsidy, or FCC Access charges. Remember, the FCC Access charges have nothing to do with whether you call long distance or not, but rather to subsidize and protect the revenues of local telcos. GTE Mobilnet is not a local telco. > Peak, Off-Peak, and Night ... but GTE has no night rate! Maybe something > in the future? I racked up 2 hours off peak and 1/2 hour peak (a lot > more than I expected!). No one offers a "night rate" in California. The airtime rates, the same for both Bay Area providers, have not changed since day one. BTW, cellular usage racks up quickly, doesn't it? > I assume they're using > a standard billing service that other companies also use (some > companies bill in 6 second increments). GTE does its own billing, as well as the billing for Cellular One, the other provider. > The 'City Called' for my phone shows up as Palo Alto, but Pac Bell > shows it in their TOPS operator database as Oakland, and it shows as a > toll call (calls to both celluar carriers are considered 'toll-free' > from the celluar coverage area, basically all of the San Francisco > LATA). The operators will quote a toll rate to you if you ask if it's > a toll free call. None of this applies to BOC pay phones, as you're > charged the toll rate outright. (John H ... do you have a copy of > GTE's tariff or Pac Bell's??? Does it specifically exclude pay > phones?) This has been a major irritant. I don't have the tariff at hand, but it is the same for both providers and does not exclude pay phones. To the best of my knowledge, calls dialed to any Mobilnet prefix from any Bay Area non-coin phone is treated as Zone 1 (local). BOC pay phones should allow the call as local ($0.20) as well. Remember, Pacific Telesis is the major owner of Cellular One. Conveniently, there has been a "programming error" in most of the Pac*Bell pay phones since the beginning. In fact, you will probably have difficulty even dialing your prefix from pay phones that are physically within Zone 1 of your cellular assignment. This was the case for months here in San Jose. After literally weeks of harrassing repair and others within Pac*Bell, they finally fixed the San Jose pay phones so that one could dial my San Jose Rate Area 2 cellular prefix without having to go through the operator. It was so much trouble getting that fixed that I haven't had the motivation to get all the Bay Area pay phones programmed properly. Besides, since I'm sure the "mistake" is intentional, it would just be spinning my wheels for the most part anyway. > (average 11 rings). Poo-poo! This is probably for calls to places that > don't return answer supervision (like 800-555-1212), so they have to charge Point of order: 800 555-1212 does supervise. > I seem to meet with the all channels busy tone (a reorder tone > generated by the phone itself) when I initally power up or come back > 'in service' (from a tunnel or BART [subway tunnels]). If I wait a > minute, it's not a problem. You might look to your phone on this problem. I carry my GE Mini everywhere, including on BART trains and have never experienced this. In fact, I have had my finger poised on the s(p)end button waiting to come out of the Lake Meritt station and pressed instantly when the 'nosvc' goes away. No problem. > Maybe some new channels need to be > added to some exisiting cells sites for GTE. A friend who works for Mobilnet assures me that they are very sensitive to this. GTE has far fewer subscribers than Cellular One, more cell sites and uses the extra channels as well. With my GE, I rarely get dropped, have one-way calls, or any of the problems that you have described. Also, I use the unit in my truck without any outside antenna and have no complaints about its coverage. Visitors from the LA area who come up here with their handhelds and roam on GTE remark on how much better the coverage is, how much better the audio quality is, and how much faster the setup time is than on PacTel down in LA. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 10:38:23 PDT From: Tom Ace Subject: You Asked to be Reminded Patrick: Back in TELECOM Digest V9 #253 (25 Jul 89), you wrote: In defense of Sprint/MCI et al, I must say that for the first forty years or so of its corporate existence, AT&T was just as bad, or maybe worse in terms of sheer greed. Remind me to post an article sometime on their reaction to the companies which manufactured telephones in the early years of this century after Mother's patent expired. Talk about ruthless! I'd be interested in hearing the story. Tom Ace tom@sje.mentor.com [Moderator's Note: Well, to make a long story short, AT&T representatives went to small towns all across America right after the turn of the century and offered first to buy out the local telephone company. That's fair, I suppose, and they did (at first) offer top dollar. Remember, in those early days, the local 'telephone company' was usually little more than a switchboard sitting in an already established business place. Often times a local pharmacist, insurance agent, or perhaps the telegraph office served as the telco. They bought their equipment wherever they liked, and not always from Mother. Sometimes the switchboard sat in the living room of the owner's house: wife and daughter were the operators, father and son were the repairmen. There was a certain pride in being independent. You see, even by the early years of this century, AT&T had started to get on people's nerves a little, you might say. Even with the top dollar AT&T was offering to buy up the local operation, many of them flatly refused to sell. City Councils voted on resolutions that said "keep the Bell out of town". Needless to say, Ted Vail (chairman of AT&T in those years) was furious. His solution was to set up a competitive telco in town, and if necessary *give the service away free* to drive the competition out of business. And if that didn't work, his orders were to refuse to interconnect. So when his agents were turned down in little towns by a farmer whose life savings were tied up in the telephone equipment he had installed for the community because he had his pride and wanted to stay in business independently, the AT&T guy would say, "Well, see how much good your phone system does you when you can't call anyone outside of your own town ... we won't connect with you." And many a farmer-telephone businessman was driven out of business by such tactics. All the while Ted Vail would sit in his office and say, "One System, and one way of doing things." The advertisements of that era for the Bell System noted that you could call Long Distance on their instruments. And when they set up shop in a town which already had an independent telco, *they* would be the ones to interconnect with other towns on their wires; the local guy suddenly found his switchboard was good for calling locally only. Before long, he was out of business, and AT&T claimed yet another victory in the aquisition of telcos across America. If they couldn't buy you off, they'd run you off! An organization was formed many years ago called "United States Independent Telephone Association", or USITA for short, whose main purpose at the time was to fight Bell and protect the rights of the independent telcos who were threatened by the practices of Mother. Today USITA and Bell are the best of friends. Bell executives frequently are the keynote speakers at USITA conventions, etc. Say Tom, thanks for reminding me! :) PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #269 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00536; 21 Apr 90 19:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27865; 21 Apr 90 17:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30528; 21 Apr 90 15:54 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 15:18:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #270 BCC: Message-ID: <9004211518.ab14757@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Apr 90 15:18:07 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 270 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Terri Macko] Re: FTS 2000 Privacy Issues [Dennis G. Rears] Re: You Asked to Be Reminded [David Tamkin] Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? [Chuck Bennett] Re: Credit Card ID [Mary Culnan] Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? [Steve R. Levitt] Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [Carl Moore] Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [Tom Gray] Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos [John R. Covert] Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 18:43:57 CDT From: Terry Mason Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Mr. Mason's address got munged somehow and is unavailable. PT] In comp.dcom.telecom you write: >Reports have reached me that certain telephone numbers at Cellular One >here (and perhaps other carriers?) are set to *not bother checking serial >numbers*, but to simply accept the transmission and place the call. I work for a cellular carrier, so I can only tell you how our system works. If the subscriber's serial number is '00000000' in the database the system doesn't check it against the actual serial number. I don't know if this is a standard or not. We also have a generic flag to turn all serial number checking on and off. Consider a brand new system going online. Historically, all the little shops selling and programming mobiles haven't hired "experienced people" to do this work. I've seen some very irate subscribers, because the shop mixed up the mobile telephone numbers and serial numbers when submitting the order for the subscriber entry into the database. It's easier for the system operators to change the database to zeroes on the serial number, and let the subscriber entry people sort things out with the shop the next day. Possibly you've found some lines that were never given a 'final update'. I have heard of some subscribers who have multiple mobiles, but want the same telephone number for both. Although not an elegant solution, ignoring the serial number will do the trick. Some test mobiles may fall into this category also. I understand that we're finally going to implement a feature called subscriber capture where if the serial number is entered as zeroes into the database, the first call will update the database with the proper serial number. I have no idea if this will be system wide or per subscriber. >Any ideas why some numbers are apparently exempt from serial number >checks? Could it be they are used by employees at Cellular One who >want to be able to use several phones at their disposal without having >to reprogram the system each time? Could it be the 'free lines' are >used for promotional purposes by dealers who would have several phones >to demonstrate, each with different serial numbers? What about >numbers used for temporary assignment to roamers in the area using >something like Ameritech's 'follow me' and 'Fast Track' services? >There is no practical way to check serials on those lines either, is >there? You can bet someone was billed for those calls! We have both a telephone number and serial number database for Roamers and denied service. >Of the lines found which are apparently not checking serial numbers, >some, but not all, were found to have a subscriber identified with the >line. This was noted when a landline dialing the number while the >experimental cell phone was turned off reached a voicemail box of >someone. Yet, turn the phone on, and subsequent incoming calls came to >the falsely programmed phone. Interesting, that you did find a real subscriber. Maybe the CHI system has one of the "features" I covered above. Of course, the falsely programmed phone gets the call when turned on because it answers the page from the cell site. Whereas, when turned off, the system no-answer-transfers to the voice mail. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 15:58:56 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Re: FTS 2000 Privacy Issues Will: I think the privacy issue here is not to protect the federal employee but the agency. A lot can be determined by what companies are being called by who. I bet some drug dealers would love to have copies fo phone bills by the DEA and FBI. Contractors would like to know who the KO is calling and for how long. Also, I as a federal employee have no right to privacy but what about the person I call. How does John Doe or Acme Car Dealership know I am misusing goverment resources? Thanks to our lawsuit happy citizens, things are no longer as simple as they seem. The main difference between the FTS 2000 system and the current system is that the data is now kept at each phone instead of centrally. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 15:45 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: You Asked to Be Reminded At Tom Ace's reminder, Patrick Townson wrote in Telecom Digest, Volume 10, Issue 269: | All the while Ted Vail would sit in his office and say, "One System, | and one way of doing things." And Bob Allen says, "One world. One card." The more things change... David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us MCIMail:426-1818 GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 08:01 EST From: "Chuck Bennett (919)966-1134" Subject: Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? Brad Templeton writes, > Can anybody suggest a good introductory work (if any exists) on the > nuts and bolts of telecom and particularly datacom these days? I > don't work directly in that industry, so I've had to learn everything > hit and miss. I'll let someone else handle that one. > For example, I know what a T-1 is (1.54 mb/s digital circuit) but just > how is it implemented in a physical sense in most places? The T-1 line is not the expensive part the equipment on each end of the line gets to be REAL quick, $$,$$$$ range. > I have a 4 wire unconditioned line from my office to my house that I > run at 4800 bps using some cheap pseudo-modems. What can you pull out > of these 4 wire circuits? Are there modems that give you 56 kbps out Black Box has a CSU/DSU (Customer Service Unit/Data Service Unit) and LDM (Limited Distance Modem) combination that offers 2400 bps to 56 kbps on either the telco DDS (Digital Data Service) network or via a 4-wire unloaded copper circuit to a distance of about 5 miles. It has both a V.35 and a RS-232 interface. The model number is MD790-986 and its cost is approximately $750/each (you need two). We use a pair of these here a UNC (University of North Carolina) in conjunction with a 4-wire line to connect our IBM 3174 Control Unit to the IBM maniframe at the 56 kbps rate, V.35 interface and they function flawlessly. > etc., etc. etc. Too many questions to ask in one posting, which is > why I wonder if there's a book of some sort... Me too ;-). Chuck Bennett Director, Medical CAI UNC, Chapel Hill ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 90 08:40:00 EDT From: Subject: Re: Credit Card ID This is in response to the moderator's query about people questioning the request for a phone number when you sign a credit card slip. I have started to question when a merchant does *NOT* ask for the phone number. Responses include, "We don't need it because the charge is pre-approved." I asked the same question in a Tower Records store and received the following replies from the clerk and the people standing in line: 1) It's up to the clerk 2) It's a [new] federal law 3) It's a local law. 4) The store policy changed. I once checked out after a credit card purchaser in a Dansk store -- the credit card person was asked to put her address and phone number on the slip. I paid cash and was then asked if I would fill out a card for their mailing list. In New York state, it is now illegal for a merchant to request a phone number and/or address on pre-approved credit card purchases. In my opinion, we are asked to give our phone numbers purely to update somebody's database. I am always amazed that people who would never give their social security number out will readily give out their phone number which can also serve as a database key if you don't move often. I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all, The clerks never check. Mary Culnan School of Business Administration Georgetown University Washington, D.C. (MCULNAN @ GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 08:28:38 EDT From: "Steve R. Levitt" Subject: Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? Brad Templeton was looking for a primer on telecom and datacom. I'm not an engineering type, so I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for...however I've made good use out of two books which cover (I think) what you need. Both are entitled "Business Telecommunications": Stanford H. Rowe II (1988). Published by Science Research Associates, Inc. -- ISBN# 0-574-18690-5 This book covers the basics, voice comms, coding and digitization, data terminals, data transmission and modems, circuits and networks, data link protocols, connections, architectures and standards, and management issues (regulatory influences, staffing, project management, etc.) Jay Misra & Byron Belitsos (1987). Published by Irwin -- ISBN# 0-256-05617-X. This book has chapters on basics, LANS, PBX's, Public networks, ISDN, Micro-mainframe links, e-mail, videotex, teleconferencing. I recommend the Rowe book myself ... keep in mind of course, that niether will cover recent issues such as T1 fractional services. Hope these help. Steve Levitt University of Kentucky Dept. of Telecommunications 218 Grehan Bldg. Lexington, KY 40506-0042 (606) 257-4240 LEVITT@UKCC.UKY.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:35:32 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City What are your sources for the reports re: 917? For sake of review: All the areacode splits, as far as I know, have been geographical, and no place, at least since 1965, has had its area code changed TWICE due to splits (although 305 has split twice, and 213 will undergo a new split when 310 is formed). New York City is currently split into 212 and 718 along borough/water lines (the only land boundary between boroughs that I know of is Queens/ Brooklyn, both in 718 along with Staten Island). Only Manhattan and Bronx remained in area 212, but I noticed a while back that the present 212 is more crowded than 718. How full are the areas now? (It's a good question as to what geographical areas would go into 917.) New York City message-unit zones are as follows: 1,2 in Manhattan 3 split between Manhattan and Bronx 4,5 in Bronx 6,7 in Brooklyn 8,9,10,11,12,13 in Queens 14,15 in Staten Island ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC Date: 20 Apr 90 12:27:14 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. Calling party disconnects can be of three types that I know about. Other people will obvioulsy send in many more: 1) reception of dial tone - your machine has a dial tone detector when the calling party hangs up, he will release his trunk and your exchange will provide your line with dial tone. Your machine detects this tone and releases. 2) open circuit on release - when the calling party disconnects, your exchange will momentarily open the tip connection on your loop. Your machine can detect the loss of loop current and release. This is an application of ground start like techniques to loop start lines 3) reversal on answer - the line circuit can be configured to provide a reversal of battery when the calling party releases. I would suppose that your machine is configured for methods 1) and 2). Europeans telcos typically use single frequency dial tone rather than the two frequency tones typical in North America. The dial tone detector in your machine may not be able to detect single frequnces as dial tone. I know that method 2 is used in the UK. You should ask your telco if they tarriff it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:42:18 PDT From: "John R. Covert 20-Apr-1990 1334" Subject: Re: ATT Billing Via Local Telcos David Barts writes: >Well, billing via the local telco is *the main reason* that ATT is my >long distance company. Less bother, paperwork, and postage stamps for >me to hassle with. If ATT starts doing their own billing, I'll just >switch to Metromedia<>ITT or Sprint, thank you. You'll find that Sprint already bills all its own customers directly, and I suspect that ITT does as well. They only use Telco billing for occasional customers. AT&T is my main company, but I have a Sprint account (and they seem to think I'm a Sprint dial 1 customer, though I only was for a short period after they changed my account against my explicit instructions not to). 10333+ calls are billed directly by Sprint. No extra paperwork, though, because the monthly (well, in those months where I have a Sprint charge) Sprint statement is automatically billed to my Amex card. I have this sneaking suspicion that AT&T is going to notify me at some point that AT&T charges generated against my normal phone will be charged to my AT&T One Card account. 10% discount? We'll see. /john ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service Date: 20 Apr 90 20:53:22 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Robert Michael Gutierrez writes: > None of this applies to BOC pay phones, as you're > charged the toll rate outright. (John H ... do you have a copy of > GTE's tariff or Pac Bell's??? Does it specifically exclude pay > phones?) Update: Today I was able to contact the very same people who worked with me on correcting the programming in the San Jose area pay phones. They have promised to, with tariff in hand, test each and every pay phone exchange, using both GTE and Cellular One prefixes and see that all of the Bay Area BOC pay phones handle the calls properly. To the best of my knowledge, this means that calls to GTE Mobilnet (as well as Cellular One) mobile phones will cost $0.20 from any Pac*Bell pay phone in the Greater Bay Area. Or it means that you will have to pay full toll, but whatever the outcome, both cellular companies will be treated equally. It is interesting to note that I have called GTE Mobilnet on this topic on several occasions. They have been sympathetic but have said that their hands are tied; that a customer such as myself would have to be the one to pressure Pac*Bell into making any changes on their pay phones. They were the ones who told me that the tariffs were identical for both providers, so that what worked for one should work for the other. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #270 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01988; 21 Apr 90 19:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14042; 21 Apr 90 18:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27865; 21 Apr 90 17:02 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:00:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #271 BCC: Message-ID: <9004211600.ab28491@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:00:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 271 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NiCad Battery "Memory" on Nokia P-30 [Bill Nickless] GTE Cellular Purchase [Thomas Neudecker] Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Jeff Carroll] Request For Info on Cellular Phones [Marc Rassbach] A Scanner Fix Wanted [Doug Thackery] Effects of Competition in US Telecom [Macy Hallock] AT&T's Wrong Recordings For Misdialled Calls to London [John R. Covert] International TDD Calls [Ken Harrenstien] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 09:21:20 CDT Subject: NiCad Battery "Memory" on Nokia P-30 From: Bill Nickless In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 269, Bob Warnock Subject: GTE Cellular Purchase GTE issued a press release announcing a $710 million purchase of the Providence Journal cellular properties in North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. The purchase, subject to federal approval will be made in cash and should be complete by the end of the year. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones Date: 20 Apr 90 20:43:40 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle >[Moderator's Note: Our two providers here are Ameritech (telco) and >Cellular One (owned by SW Bell). Other than the occassional very >sleazy and misleading promotion (virtual giveaway of phone by Fretters >with an advance payment of $1000 to Ameritech for service), Ameritech >generally is good. The monthly basic fee is $29.95, and the rates are >in the 30/35 cent range for peak time, and the 20/23 cent range for >off-peak. The 'Ten Cent Plan' costs $19.95 per month and allows off >peak calls at 10 cents per minute, with peak minutes costing 65 cents. >Cellular One has slightly lower airtime rates; but they nickle-and-dime >customers with service charges and other fees. Off-peak time is very >skimpy for both: 9 PM to 7 AM plus weekends. PT] Cellular One (unless there is more than one company using the service mark) is owned and operated by McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., of Kirkland, Washington. (If they were owned by SW Bell, they wouldn't be a "non-wireline" carrier, would they?) McCaw has gotten quite a bit of financial-market press lately about their heavily-leveraged hostile takeover of LIN Broadcasting of NYC, with the objective of acquiring enough non-wireline franchises accross the country to establish a "nationwide" network, whatever that means. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com [Moderator's Note: 'Cellular One' is a trade-name or service mark used by various cellular services. McCaw uses it in some places; SW Bell uses it here. What other examples are there? It is a common name for cellular companies. SW Bell is of course the wireline carrier in many parts of the southwest where they otherwise provide phone service. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Request For Info on Cellular Phones Date: Sat Apr 21 00:01:25 1990 From: Marc Rassbach Hello all, I have a need for a 'brief' description of 'all one needs to know' about cellular phones as 'someone who knows nothing'. (I got a call from an associate of mine who's father is going to buy a cellular phone, but has no clue even what to look for. Anything would be helpful.) If what you know is REALLY GOOD, send it to the Digest or just E-Mail it to me at the noted address. Thanks! ------------------------------ From: Doug Thackery Subject: A Scanner Fix Wanted Date: 20 Apr 90 18:23:45 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I recently bought a handheld scanner from DAK, Regency R 4030 that boasted 800 MHz band reception, however the 825 - 890 MHz portion has been "locked" out. I was wandering if anyone new of a fix for Regency/Bearcat scanners, something along the lines of changing a resistor value or eliminating a jumper or somthing like that that would be like a service mode or something, to get these frequencies back. I'd heard this might be possible but I was afraid maybe these freq's were locked out by firmware control or something. Is there anyone who can help with this problem? doug ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Fri Apr 20 11:02:14 1990 Subject: Effects of Competition in US Telecom Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 [The subject was US Sprint vs. AT&T service, but I'm expanding it a bit] In article <6449@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 258, Message 8 of 9 >Steve Elias writes for an anonymous poster: >> Also, the long distance calls you make today cost you on average 40% >> less than they did six years ago. >This is the one point that must be conceded. Competitive forces have >no doubt improved service overall and caused the decline in long >distance rates. >[...text deleted...] >Granted, competition has kept AT&T on its toes. And when some other >company can demonstrate that it really is better, I will be first in >line to sign up. Until then, I'll just settle for the indirect >benefits. OK, he has a choice, and can vote with his checkbook. And we all benefit from this. [Wait a minute while I drag out my soapbox out and climb on....] One of the biggest problems we face is the lack of competition in the local loop and switching, i.e. the local telephone companies. For various reasons, real and unreal, local rates have climbed in the past few years while the IXCs have dropeed their rates. Now, I can write a very lengthy article on this topic, but most of us are at least familiar with some of the basic arguments... When divestiture was upon us, the general feeling was the AT&T was going to benefit greatly and the Baby Bells were to become poor, pennyless orphans. The reality has been nearly the opposite. The LEC's are now thriving and cash rich. AT&T has still not completed a very traumatic adjustment to a competitive environment and has seen a drop in earnings while learning some very expensive lessons. The LECs have learned their lessons well. They spend a great deal of time and money on regulatory, legislative and lobbying efforts. The strategies used by AT&T during the late 60's and 70's to impede competition and increase revenues have not been forgotten by the LEC's. They have used and expanded these strategies with great success. One recent article in the April 1990 issue of _Networking Management_ entitled "Are the RBOCs Padding Their Embedded Base?" discusses some of the questions now being raised concerning this topic. A few of the actions taken by regulatory bodies are also discussed. There may be some hope for change: Ameritech, for one, has asked the question "Can the local loop be deregulated?" While I am not sure deregulation similar to that granted the CATV companies a while back by Congress is desirable, its time to begin looking at the possible deregulation of these monopoly services. There's little question that there will be (and should be) a long and hard debate by _everyone_ involved. There are many vested interests to be examined and, in some cases, protected. The best way to motivate the LECs to allow the process is to restrict their entry into CATV, info services and manufacturing until the questions are addressed. Now, I have my own vested interests here. I am: - A user of regulated LEC services, residentially - A user of regulated LEC services, commercially - A competitor with the LEC's deregulated telephone equipment sales operation (which I feel is cross subsidized by ratepayers without PUC authorization) - A user of deregulated LEC services (Yellow Pages, etc) Now, which is to cross subsidize what? Right now, there is evidence that the LEC accounting methods are poorly controlled, and the PUCs (and FCC) can only make decisions based on what (and how) the LECs show them. The Ohio PUC, for one, does not have the staff to conduct its own audit of any _one_ major utility in the state, much less control all of them. Repeated examples of creative and distorted accounting procedures have cropped up all over the US. It would appear that the regulatory bodies set up to control the LECs simply are over- whelmed by the challenge of combined above the line/below the line LEC operations and only react when public outcry demands action. So, while competition is benefitting us in the long distance services we use, the cost of local service is rising faster than ever, and with little control. The attitude of the voters in this country does not seem to recognize the need for change, yet. Politicians seem to be influenced primarily by: - LEC lobbyists - LEC controlled PAC money donations - consumer advocate groups concerned only with residential rates - lobbyists from large coporate users - lobbyists from large manufacturers - absolutely no one from small business users Where do we go from here? Is this really the best way to deliver local loop services in this country? Does the present system encourage the continued modernization of our local phone services? There's evidence the US is falling behind several other countries in offering ISDN and data switching services at reasonable rates thoughout the country. Will we lose the lead in the telecom industry though inaction, too? Are our legislators capable of dealing with this issue until a crisis occurs? Or will the lobbying efforts of the LECs ultimately dictate our national telecom policies? Note: LEC = Local Exchange Carrier, the regulated monopoly local telcos. IXC = Interexchange Carrier, the deregulated long distance carriers. Disclaimer: I am biased. The questions are just as valid, though. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: Fri, 20 Apr 90 06:34:04 PDT From: "John R. Covert 20-Apr-1990 0910" Subject: AT&T's Wrong Recordings For Misdialled Calls to London It's fairly common for AT&T's translation folks to load translations that specify "send this to special message n" and for the folks in the 4Es to forget to change the contents of special message n. I notice the following behaviour: From City Should dial 71 Should dial 81 Boston Congratulations, you have Due to the earthquake successfully reached the in the area you are MultiQuest test line. calling, your call cannot be completed at this time. Please try your call later. NYC Due to the severe weather Due to the earthquake conditions... [rest same ... as earthquake.] Wash., DC Dialling to Denmark has Due to circumstances Minneapolis been changed. Please beyond our control, your check the number and dial call cannot be completed. again, or call your AT&T Please try again in 20 operator for assistance. minutes. You will not be charged for this call. I have reported this to AT&T Long Distance Repair (800 222-3000) and have received ticket number 1b0420520. Troubles reported this way are _always_ fixed. Sprint and MCI afficionados will note that there seems to be no equivalent trouble reporting service, especially not providing a ticket number for future tracking of the trouble report. I have been unable to get Sprint or MCI to fix their problem with failing to complete calls to any German cellular phone (+49 161 nnn nnnn). Yet another reason to use AT&T. /john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 12:27:58 PDT From: Ken Harrenstien Subject: International TDD Calls A while back, Roy Smith asked about placing international TDD calls, specifically to New Zealand. I don't know the answer to the question, but since apparently no one else does either, I can explain what I know and give a number to try calling for more information. I'd appreciate additional enlightenment, of course. As far as I know there is no "international" TDD standard. Different countries have different systems. The three possible parameters are: (1) Code (ASCII, Baudot, variations thereof) (2) Speed (45.45, 50, 110, 300, ...) (3) Modem (Weitbrecht, Bell 103/202/212, CCITT V.*) In the U.S., the de facto standard evolved around the "American Communications" variant of Baudot at 45.45 baud (US Govt and Bell System 60wpm speed), using the half-duplex 1400/1800 Hz modem developed by Robert Weitbrecht in 1964. Last I heard, the TDD manufacturers were working with the EIA to come out with a definitive official standard, but I haven't seen it. A supposedly "international" version exists, which I gather is based on CCITT Alphabet #2 at 50 baud, but using the same Weitbrecht modem. I don't know how widespread this kludge is. I do know that ten years ago, most European countries appeared to be settling on ASCII (the international subset thereof) at 110 baud, using something like CCITT V.21. In Sweden, Televerket had the "Visual Text Telephone", in Germany the "Schreibtelefon", in Switzerland the "Teleskrit". All were supposed to be compatible under the "European Deaf Telephone Standard". Bear in mind this was a while ago and I haven't looked recently. However, since their approach made much better technical sense than the historical pastiche in the US, I would expect most governments in need of a standard to adopt the European model. To confuse the issue a little further, nothing appears to stop individuals from importing their own TDDs of whatever type they want. So in practice, there is a diffusion of US-type TDDs out into the world simply because in many cases nothing else is available. If a particular country hasn't adopted any official policy regarding deaf telecommunications, and in particular is not providing any assistance whatsoever, then it's up to the individual to find the cheapest TDD possible (typically a US-made Baudot-only frob, I imagine). As long as clusters of friends all get the same models, they can talk to each other regardless of standards. With regard to New Zealand, you'll just have to find out exactly what model of "modem-and-TTY" is involved. For kicks, here is the 800 number of one popular TDD manufacturer, Ultratec in Madison, WI: 800/482-2424. You are unlikely to get anyone with a technical vocabulary, but they are so marketing-oriented that they will probably know whether NZ is one of the places good for dumping cigarettes, uh, I mean Baudot TDDs. Ken ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #271 ****************************** ISSUES 272-273 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 272 WILL FOLLOW 273.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04171; 21 Apr 90 20:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03458; 21 Apr 90 19:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac14042; 21 Apr 90 18:12 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:01:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #273 BCC: Message-ID: <9004211801.ab06874@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:00:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 273 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Infinity Transmitters [w1gsl@athena.mit.edu] Re: Infinity Transmitters [Vance Shipley] Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness [Macy Hallock] Re: Credit Card ID [malcolm@apple.com] Re: Credit Card ID [Eric Black] Re: The Card [Will Martin] Re: Credit Card ID [Herman R. Silbiger] Dayton Hamfest [Macy Hallock] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 18:43:46 EDT In several recent issues of TELECOM Digest John DeArmond and Larry Lippman have shared descriptions of similar telephone room bugging devices with us. In the last Larry calls John's description a fairy tale. I am not sure why I should defend John but... Larry, You are jumping to some poor conclusions if you think John's device was not practical. You have compared a 1963 commercial device made in a garage workshop, with what would have been available in 1972 to a high tech (high budget) government agency. Now I have no specific knowledge of John's sources but, I was building many electronic devices back then... Many advances in low power and complexity of IC's had been made between those dates. CMOS logic was available, which would easily allow lowering the on hook current to a few micro amps, which would be undetectable, and allow a complex enable code. Building it into a network would make the installation much easier. Just swap the dial and plastic cover, any telco tech can do it in about five minutes. There is no need to do a field rivet job and even if the target opened the phone there would be no obvious extra circuits. Now would it work? Your main point is it won't work with a modern CO. The question is would it work with the PBX? Remember it only had to work within the same office. Around 1972 a tremendous number of ancient PBXs were still out there, It didn't really matter what the CO equipment was. Perhaps the reason it was available to be "borrowed" was that it was not universally useful anymore. Also I don't see your point in John turning twenty in 1974, I had my first "high tech" job at sixteen and had worked at several others before I got my BSEE at twenty-one. As for the ethics/legality - what about the action of the boss? Do you really think he would take it to court and risk having the evidence played? However, you are right it was illegal. Be sure to see your lawyer before doing anything ;-). Now the real question ... why was it necessary to use such a device ? The Telephone Company provided a much better way to bug most executive offices, with out ever entering the room, as a stock feature of many instruments of that era. We discovered it quite by accident in 1968 while installing some newly acquired 2564 HK touch tone sets on a previously rotary only, 1A2 key system at my college radio station. A couple of the spare pairs had been used for a custom intercom/signalling system. On plugging in the new sets the intercom and the new phones stopped working. The problem was traced to a continuous connection of the earphone to the vi-sl pair (?? I don't have my old notes here and it has been twenty years) which we had used for signaling! This pair was brought out in any instrument set up for speaker phone operation. It allowed mounting the speaker phone control box in the remote telephone closet. I was never clear as to why it was a necessary connection, however most five line 2564 sets, I have seen, have it connected. Now if it isn't obvious - the earphone makes an excellent dynamic microphone !! A quick test (with a couple of the radio stations drypairs looped back from a remote dorm, and a common balanced input mike amp) demonstrated it would work quite well at least up to a mile away. All someone had to do is bridge a pair across vi-sl and properly terminate the remote end. It would make no noticeable difference in the phones operation and would work even when the phone was in use. Of course we never bugged anyone, we only did some experiments in the station's studios. I do however recall a couple years ago, hearing about some state governor who had caught someone bugging his office, The newspapers were quite specific that no physical access was gained to the office; only to the phone closet in the hallway. I am surprised that more bugging wasn't done this way. I know I was always careful to see that pair was disconnected on any set in my office. Now that 2500 sets are being replaced by new digital sets the problem may be moot ;-). Then again who knows what is on the digital line with the set hung up. The hook switch on the brand new IBX set on my desk doesn't disconnect anything, it only sends a code down the line! Note: 2564's are the common old style (1965 - 1985) 5 line office phones made by ATT and others. Each has a 25 pair cable running to a Key System box which controls hold and common ringing etc. While it is not telco stock, it wouldn't take much to wire the earphone directly out on the unused pair of the currently popular modular jack on a single line 2500 set. :-( 73 Steve F W1GSL [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I thought Mr. Lippman's reference to DeArmond's age as a likely reason the story was fraudulent was in itself not very valid. My first employer, when I was a junior in high school, age sixteen, was the University of Chicago, where I worked in the old phone exchange, at 5801 South Ellis Avenue. When I was 18-20 years old, I was in charge of the facility overnight, which basically meant I was the overnight campus phone operator. Of course, times were different; it was certainly not 'high-tech' as we think of it today, thirty years later; but it was sophisticated equipment in its era, and a responsible position. PT] ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters Reply-To: vances@xenitec.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 02:36:52 GMT In recent articles infinity transmitters and other methods of monitoring rooms through the telephone were discussed. A number of years ago, when I was younger and had more time to kill, I thought about the legends I had heard and decided to find out for myself how it could be done. What I ended up doing was rewiring a 500 set to connect the second pair of the station wire to the transmitter when the phone was on hook. Usually both sides of the line are disconnected by the hook switch, this is not entirely necesary and it is common practice to rewire the hookswitch to use redundant contacts for other gains. An example is installing a 500 set on a 1A2 key system where the second pair of the station wire should be shorted out when a station is in use. With this scheme I could monitor outside the house (or in) with only a battery and a regular telephone set! It required access to the telephone (and possibly the network access or entrance terminal) but required only a couple minutes and no addition of parts to the phone, only rearrange what is already there. vances (if CLID detects flames call forwarding to /dev/null is in effect :'> ) ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Fri Apr 20 11:30:07 1990 Subject: Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 The recent exchanges between two valuable contributers to this Digest saddens me. These two gentlemen have both made a great many constructive and useful postings to the Digest over the past two years I have been fortunate enough to receive it. If only both had put nearly as much effort in educating us on the topic rather that berating each other, all the Digest readers would be the better. This flame fest benefits no reader. I have been in the telecommunications industry for twenty years now. While I may not be as learned or experienced as either of these gentlemen, I have learned one thing: No one knows everything in this industry. I have no problem with either gentlemen's knowledge or doubts. I just wish they would spend more time sharing their knowledge and less time denigrating the other. Geez, guys, you ain't Chicage aldermen. Act like the professional engineers we know you are. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: A follow-up reply by Larry will be issued Saturday evening, making a final rebuttal in this series, which has thus far included two articles by Mr. De Armand and one by Mr. Lippman, plus the assortment of miscellaneous articles such as the above. The follow-up will be a special issue. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Phone Numbers Not Required for Credit Cards Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 14:48:27 -0700 From: malcolm@apple.com In reaction to stores asking for your phone number when using your credit cards the following was published: [Moderator's Note: The way I usually avoid this is to tell them I don't have a phone. [Moderator's Note: Has anyone ever questioned this at all? PT] There is a woman who writes a national home finance column. I don't remember her name but she has lately been making a big deal in her column about how both Visa and Mastercard do not require a phone number for the purchase to be valid. She's been encouraging people to not give out their phone number. A few times, when I have felt ornery, I've told the clerk that I don't have to give them a phone number and they say fine. I've never been hassled about it. I've found an easier solution is to just put down the number for my modem. It is amazing how many times I've found a use for a phone number that is sometimes busy but never answers :-). Cheers. Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:49:46 PDT From: Eric Black Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Nowadays, when I'm asked for my phone number when signing a credit card slip, I've taken to putting down (415) 555-1212. They're free to call that number and ask for me! No amount of explaining/arguing with the person behind the counter is effective; just give them a phone number, and they'll be happy. If the number is, in fact, used as another handwriting sample, as has been suggested, then it still serves that purpose (as long as the other person doesn't write it down for me). If the number is to "protect" the merchant against a bad charge, the authorization number they called in to get serves that purpose, as has been pointed out. If they want my number, they can call Directory Assistance to get it! Eric Black "Garbage in, Gospel out" Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Email: ericb@Atherton.COM Voice: +1 408 734 9822 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 9:55:42 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: The Card Reply-To: wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil The history of comments from people on this list regarding the AT&T credit card has been interesting. The initial press release referred to it as a card which "will be accepted by VISA and MasterCard merchants"; it did not actually state it would be a "VISA Card" or a "MasterCard". One poster received his card in a week, and stated it bore the VISA logo. Then another just posted that he received his during the past few days (about 2 weeks after the other person) and it bore a MasterCard logo. [Local newspaper ads for The Card show only a MC logo pictured.] I applied during the first week and have not yet received anything from AT&T on this. But I find this difference fascinating. I had sort of expected to get a VISA card; I already have two different MasterCards but only one VISA so wanted to equalize them... :-) Perhaps we can collect some data on this via the list and get some idea as to what determines whether the card issued is VISA or MC -- would it be geographic, or based on some financial level such as the credit limit? Or perhaps it is simply random; maybe AT&T has some agreement with the creditcard people that it will distribute its enlistees amongst them equally or at some percentage to one or the other. Maybe it is time-based; one week they issue VISA, the next MC? Any other possible factors? [I'm also somewhat confused by the whole concept of "VISA" and "MasterCard" as entities in and of themselves. After all, when you get a bank credit card, though it has one of these logos, it comes from a specific bank, and that's who handles your correspondence and who you pay. There must be companies somewhere that own the trademarks of VISA and MC, and license them to the banks, and, I suppose, act as a clearinghouse to route transaction slips sent from the merchants to their own banks to get to the bank where that particular creditcard account resides. Does anyone out there know who and where they are? Are VISA and MC actually separate competing companies, or two halves of the same entity? I'd like to be able to write the HQ offices with suggestions I have for policy changes and improvements...] A side note to the person who reported getting the rejection letter even though he was told he was "pre-approved" -- I think this can be valuable to you. With that rejection, you are entitled to a free copy of your credit-rating report from the credit bureau that was cited on that letter. Without this rejection, you'd have to pay for a copy. If you write and request a copy of the report (enclosing a copy of the letter as evidence) I believe the current federal law on credit requires them to send you a copy and then accept info from you to corect errors or omissions on that report which might have been the cause of the reject. It can be enlightening to see a copy of such a report on yourself; I've never been able to bring myself to pay for a copy, and haven't been rejected so couldn't get a free one, but always wanted to see my credit-report data. I'll report to the net if and when I get my cards, and what form they are. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: hrs1@cbnewsi.ATT.COM (herman.r.silbiger) Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 21 Apr 90 21:41:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > I just write 555-1212 > Steve Wolfson > uunet!motcid!wolfson > [Moderator's Note: Has anyone ever questioned this at all? PT] I also have had a call at least once that I left my credit card behind, but in general I don't believe they ever look at what you write. A few times, when the salesperson says: Please put yourname and youraddress on the slip, I write "Yourname Andyouraddress" and nobody notices. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Dayton Hamfest Date: Fri Apr 20 12:31:14 1990 The Dayton Hamfest, largest of its kind is April 27-30 this year. I will be there at booth 2409, along with a couple other Digest readers/contributors (who shall remain nameless, wb8foz?) If you're not going, you are missing a unique telecom event. If you are going, stop by and say hello. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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") ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #273 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04880; 21 Apr 90 21:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14042; 21 Apr 90 18:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27865; 21 Apr 90 17:02 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:43:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #272 BCC: Message-ID: <9004211643.ab10463@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:42:53 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 272 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines" [M. Hallock] Party Lines (Was Phone Replacement) [Macy Hallock] Re: Phone Replacement [Peter Da Silva] Four Party Service and Your Own Phones [John R. Covert] Modem Problems on Sprint [Jody Kravitz] Re: Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments [John Higdon] Sprint's "Deep Throat" [Hector Myerston] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Thu Apr 19 09:20:14 1990 Subject: Re: PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines" Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <6383@accuvax.nwu.edu> Larry Lippman writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 254, Message 1 of 7 >In article <6176@accuvax.nwu.edu> Robert.Savery@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [ discussion of PTT handsets and FP lines deleted...] >The net result was that every station could be heard on *every* other >station and *every* loudspeaker. > I betcha at least one TELECOM Digest reader has at one time >worked for an interstate trucking company and used a "hoot-n-holler" >line. You bet ... except I got install and fix 'em. Most of the systems I saw were hoot-n-holler circuits for junkyards (auto parts recyclers for those under 30 :-)) used for parts location. We didn't put PTT handsets on those circuits, though ... the users couldn't figure out how to use them. These circuits were also common for FAA sites. When noise cancelling mics became available, we found them to be most useful on these circuits. SS-1's were another thing entirely. Talk about a hack! These things were basically conference circuits with rotary dial/sf-type selective signalling added. Invariably, the customer would want us to connect these circuits to key systems or PBX's. Possible, but ugly, ugly!! Thanks to advances in transmission equipment, conference circuits can now be designed with conventional two wire station equipment at the station ends. My interconnect co. still works with these from time to time, and they do serve a purpose. We even tied one of these systems to a two radio system a while back, so the junkyard owner could use it while he was wandering around the premises! [I would like to thank Larry for his frequent and informative postings to the Digest. He's one of the reasons I read and contribute.] Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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 Apr 20 09:17:44 1990 Subject: Party Lines (Was: Phone Replacement) Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <6443@accuvax.nwu.edu> our esteemed Moderator writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 258, Message 2 of 9 >[Moderator's Note: Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook >anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco >itself? IT is my understanding that only telco provided phones are allowed on party lines, per Part 68. GTE Ohio rents and sells phones for party lines here, and allows customer (plug-in) installation. I used to believe customer owned sets were not allowed at all. GTE told me they interpret the rules to say telco provided, not telco owned. Answering machines, alarm jacks, and anything other than telco provided telephone sets and extension ringers are not permitted. GTE no longer uses harmonic ringing for party lines (this is frequency selctive ringing as previouly discussed). The GTD-5 electronic CO's now only seem to support conventional split party ringing requiring a ground. This is the same scheme Ohio Bell has been using for years. (I always found it hard to believe that Automatic Electric designed a CO without harmonic ringing ... it was almost a "trademark" of their CO's ..) GTE used to offer up to eight party rural party line service, but several years ago a PUC mandate to reduce all party lines to four party maximum was passed. At present, most party lines are two party max, though four party is still tarriffed, but soon to be eliminated. This is part of a PUC statewide program to reduce party line service. The recent low income phone line discount bill passed by the legislature appears to be intended for single party service. Anyone familiar with the billing and identification problems associated with party lines will not be surprised to hear that GTE has had fits with enhanced 911 service and party lines. Also, 1+ carrier selection is not available for party line users, you have to take GTE's assignment. I have not tried 10XXX dialing on GTE or Ohio Bell party lines. And a decimonic ring to all of you, too... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone Replacement Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 21:52:29 GMT What I don't understand... Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990? Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180 Disclaimer: People have opinions, organizations have policy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:49:32 PDT From: "John R. Covert 20-Apr-1990 1346" Subject: Four Party Service and Your Own Phones If your central office supports automatic identification of outgoing long distance calls (i.e. you don't get a "What number are you calling from" operator on every outgoing long distance call) you _must_not_ ever make a long distance call from a phone not supplied by the telco. Doing so is likely to charge the call to one of the other parties on your line. /john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 00:53:28 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Modem Problems on Sprint A few weeks ago I had an interesting problem using Sprint to make Telebit Trailblazer modem calls. I learned later that this problem affects fax modems as well. Thursday, at 1:30 AM, I queued E-mail to my company's mail hub in Florida. I did not force a poll, since I knew that between then and the morning there would be two polls, one outgoing and one incoming. To my surprise the next morning, the mail was still queued. I tried several times to force the poll, and each time UUCP reported that the call failed at some point after the modems had connected and trained. I checked with the mail administrator at our hub machine and found that they were apparently having no problems, so I proceeded with some additional tests. I set my Trailblazer Plus's S registers to leave the speaker on during the entire connection and tried polling our mail hub again. It became immediately obvious that the modem was retraining over and over again, sometimes only getting a few bytes through between retrains. I tried calling several Trailblazers in San Diego county (local calls) and had no problems. This seemed to indicate that my modem and the "local loop" to the Central Office was OK. I normally dial Sprint vial 1-800-877-8000 and use my FON card number. I next tried 1+ dialing, routed through Sprint. No improvement. I then routed through AT&T and everything worked fine. Now I was pretty sure there was no "local loop" or modem problem at either end. I called the mail administrator at our mail hub and found out how to report the problem to our telecommunications department. The telecommunications department said they would call Sprint and get back to me. Meanwhile, I called Telebit, thinking that I better have something intelligent to say to Sprint. After all, the voice quality was very good. Telebit called me back and I talked to them at some length. They said that they had seen a lot of trouble with micro-packets on Sprint, as they said they were having trouble keeping Sprint's echo cancelers turned off. They suspected my problem was due to echo cancelers as well. I don't use micro-packets (my firmware is too old), so they suggested I change a magic, undocumented, S register. This S register changes the length of the guard-tone at the beginning of each regular packet. We determined that setting this value to 4 at both ends seemed to compensate for whatever had changed on Sprint, although at some cost of bandwidth and especially interactive response time. They said that they preferred I didn't quote them when I talked to Sprint. Our telecommunications department called back and said "we are a Sprint national account and Sprint will call you right away to get more information". Sprint did call right away. They took down the symptoms and said someone from the switch would call me back. They also gave me a magic 800 number I could call 24 hours a day to get someone who would know about this problem. It turned out that having this number made it extremely easy to get hold of the right people without going through a lot of layers of hierarchy. The switch-woman called me back and took more information about the symptoms, type of modems, etc. She seemed to understand my explanation of the Trailblazer's PEP mode. She offered that they had been upgrading the echo cancelers and asked if "echo canceler problems" could be my problem. I said "it wouldn't surprise me", not wanting to quote Telebit. She went on to say that the new echo cancelers were coming strapped differently from the factory than the old ones and they weren't sure if the new strapping was appropriate. She said that they had been having problems with other half-duplex modems as well (faxes, specifically). She decided that she wanted to search the call records to see if my calls had gone on the new equipment. I gave her the phone numbers involved calls and she said she would call me back. She called me back while I was at a dinner party, but she left a message on my answering machine. When I got home, I called the 800 number. It was now night shift, and my call went directly to the Rialto switch (near LA). The night crew was expecting my call. The switch-man had me explain to him about PEP mode on the Trailblazer. He seemed to understand, and expressed strong suspicions about the new echo cancelers. He said said they had been unable to find the call records. We figured out right away that they had searched for 1+ calls instead of FON card calls. Had they known, they would have been able to find the records. We talked about it for a few more minutes and decided that since the problem was easy to duplicate, he would just have me "demonstrate the problem". While I was setting up the first call, he volunteered that they had been installing a new "rev" of Tellabs echo cancelers, and that the latest batch had been configured differently from the factory. He went on to say that they had been having trouble with other half-duplex modems (specifically, faxes) and they were very interested in my problem. By this time it was after 11pm, and the traffic to the Orlando switch was quite modest, so he busied out all but one bank of channels to Orlando and had me attempt my call again. Same problem. At this point, he started experimenting with different echo canceler options. He even tried installing one of the old cards for a while. He found two ways to make the problem go away. One was by installing the old echo canceler card. The other was by re-strapping the new echo canceler card. The new echo canceler has two relevant options. One is whether the echo canceler should stay off for the duration of the call if it has been turned off at the beginning by a 2100 HZ tone. If not enabled, some audio-dead time will turn the echo canceler back on. The amount of dead time for the new canceler appears to be shorter than the old card. The second option is how long a "sample" to take of the echo before deciding what echo cancellation function to use. I was told that the old cards were strapped to 36ms, and the new ones were strapped to 96ms. I gather that strapping the new cards to 36 ms solved the problem. The switchman was at a loss to explain why setting the echo canceler to the "end of call" mode didn't solve the problem. He set all the echo cancelers to the mode that "works", and all but one of my calls went through on Friday (the next day) without problems. On Friday they officially closed my trouble call, but they opened an "internal" trouble call to continue researching the problem. They gave me the new internal, "ticket number" and invited me to call the magic 800 number at "any time" to get status or report additional problems. The problem has not returned. Jody Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments Date: 20 Apr 90 01:00:45 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Steve Elias writes (for a Sprint employee): > [a well-reasoned reply to my rantings on Sprint] In all fairness, there is some new information concerning the Sprint vs AT&T long distance service. It appears that all problems may actually be nothing more than my local office. I have friends in the San Jose ALpine office and they have an entirely different point of view. From their perspective (and I have confirmed this by my own experimentation) Sprint is fine and AT&T absolutely stinks. When I tried to make some AT&T calls from a 408/370 number, every single connection was noisey and highly distorted. Attempts to place the call through the AT&T operator resulted in even worse connections. This lousy quality was pointed out to the operator who promised to report it, but I was informed by my friends that this has been going on for some time amist many promises by operators to get the problem repaired. A comparison of setup times revealed that Sprint was actually faster than AT&T(!) from the ALpine office. And an informal check indicates that the disconnection problem is non-existent. The long and the short of it is that Sprint isn't nearly as bad in my CO as AT&T is in the ALpine office. If someone is going to compare long distance companies, an eye must be kept on the terminating office! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 20 Apr 90 08:57 PDT Subject: Sprint's "Deep Throat" Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] The anonymous Sprint "spokesman" seems to be a "True Believer" and suffers from too many delusions to address in detail. However the comment about video-conferencing is too much to pass up. Sprint provides on-demand video-conf bandwidth through an outfit called The Meeting Channel in Atlanta. I don't know what the exact relationships are, but I DO know that: o Any question about video-conf is referred to Atlanta. Local Sprint people do not have a clue. o The access link to The Meeting Channel can NOT be shared with any other Sprint service. (ie if the access is T-1 for 384Kbps once a week the circuit idle the rest of the time.) So much for High-Tech! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #272 ****************************** ISSUES 272-273 WERE REVERSED. ISSUE 273 APPEARS BEFORE ISSUE 272.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06197; 21 Apr 90 21:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19720; 21 Apr 90 20:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03458; 21 Apr 90 19:18 CDT Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:52:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Infinity Transmitters - II BCC: Message-ID: <9004211852.ab27449@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:50:13 CDT Infinity Transmitters - II Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson "Infinity Transmitters", John De Armond and the BIG LIE [Larry Lippman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: "Infinity Transmitters", John De Armond and the BIG LIE Date: 21 Apr 90 14:33:50 EST (Sat) From: Larry Lippman In article <6406@accuvax.nwu.edu> "John G. De Armond" writes: ...and writes and writes and digs himself a deeper hole... Before delving into Mr. De Armond's new morass, I would like to state that TELECOM Digest has to date one of the best signal-to-noise ratios of any group distributed through Usenet or the Internet, and I would not like to see it degenerate through the nonsense started by Mr. De Armond. This will be my last comment on this issue, and it should provide TELECOM Digest readers with sufficient information as to form a belief on the matter. Quoted article sources are keyed as follows: ">" refers to the most recent article from Mr. De Armond; "$D>" refers to Mr. De Armond's original article; and "$L>" refers to my original article. > After this brief history lesson, LL proceeds to extrapolate from the > microscopic particular to the general and claim that the infinity > transmitter I described could have NEVER existed and that I had simply > made up a fairy tale (his words.). My credibility assessment of Mr. De Armond's original story is now strengthed to a virtual certainty based upon the content of his second article. The basis for my belief includes but is not limited to: I - IMPRACTICABLE DEVICE WITH IMPROBABLE CLAIM AS TO ORIGIN The "infinity transmitter" is a largely impracticable device creating an unacceptable risk of detection by the subject. For any dialup connection to the device, there is at *least* a 25% chance that the subject's telephone will emit a full or partial ring, thus raising suspicion. The subject's telephone line will be busy to outside callers during the entire time that "infinity transmitter" is in use; such a false busy condition is likely to be noticed by other callers who may alert the subject to this anomaly. Furthermore, the quiescent current consumption of such a device is readily ascertained using simple test apparatus available to the telephone company or others. $D> I got my infinity transmitter from a friend who worked for a well $D> known government agency whose name begins with a "C" :-). This is not credible since the "government agency" alluded to above would not utilize such a crude device when alternative devices of a superior nature with virtually no risk of of detection are available. Furthermore, Mr. De Armond embellishes his story by not only claiming that the device was built into a telephone network, but by claiming that the device utilized a multi-tone actuation method. The claim of a multi-tone actuation method is akin to building a bank vault with one wall made of plywood. While it is possible to design and build such a device into a network, this would have required a considerable effort, with such design and packaging being improbable for this type of device. II - CONTRADICTORY TIME FRAMES $D> I used one in the early '70s to get the $D> goods on my boss who was, it turns out, planning on having some pot $D> planted in my car in order to have me fired. This is improbable since Mr. De Armond was fifteen years old in 1970, and even if "early 70's extends to 1974, it is still improbable that at 19 years of age Mr. De Armond would hold a "government job" and have connections to a "government agency whose name begins with a 'C'". In his second article Mr. De Armond substantially alters time frames of his alleged experience in a contradictory and inconsistent manner, in an apparent after-the-fact effort to reconcile his story with available technology and the revelation of his age at the time of his original claim. > with the government in the mid 70's. > obviously do not still have the device in question, having left it in > place when I left the government service in 1979. > 4. My device was probably built closer > 1977 or '78 but '75 is conservative. > I modified the functional design a bit from the one I used a decade > ago in the interest of simplicity and perhaps in the interest of added The time frame of Mr. De Armond's story now varies as much as *TEN YEARS* from "the early '70s" to "mid 70's" to "1977 or '78" to "1979" to "a decade ago" [1980]. III - IMPROBABLE COMBINATION OF "INFINITY TRANSMITTER" WITH WIRETAP $D> Oh yeah, about my problem. I confronted my boss behind closed doors $D> with those tapes and tapes from a phone tap I'd installed too and we $D> reached an agreement on a truce until I could transfer to another agency. Now here is an interesting point not raised in my original article. Mr. De Armond claims to have also installed a "phone tap", which implies that he already has access to the tip and ring of the subject's telephone at some remote location. If this were the case, then no one in their right mind would risk detection by using an infinity transmitter since by using just one resistor and one capacitor, the transmitter in the telephone handset could be made live ALL OF THE TIME. All one would need is a high-gain amplifier bridged across the tip and ring of the subject's telephone line to detect the resultant sound. No false rings or unusual line busy conditions to create suspicion. Surely Mr. De Armond's "friend who worked for a well known government agency whose name begins with a 'C'" could have informed him about this simpler, safer and more effective alternative. IV - SERIOUS TECHNICAL INCONSISTENCIES IN MR. De ARMOND'S SECOND ARTICLE > 3) Larry had absolutely no knowledge of the environment under which > the device was used. For example, it was used on the relatively > controlled environment of an old crosspoint PBX and not a Bell > subscriber loop or phone. He did not know this, as evidenced by > his description of a CO switch. Ahh, a "crosspoint PBX"! Perhaps an AE/Leich 40, 80 or 100-series? The AE/Leich crosspoint PABX is a bit unusual in many respects, one of which pertains to PABX station-to-station dialing (which is what I presume Mr. De Armond now claims to have done). I have some truly devastating news for you, Mr. De Armond. Station-to-station dialing on a AE/Leich crosspoint PABX is accomplished through a "link circuit" (H-850289). Unlike any SxS, XY, XBAR or ESS apparatus, the Leich link circuit functions under LAST PARTY CONTROL. This means that while an "infinity transmitter" would have answered, it could NEVER HAVE DISCONNECTED UNDER CONTROL OF THE CALLING PARTY. Not a very wise or useful situation. In fact, depending upon circumstances, it is possible that once activated, the device could not be released by ANY MEANS other than the subject having to physically disconnect their telephone set! Oh well, maybe it wasn't an AE/Leich crosspoint PABX after all. But that doesn't seem very likely since AE/Leich made the only "crosspoint PBX" I can think of which might have been sold to the U.S. government, or to the state of Tennessee, for that matter. Or maybe it was an AE/Leich PABX and Mr. De Armond modified the link circuits for calling party control. That's it! Yeah, that's right, that's the ticket! :-) > One of the central themes of LL's posting was that my device must be a > fairy tale because the technology did not exist to make such a not- > easily-detectable device. After stewing on this for a day or two, I > decided to get proactive and prove that indeed such a device was not > only feasible but easy to make. I'm impressed. Mr. De Armond wasted time in allegedly designing and building a device which will today work on less than 5% of all CO and PABX lines in North America. And he used circuit technology which did not exist for several years following the date when he originally claimed to have used such a device. > The design criteria for my "bug" are as follows: > 1. Be undetectable by DC means. This implies a quiescent current draw > under 100 microamps. I wonder if Mr. De Armond has ever seen any countermeasures apparatus built by F. G. Mason Engineering? I suspect not. But if he did, he would realize that quiescent current drain must be << 100 uA to avoid detection. > 2. Be undetectable by AC means applied to a subscriber loop. This implies > a high AC impedance, preferably over 100kohms. So what? The telephone set is already sitting with a bridged ringer that is going to have an AC impedance of << 1000 ohms. > 3. Be undetectable via emitted or induced EMI. In other words, no > oscillators and no inductors. Mr. De Armond slipped up. Later in his article he talks about a relay in his circuit. Last I knew, relay windings were "inductors". > This device is designed to respond to a pair of tones > alternately applied to the line at a moderate switching rate. Out of > convenience, I used the tones of 1209 hz and 3266 hz alternated at a 7 > hz rate. I'll explain why later. 7 Hz? Poor choice of frequency, Mr. De Armond. I bet I could spoof your alleged device with a 76C Cable Splicer's Test Set. > I have a HUGE "junk box" (actually, about 2500 sq feet of floor space) > and a large library so I have a wide selection of parts to choose from > and a good library that dates back to the late 60s (Yes, Larry, when I > was in my early teens.). I'm turning green with envy. > My active device is my old favorite of the linear devices, the 74C04 > hex inverter. Yes, sportsfans, a digital CMOS part. This device, > when properly biased and fed-back, is an excellent low power audio and > low RF amplifier. I can't imagine why anyone could want to diddle with a 74C04 as an amplifier when manufacturers such as National and GE/Intersil have a wide variety of CMOS and JFET devices which are far superior and have quiescent supply currents of 10 uA or less. > I measured the > consumption at 5 volts with a Keithley Model 614 digital picoammeter. Is Mr. De Armond *sure* that he used a Keithley Model 614? My organization has one, and the last time I saw it the front panel said "ELECTROMETER". Keithley does have other models, though, which are called "picoammeters". I wonder if Mr. De Armond will now want to change the model number? > With inputs grounded, this particular part consumed 0.002 microamp. > With an input tied to an output to bias the device linear, the current > rose to 0.015 microamps. Inputs grounded, eh? Not a very useful measurement condition, Mr. De Armond. How much *noise* do think is going to be present when your alleged device is connected to a real telephone line? Especially when the bandpass filter has to operate in the presence of 80 to 110 volts RMS of 20 Hz AC signal during ringing while still *rejecting* such a huge signal. > The output of the comparator is fed to a sensitive relay > from the junque box. This relay picks up at about 100 microamps and > probably came out of an old piece of process control equipment. It > has 2 dpdt dry contacts. This is interesting. Assuming that Mr. De Armond has 6 volts of DC power as stated below: > The power supply for this device consists of 4 1n4742 12 volt, 1 watt > zeners in series feeding a bridge rectifier whose output is clamped by > a 1n4735 6.3 volt, 1 watt zener. Mr. De Armond's DPDT relay is picking up at 100 uA at 6 VDC for a power consumption .6 mW. That is a truly *AMAZING* relay, Mr. De Armond! I, along with perhaps other TELECOM Digest readers, would sure like to know its manufacturer and model number. You see, Mr. De Armond, here's the problem: A sensitive DPDT subminiature relay, like the Teledyne Centagrid [tm] mil-spec series, rated at 6 volts DC requires at least 30 MILLIamperes of pickup current. Mr. De Armond's alleged relay is at least 300 times MORE SENSITIVE than any DPDT relay that I can think of. And I can think of a *lot* of relays. Now, Mr De Armond did mention above that the relay "probably came out of an old piece of process control equipment". So, perhaps he was referring to a Weston Sensitrol [tm] or Barber-Colman Micropositioner [tm] series relay. These are the most sensitive relays that I can think of offhand which might be found in process equipment. (See, I'm trying to lend credibility to Mr. De Armond's story, nice guy that I am.) Except there are three new problems created with *this* scenario: (1) these relays were never available in a DPDT configuration, being SPDT only; (2) the Sensitrol relay had magnetic latching contacts in the microampere ranges; and (3) even these relays are no where near as sensitive as the one in his claim (6 VDC @ 100 uA). If Mr. De Armond had any knowledge of eavesdropping devices beyond what he was able to glean from my article, he would not even *think* of using a relay (which I mentioned *only* because it was employed in the original Mittelman "infinity transmitter"). He would have instead used what anyone else would have used after 1970 or so - an SCR. > The design purpose of this arrangement is for the circuit to draw zero > current until the applied voltage reaches about 40 volts. This > prevents the device from being detected by applying an ohmmeter to the > terminals of the phone. It also prevents the device from being > activated or detected by the application of 24 volts, a value common > to phone test boxes. Telephone company subscriber line test apparatus does not use less than 48 volts for test purposes. Neither does any electronic countermeasures test apparatus. No reliance on a traditional ohmmeter circuit would ever be made by a knowledgeable person conducting any electronic countermeasures inspection. > When activated, > the device represents about 6 extra volts' of drop across the set. 6 volts drop on say, 50 mA of loop current is 300 mW of power dissipation in your device. Since Mr. De Armond's alleged relay and linear circuit consumes, say 1 mW maximum, what circuit elements dissipate the other 299 mW of power? > 3) Reliable activation with no voice-falsing occurred with about > 600 mv of tone. How about in the presence of 90 volts RMS at 20 Hz? > I have proven that with about 6 hours of work and using components > from the junk box, a proof-of-concept Infinity transmitter can be > built that is substantially in conformance with the one I described in > my first article and which would be practically undetectable with > ordinary means. > It would certainly resist LL's VOM assault. No, it wouldn't. I would start on a 200 mA scale and work down to 200 uA. > There is > one (or two) chip(s) involved and a handful of discrete components. All > would comfortably fit in a network housing. How about the, uh, "micropower" relay? > In terms of physical concealment, the whole works could be potted in > the network housing. Potting is not atypical. Many an eavesdropping device has been potted into a network. Of all the devices which *could* be installed within the confines of a station network, the "infinity transmitter" is unquestionably the least useful and one most prone to inadvertent detection. > So here we have a situation where a pompous ass named Larry Lippman > has decreed from his throne that a rather detailed description of an > infinity transmitter I used years ago was a lie simply because HE had > never heard of it. In reply to his accusations, I spent an evening's > worth of spare time and designed a device such as according to Larry, > could not exist and then built it using parts from the era. Quite frankly, I don't believe that the circuit Mr. De Armond alleges to have designed and built in six hours exists, either. V - MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS > And yet he makes a slanderous attack on my character. What a guy. ^^^^^^^^^ What "character"?! Mr. De Armond admitted to having committed a *felony* violation of both state and federal law, for which there was no lawful justification. He should have been indicted, convicted and appropriately sentenced. Period. > I used phreaking as an educational tool, never stole > a dime's worth of services, and freely admit my activities. Where have we heard that line before? > So Larry, let's get to the point. I've not only demonstrated that an > "impossible" device could be built in an evening, I've also described > the use of a professionally built unit. Let's see if you are as > assertive and aggressive in you apology and retraction as you were in > your slanderous assault on my character. I am now "assertive and aggressive", but not in the manner which Mr. De Armond naively expects. $L> I'm sorry if I may appear harsh to Mr. De Armond, but there are $L> enough *real* problems in the world involving unlawful eavesdropping, $L> without the need to invent any more myths. I no longer feel sorry about being harsh to Mr. De Armond. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry [Moderator's Note: Well readers, YOU be the judge. This concludes the publication in the Digest of the debate between the gentlemen. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Infinity Transmitters - II ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28341; 22 Apr 90 10:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28820; 22 Apr 90 8:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09785; 22 Apr 90 7:26 CDT Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 7:02:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Telesat Report - Spring 1990 BCC: Message-ID: <9004220702.ab02899@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Apr 90 07:00:00 CDT Special: Telesat Report Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telesat Report - Spring 1990 [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telesat Report - Spring 1990 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 00:00:00 EDT From: woody [Here is the PR letter from Telesat Canada... latest edition] Telesat Report Vol 5 No 1 Telesat Canada, Satellite Communications Newsletter, Spring 1990 Inside: * Helicopter Giant Links Operations Via Satellite * Telesat Welcomes Government Divestiture * Advanced Television Trial Underway * Telesat Ready for Future With New Control Centre * Radio-Quebec Renews Uplink Agreement -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Helicopter Giant Links Operations Via Satellite By: Darren Kelly, Telesat Vancouver Sales Canadian Helicopters, Canada's largest helicopter company, has joined Telesat's family of Anikom 500 customers with the completion of its voice and data satellite network. During the last quarter of 1989, Canadian Helicopters completed voice and data links between its head office in St John's Newfoundland and its Pacific and international headquarters in Vancouver. An Edmonton link was also part of phase one. February marked the completion of phase two with the additon of Toronto to the network, which provides Canadian Helicopters with a complete dedicated voice and data network. Canadian Helicopters operates 265 aircraft in 60 locations in Canada and 15 centres around the world, making it the largest helicopter company in Canada. "Both financial and value added features led us to make the decision to go with Telesat's Anikom 500 service," says Ian Hogg, Management Information Services Manager, Canadian Helicopters. "We now have the ability to link our offices together at a lower fixed cost and, in the future, we can add services like video conferencing, transportable services, or Business Television." The Canadian Helicopters network includes voice circuits at 24 kbps and 32 kbps. Data circuits are provided at 19.2 kbps and 9.6 kbps. "With the multiplexers on site, we can change the configuration to meet our future requirements" says Hogg. "Initially, we will link our offices via satellite, but one day we want all our aircraft to be linked to head office using satellite technology. We believe we have selected the right technology for our company's current and future operations." This contract is unique for Telesat because while Canadian Helicopters makes use of Telesat services, Telesat also uses the helicopter service. "The helicopter lift for our Vancouver Common User Facility went off like clock work", says Charley Clarke, Telesat Installation Specialist. "A helicopter picked up the antenna at the harbour, and safely deposited it on the roof of the facility in downtown Vancouver five minutes later. Canadian Helicopters did a super job!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Telesat Welcomes Government Divestiture Over the past few years, Telesat has been implementing a strategic plan which has quickly established it as Canada's third national telecommunications carrier. Key to the success of this program has been Telesat's increasing independence, which has resulted in greater choice and selection for Canadian businesses in the growing telecommunications markets. The Government of Canada's recent announcement to sell its 50 per cent stake in Telesat is a positive step in this direction. The following is Telesat's corporate position on the divestiture. Commentary By: President Eldon Thompson Telesat welcomes the recent announcement that the Government of Canada intends to sell its shares in Telesat. While the government has expressed its intentions to divest its shares on numerous occasions, the Budget Speech implies a timetable that, we hope, will see Telesat stock publicly traded within the current term of office. Telesat is the third national telecommunications carrier in Canada, providing a portfolio of high quality, competitively priced business communications services. We offer a broad range of services, have a large customer base, a national marketing and service infrastructure, and are seeing ever-increasing acceptance of satellite networks as the answer to many business communications needs. With the fulfilment of all the government's original policy objectives in relation to satellite communications, our successful penetration of the business communications marketplace, and the dynamic growth in the use of satellite networks for many mainstream applications, it is now an appropriate time for the federal government to divest its shares in Telesat. There is no longer any policy reason requiring government to participate in ownership of the company. In his Budget Speech, Finance Minister Michael Wilson stated that "the government's privatisation objective has been to sell investments where government ownership is no longer required and to rely on market forces to spur Canada's competitiveness." Telesat fully supports these views and endorses any divestiture plan, such as a public share offering, that will maintain or increase competition in the telecommunications marketplace, and stimulate the company's will to succeed in that marketplace. In the course of the divestiture, Telesat would like to see the government - and, therefore, the Canadian taxpayer - maximise the return on its long investment in Telesat, and we are prepared to advise the government on the method and timing of its divestiture with that objective in mind. Telesat further welcomes the introduction of a new telecommunications policy that will ensure interconnection to network services throughout Canada, and allow carriers and service resellers to compete on an equal basis. A new policy along these lines, and the legislation which will apply it, will help Telesat remain competitive under private sector ownership. Our experience within Telesat is that efficient telecommunications provides a competitive edge to businesses, cutting decision-making time, significantly improving productivity, and reducing the cost of information transfer. Our goal is to remain a world leader in satellite communications, and to continue to furnish unique solutions to business needs. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Advanced Television Trial Underway By: Mike Bryan, Telesat Public Affairs Telesat's two-year Advanced Television (ATV) trial moved into the limelight with several major events at the close of 1989, including a three-day HDTV (High Definition Television) production seminar at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa, and an exclusive closed circuit HDTV broadcast of a middleweight boxing match from Las Vegas. By next month, Telesat's ATV production mobile will be complete, and will be available on a rental basis for commercial productions, as well as for experimentation, demonstrations, and tests. HDTV Seminar To introduce the technology in Canada, some 80 television and film industry directors, producers, technical specialists and executives attended a three-day production seminar at the NAC in Ottawa on November 21-23. Co-sponsored by Telesat and the NAC, the event was telecast to the Banff Centre for The Arts in Alberta via an inaugural Telesat HDTV satellite feed - the first to use the Canadian-developed HDB-MAC compression and scrambling system. The seminar was also the nation's first tele-education event in HDTV. Half the participants were in Ottawa, and half gathered in Banff to participate on a wide-screen display system with their comments and questions flashed back to Ottawa via a return audio link. Seminar participants received hands-on instruction and experience in handling HDTV cameras and hardware, and experimented with lighting and related subjects in theatrical settings. HDTV technical and production experts from across North America were also on hand to present lectures at the session. At an Ottawa press conference on November 23, President Eldon Thompson said Telesat intented to "act as a catalyst" in introducing advanced television in Canada. The company would become Canada's foremost authority in end-to-end ATV transmission, satellite distribution, and applications, and both new and existing customers would benefit. Main Event Telesat's ATV calendar also included the exclusive HDTV exhibition in Canada of the December 7 super middleweight boxing match in Las Vegas between Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard. Telesat displayed the event to an audience of 300 which enjoyed the television of the future on a 25-foot screen at Toronto's Queen Elizabeth Theatre. Another major event on Telesat's ATV calendar is the HDTV colloquium in June. Telesat will be a major participant in this summer's Fourth International Colloquium on advanced television systems, to take place at the Ottawa Congress Centre June 25-29. Telesat President Eldon Thompson will be conference chairman. Mobile Ready To stimulate the emergence of new business ventures exploiting ATV and build applications and technical experience in ATV systems in Canada, Telesat has built a complete, satellite-based closed-circuit ATV network consisting of: a production mobile, a transmission system (The mobile will actually be equipped with two distinct transmission technologies - the "MUSE" system, developed by the Japanese state broadcaster, NHK, and Toronto's Digital Video Systems "HDB-MAC" system.), a satellite uplink truck and a small network of transportable receive-only sites. Most of the hardware is also capable of broadcasting in the conventional NTSC TV standard. Canada's first multi-camera ATV production mobile will be ready to go on the road in April, 1990. For the next two years, the mobile and other equipment will roam the country telecasting special events, concerts, business meetings, and promotions. It's also expected to be involved in a number of regular film and television productions projects. By the time the trial is over, Canada will be positioned in the forefront of nations adopting the new technology. Open Invitation Telesat invites enquiries from current customers concerning potential new business television, broadcasting, and special event applications which might be evaluated during the trial. HDTV is a revolutionary new form of television with pictures larger, wider, and twice as sharp as today's TV, better colour rendition and multi-channel, CD quality, digital sound. Japan, the European community and the United States are all very active in developing ATV technologies. The U.S. is expected to adopt standards for HDTV transmission within two years. The Japanese are already broadcasting in HDTV via satellite every day, and are following Telesat's activities with keen interest. Regardless of when it eventually replaces today's NTSC television sets in the home, Telesat believes some form of ATV is the future of television. The program will promote development of satellite-based ATV applications by giving producers, broadcasters and closed-circuit television programmers working experience with advanced video formats. The company expects early Canadian introduction of ATV systems will be in the area of closed-circuit broadcasts of sports and entertainment special events to large screens in clubs, pubs, small theatres, and similar venues. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Telesat Ready for Future With New Control Centre By: Daryl Lee, Telesat Public Affairs Telesat's new satellite control centre, buried in the circular appendage of the Telesat headquarters, looks appropriately space-age. Banks of monitors stretch across the oval-shaped room while two vertical control consoles sit on either side. Almost lost in the maze of hardware are the two satellite controllers who watch over the five Anik satellites hovering in precise positions some 36 000 km above the earth. The muted lighting of the control centre complements its atmosphere. The room is quiet, not at all like the bustling space centres scripted in Hollywood movies. But behind the scenes are over 100 specialists in satellite operation and control, along with 14 computers and two tracking antennas located across Canada and in Australia. "The old control centre, although adequate for what we were doing in the past, was getting to the point where it was totally inadequate for what we have to do in the future," explains Ron Costanzo, Manager of System Software for Telesat. "The computer system that ran the whole thing was based on a computer that has become obsolete. We reached the limits of that system." So with two Anik Es on their way, plus MSAT scheduled for launch in 1993, and the possibility for controlling RADARSAT - the new remote sensing satellite - it was deemed time to retire the old SCC and build a new one. Design and construction took four years, and the new SCC is a reflection of Telesat's expertise in satellite control systems. The SCC, along with its software and most of the specialised hardware, was designed and built in-house. At present it is controlling three Anik C satellites and two Anik D satellites, with room for the two Anik E satellites or reasons why Telesat needed a new SCC. The old centre simply could not handle the complexity of the new satellites. "We recognise that they're not going to be easy satellites to operate," says Costanzo. "The manoeuvres are much more complex and require an awful lot more processing time. A north-south manoeuvre on an Anik C or D takes at most 10 minutes. On the Anik E the same manoeuvre could take up to an hour and a half." Telesat designers took advantage of the situation to build more flexibility into the new satellite control system. "Now we should be able to whip changes into the system to meet changing requirements far faster than we ever could in the past," says Costanzo. "And the system is a lot more user-friendly." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Radio-Quebec Renews Uplink Agreement By: Joe Aragona, Telesat Marketing Communications Radio-Quebec, Quebec's French-language, educational and cultural television network has renewed its transmit agreement with Telesat for another three years beginning January 1990. Under the terms of the agreement, Telesat will continue to provide Radio-Quebec with three uplink services at the network's headquarters in Montreal. The first uplink will be used by Radio-Quebec, the second will be leased by Radio-Quebec to Te'le'vision Quatre Saisons, and the third will be used as a standby service and for occasional use. "With our satellite link and our 17 transmitters we can continue to broadcast throughout the province," says Radio-Quebec representative Jean Lajoie, P Eng. "Also, we can continue to transmit to a network of cable operators, and close to 150 000 TVRO (Television Receive Only) owners who receive our signal directly from the satellite. This means that our programming reaches almost 95 per cent of the Quebec population." As Quebec's educational and cultural television network, Radio-Quebec's programming consists of current events and public affairs, social and public service programs, general cultural and instructional television. Lajoie explains that each program is targeted at specific audiences, and adds that the reasons for the network's original decision to switch to satellite in 1985, are still valid today. "Originally it was pure economics," says Lajoie. "We opened our first transmitters in Montreal and Quebec City in 1975, and we were using terrestrial microwave links. But in 1985 the operating costs, and a mandate which required us to broadcast more regional programming, made it too expensive to continue in that way. Satellite became the best way for us to transmit our signal. It was easier, it was cheaper, and it was reliable." The network leased three uplink services, and the intention was to use one for the main broadcast, and the two others for regional transmissions. By 1987, Radio-Quebec decided that its regional broadcasts were becoming too costly, and that the same programming could be broadcast from the main office in Montreal. The changes were implemented at the time that Te'le'vision Quatre Saisons was ready to go to air, and Radio-Quebec began leasing its second uplink service to Quatre Saisons. "Even with the changes in our operating policy it still made sense to stay with satellite, and with Telesat," adds Lajoie. "We originally looked at other suppliers, including Bell and CNCP, but Telesat was the best choice. "We haven't had any major problems, and we just started to broadcast on a quarter Canada coverage. This gives us a great improvement in our signal. With the new Anik E series of satellites which will soon be available for use, our signal should improve even more." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Telesat Report is published by the Business Planning Division of Telesat. Telesat believes the information contained in this publication to be accurate as of the date of publication. Some information is subject to change without notice. Telesat is not responsible for any inadvertent errors. All correspondence should be addressed to: The Editor, Telesat Report Telesat 1601 Telesat Court Gloucester, Ontario K1B 5P4 Tel. (613) 748.0123 Toll Free: 1-800-267-1870 Fax: (613) 748.8712 ENVOY: ANIK ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Telesat Report - Spring 1990 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01666; 22 Apr 90 12:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02645; 22 Apr 90 10:44 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac28592; 22 Apr 90 9:32 CDT Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 9:10:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #274 BCC: Message-ID: <9004220910.ab21754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Apr 90 09:09:41 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 274 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: My Crime I Must Confess [TELECOM Moderator] AT&T and Internet Gateway [William Degnan] The Many Faces of Cellular One [John R. Covert] Looking for Ordering of New NPA Codes [Dave Leibold] Rumor: COCOTS Getting Coin Lines? [John Higdon] Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [John Higdon] Re: The Card [SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu] Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [Linc Madison] Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [Dave Leibold] Book Review: Megabit Data Communications [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 7:47:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: My Crime I Must Confess! In Volume 10, Issue 264 of the Digest, dated Thursday, April 19, 1990, issued at 2:02 AM, Article 4 was an item entitled "Appeals Court Orders Seized Computer Returned". This same item was transmitted to the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup with identification of 6565@accuvax.nwu.edu. The item was sent to me by (apparently) a daemon which handles Clarinet news items called 'clarinews@clarinet.com'. The item looked interesting to me, and since we have recently had stories in the Digest about site administrators and sysops who have had legal difficulties involving their computer, I decided to include it in the Digest. In several letters in the days which followed, Brad Templeton (brad@looking.on.ca) wrote me to complain that the item was actually a copyrighted article which had been used in Clarinet, and that I should not have published it here; and that by doing so I violated his copyright on the item. He denied that anything was amiss in his software or mailer, and that the item had to have been sent by some actual person who simply diddled up the header and forwarded it to me. He said he would overlook this transgression of his copyright if I would publish an article (conveniently submitted with his complaint) which described Clarinet and the benefits of subscribing to same. What I suggest instead is that the item be removed from circulation. Please put issue 264 in your editor and zap article 4, inserting this note you are reading now in its place. It is not my intent to run articles copyrighted by Clarinet in the Digest, so obviously the item should not have appeared here. Site administrators: Please remove 6565@accuvax.nwu.edu from comp.dcom.telecom at your site if in fact it has not already expired. I stress that folks who keep archives of TELECOM Digest should likewise remove it. Thank you, and my apologies for the inconvenience. Mr. Templeton has also asked to have the person who mailed the article to me to please get in touch with him. If you are that person, please contact him at 'brad@looking.on.ca'. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 13:57:09 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: AT&T and Internet Gateway In correspondence, recently, the Moderator and I discussed the fact that AT&T had blocked traffic, which formerly flowed between AT&TMail and the Internet -- despite of the clear benefit to AT&T. I have sent several inquiries to AT&TMail and have, at last, received a coherent reply. It is quoted here, for your information: Date: Wed Apr 18 11:31:55 EDT 1990 From: Madeline Sorrentino Phone: 201-576-2705 Subject: Internet Gateway To: William S Degnan Cc: Customer Assistance /electronic/cod Cc: Patti Contey Content-Length: 1412 Mr. Degnan AT&T's Research and Development Division currently has UNIX gateways to the Internet. In the past, these gateways were also connected to AT&T Mail. Because Internet is a free messaging network, all messages generated by Internet users to AT&T Mail users thru the use of these UNIX gateways, were automatically charged to the AT&T department that owned the UNIX gateway. AT&T Mail had no way of knowing that these messages were generated by Internet users. Therefore, we had to block these gateways. AT&T Mail is in the process of establishing an AT&T Mail gateway to the Internet, to satisfy customer requirements to communicate with Internet users. We will not charge Internet users to deliver mail to AT&T Mail users. These charges will be rightfully absorbed by AT&T Mail and not charged to AT&T's Research and Development organization who happens to have a number of Internet gateways. The AT&T Mail gateway has already been registered with the Internet network and is currently in system test. We are also reviewing the Internet commercial requirements agreement. Once the Gateway is commercially available, we will announce it to our customers. I expect it to be available within two to three months. Thank you for your interest. If I may be of further assistance, please feel free to e-mail me directly. Madeline Sorrentino AT&T Mail Gateways Manager ----------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!WDegnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: WDegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 21:13:25 PDT From: "John R. Covert 21-Apr-1990 2305" Subject: The Many Faces of Cellular One It would be nice if people making postings about Cellular One would list the ownership, and not just "Cellular One." Cellular One was a name invented by the first cellular company in the country, the original "A" carrier in Balto-Wash (which was operational under a test and developmental license to field test the first Motorola hardware). The name was licensed to any "A" carrier who wanted to use it for some very low fee, (I've heard $1/year). The name is currently owned by Southwestern Bell (ever since they bought the "A" license in Washington). They, of course, only operate as the "A" carrier and use the Cellular One name outside the Southwestern Bell wireline service area in D.C., Boston, and Chicago. Otherwise they use Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems and operate as the "B" carrier. McCaw uses it at almost all of its licensees (in more than 90 cities), sometimes in direct competition with Southwestern Bell. Vanguard Cellular uses it in about 15 cities in Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia, and New York. Providence Journal Cellular (just bought by GTE Mobilnet, I think) uses it in about nine cities in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia. United States Cellular uses the name in many cities. Other Cellular Ones are Amarillo Cellular Telephone Company, Bakersfield Cellular One, Cellular One of Beaumont, Billings Cellular Corp., Bauce Communications (Cumberland, Md., Rapid City, SD), Crowley Cellular (FL, TX, IL, NY), Radiofone, Inc. (LA, TX), PacTel Cellular (Cellular One of Detroit, Bay Area Cellular), Palmer Communications (Fort Myers, Fla.), Indianapolis Telephone Company, Richmond Cellular Telephone Co., Cellular One of Jacksonville, NC, Cellular One of the Rio Grande Valley, Roanoke Valley Cellular Telephone Co., Cellular Corp. of Sioux Falls, The Southern Ohio Telephone Company, Syracuse Telephone Company, Buffalo Telephone Company, Genesee Telephone Company (Associated Communications), Midwest Cellular Telephone (Oklahoma City), Portsmouth Cellular Limited Partnership, and many more too numerous to mention and constantly changing ownership. PacTel Cellular is the "A" carrier in Atlanta, Georgia, but doesn't use the name Cellular One in that market. /john ------------------------------ Subject: Looking For Ordering of New NPA Codes Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 23:56:20 EDT From: woody I noticed somewhere that when the existing style of NPAs runs out (ie. the N[0/1]X-type), the initial batch of interchangeable NPAs will be of the form NN0 (like in 220, 650, 990, etc). There was a certain order in which those would be assigned when the time comes; does anyone have this on hand (or in the archives or something)? P.S. ... still time to mail any Telecom magazine to djcl@contact.uucp before a revised list of magazines is sent down the line, perhaps in the next week or so. ------------------------------ Subject: Rumor: COCOTS Getting Coin Lines? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 21 Apr 90 22:44:39 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Anybody know anything of a rumor that COCOTs will in the forseeable future be issued genuine coin lines? You know, the kind that the telcos use for their own phones. The way I hear it, the COCOT owner makes all the necessary arrangements with the telco, LD carrier, etc. and then collects the cash out of his phone and well as getting a bill by the telco, and a settlement with the LD company. "Smart" phones will no longer be necessary. Think how great this would be. No more (or at least little more) misprogramming, no more gouging, no more "guessing" at supervision, no more blocking of "10XXX", etc. In short, except for actual rates, COCOTs could work as well as telco pay phones. Of course, this could all be like the rumor that Pac*Bell was buying out GTE in Los Gatos. The COCOT thing comes from people who generally know about these things (well, so did the GTE rumor), so my question is: does anyone know for sure? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones Date: 21 Apr 90 18:12:35 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Jeff Carroll writes: > Cellular One (unless there is more than one company using the service > mark) is owned and operated by McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., of > Kirkland, Washington. (If they were owned by SW Bell, they wouldn't be > a "non-wireline" carrier, would they?) I had always been told that McCaw owned the Cellular One service mark, but was corrected by another reader "off line" and told that it was actually SW Bell that owned it. In any event your logic as to what does or does not constitute a "non-wireline" carrier breaks down here in the Bay Area. The "non-wireline" carrier major owner is Pacific Telesis (the rest is owned by McCaw). My dial tone comes from Pacific Bell, a fully owned subsidiary of Pacific Telesis. If that isn't "wireline" then what is? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 1990 21:07:44 MDT From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: Re: The Card The AT&T Card application specifies that the card will be a MasterCard unless you check a box indicating your preference for a Visa. You can request them to send you an application instead of providing the information to them on the phone. They also offer a free Gold Visa/MasterCard. As of Jan 1, 1990, it is illegal for merchants in NY State to require customers to provide address/phone info if they receive electronic authorization of the purchase. Last year NY State banned credit card transaction forms that have separate carbons. MasterCard and Visa are separate companies and offer different benefits to their card holders. You can call 800 MC ASSIST or 800 VISA 411 to find out about the various benefits/programs offered. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 04:13:30 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <6544@accuvax.nwu.edu> Robert Gutierrez writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 262, Message 2 of 4 >Seems that NASA Ames new prefix (415-604-XXXX) is giving fits to >everybody (including lots of COCOTS I've run across) including GTE, >since it is the first N0X prefix in the Bay Area. They credited me for that. I don't want to seem nitpicky, but it's not the first, only one of the early ones. The very first ones were 302 (Oakland), 502 (San Francisco), and 709 (Pittsburg). Specifically, those three are the only ones shown in the current S.F. directory, publ. date September '89. BTW, I tried to use the Bellcore number posted here to do a comprehensive current listing of N0/1X prefixes in 415, but got a rather curious result: dialing 415-N0/1X -- even for prefixes I know are operational -- gave me dead silence for a location. I ran across 415-604 a couple of months ago in a mis-transcribed phone message. I called Pac*Bell, and was told it was a Mountain View exchange, and was Zone 2 (8-12 miles) from my Berkeley location, some 40 or 50 miles away. Hmmm. Maybe there is some jinx on that exchange. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: Interesting that you mention the 'dead silence' when trying to ascertain the location of the prefix. Here in Chicago, no one yet has been able to tell me which CO serves 312-415, a prefix used by Ameritech Mobile. I'd like to know, for example, if it is in my local (from home) calling area, or where it is. Even Ameritech can't tell me. The best they can say is that it is 'in the Washington tandem'. My Illinois Bell service rep doesn't know the answer either. PT] ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 02:27:32 GMT In article <6624@accuvax.nwu.edu> dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (David Tamkin) writes: >numbers. NYTel apparently has NPA 917 reserved already. Does anyone (Bellcore, whoever) know if any other area codes have been reserved recently: like 909, or perhaps even re-issuing Mexico codes 706 or 905? Any further N10 codes (apart from 310 and 510 in California?). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 8:14:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Book Review: Megabit Data Communications "Megabit Data Communications: A Guide For Professionals" Authors: John T. Powers, Jr. / Henry H. Stair II Publisher: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Division of Simon & Schuster Copyright: 1990 ISBN: 0-13-573569-6 An interesting book explaining T-Carrier in some detail has recently been published entitled, "Megabit Data Communications". Subtitled, "A Guide For Professionals", this book describes practical applications of megabit-speed digital transmission technologies, products, products and services. It is directed at managers, engineers, planners and designers who deal directly with digital communications. The authors, Jack Powers and Pete Stair, note that the book results from their reflections on the data communications business and seeing the surprising difficulty which even simple tasks require. When it became apparent to them that information needed to plan, specify, engineer and install high-speed facilities was spread thinly over a variety of sources -- some of which were quite obscure -- they decided to write this book and bring the information together in one place. They do not discuss prices, delivery or vendor performance, simply because such information would be obsolete before the book was published. What they do discuss in detail include -- -- ISDN networks -- T-Carrier services and related hardware -- AT&T's Dataphone digital services -- Telex and TWX -- Voice technologies -- Fiber optic transmission techniques -- Private digital services -- Multivendor integration There are numerous charts, diagrams, drawings and other illustrations to assist in understanding what they have written. You might find this book to be a valuable and useful addition to your telecom library. It certainly will assist in evaluating vendor's claims as to equipment performance and compatibility. It should be available at this time in the technical department of bookstores in your community. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #274 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12504; 22 Apr 90 17:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04728; 22 Apr 90 15:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07306; 22 Apr 90 14:46 CDT Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 13:56:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #275 BCC: Message-ID: <9004221356.ab10252@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Apr 90 13:55:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 275 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [Donald E. Kimberlin] Cordless Telephones [Robert D. Greene] Re: The Card [David Tamkin] Re: 716/789 in Stedman, NY [George L. Sicherman] Wiring Standards for RJ-11/RJ-12 [Ken Levitt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 22:31 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) Organization: Telecom Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Part I: Party Lines (also Phone Replacement) In several articles, our esteemed Moderator and Contributors seem to have identified another one of America's cans of local Telco worms. Opening, our Moderator raises the commonly-held view: >[Moderator's Note: Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook >anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco >itself? Macy Hallock adds from Ohio: >IT is my understanding that only telco provided phones are allowed on >party lines, per Part 68. GTE Ohio rents and sells phones for party >lines here, and allows customer (plug-in) installation. >I used to believe customer owned sets were not allowed at all. GTE >told me they interpret the rules to say telco provided, not telco >owned. Answering machines, alarm jacks, and anything other than telco >provided telephone sets and extension ringers are not permitted. John Covert adds the classic technical reason...billing problems: >If your central office supports automatic identification of outgoing >long distance calls (i.e. you don't get a "What number are you calling >from" operator on every outgoing long distance call) you _must_not_ >ever make a long distance call from a phone not supplied by the telco. Peter da Silva adds the typical question of a "high-tech" person: >What I don't understand... >Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990? ..In the truest spirit of the fabled radio reporter, Wally Ballew, Telecom Digest has gone to practically no expense (as educators always do) in search of another viewpoint and further confusion. The Digest found it right here in rural Mississippi, on the edge of Appalachia. ..As we type these words to you, South Central Bell is replacing hundreds of 1950's-generation Community Dial Offices (known in the trade as CDO's) with electronic Digital Remote Switches made by GPT (GEC-Plessey, now also partly Siemens)/Stromberg-Carlson. Reason: SC Bell has still to provide Equal Access to all these localities in Mississippi, and must do it by the end of 1990. ..Answering the last question first, there's still not enough cable along many of these rural roads to provide private line service to everyone. Also, many incomes in areas like this fall well below poverty levels, and discounted party line rates are all that can be charged. ..The result: The state-of-the art digital remotes we are now burning in and testing all over the state are equipped for "superimposed ringing," the Bell style of multiparty ringing. The limit is four parties, however, as Bell party line ringing always was limited to four, simply ringing tip or ring to ground with each possible polarity of ringing signal. (This compared to the several "harmonic, Synchronic, Decimonic" and other varieties of tuned ringers often used in innovative ways by non-Bell companies to pile a reported dozen or so parties on some lines, using as many as five frequencies and then ringing some balanced; some tip to ground and some ring to ground. It seems that at a dozen or so, the whole mess gets too many wrong ringers responding faintly, not to mention unbalancing long loops rather messily, creating hum and noise.) So, "party line ringing" lives on, right along with Call Waiting and the whole packet of new value-added things SC Bell will soon have for sale here. ..to answer the first question last, South Central Bell has some unique marketing problems for station equipment here, in such a sparse marketplace. So, they have established "agents" for the sale and rental of telephone sets. Now, these agents cannot keep "tip" `and "ring" parties straight, so this reporter learned that they use an interface device on party lines that makes the line into a staight balanced loop at the customer premises. thus, _all_ phones, whether party line or not, are regular balanced loop telephone sets. A check of the SCBell directory for Leake County, MS, shows only one sentence regarding providing telephones for _any_ sort of line service, saying (sic), "You must arrange for provision of your telephone." It has no wording about party line telephone sets or provision of telephones by either SC Bell or by Southern Bell Advanced Systems (considered in some quarters to be another oxymoronic term)> ..So, that's the status from here in rural Mississippi. It may be the last place in America still having CDO's, considering telephones were manual here until the mid-1950's...and those chattering switches will go silent this year. Step switch nostalgists may want to fly to New Orleans and rent a car to drive 50 or 150 miles north to this region to see the last of them. ..There is one post-script to the technology of this report: Most localities even have a few ports of T-1 interface to work to SLC-96 lines. However, very few pairs seem likely to be able to support the operation, So, until new cable is placed, it's not likely there will be much use of it. In keeping with that, there are no ISDN BRI cards in the new exchanges. Local residents, asked their opinions about ISDN, universally responded, "What?" Fishing for 40-pound bass and shooting wild turkeys is much better understood here. ...We now return you to Evanston and our Moderator...... Part II: City Boy Meets Country Coin Phones ..If readers can egage some vicarious imagination, they'll enjoy this experience: ..Landing in the tiny town of Walnut Grove, Mississippi after dark and looking for a way to get accommodations on a Sunday evening, I located a pay phone outside the only open business, a country version of a convenience store. It was a current-generation single-slot phone, but there was no dial tone. I entered the store to tell the lcerk her phone was out of order. She expressed surprise, saying someone had used it only a few hours ago ... which is a short time in these parts. She pointed out another payphone inside the store, but I found it provided no dial tone, either. Asking her if there was another, she said there was one more in town, along the town square off the main highway. ..Over in the darkened town square, I found the phone in the moonlight (no lighted booths here, either). It provided no dial tone. I made a note to report every coin phone in Walnut Grove, Mississippi out of order, having dark thoughts about the poor social responsibility of the phone company. ..On Monday, I told the local police chief and a local telco repairman; both seemed puzzled I should have any question, saying they saw people using the phones. ..Finally, on Tuesday, I got my answer: Taking a moment to notice, the instruction card was brown instead of blue, I found it read, "Deposit 25 cents to get a dial tone. If your call is a free call, your money will be returned." ..Sonofagun! The city boy never knew there was such a thing as a single-slot _pre-pay_ coin phone! And he hadn't been in a town with pre-pay coin phones since the era of the old 200-type "three-hole" coin phones! ..So, around these parts you have the _trust_ the phone company for your quarter, even in 1990! (Those of us who have worked in the "Big City" have to make a real leap of faith with our quarters out here!) ..Our Esteemed Moderator often makes his telephonic age known here; I wonder if he is old enough to remember pre-pay public phones.... [Moderator's Note: Yes indeed I do remember three-slot coin phones which remained dead until you made a *five cent* deposit. Furthermore, the return slots did not have trap-doors; the handset cords were uncurled and covered with brown *cloth* (no armored handset like now); and the *wooden* phone booth had a door on the front with a glass window in it, a little seat inside it, and an overhead incadesent light which went on or off when the door was opened or closed, like a refrigerator light. Most payphones were made not by Western Electric, but by the Elisha Gray PayStation Company, which held the patent on this type of phone for years and years. Elisha Gray was the fellow, you may recall, who complained for years that Alex Bell had cheated him out of his patent and got to the Patent Office first. The last time I saw a Gray payphone was in the fifties; but the wooden booths and three slot phones (via Western Electric) remained for another twenty years or so. PT] Part III: Billing and Idenification Problems >Anyone familiar with the billing and identification problems >associated with party lines will not be surprised to hear that GTE has >had fits with enhanced 911 service and party lines. Also, 1+ carrier >selection is not available for party line users, you have to take >GTE's assignment. I have not tried 10XXX dialing on GTE or Ohio Bell >party lines. ..Your point may be of interst in other rural areas, Macy. It caused me to wonder if South Central Bell had an answer to the problem of identifying party line callers. Engaging some country housewife researchers with a couple of local calls here in rural Mississippi, I found that even though ANI has long been added to CDO's, party line subscribers still have only ONI. ..This despite the vaunted ability of our electronic exchanges now in testing to provide E911 service. It simply looks like ONI will be needed on calls to 911, in order for Telco to pass the digits along to the database and PSAP.... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 10:11:50 CDT From: "Robert D. Greene" Subject: Cordless Telephones I have recently purchased a Radio Shack Model ET-421 Cordless Telephone and have a few questions about it and cordless telephones in general. Since purchasing this phone, I have set it up and connected it as the instruction manual suggested. My environment is not the cleanest in the world (I have a bunch of computer equipment on the other side of the room [about 10'] from the base station) and I have noticed that I get really dirty connections even when using the phone within about 6 inches of the base station. Is this normal even at those ranges? Also, my owners manual claims that this phone has "the highest legally allowed transmitting power"; however I have been unable to get the phone to function at more than about 200 feet (I have seen ads for other phones claiming ranges of 1000-1500 feet). The 200 feet range is for the phone going out through a window and then out into an empty yard. For realistic uses, adding a few walls/doors between the handset and the base station nets me about a 20' range. In any event, this prompts me to wonder (a) what exactly is the legal limit on cordless telephone transmitter power and (b) what kind of range does this net and under what conditions? Finally, nimbly sidestepping questions of legality, how difficult would it be to boost the power of the handset and base, and would this sacrifice call clarity for added range? Thanks. Robert D. Greene RGREENEB@RICEVM1.BITNET Sunspots (comp.sys.sun) Moderator RGREENEB@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU ONCS, Rice University ...!psuvax1!rice!ricevm1!rgreeneb Houston, Texas 77253 "Arouse a bee and it will come at you with the force of a dragon..." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 12:21 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: The Card Will Martin wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 273: | Perhaps we can collect some data on this via the list and get some idea | as to what determines whether the card issued is VISA or MC -- would it | be geographic or based on some financial level such as the credit limit? When I phoned about it, the customer service rep asked me whether I was interested in a MasterCard or a VISA, and after I explained that I was looking for both but that I wanted to read more about them first, she promised to send out one packet with a MasterCard application and one for a VISA. The two that arrived (in separate envelopes) were identical, both bearing the MasterCard logo on the front, each with a small box at the top of the questionnaire reading "Please check here if you would prefer a VISA card rather than a MasterCard card." The applications were both titled "AT&T Universal Card Application -- MasterCard" with the implication that there was an alternate form titled "VISA" with a box to check if you'd rather have a MasterCard, but that I'd been sent two of the same in non-fatal error. | [I'm also somewhat confused by the whole concept of "VISA" and | "MasterCard" as entities in and of themselves. There must be companies | somewhere that own the trademarks of VISA and MC, and license them to | the banks, and, I suppose, act as clearinghouses to route transaction | slips sent from the merchants to their own banks to get to the bank | where that particular credit card account resides. You're pretty much answering your own question, Will. | Are VISA and MC actually separate competing companies, or two halves of | the same entity?] As I understand, they are separate. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us MCIMail:426-1818 GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: George L Sicherman Subject: Re: 716/789 in Stedman, NY Date: 22 Apr 90 14:13:59 GMT Stedman is an unremarkable township on the SW shore of Chautauqua Lake. Its coordinates are 42 09' N, 79 31' W, more or less. As I recall, most of Chautauqua County is served by an independent telephone company, not N. Y. Telephone. [Moderator's Note: I believe Chautauqua Institution (ninety-nine percent of the rationale for the existence of the village of Chautauqua, NY) operates its own telephone system. And sorry to disagree, but the summer programs at Chautauqua are quite remarkable at times. It is the summer home of the Eastman-Rochester Symphony Orchestra among other things. The art exhibits, lectures, theatre and recitals make the gate fees worth every nickle. I love visiting Chautauqua. If I visit this summer I will look at the phone setup. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 13:42:32 EDT From: Ken Levitt Subject: Wiring Standards for RJ-11/RJ-12 I am about one month behind in reading Digests, and just came across two requests for information about sending RS-232 data to RJ-11/RJ-12 type connectors. I did some looking into this some time back and found that there is no "official" standard for how this should be wired. In the end, I decided to use the same standard used by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) and Emulex. If you assume a six conductor connector, the following set-up will allow you to construct a normal data cable or a null-modem cable just by inverting the connector on the cable. RJ-12 Pin DB-25 Pin EIA Name --------- --------- -------- 1 20 DTR - Data Terminal Ready 2 2 TXD - Transmit Data 3 7 SG - Signal Ground 4 7 SG - Signal Ground 5 3 RXD - Receive Data 6 6 DSR - Data Set Ready The above setup will work for most devices, but one or more of the following modifications may be required: 1. Bridge "Request To Send" (RTS - DB-25 Pin 4) to "Clear To Send" (CTS - DB-25 Pin 5). 2. Bridge "Data Set Ready" (DSR - DB-25 Pin 6) to "Data Carrier Detect" (DCD - DB-25 Pin 8). 3. Bridge "Signal Ground" (SG - DB-25 Pin 7) to "Frame (Protective) Ground" (FG - DB-25 Pin 1). 4. In really weird situations, you may have to connect "Ring Indicator" (RI - DB-25 Pin 22) to something like DCD. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #275 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02128; 23 Apr 90 0:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30675; 22 Apr 90 22:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12917; 22 Apr 90 21:52 CDT Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 21:18:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #276 BCC: Message-ID: <9004222118.ab23284@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Apr 90 21:17:50 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 276 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Index to TELECOM Archives [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [John Higdon] NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly [Seshashayee Murthy] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 12:10:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Index to TELECOM Archives Here is the most recent index to the files in the TELECOM Archives. In addition to the articles in the main directory, we have a few sub-directories also: these include minitel.info, with files about that system, and scripts to use when loggin in; a sub-directory of Canadian areacodes, with their prefixes and assigned place names; and a sub-directory called 'oldarc', which contains old files from the Boston University telecom archives which we have been unable to reconstruct in readable format. All users are urged to check with their site administrator before pulling the large files. This is particularly true if you pull them using the mail server instead of ftp. Using FTP: -- ftp lcs.mit.edu -- login anonymous yourname@site.name -- cd telecom archives -- dir -- get (your selections) -- bye Using the Mail Server: Send a letter to one of these addresses (same site, same machine): bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu (Fido, UUCP and non-ftp Internet locations) bitftp@pucc.bitnet (Bitnet sites) The subject does not matter. Put your FTP commands along the left margin one after the other in upper case letters. Leave a blank space, then type the argument. Here is an example: FTP lcs.mit.edu USER anonymous myname@site.place ASCII CD telecom-archives GET index.to.archives (or other file name, as you select them) GET (if more than one file requested, list 'gets' one after another) BYE Mail your letter, and allow a few days for return mail. Large files will be returned in parts. For example, one of the files containing issues of the Digest from the past would come in several separate mailings. In addition, the bitftp mail server itself will confirm the transaction with a letter to you showing how your commands were interpreted by the ftp server at lcs.mit.edu. Here is the current index, to help in making selections. Remember, to get a file from one of the sub-directories (npa.canada or minitel.info) you will need to insert an extra 'CD' command in your letter, because you want to move in one directory further. total 19190 drwxrwxr-x 5 telecom telecom 3584 Apr 22 12:49 ./ drwxrwxr-x 20 root wheel 512 Apr 19 23:04 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 718 Jan 27 17:33 1981.Intro.to.archives -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 94485 Jan 14 22:32 1981.vol1.iss004-020 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 33063 Jan 20 19:29 1982.vol2.iss001-003 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 382277 Jan 14 22:09 1982.vol2.iss089-141 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 191518 Jan 20 17:59 1983.vol3.iss001-021 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 63880 Jan 14 22:53 1983.vol3.iss083-095 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16811 Jan 15 01:08 1984.vol4.iss001-002 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 121389 Jan 15 01:04 1984.vol4.iss076-093 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 180604 Jan 20 18:29 1985.vol4.iss155-184 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 658 Jan 27 17:23 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 623292 Jan 27 17:08 1985.vol5.iss001-076 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 861286 Jan 27 18:05 1986.vol5.iss077-161 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 639112 Jan 26 03:07 1987.vol6.most.issues -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 274580 Jan 20 16:09 1987.vol7.complete.set -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21596 Jan 20 16:06 1987.vol8.iss003-004 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 137265 Jan 20 15:36 1988.vol8.iss070-083 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 724832 Aug 1 1989 1988.vol8.iss140-189 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 227589 Aug 1 1989 1988.vol8.iss190-213 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 577173 Jan 15 00:01 1989.vol9.iss001-049 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 564262 Jan 14 23:28 1989.vol9.iss050-100 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 653097 Jan 14 21:32 1989.vol9.iss101-150 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 637611 Jan 15 00:24 1989.vol9.iss151-200 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 744800 Jan 14 21:33 1989.vol9.iss201-250 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 787166 Jan 14 21:35 1989.vol9.iss251-300 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 805328 Jan 14 21:54 1989.vol9.iss301-350 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 780366 Jan 15 00:08 1989.vol9.iss351-400 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 784366 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss401-450 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 758330 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss451-500 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 794183 Jan 14 16:44 1989.vol9.iss501-550 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 856691 Jan 14 16:48 1989.vol9.iss551-603 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 861272 Jan 28 18:03 1990.vol10.iss001-050 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 820574 Feb 14 19:40 1990.vol10.iss051-100 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 842877 Mar 8 02:53 1990.vol10.iss101-150 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 855090 Mar 24 23:47 1990.vol10.iss151-200 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 853551 Apr 13 22:57 1990.vol10.iss201-250 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 953 Jan 31 23:56 READ.ME.FIRST -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21264 Apr 14 16:00 area.code.script.new -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 8147 Aug 1 1989 areacode.program.in.c -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 474 Feb 11 10:49 att.service.outage.1-90 -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 18937 Aug 1 1989 auto.coin.collection -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 15141 Aug 1 1989 cellular.sieve -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16292 Mar 18 21:48 class.ss7.features -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13343 Feb 25 23:01 computer.fraud.abuse.act -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 23944 Aug 1 1989 computer.state -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9150 Jan 31 23:12 country.code.list -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11370 Feb 9 06:03 country.codes.revised -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11267 Feb 25 01:46 cpid-ani.developments -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 436 Feb 23 02:50 deaf.communicate.on.tdd -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39319 Aug 1 1989 docket.87-215 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 3422 Jan 20 19:52 early.digital.ESS -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 1 1989 ecpa.1986 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 18:47 enterprise-funny-numbers -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 33239 Aug 1 1989 fcc.policy -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 19378 Aug 1 1989 fcc.threat -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 484 Jan 14 17:02 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9052 Aug 1 1989 find.pair -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 47203 Aug 1 1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1998 Jan 27 18:25 fire.in.st-louis.1-90 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 377 Jan 27 18:40 fires.elsewhere.in.past -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1247 Feb 10 22:32 first.issue.cover -rw-rw-r-- 1 map telecom 45459 Feb 5 14:24 glossary.acronyms -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67113 Jan 14 16:56 glossary.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 32645 Aug 1 1989 guide.to.areacodes -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68804 Feb 2 00:03 hi.perf.computing.net -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2337 Jan 27 19:00 history.of.digest -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32625 Mar 29 20:02 how.numbers.are.assigned -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Apr 22 12:49 index.to.archives -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30751 Mar 7 20:33 jolnet-attctc.crackers -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43365 Jan 28 17:59 kevin.poulsen.comp.crimes -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4816 Aug 1 1989 lauren.song -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 801 Aug 1 1989 ldisc.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2271 Aug 1 1989 ldnotes.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 13675 Aug 1 1989 ldrates.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35612 Apr 1 21:30 legion.of.doom -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12260 Jan 20 00:43 london.ac.script -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12069 Mar 5 00:02 london.codes.script -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15604 Aug 1 1989 mass.lines -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 463 Aug 1 1989 measured-service drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Apr 22 11:04 minitel.info/ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 36641 Aug 1 1989 mnp.protocol -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2450 Jan 20 19:47 modems.and.call-waiting -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 7597 Feb 10 22:30 named.exchanges -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3014 Jan 27 18:56 newuser.letter -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32815 Mar 25 20:47 nine.hundred.service drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Apr 14 16:10 npa.exchange.list-canada/ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16534 Feb 11 23:44 nsa.original.charter-1952 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9886 Jan 23 23:37 occ.10xxx.access.codes -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8350 Jan 28 10:57 occ.10xxx.notes.updates -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 18:43 old.fashioned.coinphones -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2756 Jan 27 18:52 old.hello.msg drwxrwxr-x 2 jsol telecom 512 Jan 27 17:50 oldarc/ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70153 Aug 1 1989 pc.pursuit -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 5492 Aug 1 1989 pearl.harbor.phones -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 42188 Jan 14 16:58 phrack.acronyms -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38772 Aug 1 1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17950 Jan 14 16:51 rotenberg.privacy.speech -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9764 Jan 20 19:50 starline.features -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 46738 Jan 18 22:29 starlink.vrs.pcp -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39610 Apr 22 11:09 under.construction -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3857 Aug 1 1989 tat-8.fiber.optic -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27533 Feb 9 05:55 telco.name.list.formatted -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31487 Jan 28 18:11 telco.name.listing -rw-rw-rw- 1 ptownson telecom 476526 Apr 22 12:15 telecom-recent -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 11752 Aug 1 1989 telstar.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 298 Aug 1 1989 west.german.cellular -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 37947 Aug 1 1989 wire-it-yourself -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4101 Aug 1 1989 wiring.diagram -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24541 Aug 1 1989 zum.debate Enjoy your visit to the Archives! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service Date: 22 Apr 90 10:23:12 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Apr 22 at 8:50, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Interesting that you mention the 'dead silence' > when trying to ascertain the location of the prefix. Here in Chicago, > no one yet has been able to tell me which CO serves 312-415, a prefix > used by Ameritech Mobile. I'd like to know, for example, if it is in > my local (from home) calling area, or where it is. Even Ameritech > can't tell me. The best they can say is that it is 'in the Washington > tandem'. My Illinois Bell service rep doesn't know the answer either. PT] Are you rip roaring sure that a CO is involved? Back when GTE Mobilnet began as the first provider in the Bay Area (and of course I immediately signed up) my prefix was 408/234. When you dialed this number from landline, you heard the connection into the terminating office, then another ka-chunk which was the end-of-signaling into the DID trunk. At that point you would hear the tick-tick-tick of the Motorola EMX. I found out, with the greatest of ease that the terminating office for 408/234 was Santa Clara AXminster. Then a strange thing happened. Shortly after the appearance of Cellular One (Bay Area Cellular, J.C.), the "DID sounds" went away. The tick-tick-tick sound appeared immediately out of silence when you dialed 408/234-XXXX. What happened? 408/234 is no longer served out of any switching at Santa Clara AXminster. Both cellular providers have direct tandem connections, as if they were local terminating offices. If you try to determine the CO for a particular cellular exchange now you get the same informational void described by Mr. Townson. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 14:53:39 EDT From: Seshashayee Murthy Reply-To: murthy@ibm.com Subject: NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly. We have had problems with international calls ever since we moved into out new house in September 1987. (914-736-xxxx) 1. For a few months, we would get a message saying that we needed a password or that we could not dial international calls from this telephone. (can't exactly remember which) After repeated calls to NYNEX and ATT this problem went away. 2. About a year back, we started having problems with ATT operators saying that they could not give us credit for international calls to India because we were not ATT customers. After a while an operator told us that the way to resolve this was to ask the operator to call us back and give us credit. This was a hassle but it worked. ATT operators have become extremely friendly and courteous in the last year or so, so it was still bearable. 3. After putting up with this for a few months, I called NYNEX. They said that they had checked and everything was fine. Calls were being handed to ATT correctly. After they finished checking, I never had a problem getting credit. However a brand new problem arose. I could not dial a number in Bangalore India, 011-91-812-xxxxxx. I would get a message, "Your call cannot be completed as dialled. Please check the number and dial again. 914-1T" This used to drive me nuts. I knew the number. It was correct. I had to call the ATT operator and explain the problem. The operator would dial for me and of course I would get through. Of course this was a gigantic hassle; yet it was bearable because the ATT operators were always nice and courteous. I finally called the ATT business office, on 4/17. The supervisor, was very nice and called ATT long lines repair. After trying unsuccessfully to fix the problem for two days, they called NYNEX. Of course it was NYNEX's fault. They were not forwarding my calls correctly. They claim to have fixed things now. I would like to know two things: 1. What sort of mixup in forwarding calls could result in such peculiar behavior. I could dial the UK, Hong Kong, and parts of India, but not this number in Bangalore. All calls within the US were handled correctly. 2. I would like to get NYNEX to refund part of my telephone bill. After all they were not providing the services I contracted for. Do I have a case. Should I pursue this with the PUC? Sesh Murthy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #276 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17225; 23 Apr 90 8:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25206; 23 Apr 90 7:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10820; 23 Apr 90 6:00 CDT Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 5:34:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #277 BCC: Message-ID: <9004230534.ab00611@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Apr 90 05:33:55 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 277 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [John Higdon] Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers [Paul S. R. Chisholm] Re: NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly [John Higdon] Re: Credit Card ID [Fubar] Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers [Macy Hallock] Re: Receiving German Teletext Into a PC [Ash Nallawalla] Re: Infinity Transmitters, Larry Lippman and the BIG LIE [Mark Harris] The Great Debate [Mark C. Lowe] Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem [Ken Jongsma] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) Date: 22 Apr 90 17:26:05 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> writes: > ..Answering the last question first, there's still not enough cable > along many of these rural roads to provide private line service to > everyone. Also, many incomes in areas like this fall well below > poverty levels, and discounted party line rates are all that can be > charged. To the northeast of Victorville, CA (southern California's High Desert), is a little widespot in the minimally-maintained two-lane highway called Helendale. This little burg grew from a population of about 10 to many hundreds of people when someone decided to build a retirement community. There is a community center surrounded by many homes. This residential hideaway is located over twenty miles from Victorville, with nothing in between but sand and Joshua trees. In the old days, there were party lines radiating out from Victorville for the surrounding areas, one of which went to Helendale. Now there are so many upstart residential enclaves surrounding Victorville that the party lines have long since been scrapped. Contel solved the problem by installing remote COs as an adjunct to its existing DMS plant in the center of town. In the case of Helendale, there is a small cinderblock building, about the size of a tool shed, that provides private line service to each of Helendale's residents. Prefixes are, of course, Victorville. So, over the same inadequate wire plant that used to (poorly) serve a number of party line subscribers, Contel is serving many, many times the former number of subscribers and is giving each a genuine private line. Ah, the magic of digital technology! On Apr 22 at 13:56, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Yes indeed I do remember three-slot coin phones > [...] > and the *wooden* phone booth [that] had a door on the front with a glass > window in it, a little seat inside it, and an overhead incadesent > light which went on or off when the door was opened or closed, like a > refrigerator light. You forgot about the omni-present exhaust fan which also came on when you closed the door. In addition to making conversation difficult in those selected booths that had an especially noisy one, more than one classic movie had the major crime solved because someone could identify the unique noise of a particular fan located in a particular booth somewhere that was critical to the crime. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers Date: 23 Apr 90 04:53:46 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <6590@accuvax.nwu.edu>, eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes that he's passing along information from a U.S. Sprint employee. > Although it is true that AT&T did heavily subsidize the local telcos > before divestiture, it is absolutely incorrect to say that MCI and > Sprint did not have to "bake" these subsidies into our rate > structures. All LD carriers, including Sprint and MCI are charged by > the telcos for the originating and terminating portions of every > single long distance call. It has always been this way and remains so > today. True, as far as it goes. Let's go a little further. AT&T's predivesture rates, local (for the regional Bell operating companies) and long distance, were tariffed with the intent that long distance calls would be expensive and local calls would be cheap, relative to the cost of providing the respective services. Consumers would have a low rate for the "necessary" local calls, and a high rate for the "luxury" long distance calls. If you wanted to communicate with someone on the other side of the country, you could phone 'em if you could afford it, and write 'em (with a ten cent stamp; ah, those were the days:-) if you couldn't. For a while after divestiture, AT&T's long distance rates were *not* allowed to fall as quickly as their lowered costs (by not providing local access) would have allowed. Yes, the tariffs had the same built-in access charges that other long distance providers were paying; but they also had some pre-divestiture bias about how high they should be. As a result, AT&T had real problems competing on price. This has changed somewhat in the past few years. Disclaimer: I write e-mail software for AT&T; when it comes to long distance services, I'm only a customer. I'm *not* a spokesperson! Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm (Pat, has any AT&T employee ever had articles distributed anonymously?) [Moderator's Note: I don't think there has ever been a case, during my tenure at the Digest, of an AT&T employee making an anonymous posting here. I have mentioned to Steve Elias that there is really no reason for the Sprint employee to post in this manner, and that it is against our editorial policy for it to occur on a regular basis. He quoted to me the Sprint employee's concern about being identified for some reason. Take that for whatever it is worth. PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly Date: 22 Apr 90 23:14:36 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Seshashayee Murthy writes: > 1. What sort of mixup in forwarding calls could result in such > peculiar behavior. I could dial the UK, Hong Kong, and parts of > India, but not this number in Bangalore. All calls within the US were > handled correctly. Since your local (NYNEX) office has to store all the digits you dial and then translate them to meaningful stuff for the carrier (AT&T) opportunities for screwup do exist. Back in the old days, the local CO had to bring up a "sender" (point of exit from the US), wait for tone, then redial your international call removing or adding digits here and there for routing purposes. This may all be different now and is probably much simpler, but the bottom line is that it is entirely possible for NYNEX to have screwed up the calls to a specific area. > 2. I would like to get NYNEX to refund part of my telephone bill. > After all they were not providing the services I contracted for. Do I > have a case. Should I pursue this with the PUC? Don't bother. You got your calls through ultimately, and there is no specific amount of your bill that you pay that allows you to dial international calls directly. The only time you might pursue a refund would be for a total service outage that lasts in excess of twenty-four hours. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 02:41:16 -0700 From: Fubar Subject: Re: Credit Card ID malcolm@apple.com said: >I've found an easier solution is to just put down the number for my >modem. It is amazing how many times I've found a use for a phone >number that is sometimes busy but never answers :-). I, too, do this often. I also have another use for the modem line: on those reader information cards in the back of magazines. On occasion they ask for your phone number. After I received a number of calls from salesmen who assumed that since I owned a company I would like to buy 6000 of their product (in reality, I produce shareware, and have never bought anything in quantities over 3... no big sale for them here), I took to putting the modem line down. Now, if when they hear the nice carrier, they decide to call back and connect, they are plenty welcome to leave a message for me on my BBS :-) 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) ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sun Apr 22 17:49:15 1990 Subject: Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <6620@accuvax.nwu.edu> WA5TGF writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 268, Message 9 of 14 >I would like a list of switch manufacturers with call processing >capability. The switch can be either analog or digital. I am >particularly interested in low-end machines (read cheap). I don't know how to answer this questions. By "Call Processing" do you mean the ability to process local calls? I rather suspect you are looking for a specfic feature but have not used industry standard (?) terms and you have failed to give any details of your requirements. This is a good place to a question such as yours, and many will help, but give us some details, please. Boy, these hams...if it doesn't have an antenna, they don't know how to talk about it ;-) (See you in Dayton, guys!) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: ash@mlacus.oz (Ash Nallawalla) Subject: Re: Receiving German Teletext Into a PC Date: 22 Apr 90 09:25:50 GMT Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne In article <6563@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jcp@cgch.uucp (Joseph C. Pistritto) writes: > Does anyone know of an interface device to pick off the Teletext > signals that are sent over most European television channels and input > them to a PC? I have a decoder in my television, but I thought it > would be neat to store the teletext info on my PC for searching, etc. I know of two devices but have no personal experience of them: 1. OPT-II teletext card from Optimum Technology Ltd London number 01-446-2223 (That 01 might now be a new prefix - see this newsgroup for that prefix). Cost Pounds Stg 195 +VAT. Reviewed in Connectivity, April 1990 the magazine of the UK IBM PC Users Group. Send mail to alanj@ibmpcug.co.uk or ring UK 081-863-1191 to get a copy of the magazine. 2. Do it yourself approach - Kit costing NZ$400 from New Zealand radio amateur ZL3AAI Gordon Grey. Can dig out address. Circuits and descriptions are being published in a series in the magazine Break-In, and still continuing I think. I suspect that the UK ready-made approach will be cheaper unless you have access to parts and like building your own. The NZ project is strictly roll your own, as I see no offer by the offer to supply a kit in the April 1990 issue, although he must be able to offer the EPROMs. The software is available for Epson QX-10, IBM-PC and Commodore 64. Ash Nallawalla Tel: +61 3 823-1959 Fax: +61 3 820-1434 ZL4LM/VK3CIT Postal: P.O. Box 539, Werribee VIC 3030, Australia. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters, Larry Lippman and the BIG LIE From: Mark Harris Date: Mon, 13 Apr 90 00:00:00 EDT Organization: Omhftre BBS telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes about being speechless after reading Mr. DeArmond's rebuttal: Whew! You're not the only one left speechless. Mark Harris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 05:28 CDT From: MCL9337@tamvenus.bitnet Subject: The Great Debate I hate to say this, but my respect level for Larry dropped several degrees after all this. I believe him to be the senior of the two parties, and I think he could have handled this in a better way than to immediately put the other party on the defensive, thus causing the all-too-familiar flame war that we are all so sick of. After spending several years on BBSs and putting up with this kind of thing, imagine my sorrow when I still have to tolerate such activity on a professional telecom list! Larry, if you have need to doubt someone's story in the future, just ask a few pointed questions of the individual and inform them of the aspects with which you find fault. No name-calling or outright discrediting of the person's claims without really knowing for sure will serve to put you on more credible grounds! I don't think anyone would make up a story like that. What has he to gain from such a thing? I think most people on this list have experimented with "devices" of one sort or another over the years. I doubt that he was trying to impress anyone as most people read the article and forget about it when they read the next one. Also, I think you cloud the issue more than help your point when you name several brands of equipment that he MAY be talking about, because you can't be sure. Why waste the space talking about equipment that probably wasn't involved? Someone mentioned this point before. We know you are familiar with a lot of equipment, and this just looks like bragging on your part when you mention five model numbers every time a class of equipment is mentioned. I am about to graduate from the Engineering Technology Telecommunications program at Texas A&M. I hope to work with someone that knows there stuff like you do. But I hope they will listen with an open and patient mind, too! How about putting this war to rest and sticking to your nice informative articles? Mark C. Lowe Texas A&M University MCL9337@TAMVENUS.BITNET Engineering Technology Dept. Telecommunications specialty Best in the land. ------------------------------ Subject: Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 16:20:31 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Help! Based on the glowing reports about the Panasonic KXT-3900 cordless phone from several Digest readers, I went and purchased one today. I'm having some difficulty with it. When it is set to dial in Tone Mode, the "2" will not break dialtone when dialed from the remote. The base works fine as do all the other digits from the remote. The tones sound ok to me, but I called Sprint Customer Service and asked them to check. The rep had me push all the buttons and said they all registered correctly, though she did hear a slight "beep" just prior to hearing the actual tone. I assume that was the handset talking to the base. A related problem: This is the second unit I've tried. The first unit would not break dialtone from the base with the 2 digit. The current unit did the same *until I unplugged the little answering machine override "y" jack I had on that line.* (The jack prevents the phone from grabbing the line when my modem is on it.) How would that jack be interfering with the audio signal? By the way: All the other TouchTone phones in the house work fine. With or without the "y" jack. My wife is not impressed with my telecom abilities! Any help would be appreciated. Ken ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #277 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02097; 24 Apr 90 3:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10986; 24 Apr 90 2:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25871; 24 Apr 90 1:08 CDT Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 0:42:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #278 BCC: Message-ID: <9004240042.ab29725@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Apr 90 00:42:16 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 278 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Kelly Goen] Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Irving Wolfe] RoamingAmerica Description [Jeff Wasilko] Information on Cellular Phones [Marcel D. Mongeon] Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [Ken Thompson] Re: Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 00:24:19 EDT Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Patrick mentioned that certain telephone numbers at Cellular One in Chicago are set not to check the ESN. Then Terry Mason added that on their switch, if the expected ESN is '00000000' the system doesn't check it against the actual serial number. I just thought I'd throw in my two cents about our setup here in the Empire Area (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany). If the ESN is not entered when the subscriber is activated (or it is cleared out), the ESN from the next call will be entered into the database, and all future calls will be checked against that ESN. If the ESN's don't match, the call will fail. This is convenient for conversions (when a customer switches from one carrier to another) since the customer usually doesn't know the ESN, and the dealers, well, they're just dealers... (-: I'm trying to get together some information on the PRV (the roamer validation system used by the majority of the non-wireline systems), so I'll try to write up something in the near future. | 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: And in fact, Jeff wrote up his research, and it is included later in this issue. PT] ------------------------------ From: Kelly Goen Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Date: 23 Apr 90 18:00:56 GMT Reply-To: Kelly Goen Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA OOPS... guess I won't be publishing those sequences Patrick:) ... I didn't realize that they had indeed left so many open holes. Cheers, Kelly [Moderator's Note: As you know, I was never really in favor of publishing the actual sequences anyway; it just seems too risky to me in view of the large number of people who look for ways to make trouble for Usenet these days. We can talk theory without getting too specific. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 90 20:10:17 PDT (Sat) From: Irving Wolfe Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Organization: SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors You obviously guessed the reason, convenience. In a sense, this is quite a security risk but not really, since although the value of a minute on the air may be high, the cost to provide it incrementally is about zero. Thus if a service thief got free time, it was time that not only cost the company nothing, but also would not have been sold otherwise (since the crook would not have made the call without it being free) hence no revenues were lost. Of course, this is only true if the practice remains rare. It is too long since I had a loaner unit for me to remember any of the numbers, so I can't do any testing for you in this region. However, some of the company-owned loaners, I remember, officially belonged to some employee or other and incoming calls would (if not answered) go to that employee's voice mailbox. Irving Wolfe irv@happym.wa.com 206/463-9399 ext.101 Happy Man Corp. 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road, Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 00:27:57 EDT Subject: RoamingAmerica Description Here is a description of RoamingAmerica, the nationwide roaming system that is used by the majority of the non-wireline carriers. ................ APPEX Corporation's RoamingAmerica System has been operating successfully in over ten cities for several months. The carriers operating in these markets have been offering RoamingAmerica to their entire subscriber base. More than a dozen markets are scheduled to receive RoamingAmerica service in the next couple of months. {The number of participating cites is much higher now.} RoamingAmerica provides both Transparent Call Forwarding (TCF) and Caller Notification services. Transparent Call Forwarding enables a subscriber to receive incoming calls while roaming in a foreign area by conditionally transferring these calls from the subscriber's home switch to the serving Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA). Caller Notification allows a roamer to have the incoming call conditionally transferred to a voice announcement on the home switch. The announcement tells the calling party what city the roamer is in and provides instructions (including long distance phone number for the foreign switch's roamer access port) for calling the roamer on the foreign system. RoamingAmerica provides several methods by which subscribers can activate RoamingAmerica services. Carriers can elect to have their subscribers activate the system by placing a call from a foreign market. Alternatively, carriers can elect to have subscribers explicitly activate and deactivate the system by dialing 'star' codes. It is even possible to combine these methods so that a subscriber is activated by placing a call, and yet can explicitly deactivate or change service by dialing a star code. RoamingAmerica is very flexible in this respect,a dn can be easily customized to fit a carrier's specific needs. The start codes that RoamingAmerica uses are: *31: Activate TCF *310: Deactivate TCF *32: Activate CN *320: Deactivate CN *300: Deactivate All RoamingAmerica Service To implement the above features, RoamingAmerica uses the stream of call set-up data from the PRV port {PRV stands for Positive Roamer Verification, the system that the majority of the non-wireline carriers use for subscriber validation.} on the serving cellular switch to initiate the automatic roamer registration and activate the roamer's call transfer. On switches that provide the dialed digits as part of this information, the star codes can be detected in this manner. For switches that do not provide the dialed digits to the PRV system, APPEX has developed the APPEX Voice Response System (AVRS), which enables explicit activation and deactivation of RoamingAmerica services. The AVRS also provides the voice storage and retrieval system for caller notification. When RoamingAmerica detects that a subscriber is requesting activation of RoamingAmerica service, the system checks the NPA/NXX of the roamer's phone to identify the roamer's home switch. It determines if the home system is a RoamingAmerica participant, and if the home system's subscribers are to receive RoamingAmerica service in this particular foreign market. Last of all, it determines what type of service the subscriber has chosen to receive. In parallel with the above activity, APPEX's PRV system performs a check of the APPEX National Negative file and performs a positive validation check on the subscriber. If the subscriber has not been validated on the switch within 24 hours, an inquiry is performed on the home switch to verify that he is active and has good credit. In addition, PRV performs a MIN/ESN mismatch check to detect fraudulent cellular phones. If any of these validation procedures fail, the subscriber's RoamingAmerica service is immediately aborted and deactivated. Meanwhile, if the subscriber has chosen to activate transparent call forwarding, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the serving switch directing it to assign a temporary number to the roamer and insert this number into the the serving switch's database. The temporary number is assigned from a block of temporary numbers that have been reserved on the switch to serve roamers. When RoamingAmerica receives confirmation that the serving switch has assigned the temporary number to the roamer, it sends a command to the roamer's home switch directing it to deactivate any existing call forwarding and to establish a conditional call forwarding {forward on no-answer/busy} to the temporary number assigned by the foreign switch. If the subscriber has chosen to activate caller notification, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the home switch directing it to conditionally transfer the subscriber to a contrived phone number that consists of two parts: the routing prefix and the switch code identifier. The routing code is common to all numbers used in caller notification, whereas the switch code varies depending on the foreign market in which the subscriber is currently located. When an incoming call is received, it is transferred to this number. The routing prefix directs the switch to route this call to the trunk group that connects the switch to the AVRS, and outpulse the switch code identifier portion of the number. The switch code identifier tells the AVRS which message to play back to the calling party. If a subscriber does not explicitly deactivate the system as described above, RoamingAmerica will deactivate his service X hours after his most recent call was placed form the foreign market. This time span is referred to as the cancellation time, and can be set on a per carrier basis. When a roamer registers successfully on RoamingAmerica in a particular serving system, he stays registered and continues to receive incoming calls that are forwarded to his temporary number until one of the following events occur: 1. The roamer fails to place a call at least once during the cancellation time interval. 2. The RoamingAmerica operations staff manually deactivates the roamer. 3. The roamer dials one of the deactivation codes in any system. Deactivation will only occur from his home system if the home system provides an AVRS system. 4. The roamer goes to another foreign system and places a call, thereby registering in the new foreign system (and terminating his registration in the previous foreign system), or 5. The roamer fails any PRV validation check on any roamer call he places while active on RoamingAmerica. Whenever RoamingAmerica is deactivated, the subscriber's originally call forwarding and call transfer settings are retrieved from the system's internal database, and restored on the home switch. RoamingAmerica consists of application software that runs in a VAX/VMS environment and uses the existing APPEX national network {packet-switched, I believe} for communicating to switches across the country. ........... | 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. | ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Information on Cellular Telephones Date: 24 Apr 90 04:42:47 GMT Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. Two books relating to Cellular 'phone service that I have found to be most interesting are: "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems" by William C.Y. Lee. McGraw-Hill 1989 ISBN 0-07-037030-3 (Dreadfully expensive > Can$75) This is an excellent book detailing more than you would ever want to know about Cellular Phone Systems. The book, at times, gets heavilly into the engineering details but is very useful if you have an "Inquiring Mind" that want's to know! The only drawback is the book's price. "The Cellular Telephone Directory" Communications Publishing Service (206-232-3464 US$14) ISBN 0-945592-02-7 Although there are plenty of directories that are available that catalogue (or at least attempt to catalogue) all the different cell systems in North America, this one includes maps with coverage areas indicated. Obviously, such information is constantly subject to change, but for a general idea of what's out there, it is a useful addition to one's cellular library. ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC Date: 23 Apr 90 14:46:39 GMT Reply-To: Ken Thompson Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS Ever since I moved within my exchange neither of the CPC settings works on my Panasonic machine. The phone pair to my house comes from an underground vault that is tied to the CO by fiber. For a year I had problems with noise and hearing other conversations (only at my end). ATT's new technology is not what it used to be. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem Date: 23 Apr 90 11:13:41 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Ken Jongsma writes: > Help! Based on the glowing reports about the Panasonic KXT-3900 > [...] > When it is set to dial in Tone Mode, the "2" will not break dialtone > when dialed from the remote. The base works fine as do all the other > digits from the remote. The tones sound ok to me, but I called Sprint > Customer Service and asked them to check. The rep had me push all the > buttons and said they all registered correctly, though she did hear a > slight "beep" just prior to hearing the actual tone. I assume that was > the handset talking to the base. I own two of those phones, and both have never given me any trouble whatsoever. Except for the time I dropped one and its battery popped out causing it to forget its security code. After reprogramming, it worked fine. Anyway, it has been my experience that a "2" is a troublesome digit and seems to be most suceptible to distortion and something called "twist". Although it is not common, it is possible for a phone line to have anomolies in its frequency response that cause one of the two tones that make up a DTMF digit to appear at the receiver lower than the other. Depending on the amount of the discrepancy, this can cause the receiver to ignore the digit entirely. The KX-T3900 will sound a digit continuously; have you tried holding down the button to break dial tone? BTW, the little beep preceding each digit is normal. The fact that other phones don't have this problem can be due to many factors, such as overall DTMF transmit level, balance, etc. > A related problem: This is the second unit I've tried. The first unit > would not break dialtone from the base with the 2 digit. The current > unit did the same *until I unplugged the little answering machine > override "y" jack I had on that line.* (The jack prevents the phone > from grabbing the line when my modem is on it.) How would that jack be > interfering with the audio signal? By simply causing that frequency response problem that I mentioned above. If you hadn't discovered the problem for yourself, my next suggestion would have been to remove everything else connected to the line, and then add things one at a time until the culprit was located. An extreme measure if all else had failed would have been to contact your telco and have them sweep your line -- even POTS lines have certain standards they have to meet! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #278 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03986; 24 Apr 90 5:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10830; 24 Apr 90 3:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10986; 24 Apr 90 2:14 CDT Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 1:30:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #279 BCC: Message-ID: <9004240130.ab08970@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Apr 90 01:30:46 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 279 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt [Jody Kravitz] MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings) [Dennis Brophy] Digest questions [Jody Kravitz] Cellular Programming [Dean Sirakides] The Other Cards [Carol Springs] Pay Phone Nostalgia [Edward Greenberg] Transmitting Video Over Phone Lines [Nutsy Fagen] Call Metering, and Charges: What's the Chances For Error? [Anthony Lee] S.F. Bay Area Telecom Gathering [Edward Greenberg] Semantics re: London Area Codes [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 15:31:51 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt Quoted from an ad in [Working Woman], page 45: Take your MCI Card. | 1/2 tall type Or take your chances. | 1/2 tall type All across America, business is calling on MCI. You should, too. Unlike the AT&T Card, with the MCI Card(r) there's never a chance of hidden charges, whether you dial direct or use an operator. And you never have to read payphone labels, listen for special recordings, or dial differently from different phones. What's more, you can use your MCI Card from any phone in the U.S. to virtually any phone in the world. And when you're traveling, you can use your MCI Card with MCI CALL USA(sm) from a growing number of countries all over the world to get back home. You'll always get an English speaking operator, and save money, too. Of course, using the MCI Card assures you of unsurpassed call quality. As well as savings over AT&T's standard rates month after month. So if you're not calling with the MCI Card, call us at 1-800-888-0800. MCI | Inch tall type Let us show you(r). | 1/4 inch tall type -- end quote -- I find it interesting, but a bit misleading, that MCI is running this ad. Clearly COCOT's and AOS's make this ad hit close to home for those out there that don't consider phones "just another computer terminal". The fact part about "Unlike the AT&T Card", however is a bit misleading. I believe that it is only because AT&T and the local operating companies "share" a database using the same pins that your AT&T card can be involved in billings from other LD and AOS companies. Jody internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 09:30:37 PDT From: Dennis Brophy Subject: MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings) In article <6678@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 271, Message 7 of 8 >Sprint and MCI afficionados will note that there seems to be no >equivalent trouble reporting service, especially not providing a >ticket number for future tracking of the trouble report. I have been >unable to get Sprint or MCI to fix their problem with failing to >complete calls to any German cellular phone (+49 161 nnn nnnn). Yet >another reason to use AT&T. I would have shared your views had a recent experience at work not happened. (My employer has had MCI handle dial 1 long distance for about two years now.) I needed to reach a FAX machine in Madrid, Spain, but my machine was never able to complete the call. I dailed the number by hand and listened for the call to complete. It did not. The phone simply went dead. I dialed 001+ for operator assistance to complete the international call. She tried to complete the call and got the same problem. "Let me transfer you to customer service, and they will be able to help you," she said. Of course, no company can beat AT&T's service, so I asked her if I would have to wait 30 minutes or more for help. This is what I have heard and read before. "No, there will be no wait since *I* am transfering the call." So I thought, should I just hang up and use 10288+ or wait and she if she is telling the truth. I waited and on the second ring I got a MCI customer service representative. She asked if this was a business or home. I told her a business. She asked for the number I was calling from and verified the number I was calling was in Spain. I guess the number I was calling from did not show it as a MCI account and she asked for the main company number. With that number she found that MCI had to take immediate action to cure the problem. She told me that what she was reading gave MCI 30 minutes to fix the problem before "other actions" are taken. I never asked her what those were. But... She tried to dial the number and got the same problem. She asked me to hold the line while she arranged to have the problem verified and fixed. About 1 minute or so later, she came back on the line to say that it now rings, but it was never answered. (They probably turned their FAX machine off for the night.) She said I should have no further problems reaching this number. Just in case, she gave me a "special" 800 number to call if I had this or other problems again so I don't have to go through the *normal* channels. Given the arrangements MCI has with my employer, she was quite accommodating. This was all completed in about 5 minutes. I attempted the call myself, and moments later it did ring. Now, if they could only make this level of service universal to all their accounts... Dennis Brophy UNIX: ...!mntgfx!dennisb Mentor Graphics Corporation INTERNET: dennisb@pdx.MENTOR.COM 8500 SW Creekside Place VOICE: +1-503-626-1415 Beaverton, OR 97005-7191 FAX: +1-503-626-1282 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 00:19:08 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Digest questions There was a long discussion about ringing a phone that was off-hook. Today all bells are connted from TIP to RING; the talk path through the off-hook phone effectively "shorts out" all the bells. If memory serves me correctly, the bells on 500 series phones installed on non-party lines in Illinois circa 1960 were installed with the bell connected between Red and Yellow. This would be TIP and Ground, right ? While the switch-hook may have disconnected the bell while off-hook, the extension phones would still have their bells connected. The off-hook phone puts a low-impedance path between TIP and RING, but would not prevent ringing voltage from being applied between TIP and GROUND the RING lead were "lifted" at the CO. This would cause all the other extensions to ring even while one phone was off-hook. I suspect that the test board (and possbily the operator) could have accomplished this in a #5 crossbar office. Jody Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Cellular Programming Date: 23 Apr 90 14:56:56 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL There seems to be a growing interest among the telecom group for cellular phone programming codes. I can't say I agree with general idea that manufacturer's codes should be made generally available. Hopefully, however, the interest in this group is purely for academic purposes. I thought I'd pass along an ad I saw in a trade journal. It touts two book that may be of interest to this group: "Product Operation Handbook" (c. 1990, 130 pages) This book has the codes to adjust various user features, i.e. hands free, call timers, system selection... This is, of course, the boring stuff that is in most user manuals. "NAMFAX Cellular Program Manual" (c. 1990, 240 pages) This is basically a shop manual for dealers and installers. It claims to have all the codes for programming, including the NAM options for over a 100 models. This seems to be all the "good stuff" thats not normally given by the manufacturer. I've never seen the books, but if you're interested, the books are offered by "Communications Publishing Service". Dean Sirakides | Motorola Cellular Group ...uunet!motcid!sirakide | Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: The Other Cards Date: 22 Apr 90 02:05:46 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Jane Bryant Quinn's column this week contains a description of Sprint's and MCI's answers to The Card. The Visa card offered by Sprint carries no discount on calls, but Sprint is considering instituting one. From the article: ...You get a single card that's a Visa on one side (with a Visa number) and with a Sprint Foncard number on the other. Right now, your "secret" four-digit Foncard PIN is also printed on the card. But starting in May, Sprint says, new cards issued won't show the PIN. (The older PINned cards won't normally be replaced until your regular renewal date. But you can get a new one, if you call.)... ...Unlike AT&T, Sprint charges no fees for taking a cash advance, no extra fees for paying bills late, and no fees for going over your credit limit.... Sprint will waive its $25 fee for the first year. MCI is playing the game differently. It's starting a program to convert the Visa card that's already in your pocket into an MCI card, and at no extra charge. So far, 20 banks are participating, and more are being signed up. When MCI customers dial a call, they'll be able to enter their Visa number plus their PIN, and the bill will show up on their credit card.... ...Sprint charges 17.99 percent interest; with MCI, you'll pay whatever rate is already on your Visa card [assuming in both cases that the LD charges are rolled over, rather than paid off during the grace period. The Sprint Visa does have a grace period]. Quinn also points out that whereas the Sprint Visa explicitly allows customers to carry over their phone bills, the AT&T Universal card includes the LD portion of the bill in the regular minimum payment for that month. Thus, the AT&T card might be better for people who want to continue to be "encouraged" to pay off their phone bill in full each month. I assume that paying less than the minimum on the AT&T card causes one to be hit with (in addition to interest charges) the $10 late fee of which I've heard tell. The Sprint Visa is issued by State Street Bank and Trust Co. in Boston. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 08:51 PDT From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Moderator's Note: Yes indeed I do remember three-slot coin phones which remained dead until you made a *five cent* deposit. Furthermore, the return slots did not have trap-doors; the handset cords were uncurled and covered with brown *cloth* (no armored handset like now); and the *wooden* phone booth had a door on the front with a glass window in it, a little seat inside it, and an overhead incadesent light which went on or off when the door was opened or closed, like a refrigerator light. Patrick, You forgot the little fan that went on when the light did, that was switchable by the user via a toggle switch. We must also mention the metal "SORRY, TEMPORARILY OUT OF SERVICE" sign that was usually found tucked behind the phone. This device, complete with metal strap to go behind the coin slots, had a hole in it to allow the phone man to bolt it in place. Since it was there, the user, who found the phone broken could put it in place to warn others. Finally, we must recall the 6 x 9 frame on the wall that would hold an advertisement for Long Distance, "Why not make that other call while you're here" or a reminder to "Wait for Dial Tone." On a similar subject, does anybody remember the little half moon crescents that were mailed out in the early 60's containing the newly publicised "Area Code?" You were supposed to slip this onto your dial and tuck it under the black plastic number card retainer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 18:09 EST From: Nutsy Fagen Subject: Transmitting Video Over Phone Lines I'm interested in obtaining information on ways to remotely view a computer screen. I do not require computer-level interaction, only a 'copy' of the display. A telephone-line connection would be best since the remote site will be about 1/4 mile from the source. My source computer is a Tandy 1000 SX with both RGB and RCA-video outputs. Using the RCA output would be preferred (the RGB is already being used for the 'local' monitor). A 'quick and dirty' solution would be great. We'll be using this setup to remotely view a fire/security alarm screen during periodic special events where multiple 'command posts' are set up. Please reply directly to me (mjb8949@ritvax). TELECOM Digest is normally relayed to me by someone who is out of town for several weeks. Thanks! Mike ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Call Metering, and Charges: What's the Chances For Error? Date: 24 Apr 90 01:33:44 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au Could someone please explain how calls are metered? I presume on SPC switches accounts can be read from a terminal. On what switches do accounts have to be read from meters? How accurate are the meters? On two successive telephone bills I have noticed that the number of local calls that the Telecom metered was about 40% higher then I expected. Anyway I talked to a sales rep about it and he kept insisting that there is nothing wrong with Telecom equipment. I have heard of people who have changed their numbers and finding their new account was significantly lower than under their old number. Is it possible that they have changed to a digital exchange were number of calls made are stored in the switch's memeory rather than a meter ? Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 09:00 PDT From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: S.F. Bay Area Telecom Gathering? I was thinking that we are becoming a community of regulars here, and wonder if a gathering or two is in order. Since I live in San Jose, I'll start by suggesting a Bay Area gathering, perhaps for dinner or dessert at a local Lyons or that sort of place. Somewhere where we can get a long table, or even the back room if there are enough of us, and swap stories for an hour or two. Rather than flood the Digest with responses, please mail a response to me at the address below and advise me of: 1. Who you are 2. Your location 3. How far and in which directions you'd be willing to come 4. What nights of the week are best 5. Whether you prefer dinner, dessert, or have another suggestion 6. Whether you think we can get together without killing one another :-) Another possibility is a TELECOM Digest outing to a baseball game! We could probably get group tickets for a weekend game later this season. -edg Please respond to: edg@cso.3mail.3com.com If your mail bounces, call me at 408-283-0184. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 14:18:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Semantics re: London Area Codes Given that the new codes 71 and 81 for London area (U.K.) work now, the split, as defined in the U.S. splits referred to many times in this Digest, has already occurred. When the old code 1 goes away, that will be the "full cutover". (Even though the language is English, you still have to watch out for different ways of saying the same thing.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #279 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05275; 24 Apr 90 6:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19355; 24 Apr 90 4:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10830; 24 Apr 90 3:21 CDT Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 2:17:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #280 BCC: Message-ID: <9004240217.ab10850@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Apr 90 02:16:59 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 280 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson British Telecom Conversion Brochure Available [TELECOM Moderator] Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro [Greg Monti via John R. Covert] Data Collection for Telemarketing [John R. Covert] LD in 1962 [Lawrence M. Geary] Splitting Area Code 416? [Marcel D. Mongeon] More Test Numbers [David Leibold] Modifying Telephone Sets for Eavesdropping [Larry Lippman] Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring? [David A. Roth] Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers [Jon Baker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 1:38:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: British Telecom Conversion Brochure Available British Telecom has published an attractive brochure which describes in detail the conversion to 71/81 going on at present. The brochure includes a complete listing of prefixes, and to which new code each is assigned. In addition, a small map illustrates the geography of the conversion. This brochure was mailed recently to businesses and other heavy phone users in the United States. If you did not receive a copy, you might like to have one. In an accompanying letter, Mr. James M. Pickard asks that questions about the conversion be directed to his personal attention. To receive a brochure, or discuss the conversion with Mr. Pickard, contact him at his office: James M. Pickard British Telecom, Inc. 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephones: 212-297-2700 / 800-331-4568 / FAX: 212-297-2727 Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 13:05:15 PDT From: "John R. Covert 23-Apr-1990 1603" Subject: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro (Greg Monti) From: Greg Monti Date: 23 April 1990 Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in Washington Area C&P of Virginia (and possibly other Bell Atlantic operating companies) has quietly loosened its stranglehold on intraLATA, interstate calls, at least in the Washington area. Toll calls within the Washington LATA formerly could only be direct-dialed via C&P, paying its hefty rates. Dialing 10XXX first in an attempt to use another carrier, would result in a "it is not necessary to dial a carrier access code to make this call; please dial again without the access code" recording. Now, such calls, as long as they are interstate, can be dialed on any carrier that will accept your business by using 10XXX dialing. An intraLATA toll call from Arlington, VA, to Ridge, MD, about 60 miles, at C&P daytime rates is $0.51 for the first minute and $0.33 each additional minute! I don't have any competitive LD carrier rate cards in front of me, but I'll bet AT&T, MCI and Sprint charge only about half that, especially for the first minute. You must know of the existence of 10XXX dialing to get the discount. Oh, by the way, 10XXX now also works on *local* interstate calls within the Washington LATA. A call from Arlington to DC, less than half a mile, can now be dialed on a competitive LD carrier. Why one would want to is another question, although, for a party with local measured service, which is available as an option in Virginia, the per-minute rate might be cheaper for a certain number of minutes. I assume the mileages are calculated as for any other call, using V&H tables and the actual NPA+NXX's. Toll or local calls within the Washington LATA *and* within Virginia cannot be 10XXX'ed. The same old intercept recording still comes on for those. Not that it's a big deal. From most of Norhtern Virginia, the only exchange within Virginia and within LATA which is toll is Stafford (703-659 and 703-720). Everything else is either Extended Area or Local. I've been trying to figure whether there is any advantage to this for pay phone users, but can't think of one. The only competitive LD company that accepts coin payment is AT&T, and they charge a large first-minute premium for the luxury of having a mechanical voice tell you how much money to put in. You might as well use an MCI or Sprint card. Of course, MCI's "Around Town" beats all of them. I made a coupla intraLATA LD and local calls using competitive carriers from home. We shall see what the bill says. Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work +1 202 822-2633 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 19:09:19 PDT From: "John R. Covert 23-Apr-1990 2142" Subject: Data Collection for Telemarketing What's the real reason for Caller ID? Why is AT&T offering the Universal Card for free? The answer? Data collection for your telemarketing dossier! Skeptical? Think I'm paranoid and looking for telephone solicitors under every transaction? Just because I'm not paranoid doesn't mean the phone companies aren't out there looking for a new way to make a buck. Recently Dan Moffat, spokesman for the Independent Telecommunications Network, a consortium of independent phone firms, announced that ITN has started offering its own TelCard calling card and plans to arrange for the centralized collection of Caller ID information, allowing the sorting of incoming call records for all businesses in a particular area and the use of that data to create telemarketing databases that can be sold back to member companies for use in telephone solicitations. ITN is considering expanding the TelCard calling card to make it a credit card like AT&T's Universal Card. This will further enhance the telemarketing database by including not just call records but purchase records as well. Ray Donnelly, VP of Sales and Marketing for ITN, confirmed that the independent telcos, like the RBOCs, are opposed to the idea that their subscribers should be able to block the transmission of their calling numbers to the merchants and to the centralized data collection systems. TELECOM Digest readers -- mark my words: It's time for some serious nationwide data privacy laws. The collection, sorting, and selling of personalized data is getting out of control in this country. No one should have the right to sell data about your phone calling and purchase habits to anyone! /john ------------------------------ From: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) Subject: LD in 1962 Date: 23 Apr 90 14:03:18 GMT Reply-To: 74017.3065@compuserve.com While browsing through some old magazines from 1962, I noticed that the ads all had 7 digit phone numbers. No area codes. I find it hard to believe that the US had so few telephones in 1962 that there was no need for area codes. So how did one make a long distance call? Was it all operator assisted? Larry: 74017.3065@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Until about the middle 1950's, all long distance calling was operator assisted. Until a few years prior to that, the operators passed the calls long distance to each other, i.e. your local operator handed you to a long distance operator; she in turn went on the wire to the operator in St. Louis; that one connected to an operator in Denver; she got the one in Los Angeles, and the operator in Los Angeles passed you to the local operator who then connected you to the local number, lets call it Hollywood 2300. Eventually your local (long distance) operator could dial direct to Los Angeles 'inward', cutting out the operators in the middle. I could tell you some stories that would curl your hair. PT] ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Splitting Area Code 416? Date: 24 Apr 90 04:33:17 GMT Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. Recently, everyone in the 416 area code (Toronto, Hamilton and the Niagara Peninsula) was required to dial 1-416- for any calls within the area code. Ostensibly, the reason given (through a *lot* of pretty stupid ads) for the change was that 416 was running out of numbers and this would let them introduce N1X and N0X exchanges. Now I thought that all of the CO equipment in use was pretty smart and could keep up with something like a N1X or N0X exchange within the area code just by using time outs or whatever it is that they use on international calls. Is this all in fact a ploy by Bell Canada to get us all used to dialing 1-416- to get Toronto and then they are going to split the Area Code (Toronto keeping 416 and everyone else getting something else)??? Has anyone got any gossip that would verify this? ***DISCLAIMER*** This is all just my own idea -- I have not heard anything else to substantiate it (But when you think about it it almost makes sense!! :-) ) ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ Subject: More Test Numbers Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 23:40:42 EDT From: woody In Ontario (Canada), many exchanges have a ring back code that is activated by dialing 57 + last 5 digits of phone number. Sometimes, 99 + last 5 digits will also work. In Nova Scotia, 575 + 7 digits of phone number seems to work, at least to get a touch tone test (get a new dial tone, dial digits 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 0 (without breaking the dial tone) and get rewarded with a couple of differing beeps). 871 in British Columbia might do the same thing, as it seems to require 871 + 7 digits. Of course, you can get a little night music in Saskatchewan if you dial 990.1111 ... dialing this in Regina results in the phone system singing a happy tune a few moments thereafter. Years ago, BC Tel used to have the Telex testing line a.k.a. conference call facility. It was accessed by (604) 2111 (perhaps with trailing digits to terminate the dialing). It, and other phreaker things, was discussed in an article in the now-defunct _Canadian_Magazine_ (a roto included with major Canadian dailies) years and years ago. (Incidentally, (604) 2111 would have been defunct for years as well). ------------------------------ Subject: Modifying Telephone Sets for Eavesdropping Date: 23 Apr 90 23:36:30 EST (Mon) From: Larry Lippman In article <6687@accuvax.nwu.edu> 1gsl@athena.mit.edu writes: > The Telephone Company provided a much better way to bug most executive > offices, with out ever entering the room, as a stock feature of many > instruments of that era. > We discovered it quite by accident in 1968 while installing some newly > acquired 2564 HK touch tone sets on a previously rotary only, 1A2 key > system at my college radio station. A couple of the spare pairs had > been used for a custom intercom/signaling system. On plugging in > the new sets the intercom and the new phones stopped working. The > problem was traced to a continuous connection of the earphone to the > vi-sl pair (?? I don't have my old notes here and it has been twenty > years) which we had used for signaling! This pair was brought out in > any instrument set up for speaker phone operation. It allowed > mounting the speaker phone control box in the remote telephone closet. > I was never clear as to why it was a necessary connection, however > most five line 2564 sets, I have seen, have it connected. The violet-slate pair corresponds to AG, and LK, respectively, and is used for speakerphone ON/OFF latch control. There is no standard pair assignment which provides access to the receiver element only, except in the case of an external repertory dialer; even such a connection is useless for eavesdropping *without* set wiring changes, for the reason below. In *any* standard 500-type telephone set (I consider the 2565HK to be in this category), the receiver element is shorted by the break contacts (break last) of the hookswitch, which means while the handset is on-hook, the receiver element is shorted. The purpose of such wiring is to eliminate the loud click when occurs when the hookswitch is operated. The violet-green pair provides T1 and R1, respectively, and is the tip and ring of the line selected by whichever button is depressed on the 634A key. While this pair has been used for wiretap purposes, i.e., during a telephone conversation on a given line, it is not generally useful for live microphone use. > Now if it isn't obvious - the earphone makes an excellent dynamic > microphone !! A quick test (with a couple of the radio stations > drypairs looped back from a remote dorm, and a common balanced input > mike amp) demonstrated it would work quite well at least up to a mile > away. The receiver element does indeed make an excellent microphone. However, in order to have it functional the break contact wiring from the hookswitch must be disconnected. This has been done in the past for eavesdropping purposes, with generally good success. However, an astute (or paranoid) subject may notice the increased level of the on-hook/off-hook click, and consequently may become suspicious. The required wiring change is also obvious to anyone skilled in the art who opens the set housing. > I do however recall a couple years ago, hearing about some state > governor who had caught someone bugging his office, The newspapers > were quite specific that no physical access was gained to the office; > only to the phone closet in the hallway. Since we have no specific details, I suspect a more likely scenario was that the telephone was not used as a live microphone, but that connection was made across the T1/R1 leads (violet-green) which would give an eavesdropper access to whatever line the subject was talking on at a given time. As I said above, the receiver element is shorted when the set is on-hook, and its leads are not brought out in any standard pair arrangement, anyhow. > I am surprised that more bugging wasn't done this way. I know I was > always careful to see that pair was disconnected on any set in my > office. It *has* been done the way you describe, but a brief one-time access to the telephone set is required in order to effect the necessary wiring changes. That is the only way, unless we consider more esoteric possibilities, which are not the topic of this discussion. > Now that 2500 sets are being replaced by new digital sets the problem > may be moot ;-). Then again who knows what is on the digital line > with the set hung up. The hook switch on the brand new IBX set on my > desk doesn't disconnect anything, it only sends a code down the line! The new electronic sets are definitely a whole new ballgame. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: david@david.UUCP (David A. Roth) Subject: Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring? Date: 23 Apr 90 17:16:55 GMT Reply-To: david@david.UUCP (David A. Roth) Organization: Columbus, Ohio I have an answering machine with a two position switch allowing pick-up on either 2nd or 4th ring. I would like to know if it can be modified without much trouble to pick-up on the 1st ring (instead of the 2nd.) Thanks in advance. David att!osu-cis!david!david ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers Date: 23 Apr 90 15:33:23 GMT Organization: gte In article <6620@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cdc@uafhcx.uark.edu (C. D. Covington) writes: > I would like a list of switch manufacturers with call processing > capability. The switch can be either analog or digital. I am > particularly interested in low-end machines (read cheap). AG Communication Systems PO Box 52179 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2179 Manufactures and sells the GTD-5 digital switching system. Other potential vendors in the U.S. : Redcom, Siemens, Ericcson. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #280 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08119; 25 Apr 90 17:05 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag23815; 25 Apr 90 11:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05238; 25 Apr 90 1:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20098; 25 Apr 90 0:21 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 0:11:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #281 BCC: Message-ID: <9004250011.ab17311@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Apr 90 00:10:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 281 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson One Reason For Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales [David E. Bernholdt] Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Steven King] Re: Credit Card ID [Dave Tiller] Re: Credit Card ID [Douglas Mason] Re: Credit Card ID [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: The Card [Benjamin Ellsworth] Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) [Mike Olson] Re: Phone Replacement [Irving Wolfe] Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage [Ed Ravin] Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [Gary L. Dare] Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [Nick Pine] Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [Peter da Silva] Minitel Supports English [Lang Zerner] Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness [John DeArmond] Re: Infinity Transmitters - II [Steve Wolfson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: One Reason For Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales Date: 23 Apr 90 17:17:26 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project In article <6690@accuvax.nwu.edu> malcolm@apple.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 273, Message 4 of 8 >There is a woman who writes a national home finance column. I don't >remember her name but she has lately been making a big deal in her >column about how both Visa and Mastercard do not require a phone >number for the purchase to be valid. She's been encouraging people to >not give out their phone number. Straying from the group's charter somewhat, but it seems worth pointing out... Years ago, I used to work in a computer store. When we took credit cards, we asked for a phone number. The reason for this was for the store's and the customer's protection. Case 1: The clerk forgets to get a signature on the charge slip -- you can call the customer & re-do it as a phone charge. Case 2: The customer forgets to pickup the card & leave the store before anyone notices it. You can call the customer & tell them you have their card. Those who've never had these experiences shouldn't be too quick to laugh. In the 2-3 years I worked at that store, I think we had one instance of case 1 (the clerk messed up) and a handful of case 2 (the customer neglected to pickup the card). You'd be amazed how relieved people are when you call them & tell them their card isn't lost & they can stop by and pick it up. If they gave a bogus or non-answering number, we can't help & their card is probably as good as lost unless they come back around & look for it. I can't say what other companies may or may not do with phone numbers, but I give my phone number in the hope that the same courtesy might be extended to me if I goof some day. David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts Date: 23 Apr 90 17:27:01 GMT Reply-To: motcid!king@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL This isn't really the correct newsgroup for this question, but it's related to a topic that's been bandied about here lately. I'm referring to putting your phone number on credit card slips. Am I naive or are you paranoid? I've been putting my honest-to-god phone number on credit card slips ever since the day I first got a card, with no ill effects. I'm really curious, just what is everyone so worried about? From your reactions you sound like a bunch of ancient wizards afraid to death about letting your True Name slip out. :-) Steve King, uunet!motcid!king ------------------------------ From: Dave Tiller N2KAU Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 23 Apr 90 20:51:50 GMT Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport NJ In article <6612@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Have people really had bad experiences in putting phone numbers on >charge slips? YES!!! I've been badgered by rude salesmen, polluted with completely unsolicited junk mail, etc. I _really_ object to someone requiring me to put down my address on a charge slip and then MAKING MONEY selling my name on a mailing list. It is interesting to put different renditions of your name and address on different slips and watch the lists propagate. On a related note, I also hate unsolicited FAX advertisements. I paid for that paper, dammit!! I have more than once written "I do not appreciate you wasting my FAX paper" on a six-foot sheet of computer paper and fed it continuous form through my FAX machine overnight to offending buisnesses. To say the least, they don't call back! David E. Tiller davet@tsdiag.ccur.com | Concurrent Computer Corp. FAX: 201-870-5952 Ph: (201) 870-4119 (w) | 2 Crescent Place, M/S 117 UUCP: ucbvax!rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!davet | Oceanport NJ, 07757 ICBM: 40 16' 52" N 73 59' 00" W | N2KAU @ NN2Z ------------------------------ From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Reply-To: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 13:50:46 GMT In article <6665@accuvax.nwu.edu> mculnan@guvax.georgetown.edu writes: >I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all, The >clerks never check. For some time some friends and I had this thing where we would never ever write our real name on the charge slip. First we just scribbled things but after a while I was signing names of former presidents, not-so-catchy phrases, etc until I just plain became bored of thinking up something original. It was amazing that never once did any clerk even give it a second glance. Attention to detail, huh? Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:59:25 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Credit Card ID John Higdon (john@bovine.ati.com) writes: > I don't mean to be argumentative, but over the years I have put my > true and correct [listed] phone number on charge slips. Two calls have > resulted from this "naive" practice. This does sound naive. Yes, you may have only had two of the merchants call you directly, BUT how many telephone solicitations have you received from solicitors who got your phone number from a merchant? Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:37:44 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: The Card > MasterCard and Visa are separate companies and offer different > benefits to their card holders. You can call 800 MC ASSIST or 800 > VISA 411 to find out about the various benefits/programs offered. Although VISA and MC offer different products to their respective customers, I am quite certain that they are both owned by the same parent company. It's kind of like the difference between Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut (they're both owned by Pepsico). Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com All applicable disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ From: Mike Olson Subject: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 08:17:28 PDT In message 6692@accuvax.nwu.edu, Will Martin asks how AT&T decides whether to send you a Visa or Mastercard. I applied about two weeks after the card was announced. At that time, they asked me which of the two I wanted. Mike Olson mao@postgres.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ From: Irving Wolfe Subject: Re: Phone Replacement Date: 24 Apr 90 01:17:51 GMT Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe Organization: SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors In article <6682@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >What I don't understand... >Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990? Because there are still garbage phone companies throughout the country, like Telephone Utilities here, who won't string new lines as an area grows unless they absolutely have to; even then, it takes forever. Except for business lines at business rates, they are apparently free to say, "You can have a party line in a couple of weeks. If you want a private line, we can put your name on a list to get one when someone relinquishes one." When there's enough backlog to generate an instant payback on the new lines, they'll finally send a crew out to do something. Does anyone know anything about starting a local telephone cooperative to wipe these bums out of business, or is that a pipe dream? Irving Wolfe irv@happym.wa.com 206/463-9399 ext.101 Happy Man Corp. 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road, Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors ------------------------------ From: Ed Ravin Subject: Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage Reply-To: Ed Ravin Organization: Tin Cups & String, Inc. Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 01:53:56 GMT In article John Boteler writes: >[ discussing US West's dial replacement program in the Minneapolis area > to thwart drug dealers ] >Changing the COS to outgoing only seems much more effective if >callbacks are the MO. At the behest of local City Council members, NY Telephone did exactly this at various payphones in the Upper West Side that were being used by drug dealers for callbacks. However, in typical telephone company sluggishness, disabling incoming calls was the LAST thing they tried: they first removed the phone numbers from the payphones so that the dealers wouldn't know what numbers to tell their customers to call back. That didn't work, of course, since the druggies knew about how to use ANI to discover the payphone's number. 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: Gary L Dare Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City Reply-To: Gary L Dare Organization: The Ghostbusters Institute at Columbia University Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 17:01:27 GMT In article <6667@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >What are your sources for the reports re: 917? For sake of review: >All the areacode splits, as far as I know, have been geographical, and >no place, at least since 1965, has had its area code changed TWICE due >to splits (although 305 has split twice, and 213 will undergo a new >split when 310 is formed). Last Wednesday's (or Thursday's) New York Times mentioned this in their Metro ("B") section, which I usually throw out unless it has the Sports section. I don't know where the original posting was derived from. Gary L. Dare gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU gld@cunixc.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 20:40:26 EDT From: Nick Pine Subject: Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) Organization: Villanova Univ. EE Dept. One should mention International Mobile Machines, near Philadelphia, in connection with this thread... Nick Pine [Moderator's Note: I believe they were the inventors of 'Privecode', the device which requires the caller to insert a three digit security code to reach you before your phone will ring. Nice little gimmick. PT] ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 14:30:59 GMT The Moderator talks of the good old days, when Superman could still use a phone booth: > ... the handset cords were > uncurled and covered with brown *cloth* (no armored handset like now); > and the *wooden* phone booth had a door on the front with a glass > window in it, a little seat inside it, and an overhead incadesent > light which went on or off when the door was opened or closed, like a > refrigerator light. Well, the last time I was in such a phone booth was less than 10 years ago, in Sydney, Australia. I guess such conveniences aren't cost-effective in the fast-paced United States. The only places you can sit down to make a phone call from a public phone are airports and the "TGI Fridays" on Bissonet. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. Have you hugged your wolf today? Disclaimer: People have opinions, organisations have policy. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 15:33:50 PDT From: Lang Zerner Subject: Minitel Supports English By the way, I probably should have mentioned that Minitel in the United States supports an English language front end. Though I have not examined the services offered, I assume that some are in French, while others are in English. Perhaps another telecom reader can report on Minitel. I would gladly do so, but recent events have made it difficult to use the front end software (I no longer have the necessary computing hardware at my disposal). Be seeing you... Lang Zerner ------------------------------ Subject: Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness Date: 23 Apr 90 17:18:36 EDT (Mon) From: "John G. De Armond" In comp.dcom.telecom you write: >The recent exchanges between two valuable contributers to this Digest >saddens me. These two gentlemen have both made a great many >constructive and useful postings to the Digest over the past two years >I have been fortunate enough to receive it. >If only both had put nearly as much effort in educating us on the >topic rather that berating each other, all the Digest readers would be >the better. This flame fest benefits no reader. I agree with you that this whole affair has been unfortunate, and one that I'd have rather not engaged in. My only comment is to ask you to put yourself in my shoes for a moment. If the assault had not come from someone as respected as Lippman, I would have ignored it. To have done so with him involved would have been tacitly admitting that he was correct and that I was lying. A response had to me made. I would have hoped it would have ended there but apparently it has not, as I see Lippman at it again. Oh well, I will be the one who lets it die this time. 73 john John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, Ga {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 09:07:47 CDT From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters - II Perhaps the real way to resolve the debate is for Mr. DeArmond lend his latest construction to an impartial third party which could then verify the claims from both sides. - Steve Wolfson Motorola Cellular uunet!motcid!wolfson [Moderator's Note: I think he said he hasn't had this device in his possesssion for several years now. In any event, as the impartial third party of record around here, I say enough is enough, and both of the participants have agreed there is little more to be said. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #281 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08181; 25 Apr 90 17:08 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad22937; 25 Apr 90 16:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02566; 25 Apr 90 2:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05238; 25 Apr 90 1:30 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 0:40:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #282 BCC: Message-ID: <9004250040.ab09519@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Apr 90 00:40:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 282 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: A Few ISDN Questions [Ernie Bokkelkamp] Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos [David Barts] Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [John Romine] Re: MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings) [John Higdon] Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [John Cowan] Re: Special Test Numbers [John Braden] Re: Credit Card ID [Bernie Roehl] Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Carl Moore] Touch-tone Frequencies [Kemi Jona] Emergency Interuppt on PBXes [Scott Fybush] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers Date: 24 Apr 90 15:52:15 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA I'll follow up on the Chisolm/anonymous discussion by pointing out the tariff/legal basis of the subsidies that the different carriers paid to the local telcos. (Yes, AT&T paid more.) MCI invented switched dial-in dial-out service with Execunet in 1975. The FCC didn't really approve of it; MCI snuck the tariff by them and when the FCC realized what it said, they tried to stop MCI and failed. At that time, MCI paid zippo subsidy to the local telcos; they paid local business line rates for their incoming and outgoing access, and got (crappy) local business lines! In 1979, as part of the settlement (the court ruled in MCI's favor), the FCC established "Exchange Network Facilities for Interstate Access" (ENFIA) tariffs. These included both line-side access (all that the OCCs then had) and trunk-side access (950). Rates were federally tariffed so they didn't have wide state by state variations, and were generally way higher than 1MB or 1FB rates. This provided some subsidy to the local telcos. In 1984, as part of the Equal Access program, the old "separations" payment system was scrapped. AT&T became just another carrier; all carriers were then subject to paying "Carrier Common Line Charges" (CCLC) for originating and terminating access. AT&T's "Feature Group C" service carried a higher rate than line-side "Feature Group A", but with equal access, everybody moved to Feature Group D. So before 1984, MCI, Sprint et al really did pay less, and got somewhat inferior service. Since 1984, they get either inferior service (FGA/FGB) at somewhat lower prices, or equal service (FGD) at the same price as AT&T. MCI and Sprint, being concerned about quality, have a lot of FGD. Some of your resellers and AOS-pondscum rely on cheapo FGA. Incidentally if you have an interstate tie line and "leak" to the local exchange, you either pay a surcharge on the tie line or route interstate calls (ONLY) onto FGA-tariffed trunks, which are the same as regular trunks in all but tariff. FGA is generally cheaper than toll or in-state WATS for non-local calls, btw, so it's not such a bad deal. The Bells do get upset if you use interstate FGA for intrastate calls. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 20:07:00 EDT From: Ernie Bokkelkamp Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions On 02 Jan 1988 08:48, Jason Zions (1:105/42) wrote: >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 >other junk. Is it possible to send other setup information >end-to-end through D channel? 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, There is no need to re-invent the wheel, also no need for a black box as the switch does it all. I have been working with ISDN for the last six months and I was the fortunate position to have very little knowledge about telecoms when I started (I have a System Programmer / Data Communication background). First you must forget all you know about setting up a call using a normal switch, there is no similarity when we look at the protocol between the terminal and switch. (I ignore trunks on purpose). I assume that a call is setup using a Fax. When a call is setup over the D-Channel, the terminal must tell the switch what service is required and B-number. The switch will then setup the call to the B-subscriber (assuming same switch). If the B-subscriber is authorised for the class of service "Fax" then it will broadcast message on the D-Channel of B-subscriber that there is an incoming call using a service indicator "Fax". Any FAX device can now react and answer the call, if no reaction the switch will report back to the A-subscriber that the call could not be completed. There are a number of service indicators used: X21, X25, AB, VOICE, TELEFAX etc. The principle is that a terminal has a service indicator which is used to setup a call to another terminal with the same service indicator. Therefor you will have no problem with a Fax answering a Voice call. I have played with X21bis over ISDN and it works like a dream, transfering Megabytes between 2 PC's with out any errors beats any high speed modem. The drawback is that the X21bis adaptors I used have a keypad and I have to setup the call manually. I have not heard of any Hayes compatible X21bis adapters yet, if anybody knows please send me some information via E-mail. The real problems with ISDN start when an analog modem is used to setup a call using a terminal adaptor a/b or over a normal analog switch. I have not seen any possibility of interworking between X21bis and analog modems. This means that if you would like to communicate over X21bis you will be restricted to X21bis and will need an aditional terminal adaptor / analog modem to communicate with the rest of the world. I would appreciate if anybody could give me some information on this. Ernie Bokkelkamp Fidonet: 5:491/22 EWSD System Design Authority *** Standard disclaimer applies *** PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa Ernie Bokkelkamp via The Heart of Gold UUCP<>Fidonet Gateway, 1:129/87 UUCP: ...!{lll-winken,psuvax1}!psuhcx!hogbbs!5!491!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp Internet: Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p1.f22.n491.z5.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 10:11:53 pdt From: David Barts Subject: Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert), in response to my comment on ATT phasing out billing via local telcos: > You'll find that Sprint already bills all its own customers directly, > and I suspect that ITT does as well. They only use Telco billing for > occasional customers. . . . I guess I was unclear in my original posting. What I meant to say was something along the lines of: Since I enjoy the convenience of getting a single, combined monthly telephone bill, I'm willing to pay a little more for an LD carrier that gives me this service. However, if no carrier is willing to give me the billing service I want, then I'll pick one mainly on the basis of price. Things like direct-dial service to the Maldives, reliable FAX/modem connections, and the ability to talk three hours without a disconnect are not an issue for me, since I almost never make international calls, rarely make an LD call longer than 20 minutes, and all my modem calls are local. David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ From: John Romine Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS Date: 24 Apr 90 18:30:14 GMT >My Panasonic ...answering machine has four settings for length of >message, ...and the two I don't understand, CPC1 and CPC2. While I don't have my Panasonic's manual handy, I do recall it cryptically mentions that these settings are for lines with Call Waiting and without (though I can't remember which is which). /JLR John Romine ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings) Date: 24 Apr 90 11:27:03 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon Dennis Brophy writes: > Given the arrangements MCI has with my employer, she was > quite accommodating. This was all completed in about 5 minutes. I > attempted the call myself, and moments later it did ring. > Now, if they could only make this level of service universal to all > their accounts... In the world of business telephone service, I am quite aware of the level of service that most companies give to their major accounts. When a company spends thousands of dollars a month on long distance or other services, any enterprize with sane management will go to some trouble and rightly so, to keep this business. Hence, this extraordinary effort to correct a problem on the part of MCI for a major customer is not terribly impressive. What is impressive to me is that I have had that same level of attention to my home account by AT&T. Whereas the "who cares" waveoff has been the order of the day on my personal Sprint account, AT&T has opened tickets, called me back with progress reports, and in general provided speedy correction to relatively minor problems. One of my larger clients has Sprint Pro Wats. When I call on their behalf, the red carpet service is rolled out. My previous posting have described their attitude when presented with problems on my personal account. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 16:52:56 GMT In article <6667@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >New York City is currently split into 212 and 718 along borough/water >lines (the only land boundary between boroughs that I know of is >Queens/ Brooklyn, both in 718 along with Staten Island). Not strictly true. Part of the Borough of Manhattan (New York County) is physically connected to the Bronx, due to a relocation of the Harlem River a few decades back. >New York City message-unit zones are as follows: Message-unit zones no longer mean anything. All calls within New York City are now considered to be "local" and are charged per-call only. (There is an option whereby you can pay per-call-plus-per-minute even on local calls, in exchange for a lower monthly service charge; I doubt if this option is very popular.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 16:05:30 EDT From: John Braden Subject: Re: Special Test Numbers In article <6593@accuvax.nwu.edu> levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes that calling number identification could be reached from eastern Massachusetts via one of the following two numbers: >1-200-NXX-XXXX provided the function; probably the seven digits were >irrelevant, but we assumed the NXX had to look legal. As far as I can >tell this is still true... When I moved to Dunstable, Mass... the number >that did work was 200-2622. As far as I know this is still the case. I just tried this from a Metropolitan Boston (617)259 exchange, and get a "sorry your number cannot be completed as dialed for the 1-200 case and a "circuit busy" signal for the 200-2622 case. Joel further asserted that ringback could be accomplished in Eastern Mass. by dialing 981-XXXX (where XXXX MUST BE THE SAME as the calling phone's last four digits. Unfortunately, in eastern Massachusetts (617)981-XXXX will get you one of the many phones in the town of Lexington, or possibly a "not in service" message if you don't hit a valid number. Does anybody know which numbers WORK for eastern Mass. exchanges? John Braden, Stratus Computer, Marlboro, Massachusetts braden@lincoln.hw.stratus.com -or- John_Braden@es.stratus.com ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:14:30 GMT In article <6665@accuvax.nwu.edu> mculnan@guvax.georgetown.edu writes: >In my opinion, we are asked to give our phone numbers purely to update >somebody's database. I am always amazed that people who would never >give their social security number out will readily give out their >phone number which can also serve as a database key if you don't move >often. >I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all, The >clerks never check. Same here. If there's a problem with processing, they can call the credit card company (who have my phone number on file). They can also look me up in the telephone book. I've heard rumours (perhaps just urban legends) about stores selling lists of names, phone numbers and purchase amounts to telemarketers. I can't verify this, but I seem to have gotten a lot fewer telemarketing type calls since I started putting down bogus numbers. 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] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 10:44:26 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416? Gossip? No, that's happened some places in the U.S. (refers to 1+NPA+7D for ALL toll calls, even within your own area code). It happened very recently, or will happen, in 919/704 areas in North Carolina (I assume that's BOTH areas in N.C.; which one is running out of prefixes?). It is also the case in: 214 in Texas (to become 214/903) 301 in Maryland and 703 (not 804) in Virginia, due to use of N0X/N1X prefixes in DC area. The next step, which will be fully cut over by the end of 1990, is to require NPA+7D, with no leading 1, for DC-area local calls which cross NPA border (this should also mean that incoming toll calls for Va. and Md. suburbs will no longer be able to use area code 202). 404 (not 912?) in Georgia. Calling instructions are always set up so that direct-dial (or, on pay phones, "cash" call) never requires a time-out, probably for areawide and/or statewide uniformity, and because in general some equipment can't handle certain time-outs. This means that if your area code has N0X/N1X prefixes, you can no longer have 1+7D for toll calls within it; instead, you have to have 7D (as is done in New Jersey) or 1+NPA+7D. Usually, 0+ calls will require 0+NPA+7D for all calls, because some equipment can't handle time-out other than for 0 by itself (gets local operator). But I noticed that LA area, even with N0X/N1X prefixes, used to require only 0+7D for 0+ calls within area 213. ------------------------------ From: jona@ils.nwu.edu (Kemi Jona) Subject: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 24 Apr 90 21:57:54 GMT Reply-To: jona@ils.nwu.edu (Kemi Jona) Organization: Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University This is a very strange request, but I hope someone will be able to come thru and help me with it nonetheless. I need to find out what the frequency of the tones that a touch-tone phone makes. Every last one of them. Does anyone know these numbers? Any info, or pointers to info, would be greatly appreciated. Kemi Jona jona@ils.nwu.edu Institute for the Learning Sciences 1890 Maple Ave.; Room 304 Evanston, IL 60201 (708) 491-3500 ext. 7100 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 11:31:11 edt From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Emergency Interrupt on PBXes A question for knowledgeable PBX users: Can an outside (telco) operator perform an emergency interrupt on a PBX extension? Here at Brandeis, we have an in-house operator on duty during daytime hours only, and I know the in-house operator can interrupt an extension, but what if my mother needs to interrupt while I'm on the modem?:) Does the operator know that (617)736-6327 is a PBX extension, or can the operator treat it like any other number? Scott Fybush ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #282 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08263; 25 Apr 90 17:10 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae22937; 25 Apr 90 16:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02566; 25 Apr 90 2:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05238; 25 Apr 90 1:30 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 1:17:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #283 BCC: Message-ID: <9004250117.ab23120@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Apr 90 010:17:38 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 283 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Info Needed on Call Processing and Telco Interface [C. D. Covington] Chautauqua Institution Telephone System [Larry Lippman] CLASS vs. Class Of Service [John Boteler] Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa [Ernie Bokkelkamp] WD-40 FONCARD Offer: Hidden Charges [Carol Springs] Unique and Profitable Use of 9000 Number [Wayne E. Sanders] Rochester, NY Area [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 17:37:18 -0400 From: "C. D. Covington" Subject: Info Needed on Call Processing and Telco Interface Last week I submitted a request for information on cost effective low end equipment for interfacing with the telco and performing simple call processing. The request was intentionally short since I was in the process of writing up a business plan and wanted to avoid a lot of details. In response to Macy Hallock's request for a bit more detail please, let me submit the following story. I will try to cover my background (so you will know where I am coming from) without wasting too much news bandwidth. life_history(ON); I grew up here in Fayetteville, Arkansas, went off to Rice University 1971-1976 to get bachelors and masters degrees in electrical engineering, got married in 1976 and went to work for Motorola in Ft. Worth for 4 years in 2-way FM radio design. During 1980-1984 I finished up a PhD at SMU in Dallas culminating my research in speech recognition. During this same time period I worked for Texas Instruments, United Technologies, and Commodore Business Machines in various capacities. My family and my wife's family being in Fayetteville, we decided to move back to Fayetteville and try being a professor. Here, I have introduced and taught graduate courses in digital signal processing and speech technology. I have also conducted research in DSP and speech with funding from government and industry. Effective last November, my last bid for tenure failed. The bad news - you're fired; the good news - you've got about 18 months to transition into something else. I'd like to stay with my family, but that may not be possible. What's my number one choice? Telecom! My experience with United Technologies includes writing firmware to implement 3-way digital conferencing, generate call progress tones, generate and decode DTMF, and implement a 1200 baud modem feature. So I have some experience to build on. life_history(OFF); I have filled up two notebooks with local contacts, employment opportunities, and marketing leads. At this time I have had no success with the major industrial players here: Wal-Mart, J. B. Hunt Trucking, and Tyson Foods. They seems to prefer to handle their telecommunication needs internally. This has forced me to consider other alternatives. One of these possibilities is aggregating/reselling long distance. At this point I have no problem spilling out business plans since I think the chances of pursuit are probably small at this point. Anyone who does pursue the following business opportunity has their work cut out for them anyway - no free lunch here. For purposes of the following discussion, I offer two definitions. Aggregating: Taking financial responsibility for a group of businesses' phone bills in return for a discount from the carrier, which discount will be shared with the end users. Customers continue to receive bills from AT&T/OCC. Reselling: Installing a switch and convincing end users to use your service (FGA, FGB, FGD) and usually billing the customer directly. Everybody and his pet rock seem to be aggregating these days, so I don't know if there is really much opportunity for me there. What I am really interested in is reselling. My question last week then is how to set up the world's cheapest switch. I understand that good off-the-shelf switches cost $250K to $500K. Why can't I parlay my technical background by locating an FCC approved T1 interface and building a PC based call processor around it? I have located several possibilities for the T1 interface, one of which is a PC based DACS by Frederick Engineering which can be RS-232 controllable. This device can handle 4 T1's for $5000 and 16 T1's for $10,000, switching at the DS0 level. All I need now is to be able to route incoming calls into a DSP processor which can handle A/B or MF signaling (I don't know the available formats of FGD yet. A friend at a PBX company tells me it's all MF). The DSP processor will need also to monitor the call for answer supervision/disconnect supervision if not available otherwise. Thus it appears possible to put together an all digital call processing switch with a budget of around $10K. The configuration would be to order a T1 to the telco (FGD), a second T1 to AT&T/OCC, and put the switch inbetween. One would then need to start signing up customers like mad to avoid instant Chapter 11. The real problem with this plan is that I don't think I can get the LD from the carrier cheap enough to make a go of it. I will probably need to get it at less than half price. While possible, it's really iffy. After getting a rating of about 6 out of 10 on the crazy scale from some respected colleagues I submit this plan to telecom readers for comments or general enlightenment. [P.S. Resume available on request :-) :-)] My original posting dealt with finding sources of equipment like the Fredericks box which can serve as building blocks for a complete call processing switch, assembled at very low cost. C. David Covington (WA5TGF) cdc@uafhcx.uark.edu (501) 575-6583 Asst Prof, Elec Eng Univ of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 ------------------------------ Subject: Chautauqua Institution Telephone System Date: 24 Apr 90 23:40:29 EST (Tue) From: Larry Lippman In article <6713@accuvax.nwu.edu> the TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: I believe Chautauqua Institution (ninety-nine > percent of the rationale for the existence of the village of > Chautauqua, NY) operates its own telephone system. And sorry to > disagree, but the summer programs at Chautauqua are quite remarkable > at times. It is the summer home of the Eastman-Rochester Symphony > Orchestra among other things. The art exhibits, lectures, theatre and > recitals make the gate fees worth every nickle. I love visiting > Chautauqua. If I visit this summer I will look at the phone setup. PT] The Chautauqua Institution is in the telephone serving area of ALLTEL, which operates what was formerly Jamestown Telephone Corp. ALLTEL's regional office is in Jamestown, NY. Chautauqua & Erie Telephone Company is an independent operating telephone company, but it serves Clymer, NY, and not Chautauqua, NY. To add further confusion, though, all of the above places are located within Chautauqua County, NY. I suspect that the Chautauqua Institution may have a large interconnect PABX, but it is not an operating telephone company. If you do visit Chautauqua, give me a shout - I live only about an hour's drive away. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ Subject: CLASS vs. Class Of Service Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 3:56:32 EDT From: John Boteler The following situation occurred recently in a ESS#1A. I attempted to add a couple numbers in the same serving central office to the CLASS calling list. Some numbers were accepted as normal; others were denied: "The number you have added is not available with this service." Does this indicate that the number to be added was associated with an ACD or other multi-terminal device not identifiable by telephone number, or is it possible to prevent the addition of a number to my list by a COS flag? John Boteler {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 21:57:00 EDT From: Ernie Bokkelkamp Subject: Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa On 15 Apr 1990 12:57, USENET News SystEm (1:105/42) wrote: >South Africa has been testing tollfree systems for a short while now. >A newer, more advanced system has just been introduced called >the 080 system. >08011-10001 (where the 080 is the tollfree identifier, 11 the >region code and the last five digits the actual number). And for national VideoText access (Beltel) the toll free number 080 00 1111 will give access country wide. Because of this the Beltel port time has been increased and a logon charge is levied. The toll free access is necessary because the administration is changing the metering for local calls. In the past a fixed number of meter pulses was charged depending on the distance between the subscribers for local calls. Now the calls are charged according to duration depending on distance and the time of day. Due to the metering change a connection to Beltel had become expensive due to double charging, once for the call and then port time on top of it. >One thing that is different to other tollfree systems in other >countries is that the software running the system has been >loaded onto the existing exchanges ... ie; no extra equipment has >had to be put in place. Correct, and the changeover was so smooth, I didn't even notice and it happened right under my nose ;-) Ernie Bokkelkamp Fidonet: 5:491/22 EWSD System Design Authority *** Standard disclaimer applies *** PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa Ernie Bokkelkamp via The Heart of Gold UUCP<>Fidonet Gateway, 1:129/87 UUCP: ...!{lll-winken,psuvax1}!psuhcx!hogbbs!5!491!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp Internet: Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p1.f22.n491.z5.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: WD-40 FONCARD Offer: Hidden Charges Date: 23 Apr 90 22:40:48 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA So how 'bout that li'l $10 "FON card non-recurring charge" on the first bill from US Sprint for accounts created as part of the WD-40 "free hour" offer? Now I wish I hadn't told my friends about the quiz. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com [Moderator's Note: I think something must have gone wrong in the way your account was set up. I have recieved two billings now on the Sprint account, and no such charge as you describe above occurred on mine. In the beginning, I received two cards. They have not yet given me the one hour credit either, but they say that comes on the third billing. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:35:28 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Rochester, NY area This is from Robert Kaplan (actually, Scott Fybush) and took a while for me to post because I was checking this against my notes. Area code 716 unless otherwise noted. ROCHESTER (includes the city of Rochester and portions of towns of Greece, Gates, Chili, Henrietta, Brighton, Penfield, and all of Irondequoit): 221, 222, 238, 253, 255, 262, 263, 274, 477, 588, 722, 724, 726, 777, 781, 955, 987: Assigned for CENTREX services and the like. 777 is used right now exclusively for Rochester Tel, but that may change -- it is brand new exchange. 253-477-588-781 and much of 722-4-6 are used by Eastman Kodak Co. 222 is the radio stations' request lines. 221 was in disuse for many years; 221-1111 used to be the *free* time-and-temp until about 1982 when it was replaced with 974-1616, which costs $0.083/min. [777 appeared as BUFFALO on a phone bill of mine.] 225, 227, 723: Western portion of the town of Greece. 232, 262, 325, 423, 454, 546: Central Business District. 235, 328, 436, 464: Town of Chili and SW part of city. 244, 256, 271, 442, 461, 473: Town of Brighton and SE part of city 247, 426: Town of Gates and S Central part of city 254, 458, 647, 663, 865: Eastern part of town of Greece and NW part of city 255, 429, 959, 975: Just added as of late 1989; I don't know yet what they will be used for. [On March 20, 1990, I punched in 959 at Bellcore and was given BUFFALO instead of Rochester.] 266, 336, 338, 342, 467, 544: Western part of Irondequoit and N Central city. 272, 292, 424, 427: Northern part of Henrietta; these phones all had 244-271-442-461-473 #s until about 1983 when the area began to grow. 475 is primarily Roch. Inst. of Technology. 275, 277: University of Rochester. 275-9xxx used to be used for some customers in the town of Brighton until UR needed more numbers and added the 277 exchange, allowing 5-digit on-campus dialing. WWWG-AM radio was 275-9212; all those numbers are now 461-9xxx. 323: Eastern part of Irondequoit and a small part of NE city. 428: City and county government 288, 482, 654: Extreme N portion of Brighton, western part of Penfield, and E Central city. 428: City and county government. 721, 783: Rochester Telephone Mobile Communications 729, 732: Genesee Telephone cellular 921: Roch Tel paging 974: Roch Tel's equivalent of 976. OUTLYING AREAS: 223, 377, 388, 425: Fairport 226: Avon (just added to Rochester's local calling area) 229: Honeoye 237: Perry 248, 381, 383, 385, 586: East Rochester-Pittsford (and Penfield.) 293: Churchville 334, 359: Henrietta (except N of Thruway, which is in Rochester exchanges) 335: Dansville 346: Livonia (see note on 226) 367: Hemlock 374: Naples 382: Leicester 384: Cohocton 394, 396: Canandaigua (was in 315 NPA until 1976) 395, 637: Brockport (395 is the state college) 398, 924: Victor 468: Nunda 493: Castile-Gainesville-Silver Springs 494: Bergen 495: Wyoming 533: Rush 534: Atlanta 538: Caledonia 582, 624: Honeoye Falls-Lima (until 1976 these were separate; 582 was Lima and 624 was Hon. Fls.) 584: Pavilion 658: Mount Morris 669: Springwater 671, 787: West Webster 728: Wayland 768: Le Roy 786: Warsaw (used to be 796 until 1976, likewise 226 was 926) 964: Hamlin [ 229 is already listed FURTHER above ] The Rochester LATA also includes 229 Honeoye, 289 Shortsville, 526 Stanley, 554 Rushville, and 657 Holcomb which are served by Seneca Gorham Telephone Co., which Roch Tel purchased not long ago; 352 Spencerport, 392 Hilton, and 594 North Chili which are served by Ogden Tel; and 476 Dalton-- I don't know who serves that exchange. From Rochester phones, the local calling area includes 548 Byron, 638 Holley, 659 Kendall in the Buffalo LATA and 986 Macedon, 524 Ontario, 483 Sodus and 589 Williamson (all 315 NPA) in NYTel's Syracuse LATA. 483 and 589 require dialing 1-315 before the number, 986 and 524 can be dialed 7 digits. *** [ Scott Fybush then goes on to say:] This list is based on my own observations and also on the 1990 Roch Tel white pages. ------------------------------ From: sandy@mdcbbs.uucp Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number I thought this was an interesting use of a 900 number. As seen on one of local (LA) news casts on Sat the 21st. Someone is offering a 900 service that you call and receive a "tone" and then dial the the number you want to call. The service you are buying is keeping your number from being delivered by caller id. The caller id box will see "all zeros" according to the company. Current cost is $2/min. The service was founded by a "former secret service agent". Sandy | Wayne E. Sanders Jr. | Voice: 714-952-5773 | Currently on contract to: | Internet: sandy@dev3f.mdcbbs.com | McDonnell Douglas M&E Co. | UUCP: uunet!dev3f.mdcbbs.com!sandy | Cypress, CA | PSI: PSI%31060099980019::SANDY ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #283 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26029; 26 Apr 90 2:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02898; 26 Apr 90 0:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01518; 25 Apr 90 23:46 CDT Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 23:36:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #284 BCC: Message-ID: <9004252336.ab27329@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Apr 90 23:35:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 284 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Telephone "Experimentation" [Larry Lippman] On Liking or Disliking Mr. Lippman's Comments [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Dave Mc Mahan] LD & International Charges / X75 [Nick Jagger] You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company? [Peter Neumann] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cellular Telephone "Experimentation" Date: 24 Apr 90 23:55:20 EST (Tue) From: Larry Lippman In article <6611@accuvax.nwu.edu> the TELECOM Moderator writes: > Of the lines found which are apparently not checking serial numbers, > some, but not all, were found to have a subscriber identified with the > line. This was noted when a landline dialing the number while the > experimental cell phone was turned off reached a voicemail box of > Ideas and comments welcome. You won't like my comment. As I see it, this "experimentation" constitutes theft of services, and is no different than say, hacking telephone credit card numbers until one finds one that works. The position taken in a recent related article that such use of "air time" really costs the cellular company nothing is no different than if applied to a long distance carrier. I don't believe that anyone in this forum would fail to agree that the latter situation clearly constitutes a theft of service, with a past record of successful prosecution. There is also the issue that a cellular telephone user operating in an unauthorized fashion with other than an mobile identification number issued by and/or known to the cellular company is operating a radio transmitter which is no longer covered by the station license of the cellular company. Such operation may be considered one or more violations of FCC statutes pertaining to operation of an unlicensed transmitter and/or willful interference to a licensed FCC station (i.e., the cellular provider). Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: On Liking or Disliking Mr. Lippman's Comments Date: Wed 25 Apr 1990 20:23:00 CST What I 'did not like' about Mr. Lippman's comment was his (it seems to me) assumption that I had a pro-phreaker/hacker attitude in the original report, and that I 'would not like' his reply. I guess that would make it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy by himself. Larry is correct of course in his *moral and ethical* assessment of the activity. But to point out security holes in cellular systems -- without being too precise in exactly how it is done -- is really no different than discussing ways in which pay phones have and are being defrauded, or ways in which people abuse and mis-use phone calling cards. All are unethical activities, but it was necessary for *someone* to report it and talk about it in order for corrective actions to be taken. Now some have said it is illogical to say, "crackers and phreaks have no business being on sites where they do not belong" while at the same time condoning such cellular 'phreaking'. I have said the former, and would seem to be condoning the latter, but the difference is in the end results. I report what I see, hear, and experience, and would hope that my sphere of influence, however little that might be, would lead Cellular One/SW Bell to correct its deficiencies. I don't think this is true of people who routinely hack away at phone systems and computer sites; I don't think they have any interest whatsoever in seeing the holes plugged, and in fact, rather hope they are not fixed. If/when you see a comphrensive article or series of articles under my name describing in precise detail how to defraud a telecom service, repleat with phone/code numbers to use, etc, then by all means let's discuss the morality of it. Until then, you might assume we are of a similar mind. Finally, I think it is important to remember that while *you, and I* and all the other good guys in the world would never trespass on someone else's property -- except maybe long enough to tell them their barn door was standing wide open and all the cows had run off -- a message on ethics and the law rarely if ever influences the bad guys to change their behavior one iota. *We* don't need the Sunday sermons, and *they* aren't inspired by them. So instead of telling the burglar he is breaking the law and hoping he has a conscience and reforms before he gets to our house, we make things more inconvenient for him to start with. In the context of the present discussion, Cellular One needs to audit every line and make sure it is the way it is intended to be. Something tells me their record-keeping is in a mess in more ways than just a handful of phone numbers left unguarded. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Date: 24 Apr 90 21:06:43 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System In article <6742@accuvax.nwu.edu> irv@happym.wa.com (Irving Wolfe) writes: >You obviously guessed the reason, convenience. In a sense, this is >quite a security risk but not really, since although the value of a >minute on the air may be high, the cost to provide it incrementally is >about zero. Thus if a service thief got free time, it was time that >not only cost the company nothing, but also would not have been sold >otherwise (since the crook would not have made the call without it >being free) hence no revenues were lost. Of course, this is only true >if the practice remains rare. This is not how it was explained to me in my former days as a (not-so-clever) computer hacker. I took the same approach to CPU time, reasoning that if I didn't use that CPU-Second, it would be lost anyway. They aren't going to shut down the mainframe for that millisecond if I didn't use it, they can't bill it, so who does it hurt? I assumed that since time can't be accumulated for future use, it was ok. I assumed wrong. The computer adminstration at the school this occured at took a VERY dim view of my attitudes. I'm sure the cellular company would do the same. If service theft became more prevelant, there is a very real possibility that paying customers would be blocked in certain cells. This does cut directly into revenue. As a side note, I always wondered what would happen if several cell-fones located in close proximity (the same cell) were all called at once. Would this freeze out any incoming/outgoing calls until the call was completed or aborted? It would seem that if one knew the car phone numbers of several employees at the same company and called them during work hours when they were all in close proximity, it would play hell with call completion statistics for other phones in the same cell. Kind of a dirty way to annoy the cellular company. Does anyone know what the maximum number of phones per cell is? What would be the theoretical maximum and what do most cellular companies support? dave ------------------------------ From: Nick Jagger Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 14:05:45 +0100 Subject: LD & International Charges / X75 As a contribution to the debate about long distance costs you might be interested in the debate just starting in the UK about the role of the CCITT in regulating and setting a structure whereby international call charges are allocated between the various national Telecoms Administrations. The Financial Times (the UK's Wall Street Journal) has been running a sustained series of articles and editorials accusing the CCITT of operating a cartel aimed at keeping international call charges high. This obviously is more important in Europe where London to Paris is international while Los Angeles to New York is LD. This campaign has been taken up first by the opposition Labour Party and now by OFTEL (the UK's telecoms regulatory body) who have launched an investigation. There are two strands to the argument the first is that international call charges have not dropped in line with international call costs. This it is then argued is due to the way the call initiating (and billing) country compensates the receiving country for the costs of terminating the call. At the end of each month it is assumed that the traffic came from each country equally and accounts are settled on the basis of the 'Accounting Rate' which is meant to be equal to the cost of making the calls. These accounting rates are often actually more than AT&T charges their customers for the call so given that on most international routes the US initiates more calls than it receives the US LD companies are subsidizing other world phone companies. A estimate suggests that the US phone companies lost a net $2bn in 1988. The defence against this is that the local switches which enable IDD are necesarily much more complex and hence more expensive than they would be if the where only supporting local dialing so international calls should 'subsidise' these switches as they contain the features necessary for the calls to occur in the first place. The same argument applying to LD and Local calls. If anything given that the local switch and loop are fixed costs while LD and International calls are capacity limited the local costs should be based on fixed connection/rental charges while LD should be based on usage. If anything there seems to have been a reversal of this process in the US as a result of the disvestiture. This CCITT/Cartel debate seems to have been initiated by information comming from the FCC and a US based consultant named Greg Staple. Does anyone know any more background to the US side of this debate? For a variety of reasons we feel that the whole story has been initated by AT&T, but I haven't space to go into them here. On a completely different subject although I know that X75 is the standard that links differnt national public X25 networks what is its significance. Does a lot of the network management information get lost going through a X75 gateway. I am asking this because in the early days of X25 the European commision set up an Europe wide X25 network 'Euronet' but as the national Telecom Administrations developed there own public X25 networks Euronet was removed. Has Europe lost funcionality to nationlism? Nick Jagger Centre for Information and Communication Technologies Science Policy Research Unit University of Sussex BRIGHTON UK BN1 9RF from UK nickj@uk.ac.sussex.syma from US nickj@syma.sussex.ac.uk or if you are desparate and not expect me to find the mail for a month QSFD2@cluster.sussex.ac.uk standard disclaimers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 1990 15:45:46 PDT From: "Peter G. Neumann" Subject: You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company? [Moderator's Note: This was kindly passed along to the Digest by Ken Yep who received permission from Mr. Neumann to share it with us. It originally appeared in RISKS. PT] A woman in Kissimmee, Florida, sent me a dossier that she has compiled over the past few months, carefully documenting an alarming sequence of problems. It is one of the most bizarre cases I have ever seen. The problems are still continuing, unresolved. She runs a business out of her home, and has an 800 number that rings onto one of her two home phones -- although the problems began BEFORE the 800 line was connected. Her local phone company is United Telephone Company. The list of anomalous events is somewhat incredible, but is supported by many witnesses, including law enforcement people. It includes the following types of incidents. Calls billed to her 800 number from parties that never called her (in one case from a phone in Chicago that was not equipped for outgoing calls!). Calls billed to one of the home phones when there was no phone activity, that is, for calls that were never made to people who never received them. These troubles with the phone company have resulted in huge bills for calls that apparently were never made. Even more fascinating incidents were these: Frequent incoming calls that were wrong numbers -- usually in large batches on the same day -- to similar 800 numbers, originally THREE numbers in particular, and then suddenly TWO new numbers after some problem was allegedly fixed. With alarming frequency, apparently crossed lines resulting in two parties BOTH getting ringing tones, answering, and finding themselves talking to each other. Crossed lines such that multiple conversations could be heard clearly at the same time. Repeated calls to 911 attributed to her phone, even when no one was home. The most interesting and best documented single incident was probably this: On 27 Feb 90, a local Kissimmee police officer was in the house trying to make sense out of what was going on. ``He picked up the phone and dialed the police department, however he reached Yellow Cab. He put down the phone ... not understanding how he reached the Yellow Cab company when [about three minutes later] the telephone rang and [the officer] answered the phone only to be connected to a Howie, a dispatcher at the police department, only neither of them had called one another...'' It's only a software problem? With remotely reprogrammable call forwarding, speed dial, redial, automatic dialing units, etc., in central offices, almost anything seems possible these days, especially when you consider the possible interactions among these features. One could program up some of the above incidents as combinations thereof. However, she did not subscribe to any of these features -- although the mechanism to turn them on is itself programmable. If these were the only problems, the logical choice would be a messed-up central office and monumental incompetence on the part of the telephone company in fixing the problems. Apparently the telephone company has been baffled, with even the trap-and-trace efforts seemly not having been consistent with observed reality. Some observed calls were not trapped, and some trapped calls were never placed! But compounding the situation have been a variety of apparently genuine threatening and/or harassing phone calls. From that we consider the tentatative conclusion that there are either at least TWO COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT PHENOMENA, telephone system problems plus malicious human agents, or ONE SET OF INTERRELATED PHENOMENA caused by a malicious person who has access to and knows the telephone hardware/software system, with any of a variety of motives. I have several (unpublished) reports about how easy it is for outsiders to hack telephone switches, but it is obviously even easier when an insider is involved. The RISKS archives include quite a few cases of intentional hacking of telephone systems, as well as numerous cases of accidental misbilling and other screwups. But above all, RISKS readers know how easy it is for things like that to happen. Is it possible that we might be able to provide some help for this person in Kissimmee, who seems to be a victim of many problems -- including the "computer is never wrong" syndrome on the part of the telephone company, whose employees have had difficulty believing that any of these things could actually happen? My main question to you all is this: Do you know of other cases of unintentional (or intentionally caused) rampant deviations from expected normal behavior that have been attributable to a telephone system and its operation, as a result of scrambled software, miswired switching gear, inept personnel, etc.? Has anything like this happened to you? Please try to provide as much detail as possible. Also, avoid speculation on this particular case unless it is VERY WELL INFORMED. The dossier is very thoughtfully constructed, and the complexity of the case suggests that an adequate explanation may be nontrivial, although -- as we all know by now -- a small software flaw can go a long way. PGN [P.S. I have omitted her name and phone numbers, because that might only tend to worsen the problem for her, and for you -- were you to call her.] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #284 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27415; 26 Apr 90 3:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14461; 26 Apr 90 1:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02898; 26 Apr 90 0:50 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 0:17:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #285 BCC: Message-ID: <9004260017.ab31919@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Apr 90 00:15:26 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 285 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Jon Baker] Re: Phone Replacement (was re: Party Lines) [Ken Abrams] Re: Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring? [Linc Madison] Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [David Leibold] Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Joel B. Levin] Re: Credit Card ID [David Tamkin] Re: Modem Problems on Sprint [John Higdon] Re: Emergency Interrupt on PBXes [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 25 Apr 90 20:46:49 GMT Organization: gte In article <6815@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jona@ils.nwu.edu (Kemi Jona) writes: > This is a very strange request, but I hope someone will be able to > come thru and help me with it nonetheless. I need to find out what > the frequency of the tones that a touch-tone phone makes. Every last > one of them. Does anyone know these numbers? Each of the twelve numbers/symbols used for DTMF signalling actually produces two tones : 1 - 697Hz & 1209Hz 2 - 697Hz & 1336Hz 3 - 697Hz & 1477Hz 4 - 770Hz & 1209Hz 5 - 770Hz & 1336Hz 6 - 770Hz & 1477Hz 7 - 852Hz & 1209Hz 8 - 852Hz & 1336Hz 9 - 852Hz & 1477Hz * - 941Hz & 1209Hz 0 - 941Hz & 1336Hz # - 941Hz & 1477Hz [Moderator's Note: And thanks also to Chuck Bennett , Steve Levitt , John Higdon and others who submitted identical responses to the question. No further replies will be printed, unless something significantly different is added to the message. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Phone Replacement (was re: Party Lines) Date: 25 Apr 90 18:11:40 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <6488@accuvax.nwu.edu> kucharsk@number6.solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes: >I believe that installing your own phone is allowed, but modems and >answering machines are not for the simple reason that they are >incapable of surrendering the line in case an emergency call needs to >be made. Consumers are NOT allowed to connect ANYTHING to party lines for several reasons. 1) Nobody will SELL you a phone properly equipped for party line service. 2) There is no universal standard for ringing and station ID so even if you could get the proper phone, it is unlikely that you could make it work right (indeed, a lot of telco "technicians" even have trouble with this). 3) If you want to purchase your own phones, the telco will be more than happy (in most cases) the upgrade the line to single party service (at a slightly higher monthly rate, of course). In summary, if you have a party line, don't mess with the instruments. It is likely that you will mess up the service for all the people on the line and (if that occurs) you may be liable for damages from the other parties if they should have an emergency while the line is out-of-service and the telco will probably charge you to come out and fix it. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 00:33:41 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring? Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <6765@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >I have an answering machine with a two position switch allowing >pick-up on either 2nd or 4th ring. I would like to know if it can be >modified without much trouble to pick-up on the 1st ring (instead of >the 2nd.) Well, I can't help you with modifying an existing machine, but I can tell you about my first answering machine, way back in 1985. It had a switch for selecting the ring it answered on: "immediate" (first ring) or "delay" (second ring). Yes, you had the option of adding a whole six seconds to the time before it answered. It had no remote capability, so "toll-saver" wasn't relevant. The real fun came with the outgoing messages, though. It used a single cassette, with the outgoing messages interspersed amidst the incoming messages. All outgoing were EXACTLY 14 seconds, and all incoming were EXACTLY 40 seconds. Add 6 seconds for beeps and dead space, repeat 30 times, and you have a half-hour tape. Thus, if you want your machine to be able to take a full complement of calls, you must record your outgoing message 30 times (or 30 different ones, which was the most fun!), waiting as the machine spaced over the blank for incoming messages each time. As I said above, the best feature was having friends call back to finish their message (having been cut off at 40 seconds) and getting a completely different outgoing message. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: djcl@contact.uucp (woody) Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416? Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 04:12:46 GMT In article <6762@accuvax.nwu.edu> root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes: >the area code. Ostensibly, the reason given (through a *lot* of >pretty stupid ads) for the change was that 416 was running out of >numbers and this would let them introduce N1X and N0X exchanges. Despite all the ads, a lot of people still bothered the operators wondering what had happened to the long distance dialing. >Now I thought that all of the CO equipment in use was pretty smart and >could keep up with something like a N1X or N0X exchange within the >area code just by using time outs or whatever it is that they use on >international calls. Is this all in fact a ploy by Bell Canada to get Notes on the Intra-LATA BOC Networks (formerly Notes on the Network (formerly Notes on Distance Dialing, i think)) has a discussion on the use of dialing area code always, plus use of timeouts. It seemed that the dialing of area code always outweighed the time spent waiting for a timeout, especially with faster call completion expected with CCS7 and touch tone services (though they could terminate with '#' like overseas calls do). >us all used to dialing 1-416- to get Toronto and then they are going >to split the Area Code (Toronto keeping 416 and everyone else getting >something else)??? >Has anyone got any gossip that would verify this? The recent Bell News hinted at the area code split that will eventually happen, though no date has been set for it. It depends on how fast the N[0/1]X exchanges are used up. How exactly it will be split is not too known or certain at this point. ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416? Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 14:16:00 EDT >From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) >Now I thought that all of the CO equipment in use was pretty smart and >could keep up with something like a N1X or N0X exchange within the >area code just by using time outs or whatever it is that they use on >international calls.... This is in fact the old way of doing things in areas where a '1' prefix was not required. I had an old (pre divestiture) AT&T book which discussed such things* which described the use of time-outs as an alternate means of detecting the end of a number. It was considered a stop-gap measure at best due to (a) the delays and (b) the indeterminacy. I don't have it handy or I'd identify it better. It also had things like the list of (then) remaining area codes that would be assigned and the list of exchanges that would be last assigned in an area. Of course, since this dates well before Bellcore's existence, and changes have been since made to the numbering plan, much of that is probably out of date. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com POTS: +1-617-873-3463 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 17:51 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Benjamin Ellsworth wrote in Digest Volume 10, issue 281 in reply to John Higdon's statement that in all Higdon's years of putting his real phone number on charge slips, only twice have merchants called him: | This does sound naive. Yes, you may have only had two of the merchants | call you directly, BUT how many telephone solicitations have you | received from solicitors who got your phone number from a merchant? Since telemarketers don't tell you where they got your name, there's no real way to find out, is there? In all my years of giving my real phone number out, I don't think I've ever been phoned from a charge slip. Now, magazine subscriptions, being on that night's lucky prefix, and the actual credit card account itself (directly from the card issuer, not from a merchant) have been reasons my phone has rung. David Tamkin dattier@gagme.chi.il.us {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier P. O. Box 813 Rosemont, IL 60018-0813 (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Modem Problems on Sprint Date: 25 Apr 90 15:15:26 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Jody Kravitz writes: > A few weeks ago I had an interesting problem using Sprint to make > Telebit Trailblazer modem calls. I learned later that this problem > affects fax modems as well. > [...] > He found two ways to make the problem go away. One was by installing > the old echo canceler card. The other was by re-strapping the new > echo canceler card. I have made some observations recently that would tend to support this course of action. Lately (and more and more frequently) I am noticing an echo cancelation problem when making Sprint voice calls. On recent calls to NJ and to the Boston area, while the connection seemed clear enough at first, if the two of us started talking simultaneously the voices would deteriorate to garbled mush. The moment one of us would stop talking, the other voice would clear up. As you might imagine, this would be murder on modems, since both modems are, in effect, always speaking simultaneously. This is, as pointed out by Jody Kravitz, most likely an echo-cancellation problem. The problem is severe enough that it can easily be detected on voice calls. I haven't tried data to those locations (long ago having found out the hard way to only entrust that to AT&T), but I suspect that on any circuit where that distortion occurs data throughput would be minimal to nonexistent. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Emergency Interrupt on PBXes Date: 25 Apr 90 17:59:46 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <6816@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kaplanr@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Robert Kaplan) writes... >Can an outside (telco) operator perform an emergency interrupt on a >PBX extension? Here at Brandeis, we have an in-house operator on duty >during daytime hours only, and I know the in-house operator can >interrupt an extension, but what if my mother needs to interrupt while >I'm on the modem?:) Does the operator know that (617)736-6327 is a PBX >extension, or can the operator treat it like any other number? The operator probably doesn't know it's a PBX extension when you first call him, but when the call reaches the position serving Waltham, it probably becomes obvious that it's a DID trunk into a PBX. The Bell operator can not verify (break in) a PBX extension. The operator has no more access to it than anyone else outside of the site. If you think that's a problem, then you should advise campus security (since they're on duty 7x24) to have a telephone with such privileges installed. I'm not sure offhand how that's done on an SL-1, but I suspect (but am not sure) it's possible, even without an operator's console. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 17:54 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory Jody Kravitz wrote in Volume 10, issue 279, about a sleazy ad from MCI. AT&T has been no better. Even though they did a slight cleanup on the Matthew (or is it Mitchell?) Laurance commercial (instead of getting Fiji instead of Phoenix twice because the carrier can't process his dialing, he now gets Fiji once because he misdialed, still implying that the unnamed other carrier's dialing instructions for Phoenix and Fiji are similar), there are two others currently running that are just about as bad: In one the narrator says that her new carrier promised her that she would "save, save, save." Her first bill comes with no savings; the solicitor for the new carrier had been comparing their discount plan with AT&T's full rates, but Reach Out America had been saving her the same money all along. So now she is going to "leave, leave, leave." First, if the rates are the same, why switch back? After all, the commercial doesn't stress any of AT&T's other purported advantages. Next, why did she listen to percentages when the droid for the unnamed other carrier solicited her? Why didn't she ask for actual prices for typical calls she might make? That's what I do when I call carriers to inquire about their services. (None has ever solicited me.) In another John Hancock (or maybe James Avery: those two look more alike than the Laurance twins) double parks and runs into an outdoor phone booth with a closable door, believe it or not. But he is using "this other long-distance company" and has "to dial all these numbers just to reach" them, and then the number he wants to call, "and then all these other numbers!" In the meantime a meter maid tickets his illegally stationed vehicle. "I made the call all right, to the tune of $35.00." And then, as always, Cliff Robertson's voice-over tells us that those who switched are coming back. So let me get this straight: AT&T is targeting the misdemeanor market here? AT&T helps you stay ahead of the law! Good ploy. And where is the big dialing advantage? He still would have had to dial the destination number and his Calling Card number with AT&T. Other carriers have 10XXX codes and if the coin phone had a stripe reader, it could have read other carrier's cards. At most he might have had to dial an 800 or 950 number instead of 102880, and what do you know, it was just long enough for the law to catch up with him. With AT&T Long Distance, commit all the crimes you like and still get away in time! I guess that their admission that the call was successfully connected is an improvement over the original Laurance ad. Neither of those commercials (none, if we count Laurance's calls to Fiji) aims for the intellect that AT&T assumes consumers to lack. They're geared to say that telephony is a cold, vicious world and you're in danger if you stray from Mother's protecting bosom. AT&T's ads are written by mothers all right. David Tamkin dattier@gagme.chi.il.us {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier P. O. Box 813 Rosemont, IL 60018-0813 (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #285 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29174; 26 Apr 90 4:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03992; 26 Apr 90 2:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14461; 26 Apr 90 1:53 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 1:27:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #286 BCC: Message-ID: <9004260127.ab01282@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Apr 90 01:27:07 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 286 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T/France Telecom Announce International ISDN [TELECOM Moderator] Card Update: Banks Unhappy, Pulling Business From AT&T [TELECOM Moderator] Real Phone Booths (was re: Rural America Speaks) [Larry Campbell] Party Lines [Joel B. Levin] 72 & 73 From Rotary Dial Phone [Carl Moore] Need Help Finding a Device [James Van Houten] Questions on Personal Communications Networks [Hector Salgado-Galicia] I Need NEC Electra Info [Steve Swingler] ANI for Washington, DC ? [James Van Houten] Re: One Reason for Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales [David Tamkin] Re: Emergency Interupt on PBXes [Miguel Cruz] Re: LD in 1962 [Joel B. Levin] Re: Modifying Telephone Sets For Eavesdropping [Peter da Silva] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 0:26:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T/France Telecom Announce International ISDN AT&T and France Telecom announced the first international ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) service between the U.S. and France will begin May 15. The service, known as Switched Digital International Service, will be used to support new international communications applications such as high-speed facsimile, video conferencing, electronic data interchange and high-fidelity audio. AT&T and France Telecom demonstrated the capabilities of the new service by conducting a video conference between Jean-Jacques Damlamian at the SICOB trade show in Paris and John Berndt at AT&T's offices in New Jersey. Damlamian is France Telecom's Director of Industrial and International Affairs. Berndt is president of AT&T's International Communications Services. ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Card Update: Banks Unhappy, Moving Away From AT&T Date: Thu, 26 Apr 1990 00:00:00 CST A story in [Communications Week], 4/23 reports that at least five of the nation's top ten banks are thinking about shifting portions of their long-distance traffic away from AT&T to show their displeasure at the carrier's decision to enter the credit card business. Last week Citicorp did just that when it said it would take $30 million worth of communications traffic from AT&T and give it to MCI. Now other banks appear to be giving some thought to following suit. "I have been contacted by at least half of the ten largest banks in America, who want to know what the other half of the banks are doing," said Henry Levine, communications counsel for bank clearing associations. Most bank officials admit they are concerned about having AT&T as a competitor, but refused comment on whether they would re-evaluate their long-distance contracts. AT&T is aware of banking industry concerns, a spokesman said. The company expected some anger, but it doesn't think banks will base their buying decisions on "vengeance," he said. "Unless AT&T stays only in the markets it is in today, it will always be entering businesses where it will compete with its customers," the AT&T spokesman said. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) Subject: Real Phone Booths (was Re: Rural America Speaks...) Date: 26 Apr 90 01:45:21 GMT Reply-To: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. At the risk of overpopulating my favorite hangout, I'd like to describe the most amazing phone booth I've ever seen. It's at a restaurant and bar called Doyle's, in Jamaica Plain (Boston). Doyle's opened in 1882, and the phone booth doesn't look much newer. It's dark oak, with cut glass windows. It is *huge* -- five people can fit inside it comfortably (verified experimentally). The niftiest part, though, is that the entire thing is double-walled and double-glazed -- almost like a phone booth inside a phone booth. The door is really two completely independent doors linked by a slider contraption that insures that they open and close together. As a result, no matter how noisy the bar is, inside the phone booth it's quiet. The time we had five people in the booth, we called my brother and sang him a song at the top of our lungs. My mother was standing outside the phone booth and said she could barely hear us. Doyle's also has the best beer selection in Boston (with the *possible* exception of the Commonwealth Brewery), but that's straying from the topic of telecom... Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@redsox.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street Boston, MA 02109 wjh12!redsox!campbell ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Party Lines Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 15:10:08 EDT As I have mentioned in other posts, I mostly grew up in a city which prior to 1960 had manual calling instead of dial service: you picked up the phone, the operator came on and queried "Number, please?" and you spoke the number you wished to ring. Two- and four-party lines were common; in the period I remember best we shared a two-party line with our next door neighbor (frequently, though, parties were not directly next door to each other). Telephone numbers were all numeric (I remember someone with the number 1524 and someone else with the number 2) or two to four digits with a single letter. We were 447-J, and our neighbor was 447-R. Legend had it that "J" meant "Jack" and "R" meant "Ring" indicating which of two named buttons the operator had to push to ring one of our phones. On four-party lines the suffix letters were -J, -R, -M, and -W. I have no idea what, if anything, these were supposed to stand for. The procedure for calling our neighbor was to tell the operator that this was what we wanted to do. She would have us hang up and ring both phones. When the ringing stopped, the neighbor had answered, and we could pick up our phone and talk. Outside the city, in the farm country, really old types of party lines, often with six or more parties, were in use. A typical number was 172-R3 which meant, I was told, that they should answer the phone only if it rang three times because otherwise it went to a neighbor. In light of what I have been reading here, the "R3" may have been a cue to teh operator as to which frequency to ring, or something like that. I was never in someone's house long enough to learn about stuff like that. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com POTS: +1-617-873-3463 [Moderator's Note: There were several replies asking for more details on the handling of calls via the old manual switchboards of years past. In the next issue of the Digest I will discuss this at length. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 21:10:44 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 72 & 73 From Rotary Dial Phone Subject was: Re: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number This message was originally from Patrick Humphrey . As I notified him, I am adding a comment (at the bottom). The NPA he refers to is 713 in Texas. We have quite a few 72x and 73x prefixes in use in this NPA right now -- 12 of 20 possible, in fact -- but if you want to enable/disable call-forwarding using a tone phone, you dial a "#" after the 72 or 73. I don't know how SWBT has it set up here for rotary-dial phones -- it could be that they just assumed that there aren't enough left in the Houston area to worry about. (I wonder if it's possible to substitute "12" if using a rotary? That's the rationale offered for using "11" as a substitute for "*", at least from Bell...) My (Carl Moore's) comment: 72 and 73 also work from rotary dial phones. It did so for me in Newark, Del. (area 302), which has 731, 733, 737, 738 when I had (until recently) rotary dial. You have to use time-out to distinguish 73 from 73x-xxxx. [Moderator's Note: To avoid that problem, use 1172 and 1173 in most areas. You will avoid the delay caused by time-out. A couple other undocumented time-outs you can avoid are the ones caused by entering only the four digits of your PIN when calling the number assigned to the card (enter a # at the end to kill the time-out and start the processing), and the one caused by the 0 operator, which has to time-out to see if you want the operator or are actually zero-plussing a call. In Chicago (and perhaps other places), 0# shoves the call straight to the operator without waiting for more. PT] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 90 10:24:12 EDT From: James Van Houten <72067.316@compuserve.com> Subject: Need Help Finding a Device I am trying to find a device that will perform the following: 1. Connect to a CENTREX line using a RJ11C; 2. Answer the phone when it rings; 3. Send a tone; 4. Receive a 4 digit code number; 5. Send a tone; 6. Receive a 11 Digit Phone Number; 7. HOOKFLASH; 8. Dial the 11 Digit Phone Number; 9. HANGUP. That is all. I know a call diverter would do about the same but I would like to use it on one line with CENTREX TRANSFER feature. Is there such an animal or has someone built one?? Please send you reply to 4272229@mcimail.com. I will compile them and post to the Digest. Thanks, Jim Van Houten (202) 917-2296 Voice Mail 72067,316@compuserve.com 4272229@mcimail.com ka3ttu@csense.UUCP KA3TTU @ N4QQ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 21:30:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Hector Salgado-Galicia Subject: Questions on Personal Communications Networks Could you give me some opinions on the new european services such as telepoint and personal communications networks (PCN)? What kind of problems do you think are likely to be found when those services will be implemented in the US? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 10:44 CDT From: Steve Swingler Subject: I Need NEC Electra Info I am trying to help a local high school with a NEC Electra 616 key system. But, they have no manual and the installer won't provide one. I need to know if a trunk can be assigned to only appear on one phone, and if so, how this is done. Please repond via direct e-mail since this is probably of little interest to the entire group. Thanks for the help, Steve Swingler Center for Computing and Info Systems Baylor University ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 90 21:53:49 EDT From: "James Van Houten, Exec VP" <72067.316@compuserve.com> Subject: ANI for Washington, DC ? Does anyone now of the ANI number for the Washington, DC area?? Thanks, James Van Houten 4272229@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 17:52 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: One Reason for Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales David E. Bernholdt wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 281: | You'd be amazed how relieved people are when you call them and tell them | their card isn't lost and they can stop by and pick it up. If they gave | a bogus or non-answering number, we can't help and their card is | probably as good as lost unless they come back around and look for it. You can still help people who have listed numbers in the printed directory, but I guess that those who are insisting zealously on the privacy and secrecy of their telephone numbers would be unlisted. Citibank and American Express print their customer service numbers on the cards. A merchant can call the issuer. Although, if you've tried the number that the cardholder wrote on the charge slip, and it was false, you as the merchant may be ill-disposed to phoning the issuer, especially at your own expense for the call as well as the time. I generally supply my voice mail number. It's a valid place to get in touch with me, automated telemarketing recordings cannot use it (so far), and if I do get a telemarketing message on it (never yet, though I've had them on my answering machine at home), one keypress and it's gone without my having to hear it through. [On my answering machine, if the indicator says I have two messages and the first turns out to be a junk call, I have to sit through it in full to hear the second message. That's not a problem with the voice mail service.] David Tamkin dattier@gagme.chi.il.us {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier P. O. Box 813 Rosemont, IL 60018-0813 (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 12:25:32 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Emergency Interupt on PBXes Robert Kaplan (or is it Scott Fybush) asks about whether a telephone company operator can perform an emergency interrupt on a university-type PBX. Theoretically, yes... but the operator has no way of knowing WHICH of the PBX's zillion trunks you're using. So from the TOPS console, no. Your mother would need to know whom you're speaking (modemming) with, and someone else at the telco would have to try to track the line down that way. (This assuming no cooperation from the university.) ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: LD in 1962 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 14:09:07 EDT From: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) >While browsing through some old magazines from 1962, I noticed that >the ads all had 7 digit phone numbers. No area codes. I find it hard >to believe that the US had so few telephones in 1962 that there was no >need for area codes. So how did one make a long distance call? Was it >all operator assisted? I lived in one of the last substantial sized towns to convert from manual to dial operation in July of 1960, I think; a city of at least 18000 citizens and a university. In addition to getting dial service, we also got DDD -- Direct Distance Dialing, the first in the state and (I thought at the time) the first in the country. At least one of the first in the U.S., probably. DDD spread pretty rapidly through the country after that. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com POTS: +1-617-873-3463 ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Modifying Telephone Sets for Eavesdropping Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 19:24:46 GMT In article <6764@accuvax.nwu.edu> kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes a whole bunch of stuff about eavesdropping... > Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" ^^^^^^ Uh, in context... shouldn't that be "bugged"? Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. Have you hugged your wolf today? Disclaimer: People have opinions, organisations have policy. [Moderator's Note: Hey, don't laugh too much at that ... In about 1965, the CIA investigated the possibility of inserting a tiny transmitter in the shoulder of a cat -- a Russian Blue in fact! -- which would be conveniently deposited on the grounds of a Soviet embassy. I have no record of how the experiment turned out, but it was seriously pursued for awhile. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #286 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06193; 27 Apr 90 0:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10049; 26 Apr 90 23:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14066; 26 Apr 90 22:03 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 21:46:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #287 BCC: Message-ID: <9004262146.ab05738@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Apr 90 21:25:39 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 287 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [William R. Pearson] "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls Date: 26 Apr 90 18:00:00 CST Following a short blurb by myself several days ago regarding the way long distance calls were handled in the past, several notes came to me asking for more specifics. An excerpt of these follows: From: Mark Harrison > [Moderator's Note: Until about the middle 1950's, all long distance > calling was operator assisted. [...] I > could tell you some stories that would curl your hair. PT] Please Do! Regards, Mark From: John Owens Please do, if you find the time! (My hair's a bit straight; it could use it :-) From: Wally Kramer Umm.... My hair is a pretty straight .... but "good old days" stories I seem to have an intense attraction to. From: Jeff Wasilko Please do! From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Go ahead, Patrick, Curl our hair. We love this sort of thing. =============================== Okay, here is aqpproximatly what happened when a call was placed in the era prior to automatic dialing: LOCAL CALLING: ============== Each central office had several dozen operators on duty at any given time of the day or night. The operators sat in front of a switchboard which was rather tall, and typically ran the entire length of a long room. Each portion of the switchboard, or 'position', had two types of circuits connected to it, and some had more than that. The lower half of the backboard had the wire pairs which ran to the subscribers in the exchange. The top half of the backboard had wires which ran to other central offices; the long distance center; and to other 'positions' in the same room. The wire pairs going from the switchboard to the subscribers were multipled, or repeated, every third position. That is to say, an operator, and her counterpart immediatly to her left and immediatly to her right had the entire exchange between them. From where she sat, each operator could insert a plug into the backboard directly in front of her, or in the backboard immediatly to her left or her right. Likewise, her neighbors to the left and right could access the lines of the one in the center by reaching in front of her to plug the cord in. If the operator in the center (of any group of three) was busy with calls while still other calls were waiting for attention, then her neighbors to the left and right generally would NOT take the calls. You were supposed to only *accept* calls from the lines right in front of your face, but you could connect calls to those lines or to the lines immediatly to your left or right. Since what came up on your board likewise came up on every third position all the way around the room you would see a signal light come on, then perhaps immediatly go out even though you did not personally take the call; some other operator in the room had accepted it. If you were busy with calls when one of your existing calls disconnected, as shown by the lights on the panel in front of you, then you yanked the cord out while you were talking to some other party. Or, an alert operator would see her neighbor quite busy with a disconnect waiting to be pulled, and she would reach over and pull the cord for the other lady. Calls to numbers on the exchange you were working were quite simple. You saw a signal light, plugged in a cord, flipped the associated key and asked, "what number please?". Within the exchange, you simply either plugged in the other half of the cord to another place in front of you or directly to your left or right. The cords were spring-loaded and when not plugged in somewhere would automatically rewind themselves back up and fall into a slot in the board. The top half of the board were tie-lines, or circuits to other central offices, and you used these when the subscriber wanted to call someone on the other side of town, in some other central office. Operators were trained to be very quick. As soon as the operator heard the exchange name given, she immediatly plugged the other end of the cord into the associated circuit on the top. By the time the subscriber had finished reciting the number, the operator was already waiting for the distant central office to answer, which they did with just a 'click' on the line. Normally, operators locally or in the same central office did not say "what number, please" to each other ... they simply appeared on the line. So the subscriber asked for, let's say, Rogers Park 1234. As he was saying the '1234' part, the operator was already plugging into the circuit to Rogers Park waiting for an answer. On hearing the 'click' she would repeat '1234' ... the exchange name would have been unneeded, and assumed by the distant end. The distant operator, hearing your operator say '1234' immediatly plugged into that one and started the ringing. Then your operator thanked you, and left the line. When either end disconnected, the associated operator got a light signal on the panel in front of her, and she pulled the cords down. The disconnection from the circuit to the other central office caused that end to give a disconnect signal to that operator, who would likewise pull her cords down. If you wanted to speak to the supervisor, the chief operator, the business office or repair service, you simply asked for these things. There were connections on each position of the board which went to them. Likewise, information requests went to lookup clerks in a room near the switchboards on wire pairs to them. Long distance call requests went on circuits to the long distance center, wherever that might be. Usually one or two central offices were equipped for it. DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE ==================== They did not call it that; it was just 'information' or 'number inquiry'. Your operator would pass you, as noted above, to another room full of people who wore headsets with *very long* cords on them. They walked around the room looking at directories and 'recent-change' lists (which were published weekly), and on finding your number, gave it to you and offered to have you connected. They would 'flash' (actually toggle a little button on their headset line) to bring your local central office operator back on. When she answered, they would say 'connect to Rogers Park 1234' or similar, and vanish from the line. Information service of course was free. LONG DISTANCE CALLING ===================== When you asked your operator for 'Long Distance', she connected you on one of the circuits on her board to the long distance center. She would stay on the line long enough to pass your number to the operator who answered, then leave the line. The long distance operator would handle the call from that time forward. As an example, Chicago number 'Rogers Park 1234' wants to call Hollywood, California, number 'Hollywood 2300'. Unlike the local exchange operator, the long distance operator had the circuits to other central offices on the bottom part of her board, and lines to other cities on the top. Otherwise, the operating procedures were about the same. Each city had long distance lines to the dozen or so cities closest to them. For example, Chicago had lines to St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit, Kansas City, and a few more places. As a large city, Chicago had more long distance circuits than a small town would have. Larger cities were what might be termed, in Usenet parlance, 'backbone sites'. Calls were routed through the large cities along the way. To reach Hollywood, we want to go west :) ... the operator would plug into the line to St. Louis ... after a few seconds, St. Louis would answer, and our long distance operator would ask for Denver. St. Louis would connect to Denver, and when that operator answered, our operator would ask to be connected to Salt Lake City ... When Salt Lake City answered, she would ask for Los Angeles .... and when that operator answered, she would ask for Hollywood 2300. Like any well trained operator, the one in Los Angeles heard the 'Hollywood' part and was already plugged into the circuit to that office by the time the rest of the number was recited ... and she would get a 'click' from Hollywood and repeat the number, '2300'.... Total time to set up the call: on an average, about 30-45 seconds, depending on how busy things were along the way. Local calls, by comparison, completed in about ten seconds -- not much different than in many exchanges today still using older automatic equipment. The operators, or 'human switches' were nearly as fast as the automatic ones, but not quite; and that margin of difference came to be very important over the years as telephone traffic volumes increased. But back to the long distance call for a minute: So your connection went through to MGM, and the local operator there would in turn accept your call and plug you into the desired extension. If you were calling from a hotel on this end, add one more operator to the link. You'd talk for five minutes or so, and suddenly the line would go dead. Flash your switchhook furiously! "Operator, you cut me off!!" Of course, you were talking to your local operator, and she would invariably deny it and say, "I didn't cut you off! You are still up here." And she would jerk the ringing key like a crazy lady and get Long Distance on the line saying "Operator! You disconnected my party!!!!". Long distance would say "No I did not operator! Your party is still up here!". And she would ring St. Louis and repeat the allegations. Again denied. Then Denver, then Salt Lake, then Los Angeles, then the Hollywood central office, then the MGM switchboard operator; and one and all would say they did not do it; why, we still have the connection up here!" Not a single one would admit to accidentally pulling the cords. But the connection would be re-established and the conversation continued. BILLING FOR LONG DISTANCE CALLS =============================== Long distance operators kept little paper 'tickets' for all calls. The tickets sat in little slots at the bottom of the switchboard. Each operator had a time clock, and the ticket would be stamped with the time when the call began, then stamped again when the call was finished. The operator had to write in all the details on the ticket. She did not have to figure the charges however; that was done by clerks. A clerk came around roughly every five minutes and collected the completed tickets from each operator position. If the ticket was marked 'time and charges' or 'hotel service' then the clerk had to get the charges on that one right away and call back the subscriber (or the hotel) with the charges for the call. Otherwise the tickets were calculated, and the results sent periodically (about every hour or two) to the appropriate business office. OPERATOR DIRECT DIALING ======================= It finally became possible for the long distance operators to dial direct to the city involved, although they could not always dial the actual number desired. Sometimes the best they could do was dial direct to a nearby city and have that operator pass them along. There were special codes dialed to reach 'inward' (the actual operator in the place where the call was to terminate); information in the city desired, and other things like the supervisor in that city, etc. But they still had to keep their paper tickets and time each call. BUSINESS OFFICE KEPT PAPER RECORDS ================================== Each subscriber had a manila folder in which his records were kept along with current charge tickets for long distance calls, etc. Posting clerks received the long distance charges as they came through, and went around the room continually pulling folders and posting charges. If you called the business office to talk about your account, the service rep (wearing a headset with a long cord) walked over to the shelf where your folder was hanging with thousands of others and pulled it down to read through it. The posting clerks were considered supreme; their work took priority over everything. Thus the service rep could be standing in front of the shelf where your file was stored discussing it with you. The posting clerk would come up, take the file from her, scribble in a new charge just received, hand it back to the service rep and move along to the next folder desired. Accounts were billed in cycles, as now. Several thousand folders were pulled each day and taken away, to be returned to the shelves the next day. When your folder (account) was in bookkeeping, the service rep had no way to discuss your account with you, except she could look at last month's folder and figure out a few things in most cases. OPERATORS WERE EXPECTED TO WORK FAST ==================================== Operators in the local exchange were expected to handle *on an average* about 800 call requests per day each, or about 100 calls per hour during their eight hour shift. Since some more complicated calls took a minute or more to handle, others were alloted about fifteen seconds each. They just kept plugging one call after another, never stopping. Supervisory positions were set up to allow monitoring any other position, and in addition, the supervisors would 'prowl' the room, seeing everything, missing nothing. Each position had two headset jacks; one for the operator working there and one for the supervisor who would suddenly show up unannounced to plug in and listen for awhile. Each position had fifteen cord pairs for the operator to use in connecting calls. Maybe the operator had a difficult call which took a couple minutes to handle, and during that time she got lots of disconnects, i.e. idle cords, but no new traffic due to the call she was on. Yet the supervisor would say something like, "How come the operator on either side of you had twelve calls working, and you only had two working?" The supervisors were tough, and the operators complained about them continually. That's enough for this article. I will write more at another time. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia Reply-To: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 19:48:53 GMT My favorite (?) ancient pay-phone experience took place in Beaver (I believe) Utah, which is in the Southwestern corner on the route from Los Vegas to Salt Lake (near Nevada). My car died about 10:00 at night after running very poorly, but I got to a pay phone. I put in my dime, but got nothing. After looking around for a while, I found the crank for the (?) generator. After cranking and another dime, I got the operator, who seemed to not know how to find the AutoClub. In the end, she found a service station with a tow truck, the man adjusted my points, and I was off. This was in 1971 or so. A crank for the pay phone was bad enough, but no Auto Club! Bill Pearson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 18:17:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts As long as we are on this nostalgia theme in this issue, I should mention that Sunday is the fiftieth anniversary of the first broadcast of "The Telephone Hour," which made its debut on April 29, 1940, went on to a 28-year run on national radio and then television, introduced millions of Americans to the world's most distinguished classical artists, and marked the beginning of a half-century commitment to the performing arts by AT&T, the company whose own technological advances made modern-day communications possible. Fifty years later, AT&T has maintained its commitment to supporting an astonishingly wide variety of arts, in nearly every possible medium all the while promoting itself at the same time. It was indeed a very sad occassion when "The Telephone Hour" went off the air for the last time in 1968. Do any of you readers remember this fine series of programs on television a quarter century ago? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #287 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08010; 27 Apr 90 1:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02109; 27 Apr 90 0:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10049; 26 Apr 90 23:08 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 22:30:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #288 BCC: Message-ID: <9004262230.ab25834@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Apr 90 22:30:13 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 288 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company? [John Higdon] Re: Persistent Wrong Number [Carl Moore] Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [John Higdon] Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Gregory G. Woodbury] Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Karl Denninger] Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Phillip Harbison] Re: Real Phone Booths (was Re: Rural America Speaks...) [Steve Wolfson] Information Needed: 8700bps de/moduler [Shyue Chin Shiau] Re: More Test Numbers [Jim Small] Voice Mail on Mac [Charles H. Hemstreet] Special Issue This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company? Date: 26 Apr 90 01:30:38 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon "Peter G. Neumann" writes: > A woman in Kissimmee, Florida, sent me a dossier that she has compiled > over the past few months, carefully documenting an alarming sequence > of problems. It is one of the most bizarre cases I have ever seen. > The problems are still continuing, unresolved. Missing details in the mysterious case of the Florida woman experiencing much trouble with her telephone service make intelligent comment impossible. Probably most the most important consideration would be the type of central office switch involved. Since we are not dealing with an RBOC, it could be anything; some of those off-the-wall switches are capable of some rather bizzare behavior. Also, it is significant if this is rural service. The "crossed line" problems sound like difficulties associated with "pair gain" equipment. To make an outdated, undersized outside plant serviceable, telcos sometimes resort to concentrators. These are devices that allow many subscribers to have what appear to be private lines over a somewhat smaller number of actual circuits. This is not to be confused with digital "remote" offices, which actually provide the functional equivalent of private lines (within their blocking factor limitations) over digital carrier back to the host central office. Concentrators are fraught with difficulty, most of it similar to the "crossed wire" effect observed by our subject. All in all, it sounds as if our hapless woman is plagued with problems resulting from multiple causes: difficulty with the 800 carrier, possible CO trouble, possible outside plant trouble, etc. In my library of telephone experience, I have never had anything to compare with our Florida victim, but my universal solution might be something to consider. On several occasions, I have had difficulty of one sort or another that the telco simply has not been able to correct. Either it has been of an intermittant nature and not detectable by test personel or the solution has just simply eluded the maintenance staff. When it appears that the difficulty cannot be corrected in a timely manner, I order a new service. After the new service is completely installed, the old (and troublesome) service is disconnected. This ensures that no part of the old service remains; not the cable pair, CO line equipment, nor any line conditioners or loop extenders. This tactic has not failed to correct seemingly "insoluble" problems. Another consideration: if this woman is the victim of someone's maliciousness (a real possiblity) then the solution might be elusive. This "someone" obviously has software (and most likely hardware) access to the telco and could be very hard to track down. A second, more likely but almost as difficult to deal with, possiblity is that the telco is just plain messed up. In that case my "universal solution" might correct her current problems and bring on others. In any event, I would be very interested in getting further details. If her area code/prefix could be revealed, I can determine what type of CO switch is involved. Also, it would be interesting to research what type of outside plant we are dealing with. Solutions are not guaranteed, but the finger pointing might become a little more educated. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 10:25:28 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number This follows up on article sent by John Higdon on March 6. He wrote of getting persistent calls from someone who even read his number to him! Just this week, I had a case which started out like it, w/r to one of the extensions in my office (on 301-278 exchange). On what was apparently the third such call, I answered only with "Hello" and was able to hold the caller on the line and try to help her. She was trying to call someone in Patterson (sp) (I was thinking of avenue and/or area in Baltimore), and when I asked what number she was trying to reach, I got the full 10-digit number (including area code) read to me; it was the number I had answered. I asked if she was referring to Baltimore, and she said no, she was calling Paterson, New Jersey. At that point I was able to explain that she had reached Maryland, not New Jersey, and that she probably wanted area code 201, not 301. I believe there is 201-278 in Paterson, NJ. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory Date: 26 Apr 90 01:54:18 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon David Tamkin writes: > AT&T has been no better. Even though they did a slight cleanup on the > Matthew (or is it Mitchell?) Laurance commercial (instead of getting > Fiji instead of Phoenix twice because the carrier can't process his > dialing, he now gets Fiji once because he misdialed, still implying > that the unnamed other carrier's dialing instructions for Phoenix and > Fiji are similar), there are two others currently running that are > just about as bad: What is particularly amusing about this "Fiji" business is that AT&T is implying that you won't get Fiji by accident if you are dialing Phoenix on AT&T. This is absolutely correct. To the best of my knowledge AT&T's IDDD is blocked from coin phones. So while it may be possible to misdial overseas to some place like Fiji on "one of those other carriers", it won't happen on AT&T since you can't dial outside of North America from a pay station! Now that's what I call truth in advertising. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416? Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 04:46:21 GMT In article <6814@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 282, Message 9 of 11 >Gossip? No, that's happened some places in the U.S. (refers to >1+NPA+7D for ALL toll calls, even within your own area code). It >happened very recently, or will happen, in 919/704 areas in North >Carolina (I assume that's BOTH areas in N.C.; which one is running out >of prefixes?). The crunch is in the 919 (Eastern NC) NPA. The NPA line and the LATA lines in NC place the least populous 1/3rd (but the largest city) in the 704 code. As is usually the case, the LATA lines are generally contiguous with political boundaries, but there are some outrageous exceptions. Orange Count NC is split NE-SW placing the two population centers (Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Hillsboro) in the RTP area LATA and relegating the rest to the Greensboro/Triad LATA Dialing in Durham to the extended calling area is still only 7D. All other calls are 1+NPA+7D. Duke University, embedded in Durham's GTE satrapy, is not participating in the extended calling area and all calls beyond the traditional local area are 1+NPA+7D. Makes for a confusing situation when dialing Chapel Hill from home versus calling from Duke. The ability to use N0/1X exchange numbers will only set back the need for another area code in NC for 4 years! Is there any technical reason that an NPA code could NOT span a state political boundary? It might have releived a lot of pressure on the system to have allowed Vermont and the upper New York region (802 and 518 respectively) to have used the same NPA. As another example, the 704 code could have been expanded west into Tennessee to relieve pressure in the 615 area code. I'm sure its too late to change it, but that would have been nice. Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] ------------------------------ From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts Reply-To: Karl Denninger Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 18:02:57 GMT In article <6792@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!king@uunet.uu.net writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 281, Message 2 of 15 >This isn't really the correct newsgroup for this question, but it's >related to a topic that's been bandied about here lately. I'm >referring to putting your phone number on credit card slips. >Am I naive or are you paranoid? I've been putting my honest-to-god >phone number on credit card slips ever since the day I first got a >card, with no ill effects. I'm really curious, just what is everyone >so worried about? I'm not worried, but I AM damn annoyed. I used to never have to worry about Telemarketers. Then I started putting my home phone number on the charge slips. Guess what? I started getting those darn calls at the dinner hour. Sure, I can be rude, but I'd rather not get the calls in the first place! So I counteracted. When I moved last, I forwarded my voice line to my data line. Now, this works great, because there's a 2-line answering machine there, and anyone >legit< who gets it will leave a message. I then call back and explain that the right number to use is xxx-yyyz. I can't explain, however, the 3-5 hangups a day that are on that machine -- unless it's those darn telemarketers again! Now, I give them my >data< phone number. They can call it all they want, it will get them nowhere. If I leave the card in the store, the store can call me, and leave a message. If a telemarketer calls I can ignore him, since my (voice) phone never rings. If I'm on the modem, too bad for him/her. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 90 17:35:40 CDT (Thu) From: Phillip Harbison Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Reciepts In article <6665@accuvax.nwu.edu> mculnan@guvax.georgetown.edu writes: >In my opinion, we are asked to give our phone numbers purely to update >somebody's database. ... >I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all, The >clerks never check. A restaurant I frequent had the annoying habit of asking for a phone number, despite the fact that I had dined there several times a week for several months without a bad credit incident. I took to writing my phone number in binary (actually, BCD). After all, they never said I had to used base 10! I've even thought of extending this practice to my annual Form 1040. Do the instructions specify that one must use base 10? I'm sure this would provoke an audit, but imagine the confusion of an IRS employee trying to decode a return filed using octal numbers. :-) Just for the record, the waiter/waitress never bothered to check the number. I'm sure if they had, they would have immediately noticed something was amiss, but I never received a complaint. Live: Phil Harbison, Xavax, P.O. Box 7413, Huntsville, AL 35807 Uucp: alvitar@xavax.com Bell: 0010-0000-0101-0101-0011-1001-0001-0110-0111-0010 :-) :-) ------------------------------ From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Real Phone Booths (was Re: Rural America Speaks...) Date: 26 Apr 90 14:24:08 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes: >At the risk of overpopulating my favorite hangout, I'd like to >describe the most amazing phone booth I've ever seen. It's at a >restaurant and bar called Doyle's, in Jamaica Plain (Boston). Doyle's In Milwaukee Wisconsin, there is another bar with a spy theme. (it is lableled International Exports on the front). Their phone booth is also pretty neat. It also is a sitdown closable door, and it has another 'secret' door on the backside that lets you exit to the outside. The phone itself will let you inject sound effects of gunshots, screams etc. - Steve Wolfson Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Div. uunet!motcid!wolfsons ------------------------------ From: Shyue Chin Shiau Subject: Information Needed: 8700bps de/moduler Date: 26 Apr 90 22:17:39 GMT Reply-To: Shyue Chin Shiau Organization: Excelan, Inc., San Jose, Califonia I am looking for and/or obtaining informations about 8700bps de/moduler for video telephone use. Anybody out there can help me on this subject, please contact me. Enginering Dept, 2180 Fortune Dr., San Jose, CA 95131 UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}!novell!shiau Chin Shiau BARRNet/Internet: shiau@xlnvax.novell.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More Test Numbers Date: Thu Apr 26 16:17:42 1990 From: Jim Small Would you happen to have any test numbers for the Los Angeles area? ------------------------------ From: charles he hemstreet Subject: Voice Mail on Mac Date: 26 Apr 90 19:23:29 GMT Organization: Colorado State University, CS Dept. I am looking for a product(s) that will handle voice mail on my Mac. Does anyone know of any products that are available. I know that there are some fairly inexpensive ways to go on the IBM's. Any information would be helpful. Please respond via Email. Thanks, CHip ! Charles H. Hemstreet IV !internet: hemstree@handel.cs.Colostate.Edu ! ! Colorado State University ! "stay out of trouble!" -RoboCop ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 1:50:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issue This Weekend The Special Issue of TELECOM Digest for this weekend is another article by Larry Lippman on coin phones. It is a lengthy and rather detailed look at their operation. It will be out to you sometime Saturday. A new item of interest in the Telecom Archives (NOT shown in the index which was distributed to you a few days ago) is a report on the liability of site administrators and sysops when libelous comments are published on their systems. Presented by John Kahn for the Computer Law Seminar in February, 1988, and presented to Telecom Archives by Lang Zerner, this essay tells what the law says about sysops who find libelous matter on their machines, and what must be done with it. You might want to read it and be prepared for such a situation. The article is not intended to provide legal counsel, and in the event you have legal problems of this nature, you should consult your own attorney. Call in the archives for 'sysops.libel.liability'. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #288 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10561; 27 Apr 90 3:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14839; 27 Apr 90 1:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02109; 27 Apr 90 0:12 CDT Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 23:47:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #289 BCC: Message-ID: <9004262347.ab18965@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Apr 90 23:47:26 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 289 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Programming [Douglas Mason] Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Douglas Mason] Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Steve Wolfson] Re: Review: San Fransisco Cellular Service [Macy Hallock] Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: LD in 1962 [Clayton Cramer] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Ken Donaldson] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Robert Stratton] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Paul Elliott] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: Cellular Programming Reply-To: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 12:25:13 GMT In article <6751@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!sirakide@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) writes: >I thought I'd pass along an ad I saw in a trade journal. It touts two >book that may be of interest to this group: >"Product Operation Handbook" (c. 1990, 130 pages) >"NAMFAX Cellular Program Manual" (c. 1990, 240 pages) Something to add about those books: They are quite expensive. I have seen them in trade mags and they go for about $100. A little steep for someone like me that wants to change the lock code without spending $25 at a local dealer. Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | [Moderator's Note: This of course has been one of my main objections to the secrecy surrounding cell phone programming. There is no reason at all most users cannot be trusted to handle re-programming of *some* aspects of their service without having to pay a dealer for it. PT] ------------------------------ From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Reply-To: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 12:20:43 GMT In article <6740@accuvax.nwu.edu> jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) writes: >I just thought I'd throw in my two cents about our setup here in the >Empire Area (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany). If the ESN is not entered >when the subscriber is activated (or it is cleared out), the ESN from >the next call will be entered into the database, and all future calls >will be checked against that ESN. If the ESN's don't match, the call >will fail. This is convenient for conversions (when a customer >switches from one carrier to another) since the customer usually >doesn't know the ESN, and the dealers, well, they're just dealers... (-: Oddly enough, I have three cellulars (that's only part of the oddity! :-) ) and while two have service, a portable doesn't. I called Cellular One and asked them what it would take to get the portable working and billed to one of the other phones for just a week while I went to SC with some friends. They said that about all I could do is sign up for service, pay all the various (required) sign-up fees, programming fees (even though I do it myself), etc. With this in mind, I reprogrammed the portable anyway so that everything in the NAM was identical to that of one of the subscribed phones, except for the serial number (ESN) of course. I tried to make a few calls from home, and it was most definately locked out of the system. I threw the phone in the trunk anyways, thinking I could use it to call *911 at worst. Well, as soon as I was out of state the phone worked like a charm. I could make all the calls I wanted, everything worked peachy. When I got my Cell-One bill the calls were on there just as if I had taken the other phone down. I would imagine it was due to the Cellular One being a franchise-type company and that their "service agreements" with other providers didn't check back on the ESN; they just took the rest of the info and read it as valid. Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | [Moderator's Note: And yet some would scream about this being illegal. I think it is about time for cell customers to begin turning the screws on the carriers, to the extent provided by law. I think what you did (reprogrammed phone used in roaming service) should be totally legal, provided of course you intended to pay the bill when it arrived and were not making those changes to defraud the carrier. Why should you have to pay for some dealer to punch a few buttons on your phone when you can do the same thing yourself and report it to the carrier? Why should you even have to pay 'roamer rates' in cities you regularly visit when you could have local service instead, and program the phone yourself on arrival in those cities? PT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Date: 26 Apr 90 14:03:09 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL >know what the maximum number of phones per cell is? What would be the >theoretical maximum and what do most cellular companies support? The current US standard analog system using 60 degree sectors per cell have 4 frequency reuse groups. These contain 89 channel, 75 channel and 2-74 channel groups. Omnidirectional cells can have 90 channels in each. But mixed systems with both Omni and Sectors must use the sector frequency plan. The actual limit depends on the cellular system involved and depends on the overall pattern of the system for the avoidance of adjacent channel interference problems, and expected density of the system subcibers. There is an extended set of channels adding 3 or 4 more channels to each group, though I don't know which systems are up with these (if any). Steve Wolfson Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div. uunet!motcid!wolfsons ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Tue Apr 24 13:14:11 1990 Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <6670@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 270, Message 10 of 10 [...Discussion of cost of pay phone call to SF cellular phones...] OK, now here in the Cleveland SMSA you can call the B carrier (GTE Mobilnet) on their 216-389 and 299 exchanges from an Ohio Bell pay phone at no cost. For the A carrier (Cellular One - CCA) its costs the same as a local call to call their 216-469 exchange. I asked once, and was told that Mobilnet pays for Feature Group type trunk access, while Cellular One uses conventional DID trunks for access. This does not sound right, but I do not know the real story. I will try to get the lowdown, I have technical contacts in both CO's, but they do not know about the access tarriffs involved. Also, both carriers have their Cleveland exchanges (cited above) available as a local call (7 digit) from areas outside the Metro Cleveland dialing area. I live in Medina, OH (Cleveland SMSA, but Akron LATA, served by GTE Ohio), which is NOT local to Cleveland but can call my cellphone in the 389 exchange as a local call. As the newly elected president of the Advanced Computer Society of Northern Ohio, whose primary responsibility seems to be remarkably similar to that of Program Chairman, I trying to arrange a tour of the new Cleveland Mobilnet switching office and computer center. This should give several of us a chance to ask these questions. And, yes, I am warning Mobilnet that we would like to ask technical questions. That's why its taking so long to set up ;-) I'll let the Digest readership know what we learn... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@ncoast.org uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: 26-APR-1990 03:27:52.83 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number Hi- I've been getting a lot of 900 "promotion" calls lately - you know, like what's been mentioned here before ... calls where they usually have some silly trivia question, and if you call back within X minutes you "may be eligible" to win a prize! And all for just $5.95! Now besides just being plain annoying, they also call at times when I have my number forwarded to another number some distance (hence a toll call) away. At times, it's forwarded to a carphone, making it even more expensive if I (or whoever) picks up the call while in the car. Since these calls are annoying, a nuisance, and if repeated enough times, harassing, I was wondering if notification to the company sponsoring these "ads" (in Reno, Nevada) would be an effective legal way to terminate such calls at their end. Ie, if I sent them a letter claiming that:"...your calls are annoying, harassing, and a nuisance, as I and others who use said phone numbers have repeatedly been bothered by such calls sponsored by your firm or such firms which you have appointed to call said numbers locally. "To make matters plain - we no longer wish to receive and we emphatically do not solicit any calls your firm. We request that the aforementioned numbers be removed from your calling list, and that no further attempts be made to contact us at said numbers. Should you need to contact us, you may communicate with us in writing at the adress below, and not by phone. We explicity deny your firm, and employees thereoff, the authority to communicate with us by phone at any of numbers enumerated above. Should you continue to call after receipt of this notice, we shall take further action to insure that the calling cease. "Thank you for your time..." etc. Now I realize that this is a legal question, so what I'm really wondering (from any of you lawyers out there) is if this is an acceptable action on my part. Ie, can I send them something like this and expect them to pay attention, or do they have the right to call as much as they want as long as they are not obscene, etc. I guess the question really falls on what courts will define "harassment", "nuisance" and "annoyance" calls. If they say that state statutes against such calls were intended to prevent "obscene" callers, then I guess I can't get very far. However, if they have a more expansive interpretation,( ie, that "harassment" etc. is ANY sort of call that, after repeated calls, gets to be annoying, even though the party calling has been made aware of how annoying he/she is and fails to stop calling) , they perhaps I can get them to stop by sending a letter like that. Anyhow, if anyone has any experience or suggestions, I'd really appreciate your input...! Thanks in advance, Doug DREUBEN@Eagle.Wesleyan.Edu DREUBEN@Wesleyan.Bitnet (and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-) ) [Moderator's Note: There are a couple organizations doing just what you suggest: A fellow in one of the northwest suburbs here is a paralegal. He sends out letters to phone solicitors telling them if they call him he will bill them for the time he spends listening to them. And he does it; and he wins and collects from them in Small Claims Court if they continue calling after notice has been given. PT] ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: LD in 1962 Date: 26 Apr 90 22:32:23 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <6866@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes: > I lived in one of the last substantial sized towns to convert from > manual to dial operation in July of 1960, I think; a city of at least > 18000 citizens and a university. In addition to getting dial service, > we also got DDD -- Direct Distance Dialing, the first in the state and > (I thought at the time) the first in the country. At least one of the > first in the U.S., probably. DDD spread pretty rapidly through the > country after that. Thanks for making me feel young again! I've been taking an American History class at Sonoma State University, and the shocking realization that events I remember were in a history book was beginning to make me feel my age. Then I read this! I guess my first phone calls were about 1964, or 1965, and I can honestly say that I can't remember a time when DDD wasn't available. Though I am old enough to remember when phone numbers were still written EXbrook 3-0911. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Ask the Lithuanians. Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 07:00 EST From: Ken Donaldson <0001050688@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Actually there are sixteen tone combinations. The four not given are: A 697 & 1633 B 770 & 1633 C 852 & 1633 D 941 & 1633 The above are not normally used on a "2500" telephone. However a Hayes modem will generate them. [Moderator's Note: How does Hayes do it? What is the command string? I would be very interested in knowing. "ATDT xxxxxxxxx" is only good for the ten digits, the # and * keys, I thought. How do you tell it to 'dial' the A, B, C, and D, for whatever it would do? PT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Stratton Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 26 Apr 90 17:38:55 GMT Reply-To: Robert Stratton Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA Don't forget the ubitiquous _fourth_ column! I've seen the keys labelled either 'A','B','C','D', or on AUTOVON phones - 'FO','F','I','P' (I may have the order of the last 2 inverted), which stand for "Flash Override", "Flash", "Immediate", and "Priority". If I'm not mistaken, the column tone for these keys is 1633 Hz + the appropriate row tone. Does anyone know is these are included in whatever specification is trademarked as "Touch-Tone" (tm)? I've always wondered about that... Bob Stratton | INET: strat@grebyn.com; UUCP: grebyn!strat, well!strat Stratton Sys.Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32; DELPHI: RJSIII Alexandria, VA | PSTN: +1 703 765 4335 (H) +1 703 591 7101 (W) ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 26 Apr 90 16:31:35 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA There is one more tone possible, assigned to the "A", "B", "C", "D" keys on the DTMF pad What? your phone doesn't have these keys? Well, actually, I've never seen one that does (in person), but they are specified. The freqs are: A - 697Hz & 1633Hz B - 770Hz & 1633Hz C - 852Hz & 1633Hz D - 941Hz & 1633Hz Here is a map of the keypad showing how the frequencies are assigned to rows and columns: Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Row 1 [1] [2] [3] [A] 697Hz Row 2 [4] [5] [6] [B] 770Hz Row 3 [7] [8] [9] [C] 852Hz Row 4 [*] [O] [#] [D] 941Hz 1209Hz 1336Hz 1477Hz 1633Hz (thanks to the _Motorola_Telecommunications_Device_Data_ book, MC145436 DTMF receiver chip). Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {uunet, pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott "Less than perfect, that's what I've been aiming for all along." [Moderator's Note: And thanks also to Erik Naggum , Alan_Rubenstein@dsd.3mail.3com.com, Chuck Bennett and others who sent messages and drawings of keypads, etc. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #289 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25308; 28 Apr 90 2:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08482; 28 Apr 90 1:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05747; 28 Apr 90 0:02 CDT Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 23:05:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #290 BCC: Message-ID: <9004272305.ab03210@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Apr 90 23:05:43 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 290 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Douglas Mason] Irish Phone Service [Kevin Hopkins] NTI CLASS Integrated Telephone Set [Don H. Kemp] Stromberg Carlson DLI [Richard O'Rourke] Nonlocal Calls in the UK (was Re: LD in 1962) [Piet van Oostrum] Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Scott D. Green] Why Do I Have to Look Under 'H' to Find a Mobil Station? [Stan Krieger] Update on BBS Bus/Res Situation Wanted [Thomas Lapp] Directory Assistance Problem [SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu] NETel to Settle With COCOTS [Adam M. Gaffin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Mason Subject: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother Reply-To: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 15:33:13 GMT Well, I too got my AT&T "Universal" Visa card. While we have beat that subject into the ground, I have some very interesting points to add about it. Although I didn't request it, I got their "Gold Card". This also has no fees, and after looking through all the various documentation it seems that there is nothing that it offers over the standard card except for it's "status" of being a "gold card". Now, most interesting is the "agreement" that came with it. I, like most people normally throw these things away assuming that it say the usual things like "If you go bad on this debt we will take your firstborn, etc.." On the way to the bathroom I picked up the little agreement for reading material. I wish I had remembered to bring it to work so I could quote it, but I'll remember it tomorrow. There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer satisfaction." Whoa, what a stipulation, huh? Since I used the card for dinner last night, it probably isn't safe for anyone to call me. :-) Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | ------------------------------ Subject: Irish Phone Service Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 18:20:25 +0100 From: Kevin Hopkins I have just come back from the Republic of Ireland and they have introduced a few changes in their phone service. Their latest change seems to have been introduced at the beginning of April 1990 by the looks of the newspaper advertisements. It is an 800 style freephone service and they use the number 1-800-6D (6 digits). The choice of 1-800, as in the States, is odd as Ireland uses the British (European?) style of using 0 as an exchange access code; 0800 would have been the expected code. Maybe they use 1 as the initial digit as all other numbers beginning with 1 are operator services and are free, except for 16 which is the international access code (there's always an exception). I don't know if they use the same split for the 6D as in the UK, where the first 3D are the service providers' number and the next 3D are the service number. In the UK BT uses 800 as their service provider number, so giving themselves the number 0800-800-800, as well as 0800-800-xxx. Last summer Ireland's telephone company Telecom Eireann, introduced a 03000-5D (oh three thousand) service. The 5D seems to be split 2D-3D for provider-service numbers. This is a value added service where the service provider receives a sum of money for each call, as well as Telecom Eireann. The current cost to the caller is 48p/36p/24p per minute for peak/off-peak/economy periods (4/3/2 meter units). This is a similar service to the UK's 0898-6D service where the cost is 38p/25p per minute for peak/other times (7.5/5 meter units), except that the Irish don't seem to have any of the sex lines and are mainly using the service for sport results at the moment. Both 03 and 08 are normally used as quick access codes to the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) and Northern Ireland phone systems respectively from the Republic of Ireland. The final change I have noticed, which also seems to have only occurred recently, is that Dublin (area code 01) is starting to move to 7D subscriber numbers. The only 7D numbers currently in use seem to be on the 679 exchange, and one of the companies that was advertising that their number had changed used to be on the 77 exchange. The four digits after the exchange code also changed in the move from 6D to 7D for the above company. The 679 numbers seem to be near the centre of Dublin, where you would expect the exchanges to run out of numbers first. They are writing their numbers in the style 01-679 xxxx. I notice that someone from Ireland contributes to the Digest every now and then, maybe the can inform us (or me) of the change to 7D in Dublin. Maybe Telecom Eireann have issued details of which exchanges are to be changed from 6D to 7D in the near future? Kev. ------------------------------ Subject: NTI CLASS Integrated Telephone Set Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 10:25:38 EST From: Don H Kemp I just received Northern Telecom's latest Product/Service Update, and found a goodie in it to make any phone-techno-freak drool. [loosely paraphrased from the NTI blurb] The Maestro (tm) telephone set has a 16 character LCD screen, for Calling Number Display, stores the last 15 unanswered incoming numbers and allows automatic dialing from the unanswered call log. It also has a LINK (timed hookflash) key, ten speed-dial keys and a lamp which indicates when call-forwarding has been activated from the set. There's also a line-in-use/visual ringing indicator and handset volume control. The set has been available since Jan 7, 1990, comes in Almond, White or Charcoal and has a "Commercial List Price" of $136.00. Looks like a neat toy to me. Now if we'd only get CLASS up here in the boonies :-(. Don H Kemp B B & K Associates, Inc. Rutland, VT uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk ------------------------------ From: Richard O'Rourke Subject: Stromberg Carlson DLI Date: 26 Apr 90 07:40:07 GMT Organization: Grass Root Systems, Burnaby, B.C., Canada The company I work for (an LD reseller in Canada) would like to connect our billing computer directly to our (soon to be installed) tandem switch. The switch might be a Stromberg Carlson DCO-CS with software release 9. We want to use the DLI interface on the switch to grab toll tickets in real time. We will use two 9 track tapes on the switch. The toll ticket tapes from the switch will be used for verification of call records during the billing process, and also for short term archiving. We still want the DLI direct connect for a variety of reasons. I will skip pages of painful details and get to the point: Can anyone out there give a plus or minus rating on the useability and reliability of the DLI interface on a SC switch? Special consideration given to anyone who has the DLI interfaced to a *nix box. Many thanks! Richard O'Rourke - (604)438-8249 | 436-1995 - Grass Root Systems uunet!van-bc!mplex!grassys!ror ror@grassys.bc.ca grassys!ror@wimsey.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Nonlocal Calls in the UK (was Re: LD in 1962) Date: 26 Apr 90 15:38:16 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands I read an article in the paper last week that said that in the UK today still one million people have to go through an operator (I suppose for non-local calls only, although the article didn't say this). I can hardly believe that the UK is THAT oldfashioned. Does somebody know the truth? Are there places in the UK where you cannot automatically reach any other number in the UK? It must be more than 25 years ago since we dumped the last juman-operated switch here in the Netherlands. 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') ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 11:50 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit My call accounting system vendor called to offer me a device to monitor my outgoing trunks on a System 75 that essentially will provide answer supervision on the lines. The claim is that it is 98.5% accurate, can recognize the various voltage states on the trunk (idle, answered, intercepted [boop, boop, BOOP]), thus eliminating the need for a 45 second threshold before a call is billed. The claim is that a hotel property can expect a 15-25% increase in revenue, simply by recovering all those <1 minute calls ("Hi, honey, call me back at room 223." Click.) Anybody with experience with this or similar devices? scott ------------------------------ From: S M Krieger Subject: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? Date: 26 Apr 90 16:12:01 GMT Of all the great mysteries of life, and the telephone book, one stands out; specifically, if I want to call the Mobil gas station about a mile from my home, why is it listed under "H" in the phone book instead of "M"? The same goes for the Exxon station ("K" instead of "E") and the Amoco station ("B" instead of "A"). Especially for a person who is new to an area, I'm sure they easily see the big Exxon, Mobil, and Amoco signs on the local gas stations, but how is anyone supposed to know to find the listing under "K&A Exxon, Harry's Mobil, or Benham's Amoco? Or, by scattering the listings for gas stations in what amounts to some random order, do the telcos figure they can get some extra Yellow Pages money to list them under headings that people would expect (the brand of gas they sell)? Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk [Moderator's Note: They do not 'scatter the listings in some random order.' They use strict alphabetical order. The name of the place is 'Benhams Amoco' -- not 'Amoco'. Why are all the people with the first name 'Stan' scattered throughout the book instead of being listed together? Why can't all the 'Stans' be listed together regardless of last name? The purpose of the Yellow Pages (in which any business phone can have one *free* listing if desired) is to accomodate those folks who do not know one Amoco from another. I've heard frivilous complaints before. This one takes the cake. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 06:15:38 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Update on BBS Bus/Res Situation Wanted Could anyone provide an update to the situation where BBS owners were being charged business rates for their phone lines? I believe it was a Southwestern Bell vs. BBS operators situation. I've heard a RUMOUR! from a local BBS operator that the situation was solved and that the BBS operators lost. Could anyone verify or tell us otherwise? Thanks - tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 1990 3:07:49 MDT From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: Directory Assistance Problem I dialed directory assistance in Framingham, MA on Wednesday night and the phone was answered by a woman pretending to be a recording. She claimed that the computer was down and that I should look up the phone number in my directory unless it was an emergency in which case I should wait for an operator. I patiently waited for her to repeat the "recording" and then she said hello and asked if she could help me. I explained that there was no phone book at the pay phone and that I needed a number. She said she couldn't help me unless it was an emergency. I told her that it was and she hung up! I called back and got a different woman who also pretended to be a recording. This time I interrupted the "recording" and she transferred me to a service assistant who looked up the number for me. Very few pay phones seem to have phone books. Calls to directory assistance are still free. Also, most of the pay phones in the Boston area don't permit incoming calls. This is a royal pain! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 21:42:10 -0400 From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: NETel to Settle With COCOTS [Moderator's Note: Mr. Gaffin writes a column regularly for the [Middlesex News], and frequently shares it with us at the Digest. PT] Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 4/27/90: Remember the nickel phone call? A Waltham telecommunications company says it could lower the cost of local calls at some of the pay phones it runs to that amount, under a proposed agreement between New England Telephone and several small pay-phone companies. The company, IMR Telecom, now owns roughly 600 pay phones in Massachusetts - including several in MetroWest - and recently began offering 25-cent-a-minute calls to anywhere in the country outside the local calling area - the result of discounts given the company by long-distance carriers. The agreement, which will reduce the amount independent pay-phone companies now pay for many phone calls routed through New England Telephone, could cost the utility millions of dollars in lost revenue, spokeswoman Roberta Clement said. The company agreed to a potential settlement, because it ``recognized there are inequities'' in the way it now charges these companies. Clement said consumers, however, will see no impact on their bills or in rates at New England Telephone pay phones. ``We have no intention of filing a (proposal) to increase rates at all,'' she said. Richard Thompson, president of Paynet Communications in Londonderry, N.H., which sells pay phones, said New England Telephone could eventually wind up making money on the deal, because his clients and those of other companies are installing more pay phones than New England Telephone ever did. New England Telephone now charges each ``customer-owned coin- operated telephone'' considerably more than it ``charges'' its own coin-phone division. [Roughly $26 a month plus message units that cost between 11 and 33 cents per five-minute call, compared to about $19 a month and a flat 10 cents per call for NET]. IMR Telecom President Thomas Biggins said these charges are the real reason calls from non-New England Telephone pay phones cost a minimum of 25 cents, compared to the 10 cents charged by New England Telephone. Biggins and IMR Vice President George Niden said that with the agreement, they will be able to reduce their local charges at many phones to 10 cents, and that at some high-use locations, such as hospitals, they will be able to go as low as five cents and still make a profit. Rather than reducing its rates for non-New England Telephone pay phones, the company will provide ``commissions'' to the smaller companies for pay phones that exceed certain monthly revenue figures, Clement said. Niden said the proposed agreement essentially means a 20-percent commission on all New England Telephone credit-card calls made within the company's ``local-access telephone areas'' from non phone-company phones. In Massachusetts, there are two of these zones: one is covered by the 413 area code, the other is a combination of the 508 and 617 areas. Clement said a final version could be ready for state approval within a month. Niden said the agreement is not as much as the smaller companies wanted but called it a ``good settlement.'' ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #290 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27408; 28 Apr 90 3:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11898; 28 Apr 90 2:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08482; 28 Apr 90 1:09 CDT Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 0:13:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #291 BCC: Message-ID: <9004280013.ab05687@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Apr 90 00:13:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 291 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [John Higdon] Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Carl Moore] Re: Persistent Wrong Number [Ralph Hightower] Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro [mperka@netxcom.dhl.com] Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number [Bill Crane] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Dave Mc Mahan] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Steven King] CCITT Recommendation Q.31 -- The Touch-Tone Standard [John R. Covert] Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number [Peter Weiss] Bay Area Cellular/Payphone Update [John Higdon] Bong Tones [Adam M. Gaffin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts Date: 26 Apr 90 23:54:13 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon On Apr 26 at 21:46, TELECOM Moderator writes: > It was indeed a very sad occassion when "The > Telephone Hour" went off the air for the last time in 1968. Do any of > you readers remember this fine series of programs on television a > quarter century ago? I certainly do. And being a classical music enthusiast, I would agree that the passing of "The Telephone Hour" was a sad occasion. And now here's one for you: Do you remember the "Bell Science Series"? These were one-hour programs hosted by Dr. Frank Baxter and actor Richard Carlson and had episode names such as "Our Mr. Sun" and "Hemo, the Magnificent". I'll never forget the use of the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony during a mention of the vastness of the universe. (I was an impressionable kid.) These programs were in color (pretty avant garde for late-fifties) and were later made available on 16mm film for schools. I would kill for a video cassette of some of these programs. As you may have noticed, AT&T still from time to time presents high quality TV programs. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Those were also very good programs. In addition to a few things on television, AT&T is an occassional sponsor of the Sunday afternoon opera on radio station WFMT here in Chicago; and they are a corporate patron of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 11:20:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs You refer to US West resistance to removal of pay phones due to their being needed by poor people without their own phone service. How would they get incoming messages? (You've already noted that some pay phones were changed to outgoing-only.) [Moderator's Note: They probably would not get incoming calls in any event unless they stood around the pay phone waiting for them. Who is going to take a message and deliver it down the block to their home? But at least if the phone is there, they can make urgent outgoing calls. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ralph Hightower Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Date: 27 Apr 90 18:15:32 GMT Reply-To: Ralph Hightower Organization: NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC The exchange that I'm on does not offer Caller ID or any of the other CLASS features, Call-Trace, Repeat-Dial, etc. But I have been plagued by this little kid that keeps calling for "Katie". Katie's family's number has the same last four digit sequence but on a different exchange, their number on the same exchange I'm on has the same digits, but the inside numbers are transposed. I have gotten tired of this kid calling for Katie that I have gotten rude, "Is Katie there?" "No. ". I've even left as my answering machine greeting "If you want Katie or any of the other Dowlings, you either dialed the wrong exchange or transposed two digits. Look it up in the phone book and watch your fingers do the dialing." But lately, since we have experience some wierd calls and have had a recent break-in, I've initiated Caller-ID where the person making the call gives me their number (I wish I had telco installed Caller-ID). Here's the script: Caller: "Is so-and-so there?" Me: "Wait a minute." (I go off like I'm calling for them to come to the phone. Wait a few seconds.) "He/She is busy right now. Can he/she call you back?" Caller: "Well, OK." And I get their name and number or . . . Caller: "Well, I'll just call back later." Me: "Well, So-and-so is in the bathroom. It'll only be a minute." To which I either get their name and number or they don't want to leave the info. In which case, I'll just pull the same script. Ralph.Hightower@Columbia.NCR.COM NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro Date: 28 Apr 90 01:02:29 GMT Reply-To: mperka@netxcom.dhl.com Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va. In article <6759@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (Greg Monti) writes: >Toll calls within the Washington LATA [...] , as long as they are interstate, >can be dialed on any carrier that will accept your business by using 10XXX >dialing. Toll or local calls within the Washington LATA *and* within Virginia >cannot be 10XXX'ed. The same old intercept recording still comes on for those. From some C&P Maryland exchanges within the Washington LATA, local calls within the state can now be 10XXX'ed. Previously, the intercept recording mentioned would be heard. >I made a coupla intraLATA LD and local calls using competitive >carriers from home. We shall see what the bill says. I found I could make instate, intraLATA, local calls using competitive 10XXX carriers. For example, I can call from home ... to home, 'answering' myself using call-waiting. [The next best thing to being here ?] While I can't find any real use for this, I must admit to being somewhat curious to see how calls with matching origination and destination numbers are billed. ------------------------------ From: bill@daysinns.uucp Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 01:30:29 EDT Subject: Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number Organization: Days Inns of America Inc., Atlanta GA For what it's worth I got a similar phone call about a month ago, probably from the same people. I typically tell operators the same thing that you do, and I was also dismayed that the return number was a 900-number. Two things crossed my mind then -- 1) I keep secretly hoping this organization will call me at work across one of our ISDN trunks where I can read the caller ID off of the display on my phone. (this is a long shot, as the ISDN trunks are subject to special routings). 2) Southern Bell offers a number of ISDN services which they name 'Touch Star' Services. Among these services is auto-call back which enables the subscriber of the service to automatically call back the last number that called him. In hindsight, such a service might have been handy when I recieved my call, but it could have been that there was not a human voice at the other end anyway. I share your frustration. Bill Crane ...!gatech!daysinns!bill Days Inns of America Inc., Atlanta GA ------------------------------ From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 27 Apr 90 18:38:15 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System >[Moderator's Note: How does Hayes do it? What is the command string? >I would be very interested in knowing. "ATDT xxxxxxxxx" is only good >for the ten digits, the # and * keys, I thought. How do you tell it >to 'dial' the A, B, C, and D, for whatever it would do? PT] Getting the modem to dial the 'extra' codes is trivial on my modem. (I have an Everex Evercom 24E+, but I think the principles are the same for Hayes) Just stick the code in the dial string!!! For instance: ATDT12234ABCD will dial eight tones, four of which are out of band. It's even documented in the owners manual!! I have heard from various phreaks that sending the 'extra' codes while dialing thru the local CO is HIGHLY frowned on. Any phone that generates these tones is doing something they probably shouldn't and the call is red flagged for later security processing. I believe these are codes that might get you noticed in a big hurry if you are phreaking!! On the other hand, once the call is completed, you can send any tones you want and the phone company won't care. Just don't try and get the phone company to recognize the 'extras'. DTMF decoder chips should be able to handle this extra decoding with no problems, assuming you pick the right chips. dave [Moderator's Note: That's all quite interesting, but see my reply to the next article. PT] ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 27 Apr 90 21:05:38 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <6910@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0001050688@mcimail.com (Ken Donaldson) writes: >[Moderator's Note: How does Hayes do it? What is the command string? >I would be very interested in knowing. "ATDT xxxxxxxxx" is only good >for the ten digits, the # and * keys, I thought. How do you tell it >to 'dial' the A, B, C, and D, for whatever it would do? PT] I can't vouch for an honest-to-goodness Hayes(R) modem, but my Prometheus claims to be Hayes-compatible and will accept A, B, C, and D as regular numbers in the ATDT xxxxxxxx string. At least the manual claims it will, I've never put it to the test. Steve King, uunet!motcid!king [Moderator's Note: Now look, guys: In a modem command line, ala Hayes or others on the 'Hayes standard', a "D" means "Dial". An "A" (in other than the "AT" preface) mean "Answer mode". Some variations on the 'Hayes standard' use "C" to mean turn the transmitter off. ("C1" means turn it on.). So if I enter 'ATTD 123-4567A' I am saying I want the modem's attention; I want it to tone-dial 123-4567; then I want it to go into answer mode, rather than staying in originate mode. How does the modem tell the difference between nswer mode and -key? I don't think it can. I tried this just now on five modems: US Robotics Courier 2400; Hayes Smartmodem 300; Rixon Intelligent Modem in the 'Hayes mode'; and a couple others. None of them understood what ABCD meant at the end, other than the usual command string meaning for "A" and "D". Since your manual documents this, how about typing it in here for us? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 06:38:02 PDT From: "John R. Covert 27-Apr-1990 0933" Subject: CCITT Recommendation Q.31 -- The Touch-Tone Standard >Don't forget the ubitiquous _fourth_ column! Hmmm. Ubiquitous means "present everywhere." >Does anyone know if these are included in whatever specification is >trademarked as "Touch-Tone" (tm)? I've always wondered about that... Yes. It is part of CCITT Recommendation Q.31, the international standard defining subscriber tone dialing. /john ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Friday, 27 Apr 1990 07:32:16 EDT From: Peter Weiss Subject: Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number I wonder what happens when one 900 telemarketer calls a _real_ 900 number service -- do they self-destruct? Peter M. Weiss 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) University Park, PA USA 16802 | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein [Moderator's Note: Self-destruct! Ha ha ... we should be so lucky! PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Bay Area Cellular/Payphone Update Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 27 Apr 90 12:19:07 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon It finally appears that the disparity in Pac*Bell payphone charges resulting from calling the different cellular mobile phones may be coming to an end. As you recall, when calling a GTE Mobilnet mobile phone from a Pac*Bell payphone the caller must deposit any toll, whereas an equivalent call to a Cellular One mobile is a flat Zone 1 (local-charged) call. I have just been notified by my contact at Pac*Bell that this has finally reached upper levels at "headquarters" who have directed that this problem be corrected by 5/14/90 in all Pac*Bell Bay Area payphones. Two supervisors have been assigned the responsibility of correcting this condition (which has existed for years) in the entire region. Unfortunately, "correcting the problem" may mean that callers to Cellular One mobiles may have to begin paying toll charges rather than GTE Mobilnet callers paying $0.20. This is the current debate in the conference rooms: does the cellular "Zone 1" rule extend to paystations? If yes, then both providers will get the advantage; if no, then all non-local calls to mobiles will have to pay toll from payphones. It is important to remember that this entire matter applies only to payphones and does not effect billing from non-coin business or residence telephones. Calls to GTE and Cellular One mobiles have always been billed as Zone 1 calls from non-coin telephones. Naturally, I'll be reporting on the outcome. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 21:45:02 -0400 From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Bong Tones [Moderator's Note: Here is another of Mr. Gaffin's columns in the Middlesex News. PT] From the Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 4/27/90: BOSTON - They're called ``bong tones'' and they're the funny tones you get when you try to make a collect or credit-card phone call. Now they're at the heart of a case that could determine the types of services available at many pay phones across the state. Last fall, the state Department of Public Utilities charged that a Waltham company, IMR Telecom, was illegally operating several hundred pay phones in the state because it had never sought state permission to install the phones. The state charges that the software used in the pay phones provides some of the same services as traditional operators and therefore requires prior state approval because the state still regulates companies that provide operator services. The company counters that because no operator is actually involved in these calls and because the software does not need to connect with the regional phone network for billing purposes that the phones are therefore just fancy ``customer-owned coin-operated telephones,'' which are not regulated by the state. New England Telephone pay phones are essentially dumb terminals connected to a central switching office that sends out the ``bong tones'' to begin prompting the caller for his credit-card number - and takes care of billing. This is how the company completes so-called ``0+'' calls. Many independent pay-phone companies now contract with companies that provide similar services, but IMR has purchased a number of ``smart'' phones that generate their own ``bong tones'' and then store information on credit-card calls, including the user's credit-card number and the length and distance of the calls. Periodically, an IMR computer calls the pay phone, downloads this information and then forwards it to a billing company. IMR and other companies with similar phones say they were essentially forced to go to this technology because New England Telephone would not provide operator assistance services to them after the state opened the pay-phone market to competition in 1985. The outcome of the IMR case could determine the fate of these ``smart'' pay phones in the state, according to papers filed in connection with the case. DPU spokeswoman Maggie Carvan would not comment on the case. She said there are now 19 companies besides New England Telephone that provide pay-phone service in Massachusetts and that there are roughly 4,500 pay phones altogether in the state. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #291 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28496; 28 Apr 90 4:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14002; 28 Apr 90 3:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11898; 28 Apr 90 2:14 CDT Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 1:23:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #292 BCC: Message-ID: <9004280123.ab09505@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Apr 90 01:23:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 292 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Area Codes and Political Boundaries [Carl Moore] Obituary of John C. Lobb [Tom Gray] Line Trouble Detection Program [Bruce Perens] Playing Matchmaker [Bruce Perens] More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? [Steve Elias] Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys [Joseph C. Pistritto] Hardware Modification Gets ABCD Frequencies [Mark Earle] Making a Call in 1966 (was: LD in 1962) [Carl Moore] International Portability of Cellular Phones US->UK [Kenneth G. Cochran] Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [Peter da Silva] Miami Test Number? [Ron Schnell] Re: More Test Numbers [Tom Ace] Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Andrew Peed] Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) [Gregory W. Isett] Re: The Card [Brian Matthews] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 9:58:42 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area Codes and Political Boundaries In Canada, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are both in the 902 area. There are a few special cases where area codes cross state lines in the U.S.: A certain prefix in Carter Lake, Iowa (on "wrong" side of Missouri River at Omaha, Nebraska) can be reached in either area code 402 or 712. All but the outermost suburbs of Washington, DC can be reached in area code 202. This was retained when it became necessary to use N0X/N1X prefixes in DC area, but apparently will go away by the end of this year in the next step in dealing with that shortage. (Incoming toll calls to Md. and Va. suburbs would then have to use area codes 301 and 703 respectively. Local calls in the DC area which cross NPA border will require NPA+7D, without leading 1.) Galestown, Maryland area (near Seaford, Delaware) was or is using Seaford mailing address and phone prefix. (I have no way of knowing about any other cases like this.) ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Obituary of John C. Lobb Date: 27 Apr 90 17:10:51 GMT Organization: MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario, Canada. In the April issue of TE&M, I noticed with regret an obituary for John Lobb. In his tenure at Nothern Electric which later became Northern Telecom, Mr.Lobb guided that company from a captive equipment supplier to being a world leader in telephone technology. He was president of Northern when the DMS and SL1 families of switches were conceived and developed. Prior to this, the North American switching market was static with very little real innovation. AT&T was only interested in producing gold plated switches for its monopoly market. Other players in the market were as bad or worse. The management of Northern lead by Mr. Lobb changed all of this. The DMS family made digital switching practical and opened the telephone market to true competition. If it had been left up to AT&T, there wouldn't have been a digital class 5 until the 1990's. Think of our industry if only now we were field trialling digital switches. It is sad to note the passing of someone who did make the telephone industry different from what he found it. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Bruce Perens From: Bruce Perens Subject: Line Trouble Detection Program Date: 27 Apr 90 07:10:46 GMT Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California Earlier, I noticed someone's CB leaking into my phone line. I know how to get rid of that kind of interference, but before doing that I tried to listen for a few minutes, just out of curiousity. I dialed 1 to break the dial tone, listened until the off-hook signal started, and then hung up the phone. I dialed the touch-tone 1 most of the time, but once or twice dialed 1 just by flashing. After repeating this cycle about 10 times, the dial tone didn't come back. I could hear the loop current going on and off about 5 times, at about 1 Hz. I hung up the phone for a minute. When I picked it up again, I had to wait for dial tone, and then the phone acted normally. Did I trigger some trouble detector? Was the loop interruption done by some program, or was it manual? PS: Can someone tell me the PacBell test numbers for Marin County? I'd like to know the number identification, short-circuit, open-circuit, 440 tone, etc. There's a tombstone (outdoor telephone junction box) across the street, and I've heard the lineman working with some kind of interactive voice-response system from there. What's that system for? Bruce Perens pixar!bp@ucbvax.Berkeley.edu ucbvax!pixar!bp ------------------------------ Reply-To: Bruce Perens From: Bruce Perens Subject: Playing Matchmaker Date: 28 Apr 90 00:14:02 GMT Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California Back in the late '70s, my college had a Centrex. We found that you could dial an external number and conference it to an internal number while both were still ringing, and hang up. The connection would persist until the internal number was answered and hung up. You could thus play matchmaker: set up a connection so that both ends would ring and be connected to each other. You could connect two internal numbers this way by dialing out and back in. One boring weekend I was the only person in one of the campus buildings. From one of the offices, I used this trick repeatedly, until I ran out of circuits and almost every phone in the building was ringing. They stayed that way until Monday morning. WARNING TO PBX DESIGNERS: Some PBX systems that are vulnerable to this trick could be congested by it, unless there is a limit on the proportion of resources that can be used by "conference" connections. Bruce Perens [Moderator's Note: I once had some fool use his three-way calling to connect me with some other party. We both got rung and picked up at about the same time, then sat there and accused each other of being the one to place the call. ("But it was MY phone that rang, sir!"). The moron who did this then did it a second time to me the next day: that time I took his fun away. When the other party answered, after the obligatory accusations toward each other I said, "Well, as long as we are connected, want to chat for awhile? What shall we talk about?" I'm sure he must have thought me to be the daft one! :) PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 10:38:01 -0400 From: Steve Elias My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital. This is in addition to the other parameters for DID: Wink/Immediate, Pulse/Tones, #-of-digits. He claims that the reason that they can't get the DID line working for me is that we ordered "digital DID" when we really wanted "analog DID". I told him flat out that I thought (and at least one knowledgable friend o mine thought) that this was a crock. Have you heard of such a beast? Digital DID??? Is this some sort of ISDN stuff? Is my local telco staffed by pinheads? Or am I truly uninformed about this DID stuff? ; Steve Elias, eli@spdcc.com; 617 932 5598 (voicemail) ; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone) ------------------------------ Subject: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 10:02:14 MESZ From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" Several years ago, I bought some cheapie phones from DAK Industries. When they arrived, I noticed that they had the 'ABCD' keys on them, so the touchtone pad was a 4x4 instead of 3x4. This was just perfect for me, as the amateur radio club I belonged to uses these as control tones on our autopatch capable repeater. A 'phriend' also showed me that you can call the operator and knock her off the line by sending one of these tones at the start of the call. Apparently this was useful to phreaks at one time, as you used to be able to get a dialtone (from the operator position) this way. [Before we get moralistic here, he showed me this once, and we neither got the dial tone or repeated the test]. They definitely do use these keys on AUTOVON phones, you do this to clear people off of trunks when you need them (assuming your a command officer or something, and have a phone with those keys on them). Also worth noting that the commercial touch tone generator chips ALL have the capability to generate these tones, it's just they aren't usually wired up to buttons. Joseph C. Pistritto (jcp@brl.mil -or- cgch!bpistr@mcsun.eu.net) Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland Tel: +41 61 697 6155 (work) +41 61 692 1728 (home) GMT+2hrs! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 19:32:03 CDT From: Mark Earle To: telecom@nucsrl.uucp Subject: Hardware Modification Gets ABCD Frequencies Patrick, I have a Toryo phone purchased from DAK a while ago. It is 'princess' styled with two lines, hold for each, separate BELL ringers for each line w/disable switch ... and has a 16 button (!) pad. I use it to call remote radio systems (amateur/commercial) and control them, add numbers to the auto-dialers, etc. By using the extra four digits as part of the security combination, many (most) phones won't be able to get access. It's a little more secure. Of course, my pocket dialer (Tandy) has been suitably modified. Most DTMF generation chips have the capability. I just added a SPDT switch. To the left, 3 6 9 #, and to the right A B C D. I try to pick 'combinations' to sorta minimize throwing of the switch. So my modified dialer has 12 buttons, but can generate more tones. Most electronic phones could do the same. Also note, the older toroid based encoders in "real" telephone instruments will also do this -- they have the extra tone in the scheme, just missing four buttons or a switch. :-) | mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] | | CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE | | My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 | | 'Opinions Expressed are mine, unless we're on clock' | | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University | | Now becoming part of the Texas A&M System | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 9:41:19 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Making a Call in 1966 (was: LD in 1962) In 1966, I remember making a collect call from Yonkers, NY to Wilmington, Del. -- my first use of 0+ call. The Wilmington, Del. phone book published later that year was the first there NOT to use exchange names (for example, what had been OLympia 4 became simply 654). ------------------------------ From: Kenneth G Cochran Subject: International Portability of Cellular Phones US->UK Date: 27 Apr 90 20:03:23 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Are US cellular phones compatible with the cellular service offered in other countries (Particularly the UK). Would an 832 channel US phone need modification or reprogramming to work or is this just not cost effective. Thanks, Ken Cochran att!mtdca!kwmc ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 13:34:27 GMT In article <6894@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: > To the best of my knowledge AT&T's IDDD is blocked from coin phones. > So while it may be possible to misdial overseas to some place like > Fiji on "one of those other carriers", it won't happen on AT&T since > you can't dial outside of North America from a pay station! I'm sure I've called home (Australia) direct via my AT&T calling card on occasion. Are you sure of this? Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. Disclaimer: People have opinions, organisations have policy. ------------------------------ From: Ron Schnell Subject: Miami Test Number? Organization: MIT Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 01:43:05 GMT Does anyone know of a test number in the Miami (Southern Bell) area which I could use to find out the number from which I am calling? I don't know the prefix, but it's in the same CO as (305) 935. Alternatively, if anyone out there with Caller ID would be willing to let me call you from there and tell me what number shows up, that would do as well. Thanks. Ron (you may call me at (800) 321 - 1767) #Ron# (ronnie@mit-eddie.{UUCP,ARPA}) Home: (213) 470 - 9639 Office: (213) 338 - 7834 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 11:25:31 PDT From: Tom Ace Subject: Re: More Test Numbers Jim Small asked: > Would you happen to have any test numbers for the Los Angeles area? I'm not sure if these still work, but a few years ago ANI used to be 600 or 6102 in most of the exchanges served by ESS switches, and 113 in non-ESS exchanges. This was in Pac Bell territories only. When I moved from New York to Los Angeles, I noted that the ANI equipment in L.A. gave the digits at a slower pace than the N.Y. equipment did, in character with the prevailing mentalities of the two areas. Tom Ace tom@sje.mentor.com ------------------------------ From: Andrew Peed Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts Date: 27 Apr 90 14:37:50 GMT Reply-To: motcid!peed@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes: >I'm not worried, but I AM damn annoyed. >I used to never have to worry about Telemarketers. Then I started >putting my home phone number on the charge slips. I used to get a fair bit of harrasment from telemarketers until I started taking the following approach: Me: "My last name is spelled P - E - E - D..." Their thoughts: "Peed?" Me: "But it's pronounced "Stoatgobbler Mangrove." Tt: "WHAT??" Me: None of them has ever had the courage to call back. Motorola, Inc. Andrew B. Peed Cellular Infrastructure Division ..!uunet!motcid!peed ------------------------------ From: "Gregory W. Isett" Subject: Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) Organization: HRB Systems > In message 6692@accuvax.nwu.edu, Will Martin asks how AT&T decides > whether to send you a Visa or Mastercard. > I applied about two weeks after the card was announced. At that time, > they asked me which of the two I wanted. I just got my Mastercard version. I called AT&T and told them that I swore I applied for a VISA. They (very politely) said they'd immediately "invalidate" my Mastercard and send me a new VISA card in "10 to 20 days". They also said they had a "gold" VISA card that had a higher credit limit. 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: 6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) Subject: Re: The Card Date: 25 Apr 90 20:54:30 GMT Reply-To: 6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and gotten it? I called when the card was first announced here (three, four weeks ago?), and told the operator I just wanted information. She took my name and address, but I haven't received anything. Are they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #292 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03142; 29 Apr 90 0:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16899; 28 Apr 90 23:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16723; 28 Apr 90 22:23 CDT Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 22:02:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Coin Station Fraud BCC: Message-ID: <9004282202.ab17555@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Apr 90 21:58:30 CDT Special: Coin Station Fraud Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Yet Even More on Coin Station Fraud [Larry Lippman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Yet Even More on Coin Station Fraud Date: 23 Apr 90 20:58:08 EST (Mon) From: Larry Lippman In article <6603@accuvax.nwu.edu> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes: > Not to argue with Larry, but his description is in conflict with that > I have experienced around the country; including Michigan, Illinois, > Florida, and elsewhere. I will get to the specific issues raised by Karl Denninger in a few moments. Please bear with me while I provide some introductory material. This discussion is also starting to get complex, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to explain in a succinct fashion all that is necessary to effect an understanding of the specific issues at hand. If you are hopelessly confused after reading this article, I am sorry - I tried. :-) I suppose a bit of qualification is in order. During the 1970's a group within my organization at that time provided consulting, R&D and contract engineering services to various manufacturers of CO apparatus and accessories. Almost all of this effort was focused on conversion of electromechanical CO apparatus so that it could provide "new-fangled" :-) features not possible in its native design. One of our specialties was coin control applique circuits to permit SxS and XY CO's to offer DTF (Dial Tone First) service, LCOT (Local Coin Overtime) charging, and TSPS compatibility for independent operating telephone companies whose DSA and toll operator functions are provided by a [then] Bell System facility. As an example, in the case of the SxS CO, we developed various microprocessor-based (the first used an 8080 - how time flies! :-) ) circuits which connected between the linefinder and first selector in a coin station linefinder shelf. An installation consisted of a card cage containing one card per equipped linefinder, appliques to permit inband coin control signaling on existing recording-completing trunks, plus common DC-DC converter apparatus. Some of the resultant products were sold by others to the Bell System, although much of the marketing was aimed at independent operating telephone companies. During the course of these projects my organization amassed considerable engineering documentation from WECO, AE, SC, North Electric and Northern Telecom, not to mention a formidable collection of coin stations and CO apparatus. The point I am trying to make is that the information I have provided is based upon *explicit* knowledge of actual CO apparatus, and is not inferred from empirical observations or "less-than-lawful" means. The basic principles behind the operation of "ordinary" DTF coin stations *are* as I have represented them, and they *cannot* change for many years so as to ensure compatibility with the 1C-type and 1D-type coin stations remaining in service (at least in BOC areas). By the use of the term "ordinary" I exclude COCOT's and any coin stations with special features such as digital displays, credit card readers, toll carrier selection keys, etc. For the sake of simplicity, I have in recent articles described DTF operation as it applies to a 1C-type coin station. 15 years ago the 1C-type coin station comprised the vast majority of DTF coin stations in service, since the 1D-type coin station was still in an introductory phase. Today, the 1D-type coin station or its equivalent probably constitutes the most commonly found DTF coin station in BOC areas, but I have no current knowledge as to the percentage distribution of DTF coin stations by coin station type. From an interface and functional standpoints, the 1C-type and 1D-type coin stations are virtually identical. From an internal design standpoint, the 1C-type and 1D-type coin stations are vastly different. From a user standpoint, the 1C-type and 1D-type coin station should be indistinguishable. The 1C-type coin station has an electromechanical totalizer providing two major functions: (1) a "readout" of the value for each deposited coin in the form of dual-frequency tone pulses; and (2) the totalization of deposited coins until an "initial rate" amount is reached, at which time a contact operates that permits the CO apparatus to conduct a ground test to ascertain if this initial rate has been deposited. The 1D-type performs the same functions as above, except that the totalizer is completely solid-state, being replaced by coin proximity sensors for nickels, dimes and quarters, with the required logic contained in one 40-pin hybrid integrated circuit. A second integrated circuit functions as the coin signal oscillator. Other new circuit functions arbitrate dialing and coin tone signaling, provide improved CO loop signaling performance, and create an automatic circuit reset each time the station goes on-hook. Everything I have stated in previous articles should apply to both of the above types of coin stations. With respect to the above coin stations, here are the functions which pertain to this discussion: 1. Provide dual-frequency tone pulses to indicate denomination of deposited coin (one pulse per five cents). The speech network is disabled (NOT just muted) during coin tone readout. 2. Permit the CO apparatus to conduct an Initial Rate Ground Test (IRGT) to ascertain if the initial rate has been deposited. 3. Permit the CO apparatus to reset the totalizer so that the IRGT can *again* be performed on a new coin(s) on the same call. The collect/return function has nothing to do with IRGT. 4. Permit the CO apparatus to conduct a Stuck Coin Ground Test (SCGT) to ascertain if *any* coin is in the coin hopper. 5. Permit the CO apparatus to collect all coins in the coin hopper at any time during or after a call. 6. Permit the CO apparatus to refund all coins in the coin hopper at any time during or after a call. The differences in coin station characteristics as reported by Karl Denninger are no doubt the result of different coin control trunks in different CO's, and in different TSPS generic versions and/or hardware with respect to the TSPS ACTS Station Signaling and Announcement Subsystem. It is important to understand that while 1C-type and 1D-type coin stations provide certain capabilities which may be used as a defense against fraud, such capabilities may not always be utilized by the associated coin control apparatus in the CO. Many variations exist throughout the continental U. S. in CO apparatus, associated TSPS facilities, and coin station "policy" which result in minor, but nevertheless different operating characteristics. Here is an example of what I mean. The coin control apparatus associated with ACTS counts the number of dual-frequency tone pulses to ascertain the amount of money deposited. The CO apparatus, depending upon type and options, could elect to perform ANY of the following: 1. Just count tone pulses until it *believes* enough money has been deposited. 2. Count tone pulses until it believes enough money has been deposited, followed by a SCGT to verify that at least ONE coin has been deposited. 3. Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform an IRGT, then continue counting tone pulses until it believes enough money has been deposited. 4. Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform an IRGT, then continue counting tone pulses until it believes enough money has been deposited, followed by a SCGT to further verify that at least ONE coin has been deposited. 5. Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform an IRGT, reset the totalizer, then continue counting tone pulses *and* perform successive IRGT's until it believes enough money has been deposited. 6. Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform an IRGT, reset the totalizer, then continue counting tone pulses *and* perform successive IRGT's until it believes enough money has been deposited, followed by a SCGT to further verify that at least ONE coin has been deposited. Scenario #6 may seem complex, but it is *exactly* this scenario that is performed in most Local Coin Overtime applications. Not only that, but the coin is usually collected right on the spot. In my travels, I have seen implemented *all* of the above scenarios - and more! > > After ACTS makes the announcement as to the amount of the coin > >deposit, the coin control trunk places +48 V (*positive* battery) on > >the ring side of the line, while connecting ground to the tip. This > >action enables the totalizer for readout, and also operates the "B" > >relay in the totalizer which *disables* the speech network. The coin > >control trunk then counts dual-tone pulses from one or more deposited > >coins until the proper amount is entered. > This is not in line with my experience. Try it in your area of the > country; after the announcement, blow into the mouthpiece. I've > always been able to hear sidetone (the echo of your noise), which > tells you the voice circuit is quite open! If it wasn't, how would > you hear the recorded announcement? I may have been unclear in my original article; the speech network is disabled *only* during the actual coin tone signaling interval. If the CO apparatus performs the IRGT with totalizer reset for each deposited coin, then fraud through coin tone spoofing is virtually impossible because the proper value of coins *must* be *physically* present to satisfy the IRGT. > The only exceptions, in the last five to seven years, have been in > GTE-served places that don't complete the "mic" circuit until you > deposit coins. Those are real annoying, as your called party often > hangs up before you can finish depositing the local-call money > ("Hello.... hello? Click!") and leaves you with a call you paid for > but didn't get any utility from. Well, GTE/AE apparatus operates on similar principles, but there are differences. Especially because GTE/AE has their own method of providing a TSPS equivalent. > >If a preset time is exceeded before the required amount is deposited, > >the coin control trunk aborts the collection effort and the call, > >places a recorded announcement on the line, and refunds the coins > >deposited so far. > This is also not in line with my experience. In my experience (which > occurs when I'm short of change!) after a short delay I'll get a > recording which says something to the effect of "deposit thirty more > cents for the first three minutes please", followed about fifteen > seconds later by a (live) operator who will repeat the request. What you state is not the case in some areas. There is a growing trend to reduce TSPS operator staffing requirements, and in some areas a decision has been made that if the user cannot deal with ACTS in making the initial deposit, then the user will not deal with ACTS at all, and will have to start over with a O+ call. I have not seen such a rigid attitude with overtime arising out of ACTS origination, though. > >At this point, while the money is in the coin hopper, it has not been > >collected. If answer supervision on the call is detected, the money > >is collected immediately after the call is completed. If no answer > >supervision on the call is detected, the money is refunded when the > >handset is replaced. Usually the collect or return function is > >delayed until the handset is replaced, but it *can* occur with the > >handset off-hook, and may do so in some CO's. > It usually is delayed. The only exception I've seen is if you go > "overtime", in which case the CO will collect the funds you have > already deposited just prior to the (computer) voice coming on the > line to ask for more money. One of the reasons why overtime is collected on a pay-as-you-go basis is to eliminate a large buildup of coins in the coin hopper, a condition which can result in malfunction if it got out of hand. > > The defense against fraud in the above scenario is that the > >speech network is disabled by the CO during the coin deposit interval, > >which precludes use of a tone generator held to the handset > >transmitter. > Again, not in my experience. The speech circuit is muted DURING the > deposit of coins, presumably to prevent you from taping the coin > sounds locally. But that muting doesn't occur until you actually > deposit the coin into the slot, and un-mutes immediately after the > tones are sent over the line. You are partially correct, and I was also unclear in what I had stated. The speech network is muted for two reasons: (1) to prevent ambient sounds (not necessarily fraud) from interfering with coin signal detection; and (2) to prevent coin signal sounds from annoying the user (the local tones are loud). What I had really meant to say was that if the IRGT is made by the CO apparatus following the deposit of each coin, then spoofing coin tones will *not* facilitate fraud, because only real coins of the proper denomination (or slugs :-) ) can satisfy the IRGT. A point to remember is that if the coin control trunk detects coin tones, but the IRGT fails, this *could* be used as an indication that a fraudulent call is in progress. There is another type of coin station fraud that no one has yet mentioned - spoofing coin tones using the touch-tone dial. This was a problem with 1A2 and 2A2 pre-pay coin stations. The initial solution to the problem in the 1C2 and 2C2 coin stations was to use +48 V positive battery when connected to TSPS, with such positive battery having the effect of disabling the touch-tone dial. 1A2, 2A2, early 1C2 and early 2C2 coin stations used single-frequency coin signal oscillators. When ACTS was implemented, coin stations in the serving area were required to upgrade to 1C2 and 2C2 coin stations which utilized dual-frequency coin signal oscillators to work with improved CO apparatus which would not false on DTMF signal tones. Also, many coin stations no longer disable the touch-tone dial, with this requirement having occurred to facilitate continued DTMF digit entry on calls to alternate toll carriers. The 1D-type coin station was always equipped with the dual-frequency coin signal oscillator, and I believe its touch-tone dial was always enabled. I suspect that I have now beat this topic to death. :-) Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Coin Station Fraud ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05380; 29 Apr 90 2:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22593; 29 Apr 90 0:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16899; 28 Apr 90 23:28 CDT Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 22:52:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #293 BCC: Message-ID: <9004282252.ab18383@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Apr 90 22:52:44 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 293 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Steven King] Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Steve Kass] Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) [Roy Smith] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Steven King] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [P. Wilczynski] Re: Irish Phone Service [Linc Madison] Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro [Linc Madison] Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries [Linc Madison] Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Julian Macassey] Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [John Higdon] Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Marcel D. Mongeon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steven King Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother Date: 28 Apr 90 17:11:59 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <6937@accuvax.nwu.edu> douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) writes: >There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By >using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone >conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer >satisfaction." >Whoa, what a stipulation, huh? I would have thought that this stipulation was a condition of using the PHONE in the first place, regardless of whether or not you used The Card or anything else. Maintenance is necessary, and sometimes it's convenient or even necessary to "tap" a conversation to provide maintenance. Sorry, but that's life. Steve King, uunet!motcid!king ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 19:37 EDT From: Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother In TELECOM Digest Volume 10 : Issue 290, Douglas Mason writes: > Although I didn't request it, I got their "Gold Card". This also has > no fees, and after looking through all the various documentation it > seems that there is nothing that it offers over the standard card > except for it's "status" of being a "gold card". Most standard cards don't offer the extended warranty, rental car insurance, travel insurance, and 90-day replacement insurance that the gold card gives. I don't know if the Universal Card does or doesn't in its non-gold version. The list of services you get with the card comes a couple of weeks after you get the card. > There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By > using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone > conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer > satisfaction." > Whoa, what a stipulation, huh? Whoa yourself. This monitoring is restricted to calls you make to AT&T customer service. It's a common practice for large organizations to do spot monitoring of calls to check up on employees. My New Jersey Bell telephone directory precedes numbers with such monitoring by a special symbol. No comment from me as to the reasonableness of such a practice. Big brother is probably out there, but its acronym isn't AT&T. I once made a joke during a call to a friend in the US Foreign Service who clammed up and said coolly, "You shouldn't say things like that on the phone." Steve Kass/Math+CS Dept/Drew U/Madison, NJ/07940/2014083614/skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 13:19:42 GMT When I first heard of the card, I called and asked for an application form with a copy of the Rules And Regs so I could read them all carefully before I applied. They promised they would send it out, but I never got it. Meanwhile, my wife (some weeks later) called and applied for the card over the phone. She got her VISA Gold a week or two ago. We also could not figure out what makes a gold card gold other than the color of the plastic. What she didn't get was any description of the interesting stuff like the buyer protection plan and calling discounts, just the "retail credit agreement", the other stuff is supposed to come later under separate cover. Then, yesterday, she got a letter from AT&T apologising for the delay in processing her application and promising that her card would arrive in a few weeks. I hope their billing is more together. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? Date: 28 Apr 90 17:33:59 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <6943@accuvax.nwu.edu> smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger) writes: >[Complaint about not being able to find "Benham's Amoco" under "Amoco" >in the phone book.] >[Moderator's Note: They do not 'scatter the listings in some random >order.' They use strict alphabetical order. The name of the place is >'Benhams Amoco' -- not 'Amoco'. Why are all the people with the first >name 'Stan' scattered throughout the book instead of being listed >together? Why can't all the 'Stans' be listed together regardless of >last name? The purpose of the Yellow Pages (in which any business >phone can have one *free* listing if desired) is to accomodate those >folks who do not know one Amoco from another. I've heard frivilous >complaints before. This one takes the cake. PT] It's a valid complaint, Pat, though of course it's not a telco problem. I had a devil of a time trying to find what I refer to as "The Starship Hilton" and most others refer to as "the Hilton on Euclid" in the phone book. It wasn't mentioned in either the white pages or the yellow pages. I *knew* it had to be there, so I started scanning the yellow pages hotel listing until I found "Woodfield Hilton" (under "W", of course). It would be quite helpful if the BUSINESSES would request an entry as "Hilton -- Woodfield Hilton" or "Amoco -- Benham's Amoco". Neither the telco nor the publisher of the directory should take the initiative to change a business's entry, but the world would be a happier place if the businesses would submit a different entry. Steve King, uunet!motcid!king ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 04:55 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? S M Krieger writes ... > Of all the great mysteries of life, and the telephone book, one stands > out; specifically, if I want to call the Mobil gas station about a > mile from my home, why is it listed under "H" in the phone book > instead of "M"? Our moderator is correct, of course, in saying that businesses are always listed under the name of the business and not their product line(s). If I sold IBM computers, I wouldn't not expect to be listed in the telephone book under IBM. However, I have to confess to some empathy with the writer. I tried to find the number for my local Shell station, and looked, of course, under Shell. No luck. Unfortunately, the owner's last name started with a letter late in the alphabet and it took me quite some time to find the listing. People don't normally ever consider the name of the owner of a gas station - they think of the brand. Perhaps the owner could spring for another 10-12 dollars a month and get a listing under the brand name as well. Paul Wilczynski ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:12:10 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Irish Phone Service Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <6938@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >The choice of 1-800, as in the States, is odd as Ireland uses the >British (European?) style of using 0 as an exchange access code; 0800 >would have been the expected code. I think it's actually the "Everywhere but North America" style, isn't it? BTW, I especially like Australia's equivalent: since everything else "down under" is "backwards," toll-free "800" numbers are toll-free "008" numbers. (According to the Australian version of the NPA scheme, "008" would be in Tasmania, but I doubt they'll run out of area codes there any time soon.) Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:16:27 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <6951@accuvax.nwu.edu> mperka writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 291, Message 4 of 11 >While I can't find any real use for this, I must admit to >being somewhat curious to see how calls with matching origination and >destination numbers are billed. Well, not to spoil your surprise, but it will be billed as a call to your number, from your number, and will be at whatever your carrier's in-state "0-10 mile" or "0-12 mile" or similar rate is. I occasionally use this with my MCI card for very short calls from payphones when I'm "Around Town" -- 9c or 18c for a one-to-two minute call still beats 20c for the payphone. Of course, I only do it if I feel sure that I'm not going to be on for more than two minutes. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:24:32 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <6959@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 292, Message 1 of 15 >In Canada, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are both in the 902 area. That and area code 809 are the only exceptions. >There are a few special cases where area codes cross state lines in >the U.S.: > A certain prefix in Carter Lake, Iowa (on "wrong" side of Missouri >River at Omaha, Nebraska) can be reached in either area code 402 or >712. But I'll bet that if you're calling from outside either area code (say, from California) that there is one "true" area code for the spot, and it's 712. > All but the outermost suburbs of Washington, DC can be reached in >area code 202. This is a hazier one, since it is possible to reach them from "the outside world" at 202. However, that is merely a hack, not an actual case of an area code crossing a state line. >Galestown, Maryland area (near Seaford, Delaware) was or is using >Seaford mailing address and phone prefix. (I have no way of knowing >about any other cases like this.) Is the whole town? I'd be very surprised. It might just be something like the fact that the "Metro" number for the Dallas County Community College District is in 817 (Fort Worth) because the phones you actually reach are across the line into Tarrant County. The original reason for the prohibition was, I expect, to make it idiotically simple to distinguish interstate and intrastate calls, for reasons of differential rate structures. They figured that the people in N.S. and P.E.I. could handle it among themselves. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: Actually 809 and 902 are not the only examples of this. 403 is shared by Alberta, Northwest Territories and Yukon. 819 is shared by Quebec and Northwest Territories. Other than 809, every instance of this is in Canada. I am not including cases of border towns in the USA which may extend an area code by a half mile or so into another state. PT] ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit Date: 28 Apr 90 23:33:18 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <6942@accuvax.nwu.edu>, GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: > My call accounting system vendor called to offer me a device to [stuff deleted] > need for a 45 second threshold before a call is billed. The claim is > that a hotel property can expect a 15-25% increase in revenue, simply > by recovering all those <1 minute calls ("Hi, honey, call me back at > room 223." Click.) Wow! Does this mean that if I make a call attempt from my hotel room in future I won't be billed? It is not amusing to have the desk dweeb tell you that you owe $45 in phone charges when all you did was call some numbers that didn't answer. If the hotels get honest with their phone charges - real costs, same price as telco etc - looks to me like they can expect a 200% drop in revenue. I now only make calls from lobby payphones, and not if they are slimeball COPTS. Hoping that in the future honesty will return to hotel phone bills. 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory Date: 28 Apr 90 02:48:51 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > I'm sure I've called home (Australia) direct via my AT&T calling card > on occasion. Are you sure of this? Prompted by a letter from another reader, I checked this out again. On my way to San Francisco yesterday, I stopped at the Hillsborough rest area (415/348) and tried calling my favorite Japanese number referral. It worked fine on my calling card, but not as a coin-paid call. I stand corrected. The AT&T ads are really stupid, after all! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones Date: 27 Apr 90 21:49:27 GMT Reply-To: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. In article <6843@accuvax.nwu.edu> claris!netcom!mcmahan@ames. arc.nasa.gov (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: >As a side note, I always wondered what would happen if several >cell-fones located in close proximity (the same cell) were all called >at once. Would this freeze out any incoming/outgoing calls until the >call was completed or aborted? It would seem that if one knew the car >phone numbers of several employees at the same company and called them >during work hours when they were all in close proximity, it would play >hell with call completion statistics for other phones in the same >cell. Kind of a dirty way to annoy the cellular company. Does anyone >know what the maximum number of phones per cell is? What would be the >theoretical maximum and what do most cellular companies support? Chapter 2 of W. Lee's book "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems" answers this question with an example that uses the following assumptions: 50 Radio channels per cell 100 Second average call length 2 percent Blocking Probability 7 cell reuse pattern On these assumptions a cell can handle 1451 Calls per hour. How fast can you dial??? And how long can you then hold the line??? ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #293 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10308; 29 Apr 90 4:03 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25719; 29 Apr 90 2:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25064; 29 Apr 90 1:33 CDT Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 0:31:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #294 BCC: Message-ID: <9004290031.ab22601@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Apr 90 00:30:57 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 294 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Dave Mc Mahan] Re: Touch-Tone Frequencies [Erik Naggum] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Bill Fenner] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Steven King] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Miguel Cruz] Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Modem Problems on Sprint [Jody Kravitz] Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 28 Apr 90 08:41:52 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System In article <6954@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Now look, guys: In a modem command line, ala Hayes >or others on the 'Hayes standard', a "D" means "Dial". An "A" (in >other than the "AT" preface) mean "Answer mode". Some variations on >the 'Hayes standard' use "C" to mean turn the transmitter off. ("C1" >means turn it on.). So if I enter 'ATTD 123-4567A' I am saying I want >the modem's attention; I want it to tone-dial 123-4567; then I want it >to go into answer mode, rather than staying in originate mode. How >does the modem tell the difference between nswer mode and -key? >I don't think it can. I tried this just now on five modems: US >Robotics Courier 2400; Hayes Smartmodem 300; Rixon Intelligent Modem >in the 'Hayes mode'; and a couple others. None of them understood what >ABCD meant at the end, other than the usual command string meaning for >"A" and "D". Since your manual documents this, how about typing it in >here for us? PT] Well, I just double/triple checked the modem manual AND the modem functionality. I had to logout to do it right, but it REALLY does work. (Ain't ya' ever heared of context sensitive parsing?) I typed: ATDT1234ABCD and got 8 tones. Just to make sure I heard right, I typed, ATDTABCD and got 4 tones. Still, just to verify, I typed, ATDTA and got 1 tone. To quote the Everex Evercom 24E+ owners manual (EV-947, Version 1.0) page 4-9 paragraph 5 states: "Software developers should note that the fourth row of DTMF tones is permitted in a dial string; i.e., in- cluding A-D in the dial string produces the cor- responding DTMF sounds." It _REALLY_ does work. I just hope the phone company doesn't label me an active phreaker because of these little experiments!! (-; I have a feeling that when the modem sees the dialing command sequence, it interprets the 'A' character as a dialing code and requires a SPECIFIC non-ambiguous command after the dial sequence (like '\V0') to go back to the normal parse mode. It is one of those "do what I mean" kind of software implementations. I have been very happy with the modem since I got it in January. It even has a built in speaker phone and MNP-5 error correction. Nice little package, all for $185. I don't work for Everex, I just like my modem. I'll do some more experiments to figure out what trips the modem back into the normal command parse sequence, but you could probably assume that it is the non-ambiguous sequence unless you hear from me in the future on this matter. dave ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 1990 19:22:57 +0200 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Frequencies From my modem manual, which is a UniMod 4161 a.k.a. EB 2424, of Norwegian make, purportedly Hayes compatible, I read (and translate, for the benefit of those among us who can't read this miniscule language): D Dial The modem dials the telephone number after pausing according to the S6 and/or X setting. Usage: [A] [T] [D] n [CR] Dial number _n_. Parameters: T Tone dial subsequent symbols. Allowable symbols are digits 0-9, A, B, C, D, *, and #. P Decadic pulse dialing. Allowed symbols are digits 0-9. R Call in B-channel. (Reverse calling.) Must occur last in the phone number dialled W Wait for new dial tone , Wait number of seconds specified in S8 register ; Returns modem to command state, allowing further (dialing) commands S Dial stored number (see &Z command) @ Wait during number of seconds specified in S7 register for one or more ring indications followed by 5 seconds of silence before next command character is processed. Also: Waits for voice before proceeding. [Norwegian pager services can be used this way, as well as automatic bank statement reports and/or transactions.] % Waits for receipt tone [two tones alternating] from pager service [and others]. Returns OK if receipt tone is detected, otherwise NO ANSWER. < Detection of dial tone from INMARSAT earth station. ------------------ Dialling the "extra" tones severely screwed up a German PBX we had for a while waiting for the ISDN connection at my office building. I've promised not to tell in which way it did, but it was entertaining to listen to the explanations from the manufacturer. Apparently, no one is supposed to dial those "extra" tones, so they don't prepare for them. Finally, I don't know what, if any, correspondence the above parameters have to "ordinary" Hayes command-sets, but at least the Hayes dialer worked (before I switched to V.25bis). I just tested the V.25bis interface, and it too sends distinct tones corresponding to the A, B, C, and D keys. (V.25bis itself does not mention Q.31 or these "extra" tones.) [Erik] ------------------------------ From: Bill Fenner Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 28 Apr 90 17:53:28 GMT Organization: Penn State University Engineering Computer Lab My ATI 2400etc understands ABCD as dialing characters. If you want to give it a command after the dial string you must end the phone number with a ; and then give it the command. Anything between ATD and ; is taken as either a digit or a dialing command (pause [,], tone [T], pulse [P], reverse mode [R]). The ; is only necessary if I want to add commands after the end; I can just hit enter after the phone number and it'll dial just like any other Hayes-ish modem. So, if I dail ATDT 123-4567A it will send 8 digits, but if I say ATDT 123-4567;A, well, it'll dial 7 digits and then do something ... what, I couldn't tell you. :-) Probably hang up and then try to answer. Bill Fenner wcf@hcx.psu.edu ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf sysop@hogbbs.fidonet.org (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633) ..!lll-winken!/ ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 28 Apr 90 18:26:26 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Ah, abuse. But your wish is my command ... From the manual for the Prometheus ProModem 2400G: Dn _Forces the ProModem 2400G into Originate Mode and Dial a Number_ Parameters: n = the digits of a telephone number and special commands to tell the modem how to dial the number P Pulse Dial T Tone Dial R Originate Call in Answer mode W Wait for dial tone before dialing , Pause in dial sequence ; Return to command mode 0 through 9 pulse and tone dialing digits A,B,C,D,# and * tone dialing digits @ Wait for quite Answer Before dialing ! Initiate a flash S Dial a stored number In a simple dial string, s would be the number that you wished to dial. The comma, W, R, and semicolon commands can also be put into the dial string to pause two seconds, wait for dial tone detection, dial in answer mode and return to command mode after dialing respectively. These commands are described in greater detail under their respective headings in this section. To dial a stored number from the nonvolatile RAM (see &Z command to see how to store a number in the nonvolatile RAM) you use the D command but followed immediately by the command S. For example: ATDS (This dials a number stored in nonvolatile RAM) ATS0=1DT9WS (This dials out a tone digit 9 then waits for dial tone and then dials the stored number. This may be used when dialing from PBX's) The S command will display the number when it is dialed allowing you to see what number is stored in the nonvolatile RAM. Each of the other dialing commands are explained in detail by themselves in this chapter. See Dialing Commands at the beginning of this chapter for page reference. ----------------------- It's not explicitly stated, but I believe the semicolon is used after a dial string to allow you to enter other commands. From another section of the same manual: multiple commands Multiple commands may be entered on one command line. It is not necessary to separate multiple commands on the line, but you may insert a space for clarity if you wish. All command lines must begin with AT, but only one AT is allowed for each command line. Multiple commands may be no longer than 40 characters. (ex. ATDT6519196; E0 O) To dial number longer than the command buffer length you can use the ; command at the end of the dial string. The ; causes the modem to return to command state so that a second dial string can be issued. -------------------------- I can't find any other references to the semicolon command. Index? We don' need no STEENKING index! I tried dialing A, B, C, and D today. No problem. The following strings all seemed to work: ATDTA ATDTB ATDTABCD ATDT123ABC ATDT11AA11 I didn't recognize the tones the modem generated for A, B, C, or D so I assume it's generating the right stuff. Since I couldn't bend the modem to my will to make it dial before it gets a dialtone I just sent those digits to the local telco. The phone cops are probably on the way to my apartment right now! :-) Steve King, uunet!motcid!king ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 17:39:32 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Our Moderator, Patrick Townson, asks (EXTREMELY loosely paraphrased) in Telecom Digest 10.291: 'But how can the Hayes modem tell an 'A' in 'AT DT 994 2341 A' as a command to dial the A touch-tone frequency pair rather than to switch to answer mode?' Basically, the same way that a BASIC interpreter can tell what you mean when you say 10 PRINT "GOTO 10" ... If the A, B, C, or D comes after the D ('dial') command on the line but before the semicolon (;), it knows that you want to dial it. Really simple context-sensitive parsing. Sorry, that was the least clear I've been in a long time. But I think the point comes across. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls Replying to: TELECOM Moderator , in V.10, Iss. 287 ..In a concise description of manual "long distance" traffic operations, our Moderator includes: >Larger cities were what might be termed, in Usenet parlance, 'backbone >sites'. Calls were routed through the large cities along the way. In fact, Patrick, operation of telephony and data networks is exactly analagous, except that "phone people" insist on their use of the term, "tandem" for a switching point that makes through connections and does not necessarily service end users. For whatever reason, it seems very difficult to get the Yin and Yang of Voice and Data together to admit they perform many directly equivalent processes. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 12:53:24 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Re: Modem problems on Sprint What I didn't say in my article is that I called the vendor of the Echo Canceller (Tellabs) and received a practice sheet (actually, more like a thin book) on it. The canceller handles an entire T1 channel, and has many many programming options which can be set via the front panel or through an RS-232 port. The echo canceller is an adaptive digital filter which computes coefficients to cancel the echo. V.32 modems already have cancellers built in and don't want any help. The Trailblazer is 1/2 duplex and doesn't need cancellation, but it does need consistant gain. The problem seems to come from two things. One is that the new cancellers can use a longer coefficient matrix to handle delays as long as 96ms. Unfortunately, they seem to be set up so that if there is silence, they trash the old set of coefficients and retrain on the next sound. If they are also set up to support the longest delay (96ms), the training period can be quite long. Unless the digital routing of the circuit changes dynamically, I fail to see why it should be necessary to set the thing up to retrain at all, unless it is likely that the original training coefficients are frequently derived incorrectly. What do you think ? Jody Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia Replying to: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) in Digest V. 10, Iss. 287, 26 Apr 90 Pearson writes: >My favorite (?) ancient pay-phone experience took place in >Beaver (I believe) Utah.....I put in my dime, but got nothing. After >looking around for a while, I found the crank for the (?) generator. >After cranking and another dime, I got the operator...... That compares with my nostalgia for the old British Post Office "A and B-button boxes" now off the scene in a technology putsch that swept England. Long after STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialing for you Americans with prurient minds!) was common, remote parts of England still had these boxes in country hotels and the like. They could accept only the huge old English pennies and the brass 3d coins, but a call might add up to a pound if you talked a while to London. The result: the sucker required 240 coins inserted! The operation was simple, "Insert the amount of money for your call. Pick up the handset and dial your desired call, STD or otherwise. If you hear the party you want answer the call, press Button A to be able to speak to them. (It collected the coins and enabled your transmitter.) If you do not hear the party you want, press Button B. (It disconnected the call and returned the coins.) This operation had been so widespread in England that most people answered their telephone by stating their number as an accommodation for the likely caller from a coin phone. The technical beauty was, of course that the "A and B Button" boxes could operate on any ordinary exchange line. The potential for fraud is of course, equally obvious. Nevertheless, I really wanted to get one of those here for use as a nostalgia phone out by the pool in Florida. but was saddened to find that British Telecom ripped them all out and trashed all but a very few museum pieces some years ago. I have a thread that some few might still be found in Ireland, but have no route to research that. The British "A and B button boxes" had a minor parallel here in some rural American areas where the caller controlled collection of the coin(s) if the desired party was heard answering. I have very vague recall of encountering these once or twice 40 or 50 years ago. In fact, answering with one's number probably would be a good move in today's confused world of change in telecommunications. It is no real harm for a published number, and subject only to the paranoia level of the called party, where only a small probability exists that the caller didn't know what number they wanted, anyway. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #294 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10405; 29 Apr 90 4:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25719; 29 Apr 90 2:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25064; 29 Apr 90 1:33 CDT Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 1:01:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #295 BCC: Message-ID: <9004290101.ab24425@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Apr 90 01:00:33 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 295 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Party Lines [Donald E. Kimberlin] Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Larry Lippman] No Cellular Compatibility, US <--> UK [John R. Covert] Question Regarding Code-a-phone Service [Steve M. Kile] How to Simulate a Telephone Line? [Ross Oliver] ``Thank you for using AT&T'' [Steve Friedl] AT&T IDDD From Payphones [Linc Madison] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Party Lines Responding in part to Mr. Levin's remarks: > We were 447-J, and our neighbor was 447-R. Legend had >it that "J" meant "Jack" and "R" meant "Ring" indicating which of two >named buttons the operator had to push to ring one of our phones. On >four-party lines the suffix letters were -J, -R, -M, and -W. I have >no idea what, if anything, these were supposed to stand for. While I can not name a source, the early Bell "letter suffixes" for party line ringing codes probably were no more than legend. Here's my parallel reasoning: The much-mentioned "meanings" of the "E and M" signaling leads for toll circuits were no more than a happenstance of being named wires "E" and "M" on drawings of their first use. The drawing number was once named to me by an "old-timer." However, over the years, people attached meanings to them, largely in an effort to provide "memory hooks" for students to learn the function. Hence, it is commonly said the E and M designations were "chosen" to stand for "RecEive" and "TransMit," or even "Ear" and "Mouth," which is descriptive of their function. However, I feel quite confident the author of the terminology had no such intent. The apparent randomness of the sequence "J,R,M,W" leads me to suggest that as with examples like the E and M leads, the party line "ringing codes" were merely wire designations on the schematic drawing of the switchboard; nothing more. Later, Mr.Levin says: >The procedure for calling our neighbor was to tell the operator that >this was what we wanted to do. She would have us hang up and ring >both phones. When the ringing stopped, the neighbor had answered, and >we could pick up our phone and talk. And today, right here in Safety Harbor, with nice, new, modern Northern Telecom electronic exchange equipment,the same procedure still applies, except that you dial the number of the party you want. The result will be a recording that tells you what the operator once said, and you follow the same procedure and assumptions Mr. Levin described in the manual era. Ain't it marvelous how in reality all we really accomplish with our vaunted "high technology" is the automation of manual tasks? If you think you can do _any_ better, just _try_ to get the boss to approve developing a product that does anything different ... unless you can make the process look like something the boss never saw before. But, that has happened, too. If you _do_ know the way it was once done, you can see some products that are really a different approach at performing a former manual function. The problem here is that if you really study the history of the process, these often turn out to be a discarded method that was once identified to have some shortcoming by the earliest experimenters. The whole matter places developers in a real Hobson's Choice situation when it comes to effecting significant improvement in how we do things. ------------------------------ Subject: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant Date: 28 Apr 90 15:32:32 EST (Sat) From: Larry Lippman In article <6798@accuvax.nwu.edu> irv@happym.wa.com (Irving Wolfe) writes: (quoting Peter da Silva) > >What I don't understand... > >Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990? > Because there are still garbage phone companies throughout the > country, like Telephone Utilities here, who won't string new lines as > an area grows unless they absolutely have to; even then, it takes > forever. Except for business lines at business rates, they are > apparently free to say, "You can have a party line in a couple of > weeks. If you want a private line, we can put your name on a list to > get one when someone relinquishes one." When there's enough backlog > to generate an instant payback on the new lines, they'll finally send > a crew out to do something. I don't believe there is an operating telephone company anywhere that does not share your desire to replace party lines. Party lines require more complex CO apparatus, are a CO maintenance headache, and are an outside plant maintenance headache since generally when one subscriber goes down, all subscribers go down. Many 4-party circuits still require ONI for toll call identification. What you totally fail to comprehend, however, is the significant costs associated with extending outside cable plant. Let me give you an example of what it would cost to extend a 100-pair 24 AWG cable on an aerial route a total of JUST 2 MILES. I am assuming H88 loading because you probably wouldn't have party lines if you are less than 20 kft from the CO, anyhow. 10,560 ft 24 AWG 100-pr "figure-8" self-supporting cable $ 17,000 50 sets Pole hardware $ 1,000 20 sets Ready access boots & hardware $ 1,500 8 sets Splice cases with splices $ 1,500 2 sets H88 loading coils with cases $ 2,000 --------- Materials subtotal $ 23,000 200 man-hr Installation of pole hardware and running of unterminated cable $ 4,000 80 man-hr Install 8 splice cases and 2 loading coil cases, and make splices $ 1,600 80 man-hr Install 20 ready access boots $ 1,600 20 man-hr Test all 100 pairs from CO to end of circuit, and create outside plant records $ 400 75 man-hr CO work to rewire 50 subscribers and assign to new line equipment $ 1,500 150 man-hr Outside plant work to reterminate drop wires, cut-in pairs at ready access boots and rewire or replace 50 subscriber stations $ 3,000 --------- Labor subtotal $ 12,100 Grand total $ 35,100 Investment for 50 subscribers, per line $ 702 NOTE: The above labor rate is $ 20.00 per hour with some burden thrown in. This may be reasonable for a smaller independent operating telephone company, but it is absurdly low for say a BOC or GTE. In general, my estimate should be on the *low* side of actual cost. The above scenario assumes a 50% future growth, which is a reasonable reserve for rural cable plant installation. Revenue to offset outside plant investment is assumed from 50 subscribers. The investment cost, based upon 50 subscribers is $ 702.00 per subscriber. How quickly do you think a small independent operating telephone company can recoup the $ 702.00 per subscriber? If the party line service were forcibly withdrawn and monthly rates raised by $ 10.00 per subscriber (which would create a minor revolution in most communities!), it would still require SIX YEARS to recover the cost of investment. Actually, it is neither reasonable to assume that all 50 subscribers can be made to subsidize the cost of investment, nor is it reasonable to assume that rates can be increased by $ 10.00 per month. Some subscribers will *insist* upon retaining the party line at party line rates, so no new revenue will come from them. The result is that the return on investment period is closer to TEN YEARS. Even if the telephone company elected to make the outside plant upgrade, it has to *borrow* the money from somewhere, usually from the REA or through issue of bonds. So now we have an interest expense that I have not even considered. Many people have the false impression that an independent operating telephone company is making oodles of money and that failure to provide equipment and plant upgrades are the result of *greed*. Wrong. Times have changed. Materials are expensive. Labor and burden is expensive. Look at my example above, and tell me where the money is going to come from? Santa Claus? > Does anyone know anything about starting a local telephone cooperative to > wipe these bums out of business, or is that a pipe dream? You obviously feel that you know more than the "bums" running your local independent operating telephone company. Why don't you simply tell them your "secret" of circumventing the economic realities that I have outlined above? With the benefit of your sage advice, I'm certain they'll begin the job forthwith. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" UUCP: {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry TEL: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo|uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 07:31:02 PDT From: "John R. Covert 28-Apr-1990 1019" Subject: No Cellular Compatibility, US <--> UK >Are US cellular phones compatible with the cellular service offered in >other countries (Particularly the UK). The U.S. and U.K. systems, although similar, are completely incompatible. Both channel assignments and protocol differ. The U.S. uses a system called "Advanced Mobile Phone System" (AMPS); the U.K. uses a system called TACS (compatible with ETACS). In a few years, all of Europe will be using a system called "GSM" (Global Standard Mobile?), but it is not likely to be compatible with the digital system expected to be used in the U.S. in the same time frame. You can rent a portable from various car rental agencies upon arrival in the U.K., Germany, and some other countries. The following chart indicates cellular compatibility. Note, however, that the existence of compatible systems does not guarantee that the cellular provider in that country will provide service to a phone not purchased through one of their dealers nor that it is even legal to bring the phone into the country. American Samoa AMPS American Samoa Government (PTT) Argentina AMPS Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM) Australia AMPS Telecom Australia (PTT) Austria NMT-450 PTV Bahamas AMPS Bahamas Telecomms Corp. Belgium NMT-450 PTT Bermuda AMPS Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd. Brazil AMPS British Virgin Islands AMPS CCT Boatphone Canada AMPS Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B) Cayman Islands AMPS Cable & Wireless China (PRC) TACS/NMT PTT Denmark NMT-450/900 PTT Dominican Republic AMPS Codetel Finland NMT-450/900 PTT France Radiocom 2000 PTT NMT-450 Hong Kong AMPS & TACS Hutchison Radio TACS Hong Kong Telephone ETACS Pacific Link Iceland NMT-450 PTT Indonesia NMT PTT Ireland TACS-900 PTT Israel AMPS Motorola Tadiran Italy RTMS SIP Jamica AMPS JTC Japan NAMTS NTT & others Kenya AMPS Kenya PTC Kuwait NAMTS PTT Luxembourg NMT-450 PTT Malaysia NMT-450 JTM Mexico AMPS DGT Netherlands NMT-450 PTT Netherlands Antilles AMPS East Carribean Cellular, N.V. New Zealand AMPS PTT Norway NMT-450/900 PTT Oman NMT PTT Panama AMPS Philippines AMPS 1) PLDT 2) Express St. Kitts & Nevis AMPS CCT Boatphone Saudi Arabia NMT PTT Singapore AMPS The Telecommunications Authority South Korea AMPS Korea Telecomms Authority Spain NMT-450 La Co. Telefonica Nacional de Espana Sweden NMT-450/900 PTT Switzerland NMT-900 PTT Taiwan AMPS Thailand AMPS CATS NMT-450 TOT Tunisia NMT-450 PTT Turkey NMT-450 PTT United Arab Emirates TACS PTT United Kingdom TACS-900 1) Cellnet 2) Vodaphone Venezuela AMPS CANTV West Germany C-Netz PTT Zaire AMPS Telecel ------------------------------ From: Steve_M_Kile@cup.portal.com Subject: Question Regarding Code-a-phone Service Date: Sat, 28-Apr-90 12:03:21 PDT I have a Code-a-phone model 2570 answering machine that recently went belly up. The problem is in a clutch mechanism on the incoming message tape. I've called Code-a-phone twice and they claim that they do not provide service for this unit any longer (it's only about four years old.) They also refused to sell parts for this unit. They referred me to a service center in my state (Jay-En in Duluth, MN) but those folks didn't seem too interested in my problem either. I was wondering if anyone out in netland knew of a service center for Code-a-phone products (specifically the model 2570) or knew where I could obtain parts. I would be interested in a defective unit that I could disassemble for parts. Thanks. Steve Kile Steve_M_Kile@cup.portal.com N0FBL @ WA0CQG ------------------------------ From: Ross Oliver Subject: How to Simulate a Telephone Line? Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 22:49:23 PDT Reply-To: Ross Oliver I am getting ready to demonstrate a fax device at a trade show. Since there will be no phone lines available at the booth, I need some sort of black box to go between my fax device and a regular fax machine. From a company called Teltone, I have located a telephone line simulator. This device presents two regular phone line connections. DTMF tones on one line cause a ring signal on the other. However, the device costs $379, which is more than my budget allows. Are there less expensive devices available? I don't really need ring signals or DTMF decoding. Are there any devices that provide a minimal connection? How difficult would it be to build a box that would do this? Thanks for any info, Ross Oliver rosso@sco.com or ..uunet!sco!rosso ------------------------------ From: Steve Friedl Subject: ``Thank You For Using AT&T'' Date: 28 Apr 90 17:04:05 GMT Organization: Steve's Barnburner 386 Hi folks, Is there *any* place in the country where a 0+ payphone call will be routed over AT&T but will say just "Thank you"? I was at a payphone in the Ft. Myers, Florida airport, and it was marked that AT&T would handle 0+ calls. When I dialed my number, I heard just "thank you" after my number. Thinking that they were lying about the carrier, I dialed 10288 before, but I got the same thing. I finished my call, and then called the operator with 10288 00. I asked if this was the AT&T operator, and she said it was. I asked why the thank-you message didn't include "for using AT&T", and she said that it was not turned on yet. After a while, it turns out that they provided services to AT&T on contract in that part of the country, and that they weren't actually AT&T. I suspect that it's United Telephone. Is there something funny going on here? Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:06:09 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: AT&T IDDD From Payphones Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <6894@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 288, Message 3 of 11 >To the best of my >knowledge AT&T's IDDD is blocked from coin phones. So while it may be >possible to misdial overseas to some place like Fiji on "one of those >other carriers", it won't happen on AT&T since you can't dial outside >of North America from a pay station! Someone else mentioned that, yes, indeed, AT&T *does* allow international calls from pay phones. I think that the blocking that AT&T does is that some countries and/or some payphones are blocked, in response to an unusually high number of fraudulent calling card calls. So, for example, you might not be able to call Sri Lanka from Port Authority Bus Terminal, but you could call Australia from a payphone in an office building. As to the issue of coin calls, I tried once dialing 011+etc. from a pay phone, just to see what the mechanical voice said. ("Please insert $375.35 for the first three minutes...") A real-live operator came on to inquire as to whether I really was trying to call Sweden. I didn't have oodles of pocket change and wasn't really calling anyone, so I said it was a mistake. However, I did see someone once at a payphone with about three $10 rolls of quarters. A friend who lived in the apartment complex where I saw this said that some other residents sometimes called home to India. Of course, that was in 1982. Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #295 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11688; 29 Apr 90 5:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29094; 29 Apr 90 3:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25719; 29 Apr 90 2:42 CDT Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 2:01:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #296 BCC: Message-ID: <9004290201.ab22383@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Apr 90 02:00:36 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 296 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [TELECOM Moderator] "End of Number" Time-Out [Donald E. Kimberlin] Dimension (tm) Features? [Mark Earle] ANI Note/Question [Mark Earle] Re: AT&T TV Ads [SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [D. Kimberlin] New Lows in 900 Service [Lang Zerner] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 1:26:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant In Volume 10, Issue 295 Larry Lippman discusses the high cost of labor and materials involved in upgrading a telephone company these days. He is right, it does cost a lot of money. What he neglects to mention though, is that eventually it is paid for, and the continuing revenue at that point is almost pure profit. While the economics were quite a bit different in the early years of this century, still, AT&T spent a heck of a lot of money both on inside and outside plant. The first transcontinental cable (was it the early twenties?) cost a fortune -- even by money standards seventy years ago -- but it finally was amortized. And the millions of dollars telcos are spending to upgrade from crossbar to ESS: where is that money coming from? Part of it comes from the folks who buy all the fancy new features available, and the rest comes from investors and telco reserves. Who paid for TAT-8 when it was installed a year ago? AT&T and their several partners paid millions for that fiber-optic underseas cable, but the assumption is when it is paid for, it will start making a mint for everyone involved. People (and that includes telco investors) put their money into what they think will eventually bring a profit. Larry's calculations are probably correct, assuming subscriber rates could be raised to pay for it. Suppose they can't be, and instead of it paying for itself in ten years, it takes almost twenty years? The point is, we've got outside plant in Chicago which has been in use for *sixty* years. The wire lasts a long, long time. And once it is paid for, it keeps right on turning an almost 100 percent profit for its owners, allowing for what repair is required from time to time. I think the same consideration has to be given to party line service. The conversion would cost an arm and a leg, but if they plan it right, and install enough new cable to account for anticipated needs -- not for today -- but the next half century or so -- it will pay off. Speaking of foresight: In the 1920's - 1930's, Illinois Bell was installing *two* pairs to every apartment in new buildings constructed in that era. Yet who in those days had two residence lines? Today, I can go into an old apartment-hotel highrise, and the jack on the wall in almost every apartment will have two pairs. If I want a second line for my modem, etc ... no sweat. The phone is turned on with little effort, and Illinois Bell charges an 'installation fee' which is mostly profit. That is how it is done. If those little independent telcos want to go with private service, as Larry contends, then they would be working up a master plan to carry them through the year 2050 at least, installing the cable and doing it right. Even assuming zero profit for many years on this, there will be at least twice as many more years of *big* profits. It will average out in telco's favor. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: "End of Number" Time-Out Replying to: Moderator's remarks supplementing " 72 & 73 From Rotary Dial Phone, from Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) , Digest V. 10, Iss. 286, 25 Apr 90 In adding to the discussion, our Moderator brings up the issue of how to handle "End of Selection" or "End of Number" time-out delays one can encounter in various situations, for example, dialing simply "0" and waiting: >[Moderator's Note: A couple other undocumented time-outs you can >avoid are the ones caused by entering only the four digits of your PIN >when calling the number assigned to the card (enter a # at the end to kill >the time-out and start the processing), and the one caused by the 0 oper- >ator, which has to time-out to see if you want the operator or are actually >zero-plussing a call. In Chicago (and perhaps other places), 0# shoves the >call straight to the operator without waiting for more. PT] In fact, while the earliest Bell Labs remarks are always cited to say that the characters * and # on subscriber keypads were simply "left for future use," the use of # for "End of Number Selection" has become rather widely used, but not promoted to the public very much. I have some recall that on items like DDD user instructions, the use of # has been at times in the past mentioned ... perhaps even in directory instructions, but as is typical in local telephone satrapies, not placed on instruction cards in booths apparently because no one put it on the standard, orderable instruction card that came with the coin phone. I am stranded here without a reference set of the CCITT Recommendations, but if one of our equipped participants will kindly check the CCITT "E" and "Q" Series, I think it will be found the CCITT adopted "#" for a standard "End of Number" character some years ago. It would simply parallel the "+" standardized in Telex in the "S" Series for "End of Number" on a Baudot Telex keyboard. And, while meandering these dusty halls, I wonder how many computer users know that most of the characters in our ASCII character set are really rather direct translations of teleprinter operations from the 1930's? Example: is really a direct translation of "Who Are You?" in Baudot Telex operations. Users of CrossTalk comms software are often puzzled, because the stock software comes with the phrase "Crosstalk-(whatever)" written in it, and it will respond to a received from the far end ... any time, just like an old Telex machine. Why? Because the writers of Crosstalk are simply being "standards-compliant" and providing the "answerback" the standards call for in ASCII (CCITT International Telegraph Alphabet 5) as regards the use of . What amazes me is that so many computer users have no knowledge of these provisions already in the standards to perform some routine functions. Rather, they go off to higher levels of their networks, at more tenuous layers of the connection, to perform such checks. Then, they wonder why it's so difficult and indirect to "manage" data networks. I often chuckle at the CrossTalk "answerback problem" they cite. It only shows they have yet much to learn about some real basics of managing communications networks. But, don't we all quote Professor Santayana's, "Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them (sic)"? When will people learn the same applies to telecommunications technology? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 19:55:28 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Dimension (tm) Features Do any readers have (in brief) good/bad points of AT&T's Dimension, and capabilities? We seem to have: Call waiting Call forwarding immediate Call forward after 3rd ring Hold Access to local lines (dial 9+) instate long distance (dial 5+) and AT&T ld (dial 8+) The first three are on/off controlled by the user at each station, with no easy way to, say, change forwarding from a remote phone, or disable call waiting while on an "important" call. Things I've really wanted to change: Number of rings before the no answer forward. Three is too short to get across the room sometimes, and then the call bounces to the attendant, who bounces it back to me. Many folks just hang up if they don't get me (or others in the building). Cancel call waiting while on a call. At least it is possible to permanently cancel call waiting! Forward to an off-campus number. Are there any things the user can typically do from a normal station? Are there other 'goodies' that the administrator might be pursuaded to enable? (If I knew what they were!) Oh: an interesting quirk. We use instruments with an electronic (1 IC) tone pad. As long as you press a button, it makes tone. Great for checking answering machines, etc. But, to get an outside line, it seems to *always* give me a line if I press 9 for as short a time as possible. Leaning on the 9 gives me a reorder/fast busy 99.9% of the time. Interesting, no? Also, on campus calls are dialed with just the last three digits of the "real" number..... I.E., the number is 994-2xxx we can dial xxx on campus. 994 is not used at all in the rest of town, so I guess we could potentially go beyond 999 phones by using something other than that '2' someday. | mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] | | CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE | | My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 | | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University | |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 19:54:01 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: ANI Note/Question ANI for numbers in my area (Corpus Christ, TX 512-) seems to be on any 9xx exchange, dial 980, get rings, and voice made up of live (female) voice segments to read back the number. But that's the older exchange. (It is being upgraded to allow cancel call forwarding, etc. It has call forwarding, conference calling, speed dial.) On the newer exchange, 8xx, I can't seem to find an ANI number. I know you probably don't know, but if the 980 tips you to anything.... Anyhow -- I wish it would have worked. We (at work, CCSU) have developed several crossed lines of late, some from 9xx and some from 8xx. The 9xx are easy to figure out. This is a result of AT&T being the PBX (dimension) vendor, and Southwestern Bell being the local operating company ... both guys seem to be in our phone closets often, and apparently this makes things "interesting". | mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] | | CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE | | My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 | | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University | |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 1990 7:25:09 MDT From: SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu Subject: Re: AT&T TV Ads David Tamkin writes: > AT&T has been no better. Instead of getting Fiji instead of Phoenix > twice because the carrier can't process his dialing, he now gets > Fiji once because he misdialed, ... There are several versions of this commercial still being run including the version with two misdialed calls to Fiji. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? Mr. Krieger writes: >Of all the great mysteries of life, and the telephone book, one stands >out; specifically, if I want to call the Mobil gas station about a >mile from my home, why is it listed under "H" in the phone book >instead of "M"? The same goes for the Exxon station ("K" instead of >"E") and the Amoco station ("B" instead of "A"). ....along this line.> In response, our usually right-on-target Moderator comments: >[Moderator's Note: They do not 'scatter the listings in some random >order.' They use strict alphabetical order. The name of the place is >'Benhams Amoco' -- not 'Amoco'. Why are all the people with the first >name 'Stan' scattered throughout the book instead of being listed >together? Why can't all the 'Stans' be listed together regardless of >last name? The purpose of the Yellow Pages (in which any business >phone can have one *free* listing if desired) is to accomodate those >folks who do not know one Amoco from another. I've heard frivilous Subject: New Lows in 900 Service From SUBGENIUS-REQUEST@mc.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 27 02:44:47 1990 Originally from: Nick Thompson (nrt@cs.brown.edu) Found across from Zippy in the Phoenix's NewPaper (Providence's weekly entertainment/politics rag) this week: --------------------------------------- WOMEN IN JAIL Seek Boyfriends and Husbands Introducing America's most exciting dateline - for women who will soon be released from jail . . . and men who want to meet them! They're young and attractive. They're sorry for what they've done. And they haven't been with a man in a long, long time. Can you help them out? Do you want to meet a woman who will really appreciate being with you? CALL NOW - WOMEN IN JAIL 1-900-535-JAIL THAT'S 1-900-535-5245 THEY'RE GETTING OUT SOON AND THEY *NEED* YOUR COMPANY $1 min., $2 the first. ADULTS ONLY ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #296 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22378; 29 Apr 90 12:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06856; 29 Apr 90 10:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01060; 29 Apr 90 9:47 CDT Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 9:42:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #297 BCC: Message-ID: <9004290942.ab03428@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Apr 90 09:41:31 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 297 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [D. Kimberlin] Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [John Covert] Re: Directory Assistance [Andrew Boardman] Re: The Card [Andrew Boardman] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Roy Smith] Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls (Yin and Yang) [Roy Smith] Now It Can Be Told [Donald E. Kimberlin] Living at Public Phones [Andrew Boardman] Service Manual For CT-301 [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? Steve writes: >My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two >kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital. >He claims that the reason that they can't get the DID line working for >me is that we ordered "digital DID" when we really wanted "analog DID". >Have you heard of such a beast? Digital DID??? Is this some sort of >ISDN stuff? Is my local telco staffed by pinheads? Or am I truly >uninformed about this DID stuff? I suuspect that what has happened is that to get the cheapest price for you in some bulk pricing deal, the tariff specifies that the Telco will use T-1 facilities to get the lines to your premisies. This is tghe basis of things like AT&T's Megacom or MCI's Prism, and the same technology could equally well be used tohaul a bulk of DID trunks to you. Now, of course, that means special arrangements to get a T-1 span line to you, and perhaps some channel banks on your premises to break them all back out to individual analog lines, so it looks the same as copper pairs. As poorly-educated about the technology they sell as most Telco "sales reps" are, there's a good chance, this is what you're being told is "Digital DID." Whose fault is it? Well, you could be as culpable as that sales rep, if you don't know any better than that they can do this. If you didn't you could have just said "yes" at the cheapest price for bulk, and sent that rep off keying in a USOC code that got you all kinds of neat technology. If that's the case, you got what you ordered, through your own lack of knowledge. And, by the way, there are legal cases cropping up around the nation that the Telcos are winning on, claiming that you, the buyer, are presumed to have "constructive knowledge" about what you are buying. If you aren't smart about these matters, get smart ... or get someone who is smart about them to support you. It could get very expensive. At the risk of extreme triteness, I will say, "This is _not_ your father's phone business anymore!" (Apologies to Oldsmobile TV commercials.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 05:53:16 PDT From: "John R. Covert 29-Apr-1990 0843" Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? >My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two >kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital. This is in addition to the >other parameters for DID: Wink/Immediate, Pulse/Tones, #-of-digits. Your local telco is correct. Although they may be confused about many things, in this particular case they are not pinheads. Modern PBXs are now capable of accepting full T1 connections directly from the C.O. rather than requiring a separate trunk card for each trunk. If your serving central office is a No. 5 ESS, you get a truly digital connection, possibly all the way from an originating PBX on the other side of the country, if it is making its outgoing calls on a service that is also truly digital, such as AT&T Megacom. If your serving central office is an analog C.O., such as a No. 1 ESS, the telco may still provide you digital DIDs, but in that case the telco will have combined them from the individual analog lines at the C.O. One nice thing about the digital DIDs from No. 5 ESSs: they also allow outgoing calls, and they return proper answer supervision. The bad news is that although they're cheaper than the same number of analog DIDs, in N.E.T. territory they're still more expensive than normal C.O. PBX trunks, so we tend to provide enough to handle incoming traffic to our PBXs, and use regular analog DODs for outgoing local service. /john ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 06:20:45 EDT From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu quoth: >Very few pay phones seem to have phone books. Calls to directory >assistance are still free. Also, most of the pay phones in the Boston >area don't permit incoming calls. This is a royal pain! Down here in the New York Telephone half of the NYNEX empire, part of the brutal new tarriff that is being requested of the PUC specifies a 50 cent charge on directory assistance from coin phones. Of course, the sum total of the changes is an *incredible* price hike on everything (with the exception of cuts on touch-tone and such things that NYNEX wants people to pick up; I haven't been able to talk to NYT staff lately without being offered free hook-up to lots of "Custom Calling" features); the general consensus seems to be that they are requesting the world, and hoping that the PUC gives them anything. If my basic line charge goes from $7.55 to $15.03 (plus FCC, taxes, ad nauseam) it will no longer profitable to use New York Telephone over the local (awful) ROLM-provided service. (You just have to love that forced disconnect at 4:21 every morning while the switch goes to lunch.) If any fellow NYTel types missed the proposal, ask the PUC or NYT for it. A complete listing appeared in NY Times (and is hanging on my office door) -- although the pamphlet mailed to NYT subscribers contained no false information, it sort of glossed over the major damage. All this to make NYT (or was it NYNEX) "more attractive to investors" -- there is no mention of an actual need for more $$$... Andrew Boardman no mail to amb@ai.ai.mit.edu, MIT's ITS's are going to die amb@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!amb amb%cs.columbia.edu@cuvmb.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 06:36:33 EDT From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Re: The Card Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters 6sigma2@polari.uucp quoth: >Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and >gotten it? I called when the card was first announced here (three, >four weeks ago?), and told the operator I just wanted information. >She took my name and address, but I haven't received anything. Are >they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-) I doubt it. Of the 3 people I know of who requested written information (including me) *none* of them received it. (For the record, I requested it on or about the Thursday of the week that "The Card" was first available.) I'd love to hear some contradictory experiences, but I just read two more cases in TELECOM of exactly the same thing happening. Andrew Boardman no mail to amb@ai.ai.mit.edu, MIT's ITS's are going to die amb@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!amb amb%cs.columbia.edu@cuvmb.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 10:22:29 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Larry Lippman says: > What you totally fail to comprehend, however, is the significant costs > associated with extending outside cable plant. Let me give you an example > of what it would cost to extend a 100-pair 24 AWG cable on an aerial route > a total of JUST 2 MILES. And then gives a cost breakdown totalling $35k, half of which is the cost of the copper-conductor cable itself. What I'm wondering is if there is some cheaper way of doing it. How much would it cost, for example, to run a single pair (possibly stealing an existing party-line pair) and run T2 over it, giving you 96 voice circuits (if I'm not mistaken)? Obviously you need a mux at both ends (the SLC-96's discussed on this list a few months ago?) and power at the remote end to make it work, but it sounds like it might be a lot cheaper than the route Larry described. Maybe you could do it even cheaper and just use T1 to get 24 virtual pairs, if that's all you need for the next couple of years. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls (Yin and Yang) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 13:56:20 GMT In <6994@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > it seems very difficult to get the Yin and Yang of Voice and Data together > to admit they perform many directly equivalent processes. I just came back from the PSINet/NYSERNet internetworking tutorial meeting. During one of the talks, Marty Schofferstall said, with great conviction and authority, that if you took all the other networks in the world (Bitnet, UUCPNet, all the X.25s, MCIMail, etc) and put them together, they wouldn't even come close to the size of The Internet. I was tempted to ask what would happen if you compared all of those (including The Internet) to the wordwide telephone network, but didn't have the heart. My guess is that from the phone on my desk, I can ring O(1e9) telephones, but from my Sun workstation, I can only ping O(1e5) IP objects. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Now It Can be Told Replying to: Telecom Moderator, in Issue 287, 26 Apr 90, on Manual Long Distance Operations. In the cited remark, our Moderator says: >It finally became possible for the long distance operators to dial >direct to the city involved, although they could not always dial the >actual number desired. Sometimes the best they could do was dial >direct to a nearby city and have that operator pass them along. There >were special codes dialed to reach 'inward' (and our Moderator goes on to describe other functions.) In fact, the universal code for the "inward" (assistance) operator was (and is) 121 ... but hold it phreakers ... dialable only on a trunk, and in need to being preceded by a "TTC Code" to steer the call to any other than the major center of an area code. As an example, dialing 312121 would get the Chicago Inward Operator, while to do the same for Peoria, might, for example, require 312495121, to steer the call to Peoria via Chicago. Being assigned to the Private Line Testboard at Miami in the mid- 1960's meant that Sunday was a day at premium pay to read the entire newspaper or whatever one chose to do, for essentially the PL Board went crazy 8 to 5 Monday to Friday, then idled down for the weekend as business went home. Even the 7-day, 24-hour businesses like airlines and hospitals had few failures, because nobody had their fingers in the Telco plant, pulling down circuits or messing up adjustments. The construction industry wasn't even around to dig up cables nor were the intercity microwave people out there messing up systems. Pretty good watch, really, exceeded only by the night shift, at which people really _did_ sleep. (Our highest-seniority man held onto that shift, on which he developed the skill to sleep on 4 operator's chairs lined up along the testboard. We'd find him there snoozing each morning. He was getting ready for his day in his stockbroker's office, trading his way to riches.) Anyhow, in support of our deadly serious work of being able to reach other cities even if the local Southern Bell network failed, we had a couple of direct accesses called ATOC's in local parlance. These were manually dialable lines hardwired right to the 4A switching ma- chine across the street, and we could manually input anything a local sender or an operator position might send to the machine. Of course, we had a small handbook sized directory of the various TTC codes and service functions for the nation. The story gets really good when we discovered that we could dial Area Code 809 (Puerto Rico) and Area Code 808 (Hawaii) on the ATOC and put in service codes. Now, the poor operators who were stuck with answering 121 to "assist" other operators in completing troubled connections never knew who would be calling them. (And, in real truth, Lily Tomlin's "Ernestine the Operator" characterizes many of them.) So, our "idle hours" trick was to dial 809121 on one ATOC and 808121 on the other, then connect the two together as the calls completed, while we listened on the loudspeaker monitor as two Inward Operators nine time zones (and often many cultures) apart argued about which had called the other and who was going to assist who. Diabolical, weren't we? (I sure hope the Statute of Limitations has run out on this story!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 06:31:37 EDT From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Living at Public Phones Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters >[Moderator's Note: They probably would not get incoming calls in any >event unless they stood around the pay phone waiting for them. Who is >going to take a message and deliver it down the block to their home? >But at least if the phone is there, they can make urgent outgoing >calls. PT] When I was situated in Paris, I saw quite a few people (in an average neighborhood, not the destitute or any such) who did not have a home phone; I distinctly remember one man who was reliably in the same phone booth at the same time each evening, doing his day's busness with his papers spread about him (and perhaps receiving calls too). With France Telecom's phone cards, calling from a public phone was the same cost as calling from home, so using public phones was (pricewise) a big win, quite unlike the US situation in that respect. Finding a public phone in Paris that takes coins (and is working!) is virtually impossible nowadays. Andrew Boardman no mail to amb@ai.ai.mit.edu, MIT's ITS's are going to die amb@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!amb amb%cs.columbia.edu@cuvmb.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 9:22:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Service Manual For CT-301 My service manual for the Radio Shack CT-301 showed up in the mail Saturday, and as you might suspect, it gave me a couple hours of good reading and experiments last night. I could hardly wait to get home from the post office box before I had that jumper installed from Local to Ground ... :) More reports later if I have any questions for you cellular experts out there. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #297 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16993; 29 Apr 90 23:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24622; 29 Apr 90 21:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16047; 29 Apr 90 20:53 CDT Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:12:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #298 BCC: Message-ID: <9004292012.ab27472@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:12:44 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 298 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Opt In America: Fiber Optics For All [Nigel Allen] Voice Information Services [Frank G. Kienast] Futzing With Your Cellular [Mark Seiden] Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [William R. Pearson] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [John Higdon] Re: Touch Tone Frequencies [Erik Naggum] Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries [Marcel D. Mongeon] Re: The Card [David Tampkin] Re: AT&T's Universal Card [Gary L. Dare] Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T'' [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 12:55:39 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Opt In America: Fiber Optics For All I've just received some literature from a Washington, D.C.-based lobby group which calls itself "Opt In America: The Public Interest Organization for the Information Age". (I don't think it's a public interest organization. I think it's a telephone company front group.) Opt In America wants to "remove the legal and regulatory boundaries that are depriving Americans of the full benefits of a fiber optic public telecommunications network." In other words, it wants to let the telephone companies get into the cable television business. The list of executives and board members on the organization's letterhead includes the executive director of the NAACP, the sheriff of Dallas County, and assorted broadcasters, ex-politicians and lobbyists. There are no telephone company officials listed. I wouldn't mind telephone companies building and operating new cable television systems, but if they were allowed to purchase existing ones, I'm afraid the telcos would just bid sale prices up for cable television companies, which would eventually result in higher monthly cable rates. I have heard enough horror stories about U.S. cable companies that I suspect they may be fairly vulnerable on this issue. If you want more information on Opt In America, write to: Mr. Greg Liscomb, National Coordinator Opt In America P.O. Box 18958 Washington, D.C. 20036 or telephone ((202) 659-5212 or 800-321-6782. * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (1:250/438) Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:221/171 UUCP: uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!250!438!Nigel.Allen ARPA: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Frank G Kienast Subject: Voice Information Services Date: 29 Apr 90 22:38:11 GMT A recent article in [Computerworld] (Apr 2, p63) talks about dial-up voice information systems. It says that over fifty newspapers in the US have some type of dial-up service where touch-tone users can retrieve such things as recent news, weather reports, stock quotes, trivia, etc. I know of one such number, ran by the Virginian Pilot in Norfolk VA. Services include news, weather for major US cities, stock quotes, jokes, and horoscopes. Of course, you get a commercial with each one. (804) 640-5555. For fun, I'd like to compile a list of numbers for similar services. If you know of one, please respond by E-mail. Please include a brief description of the service, and of charges if there are any besides applicable long distance rates. If there is sufficient interest, I will post the list. In real life: Frank Kienast Well: well!fgk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU CIS: 73327,3073 V-mail: 804-980-3733 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 16:26:33 EDT From: Mark Seiden Subject: Futzing With Your Cellular Watch out, your cellular provider is extending credit to you, and so I'm surprised that you're not willing to accept whatever rules they make for the purpose of extending credit. It doesn't matter whether you intend to pay your bill or not, if you're violating their rules you should go to jail. Or am I not correctly remembering your argument re Lottor et al a few weeks ago? Mark Seiden, mis@seiden.com, 203 329 2722 [Moderator's Note: Credit is a priviledge, not a right. So you accept the creditor's lawful requirements or go without. I didn't say go to jail, I said go without (credit). But in my cellular service contract, which would take precedence in any court of law over what some service rep may or may not have said on the telephone, I see nothing about who must or must not program the radio-phone. I see things about paying the bill. The contract does say I cannot disrupt the service of others, or disrupt the service in general, so I would assume if the phone caused disruptions I'd be in violation. Any radio on which the antenna has been replaced by a dummy-load during testing and measurements is unlikely to disrupt. PT] ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stan Krieger) Subject: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product Date: 29 Apr 90 14:49:38 GMT Organization: Summit NJ It looks like the telcos are going to try to shove their latest invasion of our rights, aka Caller ID, down our throats one way or another. During yesterday's New York Mets vs Houston Astros game on WWOR, I saw two commercials for this totally useless (except for Police and Fire Departments and Rescue Squads) feature. In the ad I saw, NJ Bell is trying to create a "market" for Caller ID by having an older brother "teach" a younger sister to answer calls only from their mother's or father's work number. As I've said before about many of the other fictitious reasons for Caller ID, an answering machine would serve the exact same purpose, and would not violate my own rights as a caller. I probably won't go through with it, but I'm toying with the idea of writing a letter to WWOR informing them that Caller ID is a very controversial topic, and not just a product being offered (the difference between the two being that the purchase of most products affects only the buyer, while Caller ID affects even those, like me, who want nothing to do with it), and that if they continue to take ads for this product, would they then please provide free air time for opponents of the product to explain why it should not have ever been allowed to see the light of day. Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk [Moderator's Note: The Digest will entertain *a few* (very few, depending on my exact degree of crankieness at the time) replies to Mr. Krieger. Probably the first half-dozen or so will be printed. Please *do not quote him*. Paraphrase him, or better still, just respond. More than a line or two of quotes will be removed. Shorter messages (not longer than his original text) will be given priority in printing. PT] ------------------------------ From: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant Reply-To: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:12:47 GMT In article <7004@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >If those little independent telcos want to go with private service, as >Larry contends, then they would be working up a master plan to carry >them through the year 2050 at least, installing the cable and doing it >right. Even assuming zero profit for many years on this, there will be >at least twice as many more years of *big* profits. It will average >out in telco's favor. Our moderator seems to suggest that a small local telephone company should be able to make the same investments in the '90's that Illinois Bell made in the '30's. I suspect that, in some sense, they are. Interest costs were perhaps 2-3% per year then, so it made sense to make an investment that might not pay off for 30 years. Today, they are 10% minimum. And in the 30's, it would have been hard to loose money investing in cities. In the '90's, one would have to question an investment in rural Alabama, or even rural southern Illinois for that matter. There are many places in this country where there simply is not going to be any substantial growth for the next 50 or 100 years, if the trends for the past 10 - 50 years are any indication. When you put the low propects for pay back together with the fact that there just aren't many investors in small local phone companies, I can certainly see why party lines persist. By your argument, every individual, regardless of his means (or credit rating), should purchase the most reliable automobile and own it forever. I suspect that it makes better economic sense, and is much more practical, to buy a $500 junker and drive it till it dies. (Wouldn't make for very good phone service though.) Bill Pearson ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant Date: 29 Apr 90 12:30:02 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Apr 29 at 2:01, TELECOM Moderator writes: > What he neglects to mention though, is that eventually it is paid for, > and the continuing revenue at that point is almost pure profit. While > the economics were quite a bit different in the early years of this > century, still, AT&T spent a heck of a lot of money both on inside and > outside plant. The first transcontinental cable (was it the early > twenties?) cost a fortune -- even by money standards seventy years ago > -- but it finally was amortized. What he also neglects to mention is the vastly improved technology for delivering dial tone available today. As I mentioned in a recent post, Contel delivers literally thousands of private lines to subscribers more than twenty miles away from the CO through the same wire plant that provided just a few multi-party lines a few years ago. Growth usually occurs in pockets, and it is a relatively simple (and inexpensive) matter to place digital remote offices in the growth areas. Contel seems to be able to do it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 1990 19:38:33 +0200 From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Touch Tone Frequencies To those who have tried to find out whether your modem sends anything useful with the "ABCD" tones, please do NOT send the tones to your CO or PBX. You can disrupt service for other telephone users in strange ways. You can, for instance, disable echo suppression filters or cause the routing tables to be, uh, disturbed. Just Don't Do it. Since I have two phone lines and two modem lines, it was pretty easy to call around and test things. I gave my modem these commands: ATDT,,147*,2580,369#,ABCD ATDT,,123A,456B,789C,*0#D is any random number to a telephone close to your terminal. Pick it up and see if you can hear all the sixteen distinct tones in batches of four. Incidentally, I also tried with the CCITT V.25bis protocol: CRN==147*,2580,369#,ABCD CRN==123A,456B,789C,*0#D And even that worked! Probably not the intention of the CCITT guys, but my modem manufacturer probably has the same dial code for both the Hayes and the V.25bis user interface. [Erik] ------------------------------ From: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Subject: Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries Date: 29 Apr 90 17:16:31 GMT Reply-To: root@joymrmn.UUCP (Marcel D. Mongeon) Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc. In article <6959@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >In Canada, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are both in the 902 area. >There are a few special cases where area codes cross state lines in >the U.S.: > A certain prefix in Carter Lake, Iowa (on "wrong" side of Missouri >River at Omaha, Nebraska) can be reached in either area code 402 or >712. > All but the outermost suburbs of Washington, DC can be reached in >area code 202. [ etcetera ... ] Another interesting system occurs in the National Capital Region of Canada (Ottawa on the Ontario side of the border Area Code 613 and Hull on the Quebec side of the border Area Code 819). The Federal Gov't Centrex exchange (99X although I think they may have recently changed it) can be reached through either area code (ie. 613-99X-XXXX or 819-99X-XXXX). In addition, this exchange is a local call on both sides of the boundary. An interesting side issue is what number would show up with Caller Identification?? ||| Marcel D. Mongeon ||| e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or ||| joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ From: David Tampkin Subject: Re: The Card Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 14:09:55 CDT Reply-To: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 297, Andrew Boardman {B} wrote: B> [Brian Matthews {M}] quoth: M> Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and M> gotten it? I called when the card was first announced here (three, M> four weeks ago?), and told the operator I just wanted information. M> She took my name and address, but I haven't received anything. Are M> they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-) B> I doubt it. Of the 3 people I know of who requested written B> information (including me) *none* of them received it. (For the B> record, I requested it on or about the Thursday of the week that "The B> Card" was first available.) B> I'd love to hear some contradictory experiences, but I just read two B> more cases in TELECOM of exactly the same thing happening. Gee, this makes me feel repetitious. Are Digest feeds slow, or do the readers who are interested mostly in the tech stuff gloss over my sub- missions (in which case why am I trying again?), or are there a lot of brand new readers? I phoned for information on Tuesday, March 27, requesting two copies. The two copies were mailed in separate envelopes, postmarked in Jacksonville on Friday, March 30. I received them, despite AT&T's having seriously mangled the address, on Monday, April 2. In previous submissions to the Digest I have commented on the enclosures. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com MCIMail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: Gary L Dare Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card Reply-To: Gary L Dare Organization: The Ghostbusters Institute at Columbia University Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:27:37 GMT In article <6979@accuvax.nwu.edu> SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: >Most standard cards don't offer the extended warranty, rental car >insurance, travel insurance, and 90-day replacement insurance that the >gold card gives. I don't know if the Universal Card does or doesn't >in its non-gold version. The list of services you get with the card >comes a couple of weeks after you get the card. How does the fee waiver on this card work? Do they charge you up front and credit you later when you make the obligatory yearly purchase for the free status? Or, do they hit you with the user fee at the end of the year if you don't use the card at all? Gary L. Dare gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU gld@cunixc.BITNET ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T'' Date: 29 Apr 90 11:54:19 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Steve Friedl writes: > Is there *any* place in the country where a 0+ payphone call will > be routed over AT&T but will say just "Thank you"? Yes, many. A lot of GTE is still that way, as well as many independents. In Contel territory that includes California's high desert; it is this way. There is also a backwards situation. If you dial "0" in Los Gatos (GTE) for the "telco" operator, you get "Thank you for using AT&T, may I help you?" In other words, the local telco in Los Gatos has no operators but rather contracts with AT&T to provide local operator service. I believe they used to use Pac*Bell and before that (before GTE took over) had their own. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #298 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05684; 30 Apr 90 10:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27766; 30 Apr 90 9:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19187; 30 Apr 90 7:59 CDT Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 7:46:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #299 BCC: Message-ID: <9004300746.ab22382@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Apr 90 07:44:48 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 299 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Numbers in 1962 (Was: LD in 1962) [Nigel Allen] Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month [David Tamkin] Richard Berendzen Arrested For Obscene Phone Calls [TELECOM Moderator] Sources for TDD Modems [Joe Stong] Re: Data Collection for Telemarketing [Todd Inch] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [S. Fybush] Re: Device to Connect Two Fax Machines [Miguel Cruz] Re: Credit Card ID [Paul S. R. Chisholm] Re: The Card [Ravinder Bhumbla] Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Dave Horsfall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 12:55:19 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Telephone Numbers in 1962 (Was: LD in 1962) lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) writes (re: LD in 1962): >While browsing through some old magazines from 1962, I noticed that >the ads all had 7 digit phone numbers. No area codes. To me, the surprising thing is that the numbers were all 7 digits. I would have expected some to be two letters and five digits. Some older small stores in Montreal and Toronto still have signs giving a two-letter and five-digit number (obviously, HUnter 6-5226 = 486-5226; EMpire 8-6041 = 368-6041). While telephone companies may have made the switch to all-numeric codes in the late 50's or early 60's, individual habits (of writing 2L+5D phone numbers) die hard. I lived in Halifax for four years, and never saw any old signs with letter-and-number telephone numbers. Perhaps Halifax went directly from two-letter, four-digit numbers to seven-digit numbers. All Halifax telephone numbers begin with a 4. Truro, Nova Scotia is served by a step-by-step office with two prefixes, (902)893- and (902)895-. You will sometimes see advertising giving only the last five digits (5-1497 for 895-1497) and indeed dialling 5-1497 locally will connect you to 895-1497. Rural communities outside Truro (Brookfield, Debert) that got dial telephone service after my family moved to Truro in 1969 are served by electronic switches, and you have to dial all seven digits from and to those exchanges. A glance through a northeastern Nova Scotia telephone directory for 1970 will show a lot of small manual exchanges, with numbers like 5-R-2. The last manual exchange in Nova Scotia was Northport, which went dial in 1979 or 1980, I think. * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ont. (1:250/438) Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:221/171 UUCP: uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!250!438!Nigel.Allen ARPA: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 00:20 CDT From: David Tamkin Subject: Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month I hope you're comfortable, readers; this requires some background. Recently there have been submissions to the Digest that people were receiving phone calls consisting of recorded sales pitches which gave only a 900 number for the solicitee to call back if he or she is interested. The costs of these 900 calls are usually a good deal steeper than those to the talk lines. It's hard to believe that anyone falls for the high cost of seeing if one has won, but somehow these operations must be turning a profit. Now for more background: I have two phone numbers at home, numerically close on the same prefix. I give one out for incoming voice calls and make most outgoing calls on the other. The incoming line is picked up by an answering machine if I don't get to it first, and it hunts on busy to the outgoing line. Except for rare, brief intervals, my outgoing line is forwarded to my voice mailbox from my local telco, Central Telephone of Illinois. The voice mailbox's direct phone number is on a different prefix. Heck, it's in a whole other area code. Sunday I checked my voice mailbox for messages and had one timestamped Saturday afternoon. It was a recorded sales pitch: to see if I'd won, I could call 1-900-226-TRIP for only $19.95. Yeah, right. Now there are three ways to dial into my voice mailbox: to call its direct number, to dial my outgoing line, and to dial my incoming line when it is busy. If the sales pitch dialer was calling my home prefix, it should have called both my home numbers: there would have been an additional recording of the pitch on my answering machine if I wasn't home, or I would have picked up my incoming line to hear it, or there would have been two copies of the pitch (well, of its first sixty seconds, since that is the time limit on my box) in the voice mailbox. But I didn't answer the phone to hear that sales pitch, nor was there a copy on my answering machine, and there was only one recording in my voice mail. So either they were skipping around and taking only selected numbers on my home prefix or, more likely, they were calling the prefix of my direct voice mail number. When I thought of that, I burst out laughing. One thousand lines on that prefix are dedicated to the voice mail service, so here was that silly sales pitch recording dialing into box after box, only to get interrupted upon playback by people reaching for the 3 key on their phones. What's yet funnier is that many, many of the phone numbers in that block lead to front-end boxes from whose menus one must select a specific subaccount box. Since the recorded pitch can't do that, a large number of its calls must have gone into the catchall box, where messages go if you talk after a front-end box's menu instead of selecting a live box from it. The catchall box is also where messages left outside business hours for Central Telephone go, so come Monday morning, some Centel employee will go to check the catchall box and have a few hundred new messages, almost all of which are this fool recording. Don't you just love it? I think I want to call Centel myself Monday morning to make sure they know about it. When you consider how many copies of that pitch will be jamming the same voice mailbox where customer service calls go and how many of the directly dialable boxes belong to Centel employees, maybe they'll bitch out the telemarketing firm and refuse to fork over the $19.95 they want for a call to 1-900- CAN'T-RIP. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN MCI Mail: 426-1818 CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:32:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Richard Berendzen Arrested For Obscene Phone Calls Richard Berendzen, the 51-year old president of American University in Washington, DC for the past ten years was arrested last week, and charged with making obscene phone calls over a long period of time. Following his arrest, he was afforded the opportunity to resign and leave the University, or face dismissal. He chose to voluntarily leave, and be hospitalized for treatment of his illness, which is technically known as telephone scatologia, or more commonly as making anonymous obscene phone calls. Mr. Berendzen, a noted educator and scientist, was caught in the act of making such a call following a successful trace of an earlier call. Several women in a nearby suburb later identified him as the person who had tormented them with lewd calls at night from his home. Although other prominent figures have fallen from grace because of sexual peccadilloes, Mr. Berendzen is the only one I can recall to be linked to obscene phone calls. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 03:15:09 PDT From: Joe Stong Subject: Sources for TDD Modems Who manufactures TDD modems? Are there any which will do TDD AND ordinary modem standard calling (103,212) with maybe even Hayes compatible dialing commands? Please mail to me, and I'll post a summary. Joe Stong jst@cca.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: Data Collection for Telemarketing Reply-To: Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc. Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 21:50:53 GMT In article <6760@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 23-Apr-1990 2142) writes: > No one should have the right to sell data about your phone calling and > purchase habits to anyone! So what your saying, John, is that calling and purchasing should be COVERT activities? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. And with MY last name, I felt a little bit justified. :-) Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 21:27:42 edt From: Robert Kaplan Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station Another thing to remember is that a lot of gas stations have no telephone at all. I worked for eight months in an Atlantic station in Rochester NY. We had a phone line that was used by the credit-card machine ... listing that one would have done no good as there was no way to hear that line ring. And, naturally, we didn't want to connect a voice phone to that line, since it would get in the way of credit-card transactions. All our voice business was done via the pay phone in the gas station's front room (there was another phone connected to the pay line also, but of course used only for incoming and 800# calls). We gave out that number as our business phone when people asked, but there was of course no way to list it ... and no reason why we'd want to. BTW, that station is company owned, so it's not "Joe's Atlantic," it's just "Atlantic." Most dealer-owned stations, and any station which provides service and not just gas, have their own phone lines with listed numbers. I too think that those numbers should be cross-listed under the brand of gas, since that's how most people identify the station. A very different situation from, say, "Bill's Sony;" where people think primarily of the store identity and secondarily of the brands sold there. And I do concur with our Moderator that it's an extremely minor complaint and probably not worth even this much space :) Scott Fybush ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 23:10:00 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Device to Connect Two Fax Machines Ross Oliver asked for a device to connect two fax machines, further qualifying that the device didn't need to interpret DTMF or provid ring signals. That device will cost you about $4.00. It's an RJ11 cord. Fax machines don't depend on telephone line voltage, and if you just connect a cord from the phone line jack on one to the same jack on the other, they will be able to communicate. Actually, I misspoke myself with the above $4.00 estimate. Effective immediately, this type of inter-device connection falls under my (to-be-filed-tomorrow-morning) patented "ProxiNet" service, so the necessary equipment may only be purchased from me. As a Digest reader, you will be eligible for a 25% discount off the $110.00 "null switch" retail cost, and carrier access fees (which you must report) of $1.40 per minute. Miguel Cruz (Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu / user6FUA@umichub) ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: Credit Card ID Date: 30 Apr 90 04:42:30 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories (Why is it that we keep mentioning credit cards in this group/list? I know, the AT&T Universal Card sparked the latest round of discussion, but it's popped up before.) In a previous article, someone who should prefer to remain nameless wrote: > For some time some friends and I had this thing where we would never > ever write our real name on the charge slip. First, we just > scribbled things, but after a while, I was signing names of former > presidents, not-so-catchy phrases, etc., until I just plain became > bored of thinking up something original. It was amazing that never > once did any clerk even give it a second glance. First and foremost, you are either walking right on the line with regard to the fraud laws, or crossed 'way over to the un-comfy side long ago. Don't *do* that! When checked right (though quickly), signatures offer good protection against fraud. Some people can learn to forge signatures, but it's a lot harder (maybe impossible) to do it in real time, without a sample in front of you. A good salesperson won't give you back your card until you've signed the slip, and will take a second or three to compare the card against the slip. There's been discussion in the "Dear Abby" column about whether it's safer not to sign your cards, since someone might steal your purse and have a chance to copy your signature. This makes about as much sense as leaving your car keys in the ignition, so a pickpocket can't take them from you. I imagine most thieves would rather have a blank spot they can fill in themselves (with a signature they *can* duplicate in real time without a sample) than a real signature. Disclaimer: A few years ago, I worked on software for a plastic card authorization network. I'm no longer in the industry; I'm just repeating a few things I heard from Al Brown, a pioneer in the field. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm [Moderator's Note: You are correct that we have just about milked this topic to the max, at least where a connection to telecom is concerned. It should be moved elsewhere. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Re: The Card Date: 30 Apr 90 05:19:25 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego In article <7014@accuvax.nwu.edu amb@hudson.cs.columbia.edu (Andrew Boardman) writes: >>Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and >>they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-) >information (including me) *none* of them received it. (For the >record, I requested it on or about the Thursday of the week that "The >Card" was first available.) >I'd love to hear some contradictory experiences, but I just read two >more cases in TELECOM of exactly the same thing happening. I had also requested the information the same week that it was advertised. After about 10 days, I received a package which included a letter from Paul Kahn, President and CEO, AT&T UNiversal Card Corp., and, an application for the card. The letter from the Mr. Kahn listed benefits like - free for life; buyer's protection(*) and extended warranty(*); upto $100000 in automatic travel accident insurance, collision/loss damage insurance(*) for rental cars, etc. [* - coverage underwritten by ... ... Details to be provided when you become a cardmember] Ravi Bhumbla (rbhumbla@ucsd.edu)- ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia Date: 30 Apr 90 02:06:55 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article <6996@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: | That compares with my nostalgia for the old British Post Office "A and | B-button boxes" now off the scene in a technology putsch that swept | England. Ah yes, those old behemoths ... Australia had them for quite some time too. I understand it was a simple matter to manipulate the coin gate with a lolly-pop stick, not that I ever did it of course. You could also go around to every box in the area, pressing button "B", on the off-chance that the previous user forgot to after making an STD call, and getting the "change." Sure kept me in soft-drinks as a kid! There was also a unit where you put a sixpence into a slot, and rolled it to the left when the called party answered. They were particularly unreliable, and many a call was placed to the operator when the box swallowed your sixpence and the call wasn't completed. Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) Alcatel STC Australia dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #299 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10129; 30 Apr 90 23:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17960; 30 Apr 90 22:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09627; 30 Apr 90 21:08 CDT Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 20:55:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #300 BCC: Message-ID: <9004302055.ab13178@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Apr 90 20:54:36 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 300 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Irving Wolfe] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? [John Kurzman] Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [John Higdon] Re: Irish Phone Service [Dave Horsfall] Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos [John R. Levine] Re: Touch-tone ABCD Keys [Douglas Mason] Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Tom Perrine] De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [Dave Horsfall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant Date: 30 Apr 90 18:52:03 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <7004@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes... [with regard to why it costs too much for rural telcos to provide 1-party service] >...The wire >lasts a long, long time. And once it is paid for, it keeps right on >turning an almost 100 percent profit for its owners, allowing for what >repair is required from time to time. >I think the same consideration has to be given to party line service. >The conversion would cost an arm and a leg, but if they plan it right, >and install enough new cable to account for anticipated needs -- not >for today -- but the next half century or so -- it will pay off. Actually, it's not as easy as Patrick makes it sound. The simple arithmetic "payback time" is mathematically wrong, as it fails to take into account interest rates. A telco makes something like 12% return on investments. That's set by the state and FCC. (Usually it's a bit higher.) Rates are set in order to generate that rate of return on the invested Rate Base, which is the sum total of all nondepreciated capital investment, after paying off all expenses (which includes depreciation). How long would it take to pay off a home mortgage if you paid the bank the equivalent payment of 5% interest, but it accumulated "negative amortization" based on an interest rate of 10%? It doesn't work. We're asking telcos to do something that even a Texas S&L wouldn't have tried! :-) If a telco can only recover 5% of the cost of something in a year, then for every $1000 that goes into the rate base, $120 of Revenue Requirement is generated, but that is matched by only $50 of income. Thus the telco actually loses $70. If the depreciation is, say, 20-year straight line (which is VERY slow, but some states do this sort of thing to hold down the revenue requirement and thus local rates), then $50/year is an expense, and that cancels all of the income. Thus there is exactly 0% return on investment for 20 years, and $120 of Revenue Requirement that _will_ get made up elsewhere. Rural telcos get far more than urban ones in their "separations" (now collected via access charges for calls terminating from LD carries). Sometimes AT&T pays the local telco twice as much as it charges the caller! This goes to subsidize the very expensive local plant. Such subsidies are responsible for the drastic reduction in party line service that we've seen in the past two decades. As a matter of public policy, the FCC has chosen to allow toll to subsidize rural telephony in that way. However, cost-based pricing is gradually whittling down the subsidies. We city slickers may not be paying quite as much for Farmer Jones' line in the future. Some subsidies, however, will persist, as there is an explicit toll-financed fund for that purpose as well as the "hidden" subsidies in the toll rates. 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 [Moderator's Note: Fred, the problem I have with your figures is that if the circumstances were exactly as you describe them, how could *any* major expenditure at a telco be justified? What was the justification for the millions spent converting old offices to ESS? And what about ISDN? The new technology is taking BIG $$ to install and maintain. When is the payback? In some cases, years away. I realize there is not a direct correlation between conversion from party line to one party service and some of the other new-fangled hi-tech stuff, but still -- why does any modernization go on at telcos if the scenario is as grim as you paint it? PT] ------------------------------ From: Irving Wolfe Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant Date: 30 Apr 90 15:19:43 GMT Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe Organization: SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors In article <6998@accuvax.nwu.edu> kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: >The result is that >the return on investment period is closer to TEN YEARS. I have no contest with Mr. Lippman's construction cost numbers. Probably his background is in that field. It certainly isn't in utility finance. Ten years is not such a terribly long period for return of investment for a phone company, in fact it is probably close to the legal limit in most states. Mr. Lippman seems to imagine that in business a one or two year return of invested capital is normal. That is not so except for very small projects that remove bottlenecks in large plants. While ten years is somewhat long in a regular business because of risk, a business with a guaranteed-by-law profitability and freedom from competition accepts ten year returns as a normal, enjoyable part of life. Actually, the money should come back in far less than ten years because, as Mr. Lippman points out, he only put fifty subscribers on equipment that would handle one hundred. During the ten year period, the monthly revenue would gradually double, producing a far more rapid payback. Of course, revenue would be twice as high at the end of the period than at the beginning, so in future years, the phone company would indeed be making money hand over fist. That's the nature of the utility business. Irving Wolfe irv@happym.wa.com 206/463-9399 ext.101 Happy Man Corp. 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road, Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors ------------------------------ From: John Kurzman Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? Date: 30 Apr 90 15:51:43 GMT Reply-To: John Kurzman Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp, Woodbridge, NJ Why not list Gas stations as if their last name was the brand? ie. Mobil, Henry's. Amoco, D&S. Just because it's Henry's Mobil doesn't mean they couldn't be listed as 'Mobil, Henry'. Clever gas stations should be more careful about how they specify their name when subscribing for service. I think of Exxon or Mobil sort of like a last name anyway. It's not like looking up 'Stan', since if anything, being listed under D&S or Henry is more like being listed under Stan. The brand should be the gas station's last name, and Henry, D&S, or whatever, is the station' first name. This also reminds me of an accident that happened to me when I had my phone listed with a spelling error in my last name. I wrote the first letter of my last name sloppily, ie. H instead of K, and so was listed under 'Hurzman' instead of 'Kurzman'. This might have been a small typographical error, but it put me in a totally different section of the Manhattan Phone Book. In effect, I had a free unlisted number, but better yet, I could tell someone how to look me up if I wanted them to. The real irony here was that I had used my previous phone number (under Kurzman) as a credit reference, but there still was no problem with my new Hurzman phone number. (And no deposit required because of my good credit reference from the Kurzman phone). So I think its up to the gas station to be creative with how they bill/list their phone, not the responsibility of the Telco. So what if Henry's Exxon starts getting junk mail addressed to Mr. Henry Exxon? ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station Date: 30 Apr 90 11:39:21 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Robert Kaplan writes: > All our voice business was done via the pay > phone in the gas station's front room (there was another phone > connected to the pay line also, but of course used only for incoming > and 800# calls). We gave out that number as our business phone when > people asked, but there was of course no way to list it ... and no > reason why we'd want to. I'm sorry, I don't understand. If this was your "business" telephone, why wouldn't you want it listed? If you received incoming calls at all, why wouldn't you want the public at large to be able to call in? Were these only personal calls that had nothing to do with the business? Concerning listing a pay phone -- I can cite many, many business listings in the directory that are, in reality, pay phones. For one, there's The Cats, an off-the-wall restaurant that I frequent. Another happens to be --- you guessed it --- a service station that I patronize. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: Irish Phone Service Date: 30 Apr 90 02:19:10 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article <6983@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: | BTW, I especially like Australia's equivalent: since everything else | "down under" is "backwards," toll-free "800" numbers are toll-free | "008" numbers. It is quite a laugh, isn't it? By the way, until recently those "toll-free" numbers actually cost the caller a local call fee; and the callee picked up the rest. Now, they are free to the caller. | (According to the Australian version of the NPA | scheme, "008" would be in Tasmania, but I doubt they'll run out of | area codes there any time soon.) Huh? Last I looked, Tasmania had two area codes - 002 for the Hobart area (south) and 003 for the Launceston area (north). Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) Alcatel STC Australia dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ Subject: Re: ATT billing via local telcos Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 30 Apr 90 01:56:49 EDT (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" In article <6594@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Well, billing via the local telco is *the main reason* that ATT is my >long distance company. Gee, billing via the local telco is the main reason that AT&T is not my LD company. I have two lines at home here in Cambridge and two at my beach cottage in New Jersey. Sprint is happy to bill all four of them on one bill, combining all of the calls for the Sprint Plus volume discount. In fact, I also have three other numbers on the bill where Sprint is the secondary carrier, two at my father's house in NJ, and one at a family house in Vermont. I was impressed that Sprint could put seven numbers at four locations in three states on one bill with no trouble. MCI said that they couldn't, since Mass. and NJ are in different billing regions, and AT&T could only give me a combined bill by subscribing to some business service at a monthly cost considerably greater than my entire bill. When AT&T starts sending out their own bills, I'll look at them again. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Subject: Re: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys Reply-To: douglas@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Douglas Mason) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 13:34:15 GMT In article <6964@accuvax.nwu.edu> jcp@cgch.uucp (Joseph C. Pistritto) writes: >one of these tones at the start of the call. Apparently this was >useful to phreaks at one time, as you used to be able to get a >dialtone (from the operator position) this way. Ah, the another 'phreak' misconception. Should have read Phrack a little more, huh? :-) Years ago you could call up a DA operator and hit the 'D' key when she picked up. This dropped you into limbo and you would hear some soft white noise. If you had a friend do the same thing with the same NPA DA and hit 'D' then the '7' key while you hit '8' you could be connected together in a sort of loop fashion. This was first thought to be The Way to be able to talk to other people without giving them your phone number, ie "Meet me on the 312 DA loop". While I don't think that most switch software will pick up on the infamous 'fourth row' tones, I think that you will trip something by spending excessive time on the DA loop, as I would imagine that the switch would view that call to DA as still being open. Speaking of Directory Assistance, a few years ago (like two or three) there was a bug in the 504 directory assistance that you could call them up and let them answer, and when they hang up (position release) you could stay on the line and a few seconds later be connected to a dialtone which you could apparently call anywhere on. Although I never made any calls I did find this to be true. I was quite tempted to call me house collect and accept charges just to find out what the originating number was. As I said, both of these tricks are no longer effective. Douglas T. Mason | douglas@ddsw1.UUCP or dtmason@m-net | ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies Date: 30 Apr 90 21:57:04 GMT Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California I have a 16-key touch-tone pad that I acquired from a friend in 1977. In its previous life, it was attached to his 2-meter FM handy-talky. Currently it lives on an old TT-based robot controller I built in high school. I used to carry it to do touch-tone from dial phones at school. I never got any useful or noticable response when trying the ABCD keys on these phones. The friend and his ham club used the ABCD keys to access and control a private repeater and automated telephone patch. This apparently afforded some measure of security for the telephone patch. (Security through an uncommon hardware key.) I guess that 4x4 pads were fairly uncommon then. 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 ------------------------------ From: Dave Horsfall Subject: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution Date: 30 Apr 90 10:11:00 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA On the off-chance that this topic may not have been beaten to death, permit me to offer a solution in the finest traditions of King Solomon. John De Armond claims such a device can be built today, using technology available then. I say unto him: let him build it, and submit it for peer review. Larry Lippman claims such a device cannot be built. I say unto him: let him compensate John De Armond for expenses incurred, should said device be practical after all (as determined by peer review committee acceptable to both parties). Then we can all get some sleep. Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) Alcatel STC Australia dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #300 ******************************