Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18411; 1 Oct 90 11:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01230; 1 Oct 90 9:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06346; 1 Oct 90 8:25 CDT Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 8:14:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #701 BCC: Message-ID: <9010010814.ab09399@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Oct 90 08:14:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 701 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Touch-Tone Dial Layout History [Larry Lippman] Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) [Macy Hallock] No Speak Postscript [Jeff Sicherman] Strange "Calls To" on My Last Bill [Jim Youll] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Mark Steiger] Re: Calling Card Questions [Jim Budler] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [U5434122] Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin] 9600 Baud on US Sprint [Mark Steiger] Re: Which Came First? [Per G|tterup] Things I Get in the Mail [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Touch-Tone Dial Layout History Date: 1 Oct 90 00:35:28 EDT (Mon) From: Larry Lippman In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that > the number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding > machines, ... > Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? During the late 1950's Bell Labs conducted extensive human factors studies to ascertain the "ideal" key layout for a pusbutton dial. The result was the touch-tone dial layout that we have today. For those who may be interested, the study was published in the "Bell System Technical Journal" in July, 1960, and entitled: "Human Factors Engineering Studies of the Design and Use of Puhbutton Telephone Sets". There were five basic designs tested, having the following test results: 1. "Reverse Adding Machine" 1 2 3 Keying time: 6.01 sec 4 5 6 % errors: 2.5 % 7 8 9 Votes for: 3rd 0 Votes against: 2nd 2. "Two Horizontal Rows" Keying time: 6.17 sec 1 2 3 4 5 % errors: 2.3 % 6 7 8 9 0 Votes for: 1st (most) Votes against: 4th 3. "Two Vertical Rows" 1 2 Keying time: 6.12 sec 3 4 % errors: 1.3 % 5 6 Votes for: 5th (least) 7 8 Votes against: 1st (most) 9 0 4. "Telephone Dial" 3 2 Keying time: 5.90 sec 4 1 % errors: 2.0 % 5 Votes for: 2nd 6 Votes against: 5th (least) 7 0 8 9 5. "Speedometer" 5 6 Keying time: 5.97 sec 4 7 % errors: 3.0 % 3 8 Votes for: 4th 2 9 Votes against: 3rd 1 0 Note that the chosen key layout was a *compromise*. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 19:59 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <12745@accuvax.nwu.edu>: [Discussion of bandwidth vs. channel use in progress...] >Not necessarily, BUT there should be a HUGE, financially crippling >charge for those companies that employ the usual muzak-on-hold, Well, actually there is. ASCAP charges $100/yr per trunk for licensing rebroadcast or use of recorded material (as of the last time I checked). Muzak and other music services do charge for the use of their material. (Although I suspect a lot of it gets hooked up by installers without regard to contractual obligations....) Last I heard, Muzak charged around $5/mo per trunk in this area. You can get recorrded music with the correct clearances for this use, but few people are willing to pay the freight. The actual number of locations paying proper license fees for the use of music on hold is rather low, I suspect. Considering ASCAP's often agressive enforcement activity in metropolitan areas in the past, this is a bit surprising. And yes, I have run into them...but for music over paging systems, not MOH (Music On Hold). And I do warn my customers ... not all listen, though. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy [Moderator's Note: Did any of you see Bob Green's column in the Sunday papers over the weekend? He said some legal beagles are hitting on some guy in a small town in Indiana (population 800) because the guy has a radio in his store and listens to the music on the radio in-between customers. They are trying to sue him for big $$. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 18:54:34 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: No Speak Postscript For those of us without access to Postscript printer, could some kind soul with a postscript emulator (Goscript, etc.) or similar capability print this to a file with a HP LASERJET II target printer (and maybe a few other common graphics modes like IBM Proprinter, Epson), ZIP and uuencode it for transport across the net. Since this is going to be a bit map, to avoid clogging the net for only a few interested parties, perhaps PAT could put the resulting encoded files in the archives and just print an announcement. Jeff Sicherman jajz801@calstate.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Strange "Calls To" on My Last Bill Date: 1 Oct 90 01:45:22 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. My last phone bill listed long distance calls to Cleveland, etc. but also showed calls to : WASZ 2 MD PHSZ 43 PA These calls were handled by an aggregator. Any idea why the funny destination names, and what they mean? Thanks... Jim ------------------------------ From: penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 1 Oct 90 04:16:05 GMT I tried this 800 number abd it told me I was dialing from 218-555-5555!!! Definitely something wrong there. Mark ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: When this was an active thread, the consensus was that in the event the system can NOT tell what number you are calling from for some reason, it gives 555-5555 as a default value. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: Calling Card Questions Reply-To: Jim Budler Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca. Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 03:54:14 GMT In article <12784@accuvax.nwu.edu> lmg@mtqub.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) writes: >I have a few telephone calling card questions: >Has anyone compared the surcharges and/or rates charged by the >different types of cards? For example, would it be cheaper to use a NJ >Bell card or an AT&T Universal card to make a given call? (And does it >depend on where one is calling?) The Universal card has an automatic 10% discount. If you can use it. My wife encountered a situation calling from a PBX of unknown long distance service. When she tried 10288 she got a response "You're already using AT&T" No call completion. When she tried without the 10288, and "operator" came on the line. He was talking in the background to someone and paying partial attention to my wife. Doesn't sound like an AT&T operator to me. When she gave the calling number and PIN he said "Too many numbers". My feeling is that she reached another long distance service and their programming didn't know about the invalid phone number scheme used for the calling card number on the Universal Card. I might get her to try probing the PBX with 700-555-4141, and see what we get, but I'm not hopeful if they're blocking 10288 with such a recording. Any comments. She tried twice, and she's sure she used the correct 14 digits both times. My slightly divergent comments. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Date: 1 Oct 90 15:06:33 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <12651@accuvax.nwu.edu>, radius!lemke@apple.com (Steve Lemke) writes: > My AT&T MasterCard contains a MasterCard number, and an AT&T Long > Distance Calling Card number, but the four digit PIN is _NOT_ there. > In addition, as has been previously discussed (I think), the AT&T LD # > is NOT my home phone number. It is a completely different ten-digit > number. To avoid obtaining *more* long numbers, would it not be possible to register one's Mastercard 16 digit number with AT&T or whoever, and let them send you a special AT&T PIN for using that card with AT&T. Only one number on the card; only one stripe necessary. If AT&T 1were co-ordinated with the bank, you could even have just one PIN. Danny [Moderator's Note: This of course is the technique used by MCI, in effect making any existing VISA/MC into an extension of the MCI calling card. AT&T was different though -- they definitly wanted to expand out of the phone business and into the credit card business, which is why they chose to issue their own plastic. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 22:36:27 CDT I had written this: DWT> No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted "my independent DWT> telco let a long distance carrier slam me" nor "my Bell telco DWT> stymied a slamming attempt on me." Robert Woodhead replied in volume 10, issue 698: RJW> Is it just paranoid moi, or do other people notice that since the RJW> slamming company is the one who gets the bad PR, not the local RJW> utility, and since we all know who the BOC's don't particulary love RJW> Sprint, MCI, et al, it follows that the BOC's have no incentive to RJW> check before they allow a slam? No, it doesn't follow. The BOC could get more PR mileage out of calling the customer to confirm and not only making the would-be slamming IEC out to be the villain but also declaring itself savior of the day. "See, we're here to serve *you*, not *them*." In par- ticular, if they are in bed with AT&T (and let's face it, there is a lot of overlapping stock ownership), by thwarting a slam on an AT&T customer, they would make sure the customer's long-distance business stays with AT&T straight through. Speaking of the word *them*, what does the readership think of MCI's new round of get-back-at-AT&T commercials? They really go for the jugular, don't they? David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: 9600 Baud on US Sprint Date: 1 Oct 90 11:36:02 GMT I am looking at getting a US Robotics HST modem and I had heard that the bandwiths that sprint allows for its calls sometimes block out 9600 baud calls so that it falls back to a lower baud. Is this true, or just rumor? Thanks, Mark [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: When we were on this thread some time ago, there were numerous comments and questions about Sprint's ability to handle data at very high speeds. John Higdon was one of the main contributors to that thread. Perhaps on seeing this he will write you and briefly share his experiences. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Per G|tterup Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 12:39:13 GMT johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: => When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the => number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding => machines, i.e., => 1 2 3 7 8 9 => 4 5 6 on the phone, vs. 4 5 6 on calculators. => 7 8 9 1 2 3 => 0 0 [ stuff deleted ] => How are the number pads arranged on European or Asian phones? The [ other questions deleted ] Well, on phones here in Denmark (which is in Europe) we use a layout like the calculator shown above, i.e.: 7 8 9 4 5 6 1 2 3 0 * # On some phones we have those extra four buttons, although they're not used for anything here. Then the layout is: 7 8 9 A 4 5 6 B 1 2 3 C 0 * # D BTW, since 1979 it has been impossible to get rotary phones here, and only those remaining from before that time still uses pulse dialing. Touch tone is (of course) free. I hope you can use that info. Per Gotterup Student, DIKU (Inst. of Comp. Sci.) University of Copenhagen, Denmark Internet: ballerup@freja.diku.dk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 7:52:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Things I Get in the Mail The past couple weeks have been so busy here, I have neglected to tell you about some of the telecom-related stuff which has come to me at my post office box in recent weeks. Let me catch up on a little of that today: The folks at Telecommunications Research Associates are presenting more seminars. "Understanding Broadband" New York, November 15-16 Chicago, November 28-29 San Fransisco, December 5-6 "Emerging Technologies in Telecommunications" Boston, October 18-19 San Fransisco, October 23-24 Registration for both is $995. Lack of space prevents going into detail about their programs, but they are generally well-prepared and worthwhile. For information and registration: 1-800-TRA-ISDN (800-872-4736) in the USA 1-913-437-2000 From elsewhere. ----------------------------- A conference and exposition called "Messaging 90" is being held over a three day period November 6-8 at the New York Hilton, in New York City. This program will cover a wide range of voice mail, electronic mail and fax stuff. For information and registration: IPC Trade Shows, Inc. PO Box 42375 Houston, TX 77242 or call - 1-800-888-2188 Information and Registration 1-713-974-6637 From outside the USA More recent items in my mail will be presented here in a day or two as time and space permit. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #701 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08021; 2 Oct 90 4:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11891; 2 Oct 90 2:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19770; 2 Oct 90 1:31 CDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 1:11:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #702 BCC: Message-ID: <9010020111.ab18421@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Oct 90 01:11:18 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 702 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Which Came First? [Herman Silbiger] Re: Which Came First? [Gabe Wiener] Re: Which Came First? [Jim Breen] Re: Which Came First? [Adam J. Ashby] Re: Which Came First? [Julian Macassey] Re: CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books Summary [Jack Bonn] Re: Calling Card Questions [Carl Moore] Re: Calling Card Questions [Dave Levenson] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Derek Andrew] Re: 9600 Baud on US Sprint [John Higdon] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Andy Rabagliati] Last Laugh! Re: MCI As Slamming King [Gordon Burditt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 19:19:36 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12837@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: > Regarding why touch-tone pads put the "1" on the top left while adding > machines put the "7" on the top left ... In 1983, I was doing > historical research and I read that the early Touch-Tone pads WERE > configured like adding machine pads -- but the early electronic > switching systems couldn't handle rapid entry of DTMF, and people > proficient with adding machines could literally "outdo" the switch. > Bell engineers flipped the keypad to slow these people down. If this > is indeed true, will some loyal TC reader please tell me where I found > that reference? I've often wanted to quote this vignette but can > never remember just where I read it. An interesting story, but not true. Research was done on button order at (AT&T) Bell Laboratories in the late fifties by Dick Deininger and others, and published in the Bell System Technical Journal. They found that the 1-2-3 order was best, i.e. faster with fewer errors, for people who were not familiar with keypads. In those days, of course, calculators were mechanical and used by a relatively small part of the population. Individuals who were used to the 7-8-9 order of course were faster on that pattern. Since most of the population of prospective telephone keypad users were not trained on 7-8-9, the 1-2-3 pattern was chosen. Similar studies were performed in Sweden, with similar results. It was because of these human factor studies that CCITT standardized on the now familiar 1-2-3 pattern. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 03:15:30 GMT In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu> johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: >When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the >number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding >machines >Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? (I assume ten-key >adders came first). If Bell had arranged the keys in calculator order, the alphabet on the keys wouldn't have followed in any logical way. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gabe@ctr.columbia.edu gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 01:24:14 GMT In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the > number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding > machines, i.e., > 1 2 3 7 8 9 > 4 5 6 on the phone, vs. 4 5 6 on calculators. > 7 8 9 1 2 3 > 0 0 > Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? (I assume ten-key > adders came first). As I have heard it, the ISO standard for numeric keypads antedated the CCITT recommendation. When CCITT "studied" the keypad layout, AT&T representatives refused point-blank to compromise, and CCITT (cravenly) gave in. All praise to those (few) PTTs which held out and adopted the ISO version. An anecdote. When Telecom Autralia introduced Touchfones in the mid 1970s, the Standards Association of Australia (our equivalent of ANSI) had a gentle correspondence battle with Telecom, trying to convince it to use the ISO layout. In its replies to SAA, Telecom stated that "overseas studies" had shown that there was no confusion when the two layouts were used simultaneously on a desk, e.g. on a phone and a VDU keyboard. Quite coincidently, Telecom was insisting that all the VDUs it purchased had the numeric keypads reversed to the CCITT format. The reason stated in the documentation was "to prevent confusion with telephone keypads." Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose. Jim Breen (ジム) (jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au) Dept of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 ------------------------------ From: "Adam J. Ashby" Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 1 Oct 90 14:33:29 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In <12835@accuvax.nwu.edu> roeber@portia.caltech.edu (Roeber, Frederick) writes: >The pushbutton phones I've seen in France had keypads arranged the >same way as American phones. Amazingly enough, in England too we have managed to arrange our buttons the same way as America - amazing eh? Adam Ashby ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya +1 708 632 3876 ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 1 Oct 90 15:00:50 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <12785@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the > number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding > machines, i.e., > Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different? (I assume ten-key > adders came first). Every time I lecture on the subject of phones and there is a bean counter in the audience I get asked this question. Usually from the perspective that the calculator model ("Ten Key") is perfect and the AT&T model is an aberration. My response, which is often not well received by the bean counters, is below. I am not sure how true it is, some or all of it may be folklore. I have gleaned it over the years. I believe there is a Bell paper on this, but have never located it. Back in the old days when AT&T was designing Touch Tone, they had to lay out the dial. This was late fifties, early sixties. I am not sure when the 10 key adding machine replaced the comptometer, but it was in this era. This was an era before the $5.00 calculator. This was when electric adding machines were expensive, large, noisy, beasts and only used by bean counters. So AT&T needed a number pad. They really had no model, so they ran experiments to determine which was the easiest to use with the least errors. The clear winner was the 2X5 (Two columns, five rows) as below: 12 34 56 78 90 The problem with the 2X5 is that it doesn't fit too well on the front panel of a standard desk phone. The next winner was the 3X4 which is what most of the world uses today: 123 456 789 0 Now obviously if the same research was being done today, the ubiquitousness of the electronic calculator would have an influence. This brings me to the next comment. > How are the number pads Arranged on European or Asian phones? In Denmark, the Touch Tone pads are "Upside down". This is mainly because the Danes moved into Touch Tone in the late seventies and by that time everyone had a calculator and expected that number pads had 789 in the top row. But Denmark is the only exception I know of. In many countries, Touch Tone is still being introduced. > Do the keyboards > of today's operator consoles have the same number pads as us mortals > (7 8 9 on the top), or do they have 1 2 3 on the top row, as on > phones? Operator consoles follow normal telco practice. By the way, TIE once had a combined calculator/phone. I never saw one, so I wonder what the number pad was like. 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: Jack Bonn Subject: Re: CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books Summary Reply-To: jack@swlabs.uucp Organization: Software Labs, Ltd. Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 19:18:12 GMT In article <12700@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >On a side note, it is interesting to note that the CCITT has developed >standards for a programming language called CHILL (CCITT High Level >Language). I don't know if this is actually in use anywhere, or if >there have been any CHILL compilers/interpreters developed. It's an >interesting language, what with various set operators developed, and >the typical 'if', 'for' and 'while' looping mechanisms. Interesting is certainly an understatement regarding CHILL. It has all the strengths and weaknesses of a strongly typed language and reminds me more than a little of what I have seen of ADA. [I wish I had $1 for every time the difference between synmode and newmode had to be explained to newcomers.] Yes, it was used. Here in Connecticut at ITT's Telecommunication Technology Center (TTC, later called ATC) a compiler was developed for CHILL in the late 70's and early 80's. The System 12 digital switch was developed in CHILL both here and in Europe. The development platform was the IBM mainframe and the target was the 8086. Rumor has it that the System 12 development cost approx. $1.2 billion (where billion == one thousand million). The French firm Alcatel bought ITT out of the telecommunications business (although ITT retained some piece of the action) and moved the operation out of the US. But I am sure System 12 is still written in CHILL. Siemans in Florida has used CHILL. I had also heard that AG in Phoenix, Arizona is/was also using CHILL. Jack Bonn, KC1UH, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack (UUCP) jack@kc1uh (TCP/IP) kc1uh@wb1cqo (AX.25) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 10:12:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Calling Card Questions I believe your telephone calling card number WILL be updated automatically if your area code is changed. (I believe there was a note to this effect regarding people in what is now 708 in Illinois.) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Calling Card Questions Date: 1 Oct 90 13:46:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <12784@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lmg@mtqub.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) writes: > If a calling card has your full phone number on it, will the number > automatically change if your areacode changes? I live in the part of > the 201 area that becomes 908 next year. New calling cards will be issued to central NJ customers after the first of the year, containing your new area code. For now, I have found that I can enter my calling card number with either 201 or 908, the same number, and the same PIN. Both are acceptable, whether I'm using MCI or AT&T. > Has anyone compared the surcharges and/or rates charged by the > different types of cards? For example, would it be cheaper to use a NJ > Bell card or an AT&T Universal card to make a given call? (And does it > depend on where one is calling?) You don't really have that choice. NJ Bell's card only works for intra-LATA calls, while the AT&T card only works for inter-LATA calls. The Universal Card is less expensive than AT&T's regular Calling Card for inter-LATA calls, due to the 10% discount. MCI's card is less expensive than the Universal Card unless the call lasts long enough that the higher surcharge for AT&T is offset by the lower per-minute rate that results from the disocunt. Is that perfectly clear? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Derek Andrew Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 17:30:35 GMT From article <12825@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook): > I have tried this a few times with US West, and they NEVER give me the > number. > However, they are quite cooperative when asked to ring back the line > to test ringers. So ... request that they call you back to test your ringer, then when you answer the phone, ask what number they are calling please. Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0 [Moderator's Note: It doesn't always work that way. The smart operators sometimes ask, 'what number should I call you back at?' :) and all you can suggest at that point is why doesn't she just keep the circuit up and ring back manually, i.e. post-call payphone coin collection time. She may or may not accept your advice. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: 9600 Baud on US Sprint Date: 1 Oct 90 11:53:07 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) writes: > I am looking at getting a US Robotics HST modem and I had heard that > the bandwiths that sprint allows for its calls sometimes block out > 9600 baud calls so that it falls back to a lower baud. Is this true, > or just rumor? I send all of my night Southern California uucp traffic over Sprint using Telebit modems. There began to be major throughput problems and even conversation failures. Many calls to Sprint finally netted a response that the company was now using CCITT-compliant echo suppression and that they were aware that certain Telebit firmware releases did not adequately cause the echo suppressors to drop off. After reading my many postings on the topic, Telebit contacted me and offered to upgrade my modems. They sent new firmware and since then there has been no more trouble of any kind on Sprint. To my knowledge, the HST modems never had any problems; this was strictly a Telebit Trailblazer+ phenomenon. In no case is this a bandwidth problem, or even a "slippage" problem. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Andy Rabagliati Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Organization: INMOS Corporation, Colorado Springs Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 04:42:40 GMT In article <12861@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >would it not be possible to >register one's Mastercard 16 digit number with AT&T or whoever, and >let them send you a special AT&T PIN for using that card with AT&T. When I asked for my PIN, I asked for 1XXX, and it was refused. I asked why - I was told that if it starts with a 1 it looks like the start of 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX. So I couldn't make it the same as my bank PIN. Cheers, Andy. EMAIL: rabagliatia@isnet.inmos.COM ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Last Laugh! Re: MCI As Slamming King Date: 1 Oct 90 01:11:56 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >>From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming king. I have, Aren't you forgetting something? * "slamming" is a service mark of MCI ** "slamming king" is a service mark of MCI Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #702 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10157; 2 Oct 90 6:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15926; 2 Oct 90 4:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20370; 2 Oct 90 3:37 CDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 2:40:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #703 BCC: Message-ID: <9010020240.ab16836@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Oct 90 02:39:58 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 703 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Proposed 10% Federal Tax on "Electronic Equipment" [Lawrence M. Geary] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Gord Deinstadt] Re: CODOTery [Jack Bonn] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Jeffrey Bier] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Mark Brader] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Phil Weinberg] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Jon Krueger] Re: Vanity Phone Numbers [Bob Yasi] Re: Why Did I Reach "215 A Y"? [Carl Moore] Re: Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service [Jeff Carroll] COCOT Mailing List [Bill Berbenich] Joking Reference to 1+ [Carl Moore] Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Steve Elias] 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 13:03:11 EDT From: Lawrence M Geary Subject: Re: Proposed 10% Federal Tax on "Electronic Equipment" Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12847@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) writes: (Paraphrased): > On Sunday, September 30, agreement was reached by the federal budget > negotiators on a proposed new budget, including a variety of program > cuts and new/increased taxes. There is one brand new tax in the > agreement that might be of particular importance to readers of this > forum. This is a new "luxury" tax of 10% ... [that] will apply on > items such as "luxury cars", furs, jewelry, and *electronic equipment*. "Electronic equipment" over $1000. This has the perverse effect of taxing some basic items like an $1100 stereo receiver while exempting some "high end" items like $900 phono cartridges. I suppose systems could be decomposed into individual parts < $1000 each to get around the tax. God help us if Congress starts to add exemptions and qualifications to this one. > It might be worthwhile for everyone who is involved in the purchase of > "electronic equipment" to carefully track the details of this > significant new proposed tax as they come forth, and make their > opinions known to their House/Senate members. This budget agreement bears all the marks of an unstoppable freight train. Congress takes a hatchet to the tax code and federal programs with no eye toward fairness, consistency or good sense, but with one goal in mind: squeeze as much additional money out of the taxpayers as possible. They then brand anyone who objects to these wholesale random changes as "nit pickers and naysayers". (And that was the Republicans!) They aren't interested in logical arguments, and they are braced for the onslaught of protests from every affected group. Make those electronic purchases you've been putting off *now*. Larry Geary: 74017.3065@compuserve.com | Turn out a light for Astronomy lmg@mtqub.att.com | ------------------------------ From: Gord Deinstadt Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: Sun, 30 Sep 1990 11:23:34 -0400 Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: >CCITT Study Group XV is currently leading a study (along with Study >Groups VIII and XVII) on compression of fax and modem traffic on >digital trunks. It would involve demodulation of the signal, >transmission of the original bits, and remodulation when the signal >reaches the other end. This way, instead of wasting an entire 64kHz >DS0, the network can use only 2.4KHz for a V.22bis connection, 9.6KHz >for V.32, etc -- and pack them into DS0s to save bandwidth. We already *have* a system that does this; in Canada it's called Datapac. But instead of developing it into something worthwhile it's been allowed to rot. I wish someone would explain why they haven't added public-dial fax ports to Datapac. Or revised the tariffs so it was actually competitive with high-speed modems at LD rates. Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision.UUCP ------------------------------ From: jack@swlabs.uucp Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 05:38:17 -0400 Subject: Re: CODOTery In article <12625@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tom Perrine writes: >I have run into many COCOTS that are missing local-call cost and LD >carrier info here in the San Diego area, and I would like to leave an >appropriate sign behind, to protect the TELECOM-impaired :-) The CODOT at the campground in Lansing Michigan indicated that the money was to be deposited after the call was completed. It gave the local call cost as $.25 in the written Spanish directions but verbally gave the cost as $.20 in English. I told a Cuban friend that it was the $.05 Hispanic surcharge. :-) Jack Bonn, KC1UH, <> Software Labs, Ltd, Box 451, Easton CT 06612 uunet!swlabs!jack (UUCP) jack@kc1uh (TCP/IP) kc1uh@wb1cqo (AX.25) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 17:55:18 PDT From: Jeffrey Bier Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Do these COCOTs that people are complaining about allow calls to 911? If so, I'd like to suggest that the text of the 'out of order' labels posted in comp.dcom.telecom be modified, to indicate this. It would sure be shame if some poor soul in an life-threatening situation mistakenly thought that he couldn't dial 911 on one of these phones, and died trying to find another phone. Jeff Bier ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Tue, 2 Oct 1990 01:07:36 -0400 Please pretend for a moment that you are an ordinary person. Some emergency comes up -- a traffic accident, say, or someone collapses with a heart attack, and you are a bystander. You spot a payphone nearby and head over there to dial 911, or whatever your local emergency number is. On the phone you see the following sticker covering the coin slot: > OUT OF ORDER. This telephone's programming violates > California PUC rules and regulations ... > [several lines of checklist deleted] Seconds may count. You never heard of programmable telephones and PUC rules and regulations, but you know what OUT OF ORDER means. What do you do? I would like to say, "to prevent a possible tragedy, please amend the wording of these stickers to clarify, at the top, that emergency calls still work". But I don't know that this would always be true. Are there some COCOTs out there that demand coins on emergency calls? If so, then the act of blocking the coin slot could itself be lethal. Please be careful. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker should detirmine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Weinberg SPS Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 1 Oct 90 21:13:04 GMT Reply-To: Phil Weinberg SPS Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303 In article <12637@accuvax.nwu.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle (John Nagle) writes: > It's time to lobby for some standardized way to find out your own >phone number. With Caller ID, the other end can find out; it's >annoying that you can't. It would be especially valuable if it were I once tried to find out the number of an unidentified (untagged) pair by calling the phone company (Pac Tel) and requesting them to tell me what number I was calling from. I was refused this information, and when I asked to speak to a supervisor to explain why, the supervisor gave me a story that it was to prevent "people" from tapping into someone else's line, finding out what the number is, and using the other person's service as their own. I was also told that this "illegal" use of other peoples' lines was very prevalent among bookies and number writers. I had to pay for a service call for a PacTel expert to come out, dial the mysterious number to get the recording back as to what my number was, and write it down on a tag (it took him about 4 minutes total - a slow writer). I agree with John Nagle that in this age of more and more gizmos using the telephone lines it becomes more and more convenient, if not necessary, for one to be able to identify a pair of unfamiliar wires. << Usual Disclaimer >> Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395 UUCP: {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil Telephone: +1 408-991-7385 [Moderator's Note: There is something you should remember: When you were on that 'unidentified pair of wires' they (the wires) *might* have been someone else's service. They might have picked up the phone and heard on you on there. Then what? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 01:49:47 GMT In article <12488@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >When I took the public tour of the FBI building, the agent giving the >tour described these devices as "cheese boxes", typically used by >bookies to keep simple call traces from finding them. ... I asked the agent leading my tour what was the origin of the name "cheese box" and he had no idea. I wondered if it was from the idiom "cheese it" meaning "scram" which was used back in those days. Does anyone know? henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 18:29:46 PDT Subject: Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? From: Jon Krueger From article <12521@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Jim.Riddle@f27.n285.z1. fidonet.org (Jim Riddle): > AT&T has never specifically claimed that their plans are lower cost > than Sprint; their commercials are quite cleverly worded. Correct. They have, however, made claims about quality. For instance, they claim that they will put your call through faster than other carriers. I have invited AT&T to put this claim in writing, most specifically including quantifying how much faster. They promised to do so. They have not done so. It would appear that this ox gets gored on both sides (it will not last the night). Jon Krueger, jpk@ingres.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Vanity Phone Numbers Date: 2 Oct 90 03:18:09 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA It's worse in California. The nice thing about $38 is that it's a one-time charge ... you guessed it; Pac Bell charges recurring monthly fees to Keep a vanity number. Bob Yazz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 10:23:24 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Why Did I Reach "215 A Y"? I can only guess that, in your attempted 800 call from Detroit to San Jose, you reached a switching center in southeastern Pennsylvania. It used to be that you could determine what area code you were reaching for an 800 number, at least when dialed from out of state. Perhaps you reached a wrong number and the wrong number happened to be in the Philadelphia area. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service Date: 1 Oct 90 20:19:25 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12506@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >If there were some way the IXCs could dynamically on a minute by >minute basis advertise their willingness to accept traffic at >substantially lower than normal rate probably in some predefined >steps, the LEC could connect me to the current bargain of the minute >carrier. Perhaps some SS7 message could carry the bid pricing. Uh, oh... Before you know it, the Chicago Board of Trade would be dealing in telephone call futures. I can hear the radio announcer now reading the daily financial report: "Long distance, NY to LA, for June delivery; closing at $0.10/min, down $0.02". Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: COCOT Mailing List Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 9:55:54 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu With all the constant (negative) traffic on Telecom Digest concerning COCOTs, I wondered if there is a COCOT mailing list running somewhere. If I had the resources here, I would start one (but alas, I don't). Anyone else know of a COCOT list or want to start one? Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: There is none going that I know of, and I don't think it is really necessary right now. Of course, if someone wants to do it, fine. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 15:28:55 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Joking Reference to 1+ Dick Bartley (last Saturday night, Sept. 29), on his apparently- syndicated oldies radio program, gave the request number as 1-800-LIVE-GOLD (yes, 1-800-LIVE-GOL, without the trailing D, is fine), and said (jokingly) to leave off the leading 1 if it is not required in your area. What could have prompted the remark about the leading 1? (I had the program tuned in on WQSR-FM, 105.7, Baltimore.) There are few areas left which do not require the leading 1 in front of a 10-digit long distance number. This is true for at least part of the following areas (I don't know of others): 408 in California 516, 914 in New York (Use of N0X/N1X prefixes sharply reduced this list.) [Moderator's Note: Carl, it was probably all very innocent. He's a radio host, not a telecom enthusiast, or telecom weirdo, as Steve Elias would say. What would he know about the obligatory one plus? He was probably reading from a script someone at the radio station gave him about how to receive phone calls, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer Date: Mon, 01 Oct 90 15:51:46 -0400 From: Steve Elias What do LD carriers do when they dial a number that the destination CO has programmed as a "call forward - no answer", and the number forwarded to is busy? In this situation, the caller hears a few rings, and then a busy signal. Surely this will confuse people who call me and don't know that I'm a telecom weirdo... But what about the "supervision" return codes to the originating CO? If someone calls long distance and this happens, will they get billed because of the change in cadence from ringing to busy? eli ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 16:50:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper Today, Oct. 1, 1990, is scheduled as full cutover for NPA+7D local calls in DC area if you are calling across the areacode boundary. Maryland & Virginia suburbs have been deleted from area code 202. Attempting to use area code 202 for long distance calls to such points will get an intercept message telling you that the area code for the number you dialed is 301 or 703 as the case may be. Long distance calls to Md. suburbs were, coming into 1987, dialed like this: 1+7D (from within 301) 1+301+7D (from outside 301) (or 1+202+7D, except to outer fringes, from inside or outside 301) The above assumed N0X/N1X area codes (still true) and NNX prefixes. In 1987, N0X/N1X prefixes were introduced to the DC area, and the above instruction became: 1+301+7D (or 1+202+7D, except to outer fringes) Now, 202 area has been shrunk (although no new area code has been created), and the above instruction is now: 1+301+7D All of the above goes for the Va. suburbs, with 703 substituted for 301. (I "half" doubt that 202 was useable from, say, Laurel [Md.] to the Va. suburbs. Laurel, except for pseudo-foreign prefixes such as 621, is local to DC but not to Va.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #703 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05417; 3 Oct 90 4:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22577; 3 Oct 90 2:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17372; 3 Oct 90 1:45 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 0:53:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #704 BCC: Message-ID: <9010030053.ab07373@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 00:53:13 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 704 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Punch-Card Phone Bills [David Barts] Cost of Bandwidth (Was: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines) [Henry Schaffer] Strange International (???) Number [Jack Winslade] Mental Harassment [Jim DePorter] Cordless Phone Woes [Pete Holsberg] AT&T Universal/BOC Calling Cards [Douglas Scott Reuben] 302+7D in Local Call From 215 [Carl Moore] The Light Signal Question Again [Craig Steinberger] Telco Ads (Was: MCI as Slamming King) [Joel Levin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 19:40:29 pdt From: David Barts Subject: Punch-Card Phone Bills djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Here are a few items contained in J Edward Hyde's _The_Phone_Book_, a > tome that exposes pre-MFJ, pre-divestiture Bell System: > * billing punch cards: in the good old days when punch cards were sent > with the phone bills, there was some creative carving done to those cards. > In one case, a customer cut a few holes in one of those cards. The result > was free phone service indefinitely. However, someone else did a few > slices to the card, only to wind up paying for 387 red phones instead of > a single black one. The "good old days" are no earlier than 1988, and may still be exist TODAY in some parts of the country. While I lived in Prosser, WA (509-786) the local telco (United Telephone) was still sending out bills on punch cards. My first several bills were that way, then one come with a "We're modernizing our billing system" form letter and from the next month on their bills were on laserprinted forms. (Before you ask, no I didn't perform surgery on the punch cards.) United Tel. in the Yakima Valley was a bit backwards, but nothing like some complaints I've heard about them in this Digest. The local service was very reasonable ($7.50 a month for unlimited local calls), switches in all but the smallest (less than 1,000 pop.) towns were all electronic switches. I never had any problems with my local service and the service reps. were always pleasant and professional. On the day my phone service started, they arranged a phone book to be delivered by express courier, with a letter thanking me for my business. Of course, it *was* easy for them to give me reliable service -- the Prosser CO was 1/2 a block away! Also, at that time you could pick any 1+ LD carrier you wanted -- as long as it was ATT. There was no 900- or 976- service as they had decided it was too much trouble to offer blocking as required by the state, so they just turned it off. Despite its sometimes backward tendencies, I was very pleased with United Tel., and I was not alone in this attitude. People in Prosser were generally pleased with the quality of their phone service. This is in contrast with the (mostly GTE) Tri-Cities, where people would complain long and loud about poor service, indifferent CSR's, and high rates. ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Cost of Bandwidth (Was Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines) Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 02:43:06 GMT In article <12433@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 666, Message 6 of 11 >Future trends go toward >allocating only the bandwidth required to every connection. Rather >than assign 64kbit/second of bandwidth to every conversation, whether >or not it needs it, the future network will only assign the bandwidth >actually required by the message channel being carried. Speech >compression and coding technology has advanced a long way since the >first digital telephony standards were written. While processing is getting cheaper, it still requires extra equipment and therefore there will be a tradeoff depending on the relative costs of this processing and the savings in bandwidth. Bandwidth seems to be getting cheaper, and we can get a very rough indication of the costs of bandwidth vs. electronics from looking at the relative costs of different amounts of bandwidth, e.g., 64 kbs vs. T1. The 24 fold increase in bandwidth typically costs about 5 times as much. Even assuming that T1 termination electronics cost no more than 64 kbs, this suggests that under a fifth of the total line costs are attributable to bandwidth. (I'm also assuming that the charges are related to the costs of providing the service.) I would expect there to be progress in dynamic allocation of bandwidth, and the ability to request it, but if the cost goes up slowly with the extra bandwidth then there would not be much pressure to do processing to minimize voice bandwidth except for the most expensive lines such as transoceanic ones. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Oct 90 22:08:36 EDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Strange International (???) Number Reply-to: Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 While skimming through the back pages of this week's {Village Voice}, you know, the pages with those quasi-slick ads for all of the talk lines, date lines and dial-a-slut lines, one number stuck out like a sore thumb. It was: 011-559-2xxx There were two footnotes, one stating that 'Normal international rates will apply' and another stating that 'Normal long-distance rates will apply'. The text implied that the numbers had something racier than permitted in the US. I know that 55 is the country code for Brazil, but could 9-2xxx possibly be a valid city code/directory number ?? (Yes, I checked the Phone Book and did not find any Brazil city codes beginning with 9.) Is this a real number in Brazil, or is this just some kind of numbering anomaly?? I haven't called it. I'm not >THAT< curious. Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS - Everything but the kitchen TSYNC. Omaha --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Jim DePorter Subject: Mental Harassment Date: 2 Oct 90 23:13:49 GMT Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Beaverton, OR On the radio and in the newspaper today have been articles about a state mental patient making dozens of obscene phone calls to a couple. The calls started last Friday and kept up over the weekend. The couple had the guy tell them his name and found out he was calling from the Oregon State Hospital. They called the hospital and were told that due to patient confidentiality the hospital could not give any info about the patient. The couple called the Portland police and while the officer was there the patient again telephoned. The officer called the hospital and was told there wasn't anything they could do about the calls. Seems the only way the patient could be kept from the telephone would be to lock him in his room which the hospital termed as cruel and unusual punishment. Now the interesting points. The patient is John Carl Eaton who five years ago walked into his psychiatrist's office and fired several shots into him in front of witnesses. He was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and has spent the last five years in the state hospital. According to Oregon law he can get the charges dropped after five years. The crazy thing about this is that the phone is near a nurses station and that it is a pay phone!!! Why lock him up? Just take away his quarters! jimd [Moderator's Note: I would use a little guerrilla warfare to teach the hospital staff exactly what 'cruel and unusual punishment' is all about. It may be he is not even using coins to pay for the calls. He might have a fraud calling card number, a 800 wats-extender he is linking into, or who knows what. Get the phone number at the nursing station and for the hospital superintendent. Everytime the inmate makes a call, make one in return to the nursing station and *demand* that they get him under control. Call and raise a ruckus with the superintendent. Tell him if he can't get his patients under control that you will sue the institution to force him to do his job. Before long, the staff will get tired of hearing from you, and its likely they will lock the patient up somewhere, pump him full of medication and keep him away from the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Pete Holsberg Subject: Cordless Phone Woes Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route One Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 12:55:22 GMT My relatively new AT&T 4600 cordless phone stopped working the other day. The "hot line" says it's a scrambled security code caused by the phone's being (a) physically next to the refrigerator and/or (b) plugged into the same outlet. Are they correct? Will an isolation transformer help? If simply interrupting the power for 15+ seconds will reset everything, is there anything I can do to back up the phone number memory in the base unit so that I don't have to reenter it each time this happens? Thanks, Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690 Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91 ------------------------------ Date: 2-OCT-1990 00:17:18.99 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: AT&T Universal/BOC Calling Cards Hi all- After getting into an e-mail conversation with Ken Selling here at Wesleyan, a few questions arose about the how calling card numbers are assigned and verified. I'll state what I have have come to *think* occurs, and please DO correct me where I am wrong: 1. Normal assignment: I ask my local Bell Co. for a calling card. They generate a PIN for my number, and mail it to me. IF I have AT&T as my primary ("1+") then AT&T will mail me one as well, or if not, they will mail me one when I ask for one. They will take the PIN from the BOC "database" and use that as my AT&T PIN. The only reason I would want an AT&T Card which is the same as my BOC card is for AT&T Card Caller phones, GTE Airphone (or other AT&T Card specific devices) and if I have the Reach Out America and the ROA Card Call Option (used to be "Call Home" option, but it has been recently expanded, at least in some areas, to cover all ROA applicable calls after 10PM.). If I didn't get the AT&T Card then I was told that I couldn't use the ROA Card program, although the BOC and AT&T cards are identical. 2. Special assignment: I want a card that does not have my telephone number as the "base" number, ie, a fictitious number such as "761-009-1123". If I call my Bell Company, they make one up, and assign it a PIN. This then goes into the database. However, does AT&T (or can AT&T) issue me a card that is the same as this? IE, does it work the same way as "normal assingment"? Or must AT&T give me a different card number? 3. Call AT&T first: What if I call AT&T first? How does it work if I ask for a normal card number? (IE, a regular calling card?). What about a "special" number? Does AT&T simply call my local BOC and arrange it with them? Or can AT&T assign me a PIN, and then the number is picked up by my local BOC and they issue me a card? (Or at least honor the number)? I guess what I am really getting at is how the database works. The reason I am asking is because it seems that the BOCS can handle the "special" Universal Card number for BOC-handled (intRA-LATA) calls, while Sprint, MCI, and the AOS companies can't (The BOC that I tried it in is SNET, but from what I've heard, it works in "real" BOCs as well.) I would think that there is only one database (?), which the BOCs "run" and which all the Long Distance Companies access. (For Bell-type calling card calls, not Sprint FON Card, et. al.) Yet why will an AOS "gladly" take my regular calling card, but be unable to take a Universal, or perhaps even a "special" card? Is a special card generated by AT&T considered to be "proprietary" and thus "off-limits" to AOSs? IE, does AT&T say "This is NOT a BOC generated card - WE generated it, for OUR customers only. We allow the BOCs to use it for intra-LATA calls, but you AOS outfits can't touch it!" (Sorry for the dramatics! :-) ). This is the only way I can see it working with a single database system, so is this right? Somewhat close? Or totally off? On a side note, is there a central computer which manages the entire database, or is it a decentralized system where each BOCs (or each TSPS, or some subunit) maintains a copy of the database which it uses for calls from Calling Card calls from within that area, and which communicate with each other for updates, cancellations, etc.? I have comments about another aspect of Calling Cards: A while back I posted a (rather long, confusing, etc.) message about differences in AT&T Calling Card systems from region to region. One system, which I described as a "new" system, (which checks to see if a sequence-call number is valid by itself, not letting the network do it), usually sounds like "Thank you for using" "AT&T". I compared this to the older sounding "Thank you" or the intermediate "Thank you for using AT&T" (no pause, all in one breath). Recently, I've noticed that SNET *seems* to be using the same AT&T system. When I place a local calling card call, after I enter my card number I hear: "Thank you for using" "your local telephone company". (Did SNET forget to change that generic to "SNET"?? :-) ) Also, if you press the "#" sign for a sequence call, but the number is invalid or cannot be handled by SNET, you will hear "You may only dial another" "local telephone company" "call, now." Compare this to the AT&T message (you guessed it!): "You may only dial another" "AT&T handled" "call, now". So what's going on here? Are they indeed using the same calling card system, which can differentiate between SNET and AT&T calls? Or do they just have the same equipment, ie, AT&T has the system and SNET bought one, but it is not the same physical device which handles both? (I've also noticed this on Staten Island, NY, on the north end...). Guess that's it for calling card questions... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Oct 90 18:12:15 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 302+7D in Local Call From 215 I stand corrected by David Tamkin regarding 302+7D without leading 1 in local call from 215 area (Pennsylvania). It can remain useable, due to the practice of NOT making prefixes which match your area code or neighboring ones. (Such practice, as he pointed out, helps prevent confusion so that if you hear, orally or in radio ad, your own area code or a neighboring one, you know there are 7 more digits--not 4.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:53:05 EDT From: Craig Steinberger Subject: The Light Signal Question Again Pat, I'm trying to find a device that lights up when a phone extension is picked up. That way I can know if a phone line with multiple extensions is in use without picking up the phone itself. I looked in HELLO DIRECT, but they don't ahve anything like that. If you don't know of the top of your head, can you direct me to a mail order company that might carry things like that. Thank you, Craig Steinberger craig@fractal.eng.buffalo.edu [Moderator's Note: We have discussed this many times in the Digest. Would one of you readers with a schmatic send it along to Craig, with a parts list, etc. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Telco Ads (Was: MCI as Slamming King) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:17:29 EDT From: David Tamkin >Speaking of the word *them*, what does the readership think of MCI's >new round of get-back-at-AT&T commercials? They really go for the >jugular, don't they? Haven't seen those; but now I'm laughing at the new AT&T long distance ads presenting your telephone as the newest entertainment medium! JBL nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880-1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #704 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06558; 3 Oct 90 5:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13977; 3 Oct 90 3:52 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22577; 3 Oct 90 2:50 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 2:07:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #705 BCC: Message-ID: <9010030207.ab32235@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 02:07:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 705 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 10% Electronics Tax Apparently Cancelled -- For Now [Lauren Weinstein] Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? [Nelson Bolyard] Italy City Code List [Carl Moore] Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [Hans Mulder] The Origin of Cheese Boxes [Ed Greenberg] The True Story About Cheese Boxes [David Lesher] Israel and Calling Card to AT&T [Hank Nussbacher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 12:37:03 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: 10% Electronics Tax Apparently Cancelled -- For Now Greetings. Good news. It took a bunch of phone calls to pin this down, but it *appears* (for the moment) that the proposed 10% electronics tax did not make it into the final draft of the budget agreement that is currently under consideration. As late as Monday afternoon, personnel at our U.S. Senator's office believed the tax *was* in there, and that it *would* affect computer and telecommunications equipment, as well as consumer electronics. Other sources gave the price level at which the electronics tax would kick in as either $100 or $1000, depending on who you talked to. Meanwhile, on Monday morning, the {Wall Street Journal} published an article saying the electronics component of the tax was *not* in the final agreement. So there was considerable conflicting information. Much of the confusion apparently revolves around the many drafts of the agreement and the incredible flurry of activity involving consideration of the budget. In any case, according to a phone conversation I just had (Tuesday, around noon, PDT) with a {Wall Street Journal} writer who was by far the best versed on this topic of anyone I had reached anywhere, the 10% tax on electronics equipment is indeed *not* in the present agreement. According to current info, the 10% tax *would* apply to: Furs over $5K (except leather and artificial fur) Jewelry (including watches) over $5K Private boats and yachts over $100K Autos over $30K This is all to take effect this coming Jan 1 if the budget agreement passes. The electronics tax was indeed in the agreement originally, but was dropped from the final draft, apparently. It is important to note, however, that this is all subject to sudden change. The electronic equipment tax could reappear at any time in the negotiations, either now or later. So it would be a very good idea to keep as close a track of the developments as possible, because if changes occur we probably will have VERY little time to react and let our opinions be known. And of course, there are many other aspects of the budget agreement, in terms of other taxes, fees, program cutbacks, etc., that are also very important, and about which our representatives would appreciate our input, I'm sure. Apparently they haven't been getting very many calls about the budget, and they really are interested in hearing voters' opinions when you call. Given how difficult it is to obtain basic information about something as important as the budget, the more people in the technical community keeping abreast of what's going on, from different angles, the better! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 00:11:30 GMT In article <12764@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <12711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >> * {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute >> box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance >> calls). While Ramparts was in rather illegal territory with that >> article, the actions Ma Bell took were probably the issue here. Bell >> agents were ordered to find all extant copies of the offending >> {Ramparts Magazine}, trying to get the subscription lists, going after >> newsstand dealers, threatening any radio stations that mentioned the >> action, etc. >My mother was working for Los Angeles County Library at the time the >Ramparts article appeared; orders came down from the top to cut out >the offending article and destroy it. But she made a copy first and >brought it home. (Not that we ever did anything with it -- she just >felt uncomfortable having stuff disappear into "the memory hole"). I would imagine, and hope, that now in our modern age of 5ESS switches &c that nothing one could do on a POTS line would be able to "suppress call supervision on incoming long distance calls" and thus the information in that (in)famous article would no longer be a threat to the phone system. I'm under the impression that fifteen years ago, there was little difference between a POTS line and a line inside the phone system, between switches. If one knew how to construct the right device to generate the right switching and routing signals, one could do interesting things form an ordinary POTS line, like tie up all the LD trunks between two cites, or something. I think this was due to "in-band" signalling. But now, with advancements in "signalling", e.g. things like Signalling System Number 7, I'm under the impression that signalling is done largely "out of band" and no amount of the right tones and clicks will have these effects. If my impressions are basically right, then that old Ramparts article could finally be published, under the heading of "Fifteen years ago, this would have been a big scoop." Can anybody say with certainty if the article is still a threat? If the answer is a definite "no", then would somebody please publish it? (Does you mother still have her copy, Clay ?) Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. [Moderator's Note: Mother (NOT Clay's mother!) has always hated {Ramparts Magazine} with a passion since back in the middle sixties when the magazine announced they would print AT&T's credit card check-digit formula in their next issue. AT&T went to the highest court in the nation to get a prior-restraint order against Ramparts to prevent publication of the article, which Ramparts said 'will explain how to create your own telephone credit card.' Remember, thirty years ago the AT&T card number formula was a simple-minded thing which involved a 'key letter' based on the fourth or fifth digit of the phone number, and it changed yearly. The issue hit the streets just as AT&T got the court order; Ramparts had to pick up copies from the news dealers and destroy them. The magazine, whose name comes from the first stanza of 'The Star Spangled Banner' ("...whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ...") vowed then to get even; Ma Bell triumphantly vowed to squash anyone else who tried to give away corporate secrets. For the curious, the word 'rampart' is an archaism, an erstwhile term from the Middle English which literally means 'a hole in the ground with a mound of dirt in front of it behind which someone can hide to observe the actions of others.' PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:33:23 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Italy City Code List The following is my updated list for Italy. Major expansion provided by list sent in by dik@cwi.nl , and I added anglicized names where available. 39 Italy 1xx is north west 10 Genova (Genoa) 11 Torino (Turin) 121 Pinerolo 122 Susa 123 Ceres 124 Pont Canavese 125 Ivrea 131 Alessandria 141 Asti 142 Casale Monferrato 143 Novi Ligure 144 ¥`Acqui Terme 15 Biella 161 Vercelli 163 Borgosesia 165 Aosta 166 Chatillon 171 Cuneo 172 Bra 173 Alba 174 Mondovi 175 Saluzzo 182 Albenga 183 Imperia 184 San Remo 185 Rapallo 187 La Spezia 19 Savona 2 Milano (Milan) 3xx is Lombardia 30 Brescia 31 Como 321 Novara 322 Borgomanero 323 Omegna 324 Domodossola 331 Busto Arsizio 332 Varese 341 Lecco 342 Sondrio 343 Chiavenna 344 Porlezza 345 Zogno 346 Clusone 35 Bergamo 362 Seregno 363 Caravaggio 364 Pisogne 365 Bagolino 371 Sante Angelo Lodigiano 372 Cremona 373 Crema 374 Soresina 375 Viadana 376 Mantova 377 Casalpusterlengo 381 Vigevano 382 Pavia 383 Voghera 384 Mortara 385 Stradella 386 Ostiglia 39 Monza 4xx is north east 40 Trieste 41 Venezia (Venice) 421 Eraclea 422 Treviso 423 Montebelluna 424 Asiago 425 Rovigo 426 ¥`Adria/Porte Tolle 427 Maniago 428 Tarvisio 429 Montagnana 431 Grado 432 Udine 433 Ampezzo 434 Pordenone 435 Pieve di Cadore 436 Cortina d'Ampezzo 437 Belluno 438 Conegliano 439 Feltre 442 Cerca 444 Vicenza 445 Thiene 45 Verona 461 Trento (Trent) 462 Predazzo 463 Male 464 Rovereto 465 Pinzolo 471 Bolzano 472 Bressanone 473 Merano 474 Dobbiasco 481 Gorizia 49 Padova (Padua) 5xx is central 50 Pisa 51 Bologna 521 Parma 522 Reggio nell'Emilia 523 Piacenza 524 Fidenza 525 Borgo Val di Taro 532 Ferrara 533 Mesola 534 Porretta Terme 535 Mirandola 536 Pavullo nel Frignano 541 San Marino (indendent country, to change to +295) 542 Imola and Rimoni 543 Forli 544 Ravenna 545 Lugo 546 Brisignella 547 Cesena 55 Firenze (Florence) 564 Grosseto 565 Piombino 566 Gavorrano 571 San Miniato Citta 572 Pescia 573 Pistoia 574 Prato 575 Arezzo 577 Siena 578 Montepulciano 583 Lucca 584 Viareggio 585 Carrara/Massa 586 Livorno 587 Pontedera 588 Volterra 59 Modena 6 Roma (Rome)(includes Vatican City, independent country, whose country code is given as "39 66982") 66 Civitavecchia 7xx is south west 70 Cagliari 71 Ancona 721 Pesaro 722 Urbino 731 Iesi 732 Sassoferrato 733 Macerata 734 Fermo 735 San Benedetto del Tronto 736 Ascoli Piceno 737 Camerino 742 Foligno 743 Spoleto 744 Terni 746 Rieti 75 Perugia 761 Viterbo 763 Orvieto 765 Fara in Sabina 771 Gaeta 773 Latina 774 Tivoli 775 Frosinone 776 Arpino 781 Iglesias 782 Tortoli 783 Oristano 784 Nuoro 785 Abbasanta 789 Olbia 79 Sassari 8xx is south east 80 Bari 81 Napoli (Naples) 823 Santa Maria Capua Vetere 824 Benevento 825 Avellino 827 Calitri 828 Battipaglia 831 Brindisi 832 Lecce 833 Casarano 835 Matera 836 Otranto 85 Pescara 861 Teramo 862 L'Aquila 863 Avezzano 864 Pr¥`atola Peligna 865 Is¥`ernia 871 Chieti 872 Atessa 873 Vasto 874 Campobasso 875 T¥`ermoli 881 Foggia 882 San Severo 883 Andria/Barletta 884 Manfredonia 885 Cerignola 89 Salerno 9xx is the islands 90 Messina 91 Palermo 921 Cefalu 922 Agrigento 923 Trapani 924 Alcamo 925 Sciacca 931 Siracusa 932 Ragusa 933 Gela 934 Caltanissetta 935 Enna 941 Tortorici 942 Taormina 95 Catania 961 Catanzaro 962 Crotone 963 Vibo Valentia 964 Locri 965 Reggio di Calabria 966 Palmi Calabro 967 Chiaravalle Centrale 968 Nicastro 971 Acerenza/Potenza 972 Rionero in Vulture 973 Lauria 974 Agropoli 975 Sala Colsilina 976 Muro Lucano 981 Castrovillari 982 Paola 983 Rossano Calabro 984 Cosenza 985 Verbicaro 99 Taranto ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 19:11:01 +0100 From: Hans Mulder Subject: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands In an article that has expired before I found the time to type this in, somebody asked about the equivalents of 800/900/976 numbers in other countries. In the Netherlands PTT Telecom has managed to confuse everybody by creating a single new area code (06) containing the equivalents of both 800 and 900 numbers. The Consumers' Association has demanded that the toll numbers be changed into 07 numbers, but since all 07X area codes are already in use, this is not possible. Instead PTT Telecom have inserted a sticker into our phone bill. The text translates to: Green 06 numbers are free. Remember, for non-free 06-numbers: Don't hesitate to call, but be aware of the cost. In case you're wondering: "green" numbers are defined as free 06-numbers. PTT Telecom also produced a flyer "what everybody should know about 06 numbers". It contains a useful table: if it begins it costs 06-0... free 06-11 15 to 30 c/min equivalent of 911 06-320... 50 c/min. 06-321... 3 to 40 c/min 06-399... 3 to 40 c/min 06-4... free 06-5... peak: 105 c/min mobile telephones weekend: 62 c/min 06-8... 3 to 40 c/min 06-9... 50 c/min. All prices are approximate. For one thing, the real price is 1 message unit (15 c) per X seconds. Plus, they reserve the right to change the tariff without prior notice. There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. Next time I'll tell you about the night when PTT Telecom intended to demonstrate that 06 was also usable as the choke exchange and found out the hard way that it was not. All typos are mine, Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 09:34 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: The Origin of Cheese Boxes "Henry E. Schaffer" writes: > I asked the agent leading my tour what was the origin of the name >"cheese box" and he had no idea. I wondered if it was from the idiom >"cheese it" meaning "scram" which was used back in those days. Does >anyone know? "Back when I was a boy" restaurants received loaves of cheese (cream cheese comes to mind) in long wooden boxes. My _understanding_ is that original call forwarding boxes were made using these wooden boxes as the chassis. edg ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: The True Story Ahout Cheese Boxes Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 20:33:04 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers [henry schaffer asked about where the term "cheesebox" came from.] The Mob's first wireman of note made them a call diverter. When it came time to mount it...... Thereafter, he was named after his device. He wrote a great book on his life in the and around the Mafia. The call diverters were used for numbers houses. The Mob loved them because they no longer had to pay off the local beat & vice cops. When they raided the storefront, no one was there ... When the cops figured out the scam, THEY put a price on Cheesebox's head because he was costing them their bribes. I recommend his book, even though I cannot remember his true name. The title is similar to: Cheesebox My Life in the Mafia. Try your local OCLC terminal for details. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu 305-255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 07:17:35 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Israel and Calling Card to AT&T On Sept 27th, 1990 Israel started Calling Card service to AT&T. People in Israel can contact the AT&T operator directly by calling 177-100-2727 (177 is the Israeli 800 code). Calling Card charges are $5.48 for the 1st minute and $1.20 for every minute thereafter. If a collect call is made, it is $8.76 for the 1st minute and $1.20 for every minute after that. People in Israel can get Calling Cards if one has a mailing address and phone number in the USA willing to receive the card. AT&T has indicated that once an account is established, the billing can be transferred to an Israeli address. Hank Nussbacher, Israel [Moderators Note: An ineresting story to say the least, especially since Israel is one of the countries red-lined from card calls in certain neighborhoods of our larger cities. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #705 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06531; 4 Oct 90 1:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24644; 3 Oct 90 23:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15175; 3 Oct 90 22:55 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 22:41:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #706 BCC: Message-ID: <9010032241.ab17729@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 22:41:21 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 706 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The 900 Sleaze Keeps Rolling In! [Bill Cerny] Re: Data vs Voice [SUMMARY] [Tom Olin] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Joel B. Levin] Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Eduardo Krell] Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Samuel W. Ho] Re: Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost? [Joel B. Levin] Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins [Ronald Decoste] Re: Touch-Tone Dial Layout History [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) [Richard O'Rourke] Re: Phone Tree Hardware [Brian Crawford] Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [John Higdon] Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System [Kevin Collins] Re: Which Came First? [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: The 900 Sleaze Keeps Rolling In! Date: 1 Oct 90 18:34:46 GMT In article <12801@accuvax.nwu.edu> dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Michael Dorl) writes: >The real sleaze in this deal is the $9.00 (3.98 plus 1.97/minute, 2.5 >minute minimum) cost of the 900 number call you must call to claim the >prize. >How does the $9.00 get divided up between the two LECs and the IXC? A summary of usage charges for three national 900 carriers: IXC Per Minute* Billing Uncollectables AT&T 0.30/0.25 10% of retail (incl. with billing) Sprint 0.35/0.28 (none) 7% (8% for call >$10) Telesphere 0.46 0.12/call 7% - >30% of retail *(less than 25,000 minutes/month) In turn, the LEC gets their normal FG D per minute charge from the IXC. I don't foresee the audiotex industry policing itself, which means federal regulation/legislation is inevitable. The best we could hope for would include the consumer protection features of Pacific*Bell's 900 service (viz., a "grace period" during which program ID and call charges are given _before_ billing begins). Then the "900 = sleaze" hysteria will fade, and we'll flame somebody else. ;-) Humble request: when bashing a 900 program, please include the 900 number (personal theory: Telesphere 900 numbers receive the most complaints, AT&T the fewest). Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 09:14:19 EST From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: Data vs Voice [SUMMARY] In our last episode... I had asked for an explanation of how phone calls were supposedly sliced and diced to achieve statistically based multiplexing (although not in those exact words). I posed the hypothetical situation of a fully loaded network doing 50% duty cycle on each call, then having all callers jump to 100% duty cycle. I wanted to know what would happen to the network and to the individual calls. Everybody who responded to my question said the same thing: The current phone system (with a very few exceptions, maybe) does not packet switch. It uses time division multiplexing only. Every call is allotted a constant bandwidth, whether the callers are silent or screaming. THUS, A DATA (MODEM) CALL CURRENTLY USES NO MORE OF THE NETWORK'S BANDWIDTH THAN DOES A VOICE CALL. The respondents also pointed out that techniques for packetizing calls are actively being investigated, so in the future, a modem call might indeed cost more than a voice call. But not yet. Thanks to: Wayne Sung uunet!tabasco.lcs.mit.edu!ath (Andrew Heybey) uunet!turing.cs.rpi.edu!borcherb (Brian Borchers) uunet!ihlpl.att.com!mea (Mark E Anderson) kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) uunet!xavax.COM!alvitar (Phillip Harbison) And thanks to goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) for his recent posting to c.d.t on the subject. Tom Olin uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191 ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:13:17 EDT >[Moderator's Note: Most telcos seem to change the number a lot, and >they tend to be in the range of 200-xxx-xxxx. PAT] Here in NETel land, I have never seen it change. It's always been the above number (except one CO where it's always been 200-2622 (!)). (At least since around 1970, anyway, when Cambridge got in a lot of new ESS stuff; previously you could find your own number on several exchanges by just dialing 225.) nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880-1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 20:50:37 EDT >For instance, they claim that they will put your call through faster than >other carriers. I have invited AT&T to put this claim in writing, >most specifically including quantifying how much faster. If I'm not mistaken, MCI and/or Sprint complained to the FCC about that claim in AT&T ads, and AT&T presented the FCC enough evidence to have them drop the charges and let the ads continue to run... Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:57:10 CDT From: Samuel W Ho Subject: Re: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? The only specific claim I have seen AT&T make is call completion "40% faster." For that, they did give, at least on the TV version, specific numbers in the fine print. I think AT&T averages a 3.5 second completion time, while MCI was about 6 seconds. In fact, MCI did sue them alleging deceptive advertising, but it was thrown out of court. The judge ruled that 40% is 40%, even if it is matter of less than 3 seconds. The ad ran something like this: AT&T calls complete 40% faster. (Numerous shots of person twiddling thumbs while holding phone.) That's like paying someone to do nothing. (Shot of paper airplane sailing into wastebasket. Fine print detailing statistics.) AT&T The Right Choice The funny thing is that at four seconds a call, full time doing nothing requires 7200 calls a day. These are only inter-lata calls, mind you. If these calls cost even 0.25 each, this is a monthly inter-lata long distance bill of $36,000. That is a good-sized telecom budget. Fact is, completion time is (within bounds) not that important. If somebody has to repeat something once because of noise, that wipes out a four-second difference. Noise lasts the whole call, too. It's a rough world out in ad-land. Sam Ho (ho@csrd.uiuc.edu) ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Re: Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost? Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 12:15:09 EDT The Moderator quotes a very high rate for an FX line between Chicago and New York. That is to be expected; the rates are based on mileage between two central offices. I had an FX line between two adjacent COs because from the next one over I could get unmeasured service to the Boston area; from mine the best I could get was Bay State service, which allowed one or two hours of calling within (then) 617 and a flat rate per additional minute. The break-even was around 30 hours / month; still a lot, but frequently I had to log into a machine at work all evening. I'll bet I never made up the installation charges, though. The monthly charges were based on several dollars per mile (this is in-state rates), more heavily weighted toward the first five miles, plus charges for two channel interface units that lived in the COs, plus the going rate for Metropolitan (unmeasured) service in the foreign exchange. Total back then, around $100/month. But installation was around $350 (!). JBL nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive or: +1 603 880-1611 | Cambridge, MA 02140 ------------------------------ From: Ronald Decoste Subject: Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins Reply-To: Ronald Decoste Organization: Universite de Montreal Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 14:32:21 GMT We are also experiencing transmission errors with are dialup lines since our new phone switch went into operation. Things were so bad that we had to revert to direct lines from the CO until a solution is found. The switch (multiple Meridian SL1's) is connected to the DMS-100 by a fiber DS-3 link for aapprox. 350 trunks. Brian Kantor's article suggests that some jumpers must be set properly on some interface cards. Does anyone know more about this ? Which jumpers on what cards for the DMS and for the SL1 ? Ronald ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 10:40:42 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Dial Layout History > There were five basic designs tested, having the following > test results: It is interesting to note that the adding machine keypad layout was not tested. Perhaps NIH on the part of AT-n-T? Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ From: Richard O'Rourke Subject: Re: Music On Hold (was Data vs Voice) Date: 2 Oct 90 02:31:35 GMT Organization: Grass Root Systems, Burnaby, B.C., Canada In article <12856@accuvax.nwu.edu>, macy@fmsystm.uucp (Macy Hallock) writes: > In article <12745@accuvax.nwu.edu>: [Discussion of bandwidth vs. channel use in progress...] > Muzak and other music services do charge for the use of their > material. (Although I suspect a lot of it gets hooked up by > installers without regard to contractual obligations....) Last I > heard, Muzak charged around $5/mo per trunk in this area. Going off on a tangent: Music on hold disturbs me in any case. What is more disturbing though, is that it is often played at a level that can be misinterpreted as background noise. This can cause problems in calls routed through some types of equipment, such as fast packet gear. If companies are going to force stuff into your ear while your on hold, it might as well be an advertisement. That will give them the incentive to turn it up, and me the incentive to hang up and call back when they have the time to service me. Possibly saving bandwidth in the meantime, if going over packet gear. Richard O'Rourke: (604)438-8249 | Grass Root Systems: 436-1995 UUCP: uunet!van-bc!mplex!grassys!ror | Smart UUCP: ror@grassys.bc.ca ror@grassys.wimsey.bc.ca | ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: Phone Tree Hardware Date: 2 Oct 90 18:23:56 GMT Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe In article <12798@accuvax.nwu.edu>, trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > I am looking for some relatively inexpensive hardware to set up a > phone tree/voice mail system in my house. Basically what I want is a > the following: You might try the "Dialogic" board. That company makes a four-line and twelve-line model, and is PC based. I think they make a PS2 model as well. They make alot of interesting PC based telephone interface cards (DID Interfaces, etc). They used to make a two-line card, too. But, I don't know if they're still selling it. If you go with it and need software, I've written alot of software and hardware drivers for it, and have even made proprietary hardware mods to the board. Be happy to pass it on if you like. Good luck. Brian ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer Date: 2 Oct 90 11:07:22 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 2 at 2:40, Steve Elias writes: > What do LD carriers do when they dial a number that the destination CO > has programmed as a "call forward - no answer", and the number > forwarded to is busy? In this situation, the caller hears a few > rings, and then a busy signal. Surely this will confuse people who > call me and don't know that I'm a telecom weirdo... But what about > the "supervision" return codes to the originating CO? If someone > calls long distance and this happens, will they get billed because of > the change in cadence from ringing to busy? Steve, as a telecom weirdo (TM), you must be aware that long distance companies (including Sprint) use the traditional supervisory signal that is not related in any way to what is happening on the audio path. When the distant phone is actually answered, the distant CO notifies the originated CO ALL THE WAY through the IXC (if one is used) via positive means that depends not on any sound made at the distant end. In the old days, this was represented by a reversal of battery on the line or inter-office trunk. In the days of long distance MF signaling, removal of 2600 Hz indicated supervision or "reversal". Now, of course, supervision in indicated through the CCIS control channel. Those two-bit LD companies that still "guess" at supervision generally use a simple timeout -- if the customer stays on the line for more than a preset limit, then supervision is assumed. I'm aware of none that actually "listen" for an answer. Actually, that would be superior to a timeout. In the case of COCOTs (that DO listen for stuff on the line), this would probably not confuse them. Most "listening" COCOTs check for the asymetrical signature of the human voice. A mixture of ringing and busy (both pre-supervision sounds) would probably not result in your coin being collected. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System Date: 2 Oct 90 19:44:43 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca In article <12142@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Matthew McGehrin writes: > First off, I feel sympathy for you. Rolm is a monster of a system. I > have many friends who attend colleges with Rolm systems installed > and it is a pain in the a** to use. It re-defines the word simplfy. > I know people who before Rolm to dial a operator you would dial '0', > but with rolm you may dial 678 then 0. Also, I thought that >'non-Rolm' phones are not compatible with the network. I am a *former* ROLM employee, but I still feel I must defend their products' honor. The recent [and not-so-recent :-)] company troubles ROLM has had are well known, but their products (PhoneMail, 8000, 9000, 9751 series CBX) are still pretty darn good. I would venture to say that the problems Mr. McGehrin's friends have had are caused more by poor configuration of the CBX than by deficiencies of the switch itself. The ROLM CBX can be configured to use about any dialling plan that the customer wants; it almost sounds as if the college in question is trying to discourage students from calling the operator. When I worked at ROLM, our phone system (ROLM, of course!) had 5-digit extensions, "0" for company operator, "9-0" for your friendly AT&T (or MCI, or Sprint) operator, etc. - none of this "678 then 0" stuff. As far as non-ROLMphones being incompatible: the CBX does have an interface for plain ole' brown phones that (I believe) supports any standard analog phone. I'm sure if I'm wrong about that, someone will correct me :-). Before somebody asks: yes, I did work in CBX development, but none of the bugs are my fault, so please don't ask me about them :-) :-). Kevin Collins Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc San Jose, CA Disclaimer: My opinions are mine. My mother agreed with me once, but that was looong ago. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 13:02:47 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Which Came First? It's odd how the brain works - I can dial a TT phone or use a 10-key layout quite rapidly. My fingers just "know" what to do. However, I'm sure many of you have experienced the strange feel and slowness of entering a phone number on the computer keybord for the modem - it just doesn't "feel" right! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #706 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08745; 4 Oct 90 2:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17987; 4 Oct 90 1:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24644; 3 Oct 90 23:59 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 23:35:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #707 BCC: Message-ID: <9010032335.ab20048@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Oct 90 23:35:38 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 707 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Which Came First? [Leonard P Levine] Re: Which Came First? [David Lesher] Re: Which Came First? [Mark Brader] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Tom Ohmer] Re: McDonalds' 900 Scam [Robert E. Zabloudil] Re: 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper [Alan Parker] Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Richard Shuford] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Tom Betz] Re: USEnet PC Access [Mark Harris] Re: Vanity Phone Numbers [Todd Day] Re: Mental Harrassment [Robert M. Hamer] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Piet van Oostrum] Re: Strange International (???) Number [Rop Gonggrijp] Re: Italy City Code List -- Corrections [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 2 Oct 90 20:05:13 GMT Reply-To: levine@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From article <12881@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey): > So AT&T needed a number pad. They really had no model, so they > ran experiments to determine which was the easiest to use with the > least errors. The clear winner was the 2X5 (Two columns, five rows) as > below: > 12 > 34 > 56 > 78 > 90 Ever notice how nice the PC function keys used to feel on the pre-101 key keyboard? Just like this right? Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@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: David Lesher Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 20:57:05 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Phil, the guy whose answering machine messages caused such a problem in the 60's, had an accountant that got TT service as soon as it was offered. He had a fit about the pad layout, and Phil disassembled the pads in all his phones and made them "correct" i.e: 7 8 9 4 5 6 1 2 3 0 by swapping the buttons and moving a few wires. (the things we do to get our tax returns done on time;_]) He really wanted 0 for the bottom row, but if you remember how the pads were made, you KNOW why Phil talked him out of THAT. Things were fine for years until Mr._Tax's flunky called 611 to get one of the 1500's fixed. When the Greenie showed up, he had a fit: vandalizing PHONE COMPANY property and all the rest of that bs. But the accountant stood his ground, and refused to give up the set. The poor repairman had to actually *fix* the phone and not just swap it out. After that, they just called us over to fix their phones...... wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Wed, 3 Oct 1990 06:47:23 -0400 > In Denmark, the Touch Tone pads are "Upside down". Norway, too, has the 789 at the top. I found this amusing, because, as Telecom readers know, Norway is also one of the few places in the world where DIAL telephones are numbered backwards. But whereas the backward dial is not used in Oslo, the upside-down keypad is apparently used throughout the country. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Ohmer Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: 2 Oct 90 20:02:06 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659: < Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but < I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own < line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to < place a long-distance call from Tom's line, so he gave MCI both phone < numbers with explicit instructions that his was to get primary service < but Tom's was to get secondary service. Nice guess, but wrong. ;-) My aptartment-mate did/does not have it's own line. The primary service of *my* line was changed. Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer INTERNET: tohmer@dsac.dla.mil Phone: (614) 238-8059 AutoVoN: 850-8059 #include ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: McDonalds' 900 Scam Date: 2 Oct 90 21:03:10 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <12535@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jeremy Grodberg writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 674, Message 3 of 11 >I went into McDonalds today for dinner (or breakfast, depending you >how you look at it), and found more sleaze than usual there. It seems >that McDonalds has figured out how to legally run a sweepstakes for >profit, and once again 900 telephone service is the key. I was also unhappy to see this, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. My wife is a "McDonald's alumna", and has so much respect for that outfit that every time the budget gets tight, she talks about another return engagement. (Luckily, I'm doing better at talking her out of that masochistic tendency.) Incidentally, she does have a FT job already. Anyway, I blame NBC for this scam. After all, they get to charge more $$ if they can claim more people watching their shows, and guess how you get to find out the winning numbers? Oh, yes, they'll be posted at the drive-thru window at noon the next day, or you can call the 900 number, but they're counting on millions of people watching that night for their number. Incidentally, the fine print sez that all net proceeds from the phone calls will go to Ronald McDonald's Children Charities or somesuch, which is nice, but still doesn't change my opinion about the whole thing. Disclaimer: I'm not important in the Federal scheme of things; all opinions strictly my own, etc. Bob ------------------------------ From: Alan Parker Subject: Re: 202 Area Code Shrinks to DC Proper Date: 3 Oct 90 03:00:26 GMT Reply-To: Alan Parker Organization: Entropic Research Laboratory, Inc., Washington, DC In article <12908@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 703, Message 15 of 15 >Today, Oct. 1, 1990, is scheduled as full cutover for NPA+7D local >calls in DC area if you are calling across the areacode boundary. >Now, 202 area has been shrunk (although no new area code has been >created), and the above instruction is now: >1+301+7D >All of the above goes for the Va. suburbs, with 703 substituted for 301. Not quite. For calls within the DC metro dialing area, you do not dial the leading one. So to call from DC to Silver Spring, MD, you dial 301-589-XXXX. Note the metro dialing area includes parts of three area codes. The intention is that if you need to dial the leading 1, then the call is costing you a toll. As of this writing, I can still call from my office in DC (202-547-xxxx) to home in MD (301-870-xxxx) without dialing 301. I guess they can't reprogram all the switches over night! ------------------------------ From: Richard Shuford Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Reply-To: shuford@cs.utk.edu Organization: CS Dept--University of Tennessee, Knoxville Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 04:35:13 GMT >> Having been using US Sprint ... > You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? ... > ... The noise difference > between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home > is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. So that no readers of this forum get a completely wrong impression, let me add 0.02 worth of information. It may once have been true that U.S. Sprint, or its predecessor companies, leased most of its long-distance circuits from AT&T or other carriers. But it is probably safe to suppose that Sprint's circuits, at least on high-traffic routes, are now its own. From 1985 to 1988, I worked for Siecor Corporation, a joint venture of Siemens A.G. and Corning Glass Works. A major part of Siecor's business is the manufacture of single-mode fiber-optic cable for long-haul telecommunication. I know that during that period U.S. Sprint bought quite a lot of such cable from Siecor. (Many "fiber-kilometers", as we say in the trade.) This cable, and probably cable from other suppliers, went into the ground across the United States and forms the backbone of the network that is touted in advertisements. RSS shuford@cs.utk.edu ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Organization: Greyston Business Services Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 06:17:56 GMT Quoth ropg@ooc.uva.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) in <12741@accuvax.nwu.edu>: |You can also call 1-800-666-6258. This gives you a lot of advertising |bla-bla AND your phone no. Well, it got my area code right, but it thought my phone number was "555-5555". Doesn't look like a product >I'd< want to buy. Can anyone tell me what the significance of the "5"s is? hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz Tom Betz - GBS (914) 375-1510 [Moderator's Note: We've touched on this before quite a few times. The machine did not 'think your number was 555-5555'. The use of all fives in the display is a default indicating that for some reason, your telephone number was not available to the system. That might have been a one time glich, or it might be that your telco is not passing along your number. Earlier results posted here indicated the device worked quite well; it correctly identified almost all the test-callers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Harris Subject: Re: USEnet PC Access Date: 28 Sep 90 02:07:20 GMT Organization: Omhftre BBS 73765.1026@compuserve.com (John Stanley) writes: > Help. I am looking for a cheap PC package that does UUCP mail and > news. I already have set up contact with a UUCP source (cheap, mail to > info@psi.com), now I need the receiving end. Any ideas/names? Try the Waffle BBS system. Dial 408-245-7726. It works. It's good. It's worth the registration of around $30. Mark Harris UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!raider!omhftre!harrism Domain: harrism@omhftre.raidernet.com ------------------------------ From: Todd Day Subject: Re: Vanity Phone Numbers Organization: QuickSilver Rallye Team, Santa Barbara, CA Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 06:19:31 GMT mtxinu!lando.la.locus.com!yazz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Yasi) writes: >The nice thing about $38 is that it's a one-time charge ... you >guessed it; Pac Bell charges recurring monthly fees to Keep a vanity >number. Why not just tell Pac Bell to stop charging you for the vanity number (or just refuse to pay it anymore)? What can they do, force you onto a different number? How can they make sure that the new number doesn't spell somthing you wanted? :-) Todd Day | todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us | ucsbcsl!ivucsb!todd [Moderator's Note: Actually, yes they could force you to change your number, since your number always remains their property anyway. Your failure to pay their fee -- however bogus you might think it to be -- would be a good reason for telco to exercise its option. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 08:59 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Re: Mental Harrassment In response to a note from someone about a mental hospital refusing to control the telephone behavior of a patient, the Moderator wrote: >[Moderator's Note: I would use a little guerrilla warfare to teach the >hospital staff exactly what 'cruel and unusual punishment' is all ... I would like to add that perhaps the telephone number of the mental hospital could be posted in the Digest, and we could all call the mental hospital. Sound familiar? [Moderator's Note: I'd say let's hold off on that for awhile. If the original correspondent writes again saying the problem is continuing, then it might be worth consideration. Although the official response from the hospital was that they could do nothing without violating the patient's rights, chances are they did lock him up or otherwise politely convince him to can the Shinola, lest there be a big stink by a prosecutor somewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Date: 3 Oct 90 15:05:00 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands In article <12751@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dan@sics.se (Dan Sahlin) (DS) writes: DS> What is the pricing for these services in other countries? Are the DS> same codes used for invoking the service? After sending my previous message (Message-ID: <12645@accuvax.nwu.edu>) I called the PTT Telecom operator and asked about the Call Forwarding prices. Please try to keep alive when you read the following: You have the choice between a three-month and a six-month contract. 3-month: entry price Dfl. 300 monthly Dfl. 150 6-month: entry price Dfl. 200 monthly Dfl. 90 I suppose the monthly fee applies only to the following months, otherwise it does not make sense. The exchange rate is $1 == Dfl 1.75. I was so shocked when I heard these prices that I refused to get any additional information. Now I also understand why people buy a call forwarding box and two telephone lines. 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') ------------------------------ Organisation: Center for Innovation and Cooperative Technology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, The Netherlands From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: Strange International (???) Number Date: 3 Oct 90 18:06:44 GMT Jack.Winslade@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Winslade) writes: >While skimming through the back pages of this week's {Village Voice}, >you know, the pages with those quasi-slick ads for all of the talk >lines, date lines and dial-a-slut lines, one number stuck out like a >sore thumb. It was: 011-559-2xxx We discovered a number advertised in The Netherlands which was written as 096 114 112. Note that 09 is our 011 equivalent. The scam here was that the Australian Telecom (country code 61) kicked back part of the profits for nonexistent area code 14 to the operators of the services on this switch. They only implemented this routing on the incoming exchange, so that nobody from within Australia could call it. All of this shows that The Phone Companies are into a worldwide plot and that they make WAY TO MUCH money on international calls. How much crazier can it get? I pay for call completion, not for sleezball-profits! >Is this a real number in Brazil, or is this just some kind of >numbering anomaly?? I haven't called it. I'm not >THAT< curious. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse....... Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) is also editor of Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.) Postbus 22953 (in DUTCH) 1100 DL AMSTERDAM tel: +31 20 6001480 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 10:22:31 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Italy City Code List -- Corrections [Moderator's Note: Carl advises me of errors in his submission. PAT] You have printed the following for area codes 541 and 542 in Italy: 541 San Marino (indendent country, to change to +295) 542 Imola and Rimoni "independent" and "Rimini" are misspelled, the latter according to the notes I sent you. Also, you improperly combined two lines. Here are the lines I sent, with Rimini being in 541, not 542: 541 San Marino (independent country, to change to +295) and Rimini 542 Imola Also, in the list, add the English name "Leghorn" for Livorno. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #707 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10779; 4 Oct 90 3:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05685; 4 Oct 90 2:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17987; 4 Oct 90 1:03 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 0:43:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #708 BCC: Message-ID: <9010040043.ab20734@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Oct 90 00:43:03 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 708 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Kevin Collins] Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation" [Julian Macassey] Re: Which Came First? [Bob Goudreau] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [R Gonggrijp] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [D. Lemson] Re: Question About Ring Current [Julian Macassey] Re: Strange "Calls To" on Phone Bill [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 3 Oct 90 18:26:09 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Dory Leifer has done some really good stuff getting TCP/IP running over ISDN. I'd just like to clarify some of the terminology and other details from his CERFnet newsletter article. >This process is not only redundant, it is inefficient. When >voice is converted from analog to digital, a bit rate of 56,000 >bits-per-second (bps) is typically dedicated to carrying it. This rate >is required to make sure that the voice will sound natural when it is >converted back to analog. Since the telephone network treats modems >the same way, a rate of 56,000 bps is also required to convey modem >signals. However, most modems send and receive at or under 2400 bps. >The rest of the capacity is wasted. Actually, the network assigns 64,000 bps per voice call. Since the existing network isn't perfectly bit-transparent, the network usually sets one bit out of eight and gives data users a 56,000 bps clear-channel pipe. You can also sometimes get a 64,000 bps pipe and take your chances, if your telco's willing. >(ISDN Basic Rate Interface...) On this wire, >three channels or digital paths exist. The channels are multiplexed >by giving each a time slice on the wire. Since ISDN channels are half >duplex or uni-directional, a "ping-pong" method is used so that when >one end transmits, the other listens. The ping pong happens with every >tick of some central clock so the link appears to be bidirectional. Actually, the local loop "U" reference point is not ping-pong, but full duplex using echo cancellation. That is, everybody listens and talks on the same wire all the time, cancelling out what you send to pick out what the other guy is sending. This takes modestly heavy silicon but the chips are now out there. Ping-pong was discarded a few years ago, though it's found in some proprietary vendor equipment. At the inside-building "S/T" reference point, they use four wires. >* 1 D or Data channel for signaling or packet People often ask what the "B" and "D" stand for. B stands for Bearer, though H channels are also bearers ("High capacity"). D, however, formally stands for "D". Long-time ISDN weenies may remember that early on, some people discussed how that channel was used for making and breaking calls, thus causing change (delta) to the B channels. But it's not a delta channel any more, just a D. Right. You Will Forget Delta. (It was never, however, Data; most data flows on B channels.) >These channels provide both signaling and transmission. Notice that >there is no distinction between voice and data on the B-channel. The >ISDN treats both as a stream of bits. Not exactly. If you ask for a stream of bits, you get it. But if you ask for "speech" or "audio", the network has the right to process your bits as it desires, preserving the audio content. If you call between North America and Europe, the network MUST change speech and PCM audio because Europe and North America use different PCM standards! They're mutually unintelligible, though both are 64 kbps PCM. Similarly, the network MUST NOT change a clear channel (data). >No call set-up or take-down is required when using the D-channel to >interface in packet mode. Not exactly that simple. If you use the B channel, you have to first set up a circuit call to the packet handler, THEN set up an X.25 call. If you use the D channel, you still have to set up the X.25 call, but using DSS1 (Q.931) instead of X.25 for the call establishment phase. It's one step instead of two, but not connectionless. (Yet. Just not enough datagram fans in CCITT.) Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 3 Oct 90 23:53:51 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca In-Reply-To: article <12768@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Dory Leifer, sent in by Jody Kravitz: The article was very informative, but it left out a few items that I spotted, so here goes ... First of all, the article mentioned Basic Rate Interface (BRI), which is the local connection between the CO (or PBX) and the end user. It did not mention, however, Primary Rate Interface (PRI), which is the LD connection between CO's. PRI (in the US) is 23 data (B) channels and 1 control (D) channel, with all channels, both B and D, running at 64Kb/second. PRI and BRI use the same call control messages (Q.931). [Article talks about Europeans and Japanese implementing ISDN standard] Yes, they are implementing the standard, but they are doing some things differently than US manufacturers. Case in point: ISDN PRI here is 23B+D, in Europe, China, and Japan(?) it's 30B+2D. There are even differences between MCI's implementation of PRI and AT&T's implementation. Oh well, typical standard :-). [Future bank credit card service example, service rep gets customer's info from calling number, bill appears on both the rep's screen and the customer's screen, etc.] The part concerning the service rep being able to access the customer's data from the calling number is possible NOW, with PRI ANI and a link between the bank's ACD and their computer. Both BRI and PRI would be needed for the entire example to work. The customer's billing data would go over BRI from the bank to the bank's CO, over PRI from CO to CO, and over BRI from the customer's CO to the customer's BRI device, where it would be displayed. [Lack of current broadband standard] The current version of the standard has provisions for using 6 PRI B-channels together (called an H0 channel, 384 Kb/sec) and using 24 B-channels together (H11 channel, 1.536 Mb/sec [this is AT&T's number, don't know why it's not 1.544Mb/sec]). AT&T offers a "Switched 384" service (the H0 channel), but I don't think they offer the H11 channel service yet. I don't know what services of this nature MCI or Sprint offers. Kevin Collins Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc San Jose, CA ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation" Date: 3 Oct 90 17:19:22 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <12849@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dgc@math.ucla.edu (David G. Cantor) writes: > In TELECOM Digest, V10, No. 693, Roger Clark refers to new FCC > regulations concerning inside wirng rules and, in particular, refers > to "the point of demarcation" between the telco's wiring and the > subscriber's wiring. > Does the FCC require that there be such a point of demarcation? I > live in GTE country and neither I, nor my neighbors, have such a > point. Does this point (which I assume is a modular jack and plug) > have to be accessible without entering the subscriber's premises, or > at least without passing through a locked gate or door? You, your neighbours and everyone in Southern California have had such a point for some years. In fact you may be paying $0.50 a month or so for "free" maintenance of your inside wiring - check your phone bill. This wiring you are paying to have maintained starts at your demarc'. The demarcation point which is the physical location where the telco responsibility for wire ends and yours begins. This is similar to the electric meter, everything after it is your wire and everything before it is Edison's wire. You can mess with your wire, you can't mess with Edison's wire. But, yes they meter your calls at the CO, not at your demarc point. The demarc is not always easy to get to. Especially if in a basement which is usually locked. To save the subscriber the grief of having to be home when the telco drops by, it is convenient to have an accessible demarc, but not essential. So where is your demarc point? In Southern California, it is usually in a little box on the wall of a house with an aerial wire leading to it. Inside the box is a device called a protector, it looks like two nuts and a ground wire, this is where the house wire connects to the telco "drop wire". Some houses have the demarc in the crawl space - many of these in West LA, Beverly Hills. Modern Demarc's are called Network Interfaces and besides the protectors they also have an RJ11 jack so that you can separate house wire from the drop so you can plug a phone in there to determine if your wire is bad or the telco circuit is bad. Apartment houses usually have all the demarcs in an easily accessible closet. Finding the right one for an apartment can sometimes be a challenge. Office buildings usually have them in the "telco closet", at least one on each floor. The demarcs are usually orange covered punch down blocks with the subscribers name on them, they are loosely referred to as the "RJ-21X". In those parts of the US that have real basements, the residential demarc is usually in the basement. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 13:20:45 edt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Which Came First? Reply-To: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <12879@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes: > As I have heard it, the ISO standard for numeric keypads antedated the > CCITT recommendation. When CCITT "studied" the keypad layout, AT&T > representatives refused point-blank to compromise, and CCITT > (cravenly) gave in. Hmmm. So making AT&T switch to the 7-8-9 layout would have been mere "compromise", but having CCITT adopt the 1-2-3 layout (which was found to be superior in human factors experiments run by both AT&T and CCITT) was "cravenly" giving in. Odd, that. > All praise to those (few) PTTs which held out and adopted the ISO > version. Au contraire; all praise to those (many) PTTs which adopted the CCITT recommendation. Standardizing inferiority is certainly not progress. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands Date: 3 Oct 90 18:18:39 GMT Organization: uvabick hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes: >In the Netherlands PTT Telecom has managed to confuse everybody by >creating a single new area code (06) containing the equivalents of >both 800 and 900 numbers. The Consumers' Association has demanded >that the toll numbers be changed into 07 numbers, but since all 07X >area codes are already in use, this is not possible. >There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do >provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. No no, not true: on one of my residential phone-lines I have outgoing call blocking ONLY for 069 and 063. They even offer this service on old stepper-switches (by adding a piece of hardware between the switch and your wires). >Next time I'll tell you about the night when PTT Telecom intended to >demonstrate that 06 was also usable as the choke exchange and found >out the hard way that it was not. Oh yeah, I had fun that night waiting for a dialtone for up to twenty minutes! By the way: a lot of the numbers in the FREE series 06-022XXXX end up outside of Holland (like 06-0229111 for AT&T USADirect) and some of them route over lines with IN-BAND signalling systems. Have PHUN! Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) is also editor of Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.) Postbus 22953 (in DUTCH) 1100 DL AMSTERDAM tel: +31 20 6001480 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 2:07:27 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands >PTT Telecom also produced a flyer "what everybody should know about 06 >numbers". It contains a useful table: >06-5... peak: 105 c/min mobile telephones > weekend: 62 c/min Does this mean that the caller of a mobile phone has to pay a special surcharge as well as the owner of the mobile phone? That seems like a raw deal, because business owners who have mobile phones cannot advertise that you can call them out on the road as a "free call"! David Lemson d-lemson@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Question About Ring Current Date: 3 Oct 90 16:56:37 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <12850@accuvax.nwu.edu>, swatty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry) writes: > I have a question regarding ring current generation.... > Is there a gizmo on the market that will generate ring current for an > electronic key system? In this application, I have line current > working already, but I need to send ring. > Any ideas??? I have lots of ideas, but it is not clear what you are trying to do: 1. Synthesise telco ring current to feed into a KSU for testing? 2. Design a key system and devise a way to signal ringing to stations? 3. You have some electronic key sets and you would like to press them into use with a homebrew KSU and need to signal to them. Most electronic KSUs do not send ring current in the 90V 20 Hz sense to the station. Many send a digital signal that signifies ringing. So if you have some electronic sets, the brnad and model is important if you want an answer about the signalling method. And now back to Sprint vs MCI against AT&T. 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 ------------------------------ Date: 2-OCT-1990 15:47:24.37 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Strange "Calls To" on Phone Bill I've seen some of those "strange call to:" on bills as well, mainly cellular phone bills and marine (ship-to-shore) phone bills. I think they refer to certain areas within a larger metropolitan area. I once got NYCZ2, which the nice people at NYTel told me was Mid-town Manhattan. I've also gotten SFCZ3, which, if it has anything to do with how Pac*Bell does its "ZUM" (Zone Unit Measurement) system for local calls, corresponds to "Zone 3" in the Pac*Bell SF book. (Is this so?) I have an old NYTel directory (1979), and it lists the 15 New York Zones, the 9 Nassau Zones, and the 9 Westchester Zones. I don't believe that these are used for customer calling purposes anymore, as they have been replaced (at least in the New York Metro area) by a wider-area calling system. However, they do pop up on non-Telco bills every so often, and every time I ask "why?", I am usually told "Oh, the billing computer doesn't know the REAL name for the place..." (Err..yeah...right..New York is *SUCH* a small,unheard of place that anyone could have made that mistake! ;-) ). I've never seen these occur for more rural areas, however... (Oh, if anyone wants a copy of the 1979 Call Zone map, it's in all of the New York City 1979 directories, or I can mail/fax you one if you are really interested...) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #708 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13257; 4 Oct 90 4:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07736; 4 Oct 90 3:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05685; 4 Oct 90 2:07 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 1:35:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #709 BCC: Message-ID: <9010040135.ab26350@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Oct 90 01:35:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 709 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Ken Abrams] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Jim Rees] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Carol Springs] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [David Lemson] Re: More COCOTery [Bill Berbenich] PA COCOT Checklist [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Joking Reference to 1+ [Roy M. Silvernail] Authorization to Restrict 1+ Changes [Eric Dittman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer Date: 3 Oct 90 20:55:08 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <12907@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes: >What do LD carriers do when they dial a number that the destination CO >has programmed as a "call forward - no answer", and the number >forwarded to is busy? In this situation, the caller hears a few >rings, and then a busy signal. Are you really sure it works this way? Is a PBX involved? The rule used to be (and STILL should be) that CFDA (call forwarding-don't answer) should only be sent to a number in the SAME SWITCH. The reason for this is the concern you expressed about the confusing progress of the call and the posibility of the supervision getting fouled up as the call is passed to another switch. If the call stays in the same switch, the status of the forwarded-to line is known and the call will NOT progress if that number is busy; the called line will just continue to ring. This in itself is a little confusing since it makes it appear that the call forwarding has stopped working. Having said all that, the situation will likely change with the implementation of CCIS/SS7. When it becomes possible to find the status of the forwarded-to line via an SS7 query, it should then be possible to CFDA outside the office and allow the call to progress only if the line is not busy. Switch boundaries become somewhat blurred with SS7. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: You might be interested in knowing that your parent company Ameritech offers 'call transfer: busy/no answer' to cellular customers and it is NOT confined to the same CO, same LATA, or even the same area code. *71 on Ameritech cellular is immediate call forwarding; *72 is transfer on busy/no answer. I transfer from my 312 cellular number to my 708 voice mail number in the Centel CO. Cellular One offers the same thing here. On an unanswered call, the caller hears three or four rings, then a few seconds of silence as the call is withdrawn and sent to my voicemail. Then the caller hears the ringing resume again, or a busy signal. On both Cellular One and Ameritech Mobile, the 'if BY/DA' number is programmed each time it is used as desired by the user. Yet when I called Illinois Bell, I was told it was available for my residence phone, but the CO had to program it (all I would do is turn it on/off via *72/*73) and that it had to stay in the same CO. What does Ameritech know they are not telling Illinois Bell? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: 2 Oct 90 12:16:14 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) writes: [in response to my conspiracy theories about why the BOC lets slamming happen] >No, it doesn't follow. The BOC could get more PR mileage out of >calling the customer to confirm and not only making the would-be >slamming IEC out to be the villain but also declaring itself savior of >the day. "See, we're here to serve *you*, not *them*." In par- >ticular, if they are in bed with AT&T (and let's face it, there is a >lot of overlapping stock ownership), by thwarting a slam on an AT&T >customer, they would make sure the customer's long-distance business >stays with AT&T straight through. Yah, except that 1) it costs the BOC money to do the confirmations. Why should they pay to clean up an IEC's messes? and 2) I for one would be mildly pleased if the BOC called me and prevented a slam, and mildly PO'd at the IEC -- but I'd be royally furious at an IEC if the slam went through, and never even consider using them again. Not to mention that when a slam happens and gets corrected, ATT may have lost the POTENTIAL PROFIT on a few calls, but the IEC loses the income, and still had the expense of providing them. A positive sum game from the standpoint of the bell boys. Of course, this is just harmless suppositition ;^) and playful commentary. I don't have the twist of mind to really decipher phone industry plots. They make the Oswald conspiracy look like something out of an average kindergarden. Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Tue, 2 Oct 90 21:32:56 GMT In article <12758@accuvax.nwu.edu>, "C. Harald Koch" writes: >In article <12368@accuvax.nwu.edu> monty@sunne.east.sun.com (Monty >Solomon - Temp Consultant) writes: >> Well, that seems like an awfully easy thing to rectify with no new >> technology whatsoever: just put two magnetic stripes on the back of >> the card, one with the bankcard data and one with the phonecard data. It seems to me, therefore, that the easiest solution (and the one that should have been used in the first place) is to put the Calling Card information on one of the other tracks. Then there is no ambiguity; the card is both optically and magnetically a credit card and a phone card. Another problem with the two-stripe solution is that the second stripe would fall in the same area as the embossing. Here is the ANSI standard, in case anyone is interested. This info is a little (ten years or so!) out of date. --------------- From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Banking Card Data Formats Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 21:20:51 EDT Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Sometime ago, there was a request for information regarding the data format of the magstripes on banking cards. At the time, I was unable to find an old message of mine that I sent to Arpa sometime back which contained that information. However, I was finally able to locate the original message, and I have extracted the information requested... AUTOMATIC TRANSACTION MAGNETIC STRIPE FORMAT -------------------------------------------- ANSI X4.16 (1976) ISO 3554 ------------------------------------------------- <-- top edge of card .223" ------------------------------------------------- <----- TRACK 1 IATA .110" | ------------------------------------------------- | TRACK 2 ABA .110" mag stripe ------------------------------------------------- | TRACK 3 THRIFT .110" | ------------------------------------------------- <----- TRACK 1: developed by the International Air Transportation Assoc. (IATA), contains alphanumeric info for automation of airline ticketing or other reservation database applications. TRACK 2: developed by the American Bankers Assoc. (ABA), contains numeric info for automation of financial transactions. This track is also used by most systems which require an identification number and a minimum of other control info. TRACK 3: developed by the Thrift Industry, contains info, some of which is intended to be changed (re-recorded) with each transaction, e.g. cash dispensers which can operate "offline". density in bits char length in bits info content per inch including parity bit --------------- -------------------- ------------ TRACK 1: 210 7 79 alphanumeric chars TRACK 2: 75 5 40 numeric chars TRACK 3: 210 5 107 numeric chars Information is read right to left beginning with the Start Sentinel (SS) character located at the right edge of the card. TRACK 1: LRC | ES | DISCRETIONARY DATA | FS | NAME (26 char max.) | SS (coded char set: 6 bit subset of ASCII plus parity) TRACK 2: LRC | ES | DISCRETIONARY DATA | FS | ACCOUNT NUMBER | SS (coded char set: BCD 4 bit subset plus parity) TRACK3: LRC | ES | DISCRET. DATA | AS | USE AND SECURITY DATA | FS | ACCOUNT # | SS (coded char set: BCD 4 bit subset plus parity) SS Start Sentinel FS Field Separator AS Account Separator ES End Sentinel LRC Longitudinal Redundancy Check For error detection an odd parity bit is included in each character and a longitudinal redundancy check (LRC) character is encoded after the End Sentinel (ES). --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 3 Oct 90 19:14:23 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In Vol. 10, Issue 703, our Moderator responds to Mark Brader and Jeff Bier: >[Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I >think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that >says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when >auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker >should determine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as >required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this >is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] And how, pray tell, is this determination to be made? By trying 911? This wastes the time of 911 operators who might otherwise be responding to real emergencies. At the least it will annoy them. (I once made the mistake of dialing 911 about a disturbance that wasn't serious enough to be classified as an emergency, and was politely chewed out and told to dial the police station instead.) Dial 911, listen for ringing, and hang up quickly? WRONG... Some people might not realize, though, why this is a bad idea. Are there, in fact, many COCOTs left that *don't* allow free emergency calls? I thought this was the one COCOT deficiency that *was* cracked down on, and heavily, fairly early on. And if one passes out labels to friends and asks them to join oneself in a campaign against "broken" COCOTs, can one really expect the friends to follow the complicated separate label policy? Or to feel comfortable about testing the free emergency call part? I suggest that there be only one label. The wording of the "emergency" part might read: "IN AN EMERGENCY, try dialing _________. No coins should be required." This conveys the information that the phone ought to work for emergency calls, while implying that such isn't necessarily the case. Of course, this means that, for safety's sake, one also shouldn't place the sticker so as to block the coin slot. Sigh. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Oct 90 10:28:21 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File >Moderator's note about how we should determine whether or not a COCOT can >place 911 calls for free from a COCOT before we decide to place an OUT OF >ORDER sticker on it. How are we supposed to figure out if it can dial 911 for free, if it doesn't say on it. And even if it does say, we all know how reliable stickers on COCOTs are! I generally regard it as a bad idea to call 911, wait for a ring, and hang up. ------------------------------ From: bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 2 Oct 90 21:32:43 GMT Reply-To: bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons Okay, I'm finally gonna ask. Who, out of all the comp.dcom.telecom and TELECOM digest readers, is a COCOT owner? Surely one of us (maybe more) owns one of these detestable devices! Don't worry, I'm not enquiring to flame - I'd just like to hear your experiences. I'm sure anyone who reads TELECOM digest would have a correct and proper programming on their COCOT (if they owned one). :-) Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Allright ... come out of the closet and into the streets, one and all. Admit it if you own one (or more!). Tell us your side of the story. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: PA COCOT Checklist Date: 2 Oct 90 18:42:56 EST Organization: HRB Systems A month or so ago, I made up a form to check compliance of COCOT's in PA. It contains the things that I normally check. I was planning on testing it and running it by the PUC first before posting it, but I've gotten caught up in the CA postings, so here it is with the warning that it hasn't been used, may be inaccurate, may be a misrepresentation of the appropriate citings, etc. The thing that the COCOTs hate the most in PA is the "free local DA" requirement -- they have to pay for it. Phone number posted ____________________ (if missing, violation of 63.94.i.2) Location _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Free directory assistance? ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.94.a) Free 800 service ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.94.e) Dialing instructions posted (63.94.i.1) Local directory assistance ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Long distance directory assist ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Long distance dialing ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Local dialing ___Yes ___No ___ Incorrect Accept incoming calls ___Yes ___Doesn't Ring ___No number listed If not, is this posted ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.94.i.3) Minimum of 10 min. for initial charge? ___min ___Yes ___No (violation of 63.97.e) Citings from: Title 52. Public Utilties Part I. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Subpart C. Fixed Service Utilities Chapter 63. Telephone Service Subchapter G. Public Coin Telephone Service ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Joking Reference to 1+ From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 19:00:27 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > There are few areas left which do not require the leading 1 in front > of a 10-digit long distance number. This is true for at least part of > the following areas (I don't know of others): > 408 in California > 516, 914 in New York > (Use of N0X/N1X prefixes sharply reduced this list.) Anchorage, Alaska does not require 1+ to preceed _any_ long-distance call. (it's all one NPA) That can make for some surprises if you should mistakenly dial Galena or some such place. Alaska intra-state rates are also very high. Kenai-Anchorage night rate was 0.10/min when I lived there ... Kenai-Seattle was only 0.12! Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Authorization to Restrict 1+ Changes Date: 3 Oct 90 21:09:35 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility I recently called my local telephone company (SWBT) to restrict my account from changes to my 1+ service without written authorization from me. Today I recieved a form from them in the mail authorizing a restriction in changes in long distance service for the account and "all the lines, trunks, and/or stations associated with it." The form also confirms the current 1+ provider. Also, there's an option to attach a listing of the telephone/ terminal/station numbers and the 1+ provider associated with each line, station, or trunk. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #709 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14794; 4 Oct 90 5:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10284; 4 Oct 90 4:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07736; 4 Oct 90 3:11 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 2:20:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #710 BCC: Message-ID: <9010040220.ab22673@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Oct 90 02:20:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 710 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Which Came First? [David O'Heare] Re: Music On Hold [Brian Kantor] Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert] How Do I Reach This US Number? [Philip Katz] Tariff DANGER - Oct 19 in Mass. [Barton F. Bruce] DIY Residential Phone Switch [Alain Fontaine] 19" Rack Format [Klas Nordstr|m] NYNEX to Divest NY Telephone? [Henry Mensch] Mercury Marketing Again [John Higdon] Phone Ring Signal [Alan TC Penn] US vs. UK Modular Plugs [Toby Loftus] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: Which Came First? Date: 3 Oct 90 18:57:23 GMT Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth In article <12881@accuvax.nwu.edu>, julian@bongo.uucp (Julian Macassey) writes: > Operator consoles follow normal telco practice. By the way, > TIE once had a combined calculator/phone. I never saw one, so I wonder > what the number pad was like. One of the folks here had a desk pad with a speaker phone, regular handset, and a calculator built in (I can't remember the manufacturer's name, sorry). The phone and calculator used the same numeric display, but had separate keypads. One way to do it, I guess. David O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca (note corrected spelling) +1 613 723 6500 ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 4 Oct 90 05:03:58 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. One of the local datacomm suppliers that I used to deal with has instituted "hawk on hold", where I get to listen to a seemingly endless pitch for whatever it is they're hawking this week whilst they're trying to track down our salescritter. I find it incredibly annoying -- when I'm on hold, I usually park the call on my speakerphone so I don't have to keep the handset up to my ear, but with the "hawk on hold" crap playing all the time, I can't really tell when the mechanical salesman ends and the live one begins. I wonder if that company has figured out why I don't call them for quotes or other information any more. I'd also like to know if they have any concept of how much additional business they've gained from that &*^$^%$ vs how much they've lost by annoying the hell out of the customers. Piping a radio station into the hold circuit isn't much better -- like when I call a particular modem company and get to listen to their local "easy listening" radio station giving me a chance to win in their ratings contests, or maybe the traffic report for Frostbite Falls, Minnesota. It just thrills the very core of my being to know that there's a traffic jam on the main freeway of a city 2,000 miles away, yes indeed! Even if the station isn't hawking something, it's virtually certain they're not playing the same kind of music the radio in my office is. I've mentioned how annoying music-on-hold and hawk-on-hold is to salescritters before. I usually get the old shuck-and-jive "the boss likes it and I can't do anything about it anyway" as an answer. My answer to THAT is to hang up. Music on hold is bad enough. This selling schpiel is obscene. As is said, vote with your feet. Tell these companies that you won't deal with them because they have such an unprofessional, nay, CALLOUS disregard for their customers. Brian ------------------------------ From: munnari!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines Date: 4 Oct 90 15:49:47 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <12893@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cognos!geovision!gd@dciem.uucp (Gord Deinstadt) writes: > hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: >>CCITT Study Group XV is currently leading a study (along with Study >>Groups VIII and XVII) on compression of fax and modem traffic on >>digital trunks. It would involve demodulation of the signal, >>transmission of the original bits, and remodulation when the signal >>reaches the other end. This way, instead of wasting an entire 64kHz >>DS0, the network can use only 2.4KHz for a V.22bis connection, 9.6KHz >>for V.32, etc -- and pack them into DS0s to save bandwidth. > We already *have* a system that does this; in Canada it's called > Datapac. But instead of developing it into something w Australia has a Faxstream service which supposedly demodulates the fax message, packetizes it, sends it through the network digitally and delivers it to the recipient when the recipient is not busy. Delayed delivery and broadcast are also available, but I don't know any details (Time to ring yet another 008 rep :-) ) I think you just have to subscribe your fax's phone line and have FaxStream intercept your outgoing calls on request. It is supposed to be cheaper than direct dial LD, but I don't know anyone who uses it. Danny ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 08:04:28 PDT From: "John R. Covert 03-Oct-1990 1104" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Moderator's Note: John Covert forwarded this to us. PAT] From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio, Washington In TELECOM Digest Vol 10, Issue 666, Marc Kaufman writes: >In any event, the cabin crew announcement >these days is exceedingly explicit in disallowing operation of ANY >radio equipment (transmitters or receivers) at any time. The announcements seem to be idiosyncratic to the airlines involved. Over the last three years, I've flown a lot on America West Airlines and there's never been any mention of using RF equipment. (What does give me a hoot, especially on the Phoenix-Tucson shuttle, is listening to the detailed instructions on use of the plane's emergency flotation gear: for those not familiar with southern Arizona, you're hundreds of miles from any body of water large enough to take a bath in.) On the thread of inadvertent three-way calling (more or less), we had a peculiar incident at work a number of years ago. _How_ it happened would take a special Digest edition, but: One Saturday night, a female staff member (NOT at work that evening) accidentally got her home phone "stuck" in the building paging amp. Our telecom manager was finally able to clear the problem, but all my attempts (pick-up, barge-in, etc.) were fruitless. Of course, a lot of people were opposed to my _trying_ to correct things.... ;-) Opinions expressed are my own. NPR's opinions are made by a bunch of people upstairs. Dale Neiburg NPR Engineering 202-822-2402 ------------------------------ From: pkatz@axion.bt.co.uk (I've had enough of this Crummy Stuff!) Subject: How Do I Reach This US Number? Reply-To: PKatz@axion.bt.co.uk Organization: British Telecom Research Labs Date: Tue Oct 2 13:31:05 1990 GMT I have been trying to contact a company called ADC, and a posting to rec.audio resulted in the 'phone number 1-800-842-5421. I tried calling this (preceeding it with 010, the international access code from England), but I got a recorded announcement (with a US accent!) stating `You have called a number which is not available from your calling area'. Is there any way that I can dial this number from England? I thought that `800' numbers might be toll-free (and therefore not available internationally), but I was able to get through to 1-800-447-4700 ! BTW, don't be fooled by the address below - I know next to nothing about the 'phone systems ! Philip Katz, :|: e-mail PKatz@axion.bt.co.uk British Telecom Research Laboratories :|: 'phone + 44 473 642682 RT3131, SSTF 310, Martlesham Heath :|: fax + 44 473 637619 Ipswich, Suffolk, England IP5 7RE :|: pager + 44 81 840 7000 unit 4257598 [Moderator's Note: If you want the owner of the number to pay for it, you probably can't get through. Only a very few 800 numbers are available internationally to/from the USA. Generally, 800 service is strictly domestic in nature. What you can do, if you are willing to pay for the call, is locate the area code for the city and state you are calling, then dial that area + 555-1212 and ask for the 'regular' phone number. Your international operator may have to make the enquiry for you. Then dial that number at your expense. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Tariff DANGER - Oct 19 in Mass. Date: 3 Oct 90 01:32:44 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. The new tariffs are about to go into effect in Mass. There is at least one thing you may want to check IMMEDIATELY before Oct 19., and others possibly a bit more leisurely. Not in the central Boston area, but 'out a bit' you can actually still get unlimited usage business trunks. If you have these, you are NOT allowed to also have measured ones. If you really use these hard, they can be an incredible deal. They DO cost more per month. NET&T and assorted 'agents' have been trying to 'helpfully' suggest that customers switch to the lower cost measured service and see if the actual usage charges still don't bring the bill up to the former level. For some this might be a smart idea. For others this is really DUMB. What you all better know NOW is that if you have UNLIMITED trunks on OCT 19, they are grandfathered and you can keep them! If you don't have them then, you will NEVER EVER get them again. They have been working hard to switch everyone over before "D" day. And for something else you should look at, you will now find that it is often SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to route your calls (10xxx style) to an IXC for delivery a few towns away! They have leveled the toll calls so almost anywhere in eastern MA will be the same charge (and will be a savings on the long connections), but you will be really reamed on your local calls. 11 cents (Boston area business - 1 MU call) for the first 5 minutes is no longer. 10xxx routing can save bundles, but not all carriers have filed with the state to be allowed to do intra lata traffic. If you have T1 directly into them, you will find more allow intra lata, and on T1 intra-lata pricing is apt to be 1/2 of NET&T's. The DPU claims to have disallowed feature group access for the general public, but will consider it again in Jan. I assume some end users that are using it ostensibly are terminating traffic off private interlata nets. That would be swell, imagine terminating-only style feature group D trunks just to be able to afford intra-lata calls! (that is what IXC is using to be able to give you that pricing). At least you would get another BIG win. NYNEX would have to give you the answer supervision they perversely refuse to otherwise! Small companies that previously could not justify a PBX or T1 to IXCs may well now need both just to keep local calls affordable. Before the dust settles on this mess, a few THOUSAND concerned consumers should suggested to the DPU (at one of their hearings, even) that NET&T MUST provide default 10xxx routing of your choice FREE on ALL intra lata calls other than possibly the very local ones that previously were the one MU calls. It may be trivial to have a PBX route that way, but try to get my kids or an office full of average folk using a 1a2 key system to use 10xxx for 3 towns away calls. It just won't happen. It should be quite clear the regulation isn't working too well and our local telco NEEDS it in a bad way. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 14:09:13 +0100 From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" Subject: DIY Residential Phone Switch I have just received the October issue of the magazine 'Elektuur' (Dutch edition). It does contain the promised project. I have not seen any other edition yet, so I can't say anything about publication in other languages. A long description would probably ruin this already overcrowded list. I'll just tell you that there are two boards: a generic analog interface and switching board, and a microcomputer board based on the 8052-AH-BASIC processor. Eight extensions, one 'foreign network' port. Software written in BASIC, modifiable by hooking a terminal to the microcontroller. Obvious weaknesses: no DTMF decoder (yet, it could certainly be added - maybe a future project); no dial tone generator (but busy is implemented). AF ------------------------------ From: radar@cd.chalmers.se Subject: 19" Rack Format Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 18:28:20 MET I have been reading this group for a while and have decided to put this question on the net. When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? I do not know if this is the right forum to ask this question but since the telecom history goes back more than 100 years it is worth a try. With best regards, Klas Nordstr|m radar@cd.chalmers.se ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 16:39:59 -0400 From: Henry Mensch Subject: NYNEX to Divest NY Telephone? Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu That's what the New York State Public Service Commission recommends: YORK-PHONES (Albany, N.Y.) -- State Public Service Commission report by general counsel recommends that Nynex divest N. Y. Telephone. There should be heaps more on this in tomorrow's New York-based newspapers. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de [Moderator's Note: Please send an article as soon as you have specifics on Thursday. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 3 Oct 90 13:03:34 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon It has been many weeks since the telemarketing firm for the {San Jose Mercury News} has invaded my privacy. When I raised a big enough stink, the president of the firm removed my entire prefix (723) from the calling base. UPDATE: A friend in the 370 exchange (Campbell) finally received the call that broke the camel's back. He told them that he wanted no further calls on any of his lines (he has two). "Walking the organization" he finally spoke with someone who told him that the only way he could be assured of not receiving any further calls was to have them remove (you guessed it) the 370 prefix from the calling base. He said, "Fine, go for it." Then he was treated to the same reasoning that I got a taste of. "But, sir, if we remove that prefix then we will lose a lot of marketing contacts." In other words, the San Jose Mercury's right-to-telemarket supercedes an individual's right-to-privacy. Frankly, I'm getting tired of these people and am open to suggestions on how to shut them down permanently and legally. Anyone agree and have suggestions? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Admittedly, this problem may call for a special remedy. Generally, a taste of their own medicine works pretty well. You might try obtaining the home telephone numbers of various people in the organization for starters. Let us know how things work out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tc Peng Subject: Phone Ring Signal Date: 3 Oct 90 18:19:02 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Div. I am planning to do some experiments with my telephone set. Could anybody out there give me some pointers about how to detect the phone ring signal when there is an incoming phone call. Alan TC Penn voice : 1 408 553 3225 Hewlett-Packard email : tc@hpsctcd.hp.com Santa Clara, Ca. 95052 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 23:37:29 EDT From: Toby Loftus Subject: US vs. UK Modular Plugs Greetings! I have a friend who is going to the UK soon and has a modem which will support CCIT (?) protocols, which I understand are used in the UK. What I would like is any information on how to physically connect the modem to the UK outlets. I'm told that the UK has modular plugs, but ones quite different from US plugs. Any suggestions on how to attack this? Any company out there which supplies cords with a UK plug on one end and a US plug on the other? Thanks, Toby Loftus ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #710 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16093; 5 Oct 90 4:03 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14352; 5 Oct 90 2:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00180; 5 Oct 90 1:20 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 0:50:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #711 BCC: Message-ID: <9010050050.ab19638@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Oct 90 00:50:49 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 711 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [TELECOM Moderator] Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service [Jamie Saker] Latest 900-Number Scam Involves Fidonet [Tom Betz] 900 Special Value Deal [John Stanley] Norwegian Telephone Dials [Ole J. Jacobsen] Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages [Johnson City Press via Paul Schmidt] Music on Hold Anecdote [Steve Elias] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 0:00:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Tens of thousands of MCI customers across the northeastern section of the United States had long distance phone problems Wednesday after a construction crew in Ohio sliced through a fiber-optic cable . The cable, which MCI spokesperson Doug Dome described as 'the backbone of our network', was cut around 9:15 Eastern time. Service was not fully restored until after 5:00 PM Eastern time. According to Dome, repair crews had to do major repairs to the cable involving a lot of splicing. About 50,000 calls were affected. Some were automatically re-routed, but according to Dome, the fiber cut was of the magnitude that many calls were simply lost, or left unprocessed at the point of their origin with some local telco. The affected states were Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and parts of Michigan. Hardest hit was area code 216, including Cleveland. A construction crew employed by the State of Ohio was working on a bridge on the Ohio Turnpike near North Royalton, a Cleveland suburb, when 'a digging machine went down in the ground, grabbed the fiber-optic cable and yanked several feet of it out of the ground', said MCI. A repair crew from MCI's office in North Royalton was on location in fifteen minutes, and remained at the scene until late in the evening Wednesday. The overflow of calls from MCI on Wednesday went mostly to AT&T, with some of the traffic going to Sprint. The overflow caused the AT&T network throughout the northeast to be sluggish and very slow most of the day. ------------------------------ From: Jamie Saker Subject: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service Date: 5 Oct 90 06:52:39 GMT I am a systems operator for a leading midwest telemarketing corporation (inbound, outbound, 900 services, digital client services, etc.). One of our corporation's clients is US Sprint -- our Telemarketing Sales Representives place calls to residents regarding US Sprint service. After reading about the alleged orders/hookups made without the owner's approval with US Sprint, I was a little curious about how the entire process actually worked and what checks, if any, existed. Here, essentially, is what I found out: The order process: 1. TSR places call to resident. 2. TSR discusses scripted material with resident (the scripting is important, I've learned, so that the TSR does not promise anything which is untrue. I've watched a few TSRs get chewed out for deviating from the scripting by even a narrow margin.) 3. If the resident expresses interest in the product (such as US Sprint service). For most clients, the TSR then asks the resident if it is all right if they record the conversation from this point. This is important for several reasons: o It verifies that the resident did order the service. o It verifies that the TSR stayed with the scripting and did not promise anything beyond the scripting in order to place the order. o It serves as a tool for the verifications department to evaluate the tapes, comparing with the actual orders placed by the TSR (It does not look good if you had 20 orders on paper and only 9 on tape:) ) o It serves as a tool for the quality assurance department to monitor TSRs. 4. For many clients which do not have the recorded conversation, many of the TSRs stay late for "call backs" to residents who placed orders (according to the orders list). This information is also used for verifications. (This is what happened when my wife was called and ok'ed US Sprint service -- they called us back later in the evening to not only verify the order, but to ask if the representative was helpful, informative, etc.) 5. During this entire process, Quality Assurance personnel are monitoring the lines, making sure TSRs are polite, stick to scripting, and essentially are following the guidelines outlined for TSRs. 6. After the night's calls, the verifications department goes to work with the processed orders -- making sure that each order has gone through the appropriate proceedures required by that particular client. Incomplete orders get placed into a catagory for call backs. After this process is completed, the orders are sent out to the clients for their processing. From my informal "investigation," I drew the following conclusions which shed doubt on the "wrongfully placed orders" claims: o An order can NOT be placed without complete information (I run the systems -- a record with an empty field will not go through -- verifications will turn it back and representatives, usually supervisors, will make call backs. In this case, the TSR's identification is on the order and if it is determined that there was a problem on the behalf of the TSR, disciplinary actions are taken. Records without TSRs identification are also regarded as incomplete.) o TSRs are monitored on a regular basis -- this serves as an additional check, besides serving as a tool for maintaining quality calls. My informal survay places the ration of QA to TSR at 1-20 (again, this is not official but my own guesstimation). The QA individual I spoke with said that it is quite rare for a TSR to not be listened to during a shift's calls. o Any TSR sitting idle on the floor, filling out a form manually or entering it on the computer without talking with a caller would stick out like a proverbial "sore thumb." Supervisors are always walking about, checking on their people, providing assistance, and MAKING sure they are placing calls. For those of you who have talked with a US Sprint, MCI, AT&T telemarketer, you may recall all the questions they asked you. (I can only speak of US Sprint -- and there are several). The TSR would also have to: 1. Bypass all the checks (supervisors monitoring, QA, etc.) 2. Successfully guess your address and all other information the client requests. (I am not at liberty to discuss it.) 3. Bypass either the callback or the tape verification. In other words, it is extremely unlikely a TSR could successfully manage to place an order for a service the resident did not request. (I won't say impossible because there always seems to be an exception to every rule). I hope this helps to clarify matters on this debate. Again, my methods were informal and do not represent the opinions of my employer. I also do not represent US Sprint (however, our household is quite happy with the service and rates we have received so far.) Jamie Saker jsaker@zeus.unomaha.edu Public Relations Director C&DC Consultant jsaker@orion.unomaha.edu UNO Student Chapter of the "Go Hawkeyes!" JSAKER@UNOMA1 (bitnet) Assoc. for Computing Machinery ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Latest 900-Number Scam Involves Fidonet Date: 4 Oct 90 01:39:10 GMT Reply-To: tbetz@upaya.lilink.COM (Tom Betz) Organization: Greyston Business Services I found this on a Fidonet want-ads echo, and thought folks here might be interested. Anyone want to lay odds on how many suckers will call? To: All Message #: 5457 From: Jason Romero Submitted: 21 Sep 90 09:45:00 Subject: Great Systems Give-away!! Status: Public Received: No Group: FOR-SALE (29) RE: Great Systems Give-away!!! Hello!!!! Anyone who reads this ad, has the advantage of winning either of the systems noted below! If you follow the instructions below, you can potentially be an INSTANT GRAND PRIZE WINNER!!!!! The only way you can take advantage of this offer is to call 1-900-xxx-xxxx at 1200/2400 bauds / N-8-1. You will need to logon and create an account and leave him your real name, real home & work phone number, what bbs & the number of the bbs you saw this ad on, and real full address so that they can send the merchandise. The merchandise will only be sent if you qualify to be THE WINNER! The reason for calling the 900 number is so that it can help this company to offset the cost of the systems. So that when any of the systems have been won, that they can give more and more systems away. Give the sysop this security code: AFN108 Give the sysop that code in the feedback message, so that he will know that you have gotten your mail and are interested in receiving the GRAND PRIZE!!! For the contract to be legitimate, be expecting a voice call within 12 hours to 3 weeks for voice confirmation and furthur instructions. Depending on the response to this ad, I can guarantee that it will take no longer than 3 weeks to get your voice confirmation. The sysop will need to ask you a few questions. The score that you will need to have to qualify, will be told unto you at the begining of the call. After each question, you will be told your current score. You will then be sent a legal copy of all instructions, offers and the company address for your legal protection. These questions will not be hard at all. Anyone will be able to answer them. However, they will be vital to you qualifying for winning the BEST COMPUTER SYSTEMS AROUND! *********** GRAND PRIZE ********** Tell him in the feedback message also which grand prize you will be choosing. The sysop will need to know this when calling you voice. MAC SE/30 IBM Compatible 386-25 4 Megs of RAM 4 Megs of RAM 80 Meg Hard Drive 80 Meg Hard Drive USR HST Dual Standard 14.4k USR HST Dual Standard 14.4k TI (Postscript) Microlaser PS17/35 Panasonic (Postscript) KXP-4455 Sigma L-View 24 bit S-VGA Orchid ProDsnr II 16 bit 1MB RAM Sigma L-View Monitor (1024X768X256 clrs) Software: NEC MultiSync 3D Monitor Page Maker 4.0 Software: Laser Talk Windows 3.0 Superpaint Super/3-D 2 Page Maker 3.01 Ultrascript PC 2.0 + Both are worth a total value of: ***** $6476.45 ***** CALL ASAP TO SECURE YOUR GRAND PRIZE. OFFER VALID UNTIL 11/20/90 $2.00 1st Minute $1.25 Each Additional --- Opus-CBCS 1.13 * Origin: House Atreides (1:103/602.0) ---------------------- hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz Tom Betz - GBS (914) 375-1510 [Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending that piece of trash along to this high-class Digest! :) Seriously, Fido is a very good network, with a lot of dedicated and nice people. Its a shame someone has to dump on it like the above. Thanks for remembering to remove the actual phone number. I see no reason for this net to give them free publicity also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 03 Oct 90 23:15:43 EDT From: John Stanley <73765.1026@compuserve.com> Subject: 900 Special Value Deal Vote for 900 sleaze of the year: There is, apparently a recent horror movie that features a demonic doll named Georgie (I think). The ad goes something like: "Hi, I'm Georgie. Call me at 1-900-xxx-1DOLL and talk to me. And then, I'll CALL YOU BACK. (voice over: yes that's right, call now and after you hang up, Georgie will call you back. Only x dollars per minute, ask your parents if you are under 18, etc...)" What a wonderful use for ANI. And what a marvelous tool for torture. Older brother calls Georgie, hangs up. Georgie calls back, older brother lets five5 year old little brother answer phone. Or, goof gains access to other line in apartment complex, calls Georgie. Georgie calls back to unsuspecting single woman. Wow, semi-automated, anonymous harassment calls. Actually, now you no longer need to harass the operator to call you back to test the ringer. Hmmm, I wonder if this could be used somehow to find out the number of the line you are calling on? (p.s. In Syracuse are, 993 reaches an automated voice that speaks the calling number. It does not work on certain exchanges when you have a hunt group - it gives the main number.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 1990 10:25:26 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Norwegian Telephone Dials It is true that the Norwegian "Tastafon" telephones use the calculator layout. This was determined by Norwegian Telecom to be the most logical, ergonomic, whatever, precisely for the adding machine/calculator reasons cited in this Digest. The backwards rotary "Oslo" or "X" dial is used *only* within the city of Oslo. For the exchanges that don't (yet) support tone dialling, an old Oslo dial phone or a special new button-to-pulse phone must be used. Thus the Tastafon comes in three flavors: Touch-Tone, Standard Pulse, and Oslo Pulse, but note that the button layout is *identical* (calculator style) on all three. Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040, USA Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: Paul Schmidt - Subject: Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages Date: Wed, 03 Oct 90 17:23:07 EDT Organization: KK4FS - Free Speech Forum, +1 615 283 0864 for BBS From the JOHNSON CITY PRESS, Wednesday, October 3, 1990 HACKER ALTERING RECORDED PHONE MESSAGES By Leslie Loyd Associated Press Writer KINGSPORT, TN - A computer hacker is tapping into voice mail telephone messages and replacing them with explicit sexual descriptions, a telephone company spokesman said Tuesday. Phil Timp, a spokesman for United Telephone Co., said the company has received 70 complaints. "All of the sudden in the last two weeks, we've had a barrage of complaints," Timp said. "What the motive is we don't know... Obviously they're very disturbed." The FBI and Kingsport police were called in Tuesday to investigate. ... (portion omitted describing voice mail) ... "(Subscribers) are checking their messages and hearing this," Timp said. "Imagine if your mother called." He said subscribers frequently use the last four digits of their telephone number as their access code because it is easy to remember. But that also makes the code easy to break. Timp said subscribers should check messages and change access code frequently. Timp said someone is using a computer to tap into the system and figure out the codes. "It's a knowledgable user," Timp said. He said he doesn't know if any subscribers have canceled because of the explicit messages. "We're doing everything we can to make sure these people can continue their voice mail service," Timp said. "It's the first time we've had a problem to this degree," he said. The company began offering the service two years ago and has had a few isolated incidents like this. ------------------------------ Subject: Music On Hold Anecdote Date: Thu, 04 Oct 90 12:59:34 -0400 From: Steve Elias When I was working for a startup a few years ago, one of our investors called up and listened to some of the music-on-hold. We had a local rock station tuned in, and they picked that moment to run a raucous ad for a wet T-shirt contest at a local bar. The investor was not amused, but we sure were! :) eli ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #711 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18289; 5 Oct 90 6:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22143; 5 Oct 90 4:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06098; 5 Oct 90 3:26 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 2:33:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #712 BCC: Message-ID: <9010050233.ab02438@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Oct 90 02:33:19 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 712 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson U.S. International Dialling Update [John R. Covert] Blocking International Calling Card Calls From Payphones [Ravinder Bhumbla] Re: US vs. UK Modular Plugs [Lon Stowell] Re: Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI [Bill Ezell] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [P. Bloemen] Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? [Barton F. Bruce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 14:40:02 PDT From: "John R. Covert 04-Oct-1990 1724" Subject: U.S. International Dialling Update AT&T is expanding direct dial service to an additional twelve countries effective 15 October 1990: 222 Mauritania 242 Congo 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 261 Madagascar 269 Comoros and Mayotte * 355 Albania 674 Nauru * 677 Solomon Islands * 682 Cook Islands 963 Syria 975 Bhutan * U.S. Sprint has had direct dial service to these three countries for some time, but it did not usually work except for customers with direct Sprint circuits, since Sprint had never told Bellcore to send routing guide updates to the local phone companies. Recently, the local routing guide from Bellcore was updated to direct local switches to route all assigned country codes to the L.D. carrier of choice without regard to whether that location has direct dial service or not. In addition, COMSAT has opened 874 as "Atlantic West". Apparently most of this satellite's footprint overlaps 871, but they seem to have decided to split out the code. The following countries remain non-dialable from the U.S.: 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 239 Sao Tome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 Diego Garcia 249 Sudan 252 Somalia 500 Falkland Islands 53 Cuba (only the U.S. base at Guantanamo, 5399, is dialable from the U.S. Guantanamo is not dialable from other countries which can call Cuba, such as Canada.) 672 Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, etc.) 678 Vanuatu (New Hebrides) 680 Palau 681 Wallis and Futuna 683 Niue 688 Tuvalu (Ellice Islands) 690 Tokelau 84 Viet Nam 850 Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) 855 Kampuchea (Cambodia) 856 Laos 93 Afghanistan 961 Lebanon 969 Yemen (Aden) (now united with Y.A.R., code probably retired) 976 Mongolia And finally, the following complete list of all assigned country codes (whether diallable or not) created from the official CCITT Recommendation E.163 is updated to include INMARSAT 874: World Numbering Zone 1 (Integrated Numbering Area) 1 Canada, USA including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique, Prune (Palm) Island, Union Island), Trinidad and Tobago* Note: Mexico locations with Zone 1 style area codes are a hack for use from the U.S. *only* and will be removed February 1991. *Trinidad and Tobago has been assigned code 296. No cutover planned. World Numbering Zone 2: Africa, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Aruba, overflow from other full regions. 20 Egypt 21 Integrated Numbering Area: Morocco (212 in service, also has 210, 211 assigned, but not used) Algeria (213 in service, also has 214, 215 assigned, but not used) Tunisia (216 in service, also has 217 assigned, but not used) Libya (218 in service, also has 219 assigned, but not used) 220 The Gambia 221 Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 Mali 224 Guinea 225 Ivory Coast 226 Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) 227 Niger 228 Togolese Republic 229 Benin 230 Mauritius 231 Liberia 232 Sierra Leone 233 Ghana 234 Nigeria 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 237 Cameroon 238 Cape Verde 239 Sao Tome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 Gabonese Republic 242 Congo 243 Zaire 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 Diego Garcia 247 Ascension Island 248 Seychelles 249 Sudan 250 Rwanda 251 Ethiopia 252 Somalia 253 Djibouti 254 Kenya 255 Tanzania including Zanzibar 256 Uganda 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 259 Zanzibar (this code is assigned in E.163, but use Tanzania, +255 54) 260 Zambia 261 Madagascar 262 Reunion (France) 263 Zimbabwe 264 Namibia 265 Malawi 266 Lesotho 267 Botswana 268 Swaziland 269 Comoros and Mayotte 27 South Africa 295 San Marino (currently dialled via +39 541. No info on cutover.) 296 Trinidad and Tobago (currently dialled via +1 809. No cutover planned.) 297 Aruba (Autonomous from the Netherlands Antilles as of 1 Jan 86) 298 Faroe Islands (Denmark) 299 Greenland Spare: 28, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294 World Numbering Zones 3 & 4: Europe except Soviet Union 30 Greece 31 Netherlands 32 Belgium 33 France 33 628 Andorra 33 93 Monaco 34 Spain 350 Gibraltar 351 Portugal 352 Luxembourg 353 Ireland 354 Iceland 355 Albania 356 Malta 357 Cyprus 358 Finland 359 Bulgaria 36 Hungary 37 Federal Republic of Germany (Eastern Portion, former DDR) 38 Yugoslavia 39 Italy 39 541 San Marino (has code +295 assigned, no info on cutover) 3966982 Vatican City 40 Romania 41 Switzerland 41 75 Liechtenstein 42 Czechoslovakia 43 Austria 44 United Kingdom 45 Denmark 46 Sweden 47 Norway 48 Poland 49 Federal Republic of Germany (Western Portion) World Numbering Zone 5: Mexico, Central and South America + St. Pierre & Miquelon 500 Falkland Islands 501 Belize 502 Guatemala 503 El Salvador 504 Honduras 505 Nicaragua 506 Costa Rica 507 Panama 508 St. Pierre et Miquelon (France) 509 Haiti 51 Peru 52 Mexico 53 Cuba 53 99 Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base (located on Cuba, dialable only from U.S.) 54 Argentina 55 Brazil 56 Chile 57 Colombia 58 Venezuela 590 Guadeloupe (including St. Barthelemy and French side of St. Martin) 591 Bolivia 592 Guyana 593 Ecuador 594 French Guiana 595 Paraguay 596 Martinique 597 Suriname 598 Uruguay 599 Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao, Bonaire) World Numbering Zone 6: Pacific 60 Malaysia 61 Australia 62 Indonesia 63 Philippines 64 New Zealand 65 Singapore 66 Thailand 670 Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan) 671 Guam 672 Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, Christmas I. Cocos I.) 673 Brunei 674 Nauru 675 Papua New Guinea 676 Tonga 677 Solomon Islands 678 Vanuatu (New Hebrides) 679 Fiji 680 Palau 681 Wallis and Futuna 682 Cook Islands 683 Niue 684 American Samoa 685 Western Samoa 686 Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands) 687 New Caledonia 688 Tuvalu (Ellice Islands) 689 French Polynesia 690 Tokelau 691 Micronesia 692 Marshall Islands Spare: 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699 World Numbering Zone 7 7 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics World Numbering Zone 8: East Asia + Marisat 81 Japan 82 Korea (Republic of) (South) 84 Viet Nam 850 Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) 852 Hong Kong 853 Macao 855 Kampuchea (Cambodia) 856 Laos 86 China (People's Republic) 871 Marisat, Atlantic (East) 872 Marisat, Pacific Ocean 873 Marisat, Indian Ocean 874 Marisat, Atlantic (West) (Note: all 87x codes belong to COMSAT) 880 Bangladesh 886 Taiwan* Spare: 80, 83, 851, 854, 857, 858, 859 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 887, 888, 889, 89 *886 is not assigned to Taiwan by the CCITT. The CCITT notes that the People's Republic of China has assigned 866 to Taiwan. 88x codes are not to be assigned until all the other 8xx codes are gone. All the 87x codes are assigned to the Maritime Mobile Service. World Numbering Zone 9: Middle East, Indian Subcontinent 90 Turkey 91 India 92 Pakistan 93 Afghanistan 94 Sri Lanka 95 Myanmar (Burma) 960 Maldives 961 Lebanon 962 Jordan 963 Syria 964 Iraq 965 Kuwait 966 Saudi Arabia 967 Yemen Arab Republic 968 Oman 969 Yemen Arab Republic (assigned to Aden before unification, not in use) 971 United Arab Emirates 972 Israel 973 Bahrain 974 Qatar 975 Bhutan (new assignment, did not appear in 1988 Blue Book) 976 Mongolia 977 Nepal 98 Iran Spare: 970, 978, 979, 99 ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Blocking International Calling Card Calls From Payphones Date: 4 Oct 90 23:49:42 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego I called the AT&T operator today to find out a way to get around the blocking of calling card calls to India from payphones (my university, like many others, does not allow any calls except local and 800 ones. It also does not allow access to long-distance companies through 10xxx and I was trying to find a way to call India from my campus). I was directed from international information (800 874-4000) to the long distance operator (00) to her supervisor. The supervisor told me that AT&T had nothing to do with the blocking and it was done "at the request of the country that was being called". To my incredulous reply that I couldn't believe that a country like, say, Liberia could ask them to block calls from a downtown Los Angeles payphone, she replied that "that was their prerogative". Now my question is - was she right or, was she just lying to me and it is the long-distance telephone company that blocks access? If she was lying, can someone give me an address in AT&T that I could write to complain about her. If she was right, could someone explain to me the reason behind other countries having the power to block access to them. I can understand not accepting collect calls where the called country would have to pay, but I would guess that in case of calling card calls it would be the long distance company that would suffer in case of fraud. p.s. - I don't know if Liberia *can* be direct-dialled - for some reason it was the first non-western country that popped to my mind! Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Office Phone: (619)534-7894 [Moderator's Note: The operator/supervisor was absolutely incorrect. I've had them try to tell me they had nothing to do with the blocking and that 'the local telco requests the blocking...'. I mean, how stupid does AT&T think their average user must be? No matter who you call with some authority/knowledge in the matter at AT&T, you will never get the same answer twice, and you will never get a *truthful, candid* answer at all! You will never get anyone to provide you with a complete list of foreign countries/US areas redlined let alone even admit that they are illegally discriminating against a large number of telephone users based on their ethnic or national origin. You think for a minute and tell me if you think the management of a telephone administration in some country would say to AT&T, "We do not want to accept calls coming from your country which originate at the corner of Walk and Don't Walk Sts." The employees at AT&T you spoke with assumed you were stupid and would not consider doubting what they said. The truth of the matter is that AT&T corporate policy -- not the local telcos; not the telephone administration in some country, but AT&T exclusively -- says people from countries X, Y and Z are likely to commit fraud. Such gross generalizations are of course highly offensive to most Americans. And look at your situation: through no fault of your own, you are greatly inconvenienced and discriminated against while living in our country. I guess AT&T assumes no one can stop them, or make them obey the law. There are things that can be done: A consortium of attornies should file a class action suit against AT&T for starters. If AT&T refused to process your call when you were using their 'Universal Card' (universal that is, unless you are a native of India, Israel, Korea or a few other countries trying to call back to your homeland) then you can take your complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates credit granting practices in the USA, since AT&T unlawfully discriminated against you in the use of their credit card. You can also file an informal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, asking that AT&T be forced to completely document their redlining activies. You can, and definitly should also contact the telephone administration in affected countries and ask them to file a formal complaint against AT&T for its refusal to pass traffic to them in accordance with applicable international agreements. Mention that AT&T tried to blame *them* for not accepting your call! The Federal Trade Commission will also accept complaints about fraudulent advertising, in view of the fact that AT&T claims their Calling Card can be used to call *anywhere* in the world. When you contact the FTC, FCC or telephone administrations, carefully document your claim with the time, place and destination of your call. Include the names and titles of any employees of AT&T you speak with. Let's force the issue! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lon Stowell Subject: Re: US vs. UK Modular Plugs Date: 5 Oct 90 00:42:34 GMT Reply-To: Lon Stowell Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA You didn't mention the modem manufacturer, most of the ones with European versions of the same modem will provide cabling free or for a small fee..... Is your friend aware that it is not generally LEGAL to just plug a modem in to the wall in Europe? You may wish to try your local Codex sales rep,,,,they do sell modems overseas and can offer advice... (I don't work for them ... .just know they provide phone cords for THEIR modems. ------------------------------ From: Bill Ezell Subject: Re: Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI Organization: Software Innovations, Inc. Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 12:49:59 GMT In <12575@accuvax.nwu.edu> nxh@meaddata.com (Nobuya Higashiyama) writes: >I found that there's a significant difference in call quality when >calling Japan from Dayton, OH between AT&T and MCI... We use AT&T for all of our international data calls, primarily to Japan, and a block reseller (Long Distance North) for all of our voice lines and domestic data calls. We found AT&T to be the only one that could provide relatively clean lines that didn't drive our Trailblazers to distraction, or at least low throughput. Bill Ezell Software Innovations, Inc. wje@siia.mv.com (603) 883-9300 ------------------------------ From: Phons Bloemen Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands Date: 4 Oct 90 09:13:13 GMT hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes: >There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do >provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. Yes, PTT provides 06 blocking (but they charge 35 guilders for it, maybe to cover the 'lost revenues' for the exploitaints of chatlines etcetera But the tariff policy at least does not allow the famous 900 sleaze where the Americans are so proud of :=), but is still possible to get a HUGE phone bill if you are addicted to chat lines and 'babbelboxen'). But it is easy to do it yourself: In various electronics magazines, 'intelligent 06 and 09 (international dialing code from NL) filters' are presented, which can block out the expensive services, and pass the free ones. Totally self-configurable! I don't think the PTT block also blocks emergency 06-11 but maybe you have some more info on this. Hans Phons Bloemen +31 80 236769 phons@cs.kun.nl Sophiaweg 244 6523 NJ Nijmegen NL Uni.of Nijmegen,Dept of Computer Science ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? Date: 4 Oct 90 03:42:45 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <12764@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>In article <12711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >>> * {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute >>> box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance The article Ramparts printed was a rather poor circuit for a traditional 'black box'. The 'black box' (as opposed to the 'blue' or 'red' boxes - each color cheating in some different way) was a VERY simple sort of thing. Rampart's circuit was a really stupid one that would give very low voice volume. The better circuits used a resistor (or better an inductor), a cap, a switch, and a battery, while their circuit simply used a resistor and a switch. People with subscriptions got their copies. Is that issue a collector's item worth much of anything? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #712 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16258; 6 Oct 90 4:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15085; 6 Oct 90 2:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10569; 6 Oct 90 1:39 CDT Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 1:20:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #713 BCC: Message-ID: <9010060120.ab08441@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Oct 90 01:20:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 713 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer [Brent Capps] Re: MCI as Slamming King [Macy Hallock] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Rolf Meier] Re: 202 Shrinks to DC Proper [Carl Moore] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Phydeaux] Re: More COCOTery [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Carol Springs] Re: Mental Harassment [Benjamin Ellsworth] Re: Another "Award" Call [Tad Cook] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 18:05:00 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer In Volume 10 : Issue 706, John Higdon wrote about switches 'listening' for an answer rather than using a default timeout. Here at RIT, we have a System 85. I had always assumed that it handled call supervision properly. One of the company's tech support department that I deal with has a policy of letting calls ring, until they can take it, so that callers don't have to pay to wait on hold. I spent four or five hours on hold one month, and was really surprised by the bill when it came (most of the calls were short after they finally answered. It turns out, the switch uses a 45 second time out. What a drag. Jeff Wasilko RIT Communcations ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 12:00:27 PDT From: Brent Capps Subject: Re: Supervision / Call Forwarding No Answer In article <12985@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: >>[stuff about call transfer feature encountering a busy signal] > Are you really sure it works this way? Is a PBX involved? The rule > used to be (and STILL should be) that CFDA (call forwarding-don't > answer) should only be sent to a number in the SAME SWITCH. The > reason for this is the concern you expressed about the confusing > progress of the call and the posibility of the supervision getting > fouled up as the call is passed to another switch. [Moderator states that Ameritech call transfer is not confined to the same CO, LATA or even area code] When the CF feature is datafilled for a particular line on a Northern PBX/Centrex CO (and this probably holds true for AT&T equipment as well), the craftsperson has the option of blocking the second leg of the call from being extended along a trunk. The reason for this has nothing to do with supervision difficulty. It has to do with preventing Joe Blow from forwarding his work phone at SchmuckCo Industries to Grandma's number in Ulan Bator, then going home and dialling his work number, causing the call to be forwarded to Grandma's number while Joe only gets charged for a local call (SchmuckCo Industries eats the rest of it, because the forwarding party pays for the second leg). The same thing goes for the 3WC feature. Supervision is not 'passed along' to the next switch; instead the CF software on SchmuckCo Industries' PBX or Centrex CO determines that it needs to hold the first leg while originating the second leg to Grandma's number in Ulan Bator. When she answers, both legs of the call are condensed onto a three-port conference bridge. The PBX or Centrex CO continues to monitor the connection for billing purposes; when it sees a disconnect from either party it tears down the call. By the way, international calls can be selectively blocked by 3WC/CF as well. Brent Capps uunet: ...!kentrox!brent Kentrox Ind., Inc. pstn: (503) 643-1681 x325 Portland, OR "insert standard disclaimer here" ------------------------------ From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 2:37:30 EDT In article <12719@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Tamkin writes: >No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted >"my independent telco let a long-distance carrier slam me" >nor "my Bell telco stymied a slamming attempt on me." I've had several customers in GTE North territory slammed. To the best of my knowledge, I have never had a GTE rep call to confirm a carrier change. Ditto for Ohio Bell territory. Letters to OBT and GTE restricting carrier changes to requests submitted in writing only seem to work if you say "no one is authorized to change this service, but the owner/subscriber in writing." This apparently locks the account in the computer somehow. Any attempt to do anything short of this, e.g. "carrier changes only in writing" seem to just get a remarks line in the computer and carry little weight. Both MCI and Sprint were the slammers, plus one other smaller outfit (a reseller, I think) were involved. They lost anyway, because I program all my customers with "smart" system to automatically dial their chosen carrier's 10XXX code before all calls. They can't slam 10XXX! This also puts their intra-LATA calls on their selected carrier's bill, usually generating more savings. My customers with dumb key systems have had the usual slamming problems. I've also found a few Ohio Bell payphones that did not use the carrier shown on the front label ... the label usually said AT&T, but the carrier was actually someone else. On the subject of carriers (and other things): My personal favorite carrier is Litel. I've been able to call their technical people directly, gotten good cooperation, and fast response when needed. AT&T, MCI, Sprint and others could stand to learn a few things from them. GTE has wiped out Litel's access from certain CO's a few times (usually by killing a T1 feed or invalidating their 10432 carrier code in the CO database ... but that's par for the course with GTE. The fact is, for stone cold reliability, I have to say AT&T is still the carrier of choice. Their marketing and responsivness have improved, but the still need to learn from their competitors. I have to deal with too many vestiges of the "old" bureaucratic AT&T far too often, especially on special services circuit repair (tie lines, T1's, etc.) I should note that the largest percentage of our AT&T problems are actually Ohio Bell or GTE access link problems, but AT&T does not see to it that the job gets done ... they just refer it out to the telco and wait ... just like old times: finger pointing and bureaucracy. So ... we're back to the same old thing: the local telcos are the weakest link in the chain. Their monopolistic attitude from pre-divestiture is still evident in their customer service and repair practices. Their indifference toward slamming, poor repair/operating practices and anti-competitive tarriff are all symptoms of that attitude. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 4 Oct 90 13:39:06 GMT Reply-To: Rolf Meier Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <12978@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: >bits as it desires, preserving the audio content. If you call between >North America and Europe, the network MUST change speech and PCM audio >because Europe and North America use different PCM standards! They're >mutually unintelligible, though both are 64 kbps PCM. Similarly, the >network MUST NOT change a clear channel (data). Actually, if you decoded ulaw with an Alaw decoder, or vice versa, the difference is practically inaudible compared to the use of the proper decoder. However, the conversion is made anyway, in order to meet the quantization requirements. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 10:46:04 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 202 Shrinks to DC Proper This replies to Alan Parker . Please don't take my remarks too far out of context. Yes, I wrote: >Today, Oct. 1, 1990, is scheduled as full cutover for NPA+7D local >calls in DC area if you are calling across the areacode boundary. But I also wrote >Now, 202 area has been shrunk (although no new area code has been >created), and the above instruction is now: >1+301+7D With "the above instruction" meaning the procedure for LONG DISTANCE calls to the Md. suburbs (in text which you left out of your reply). >All of the above goes for the Va. suburbs, with 703 substituted for 301. Again, this refers to LONG DISTANCE calls into the suburbs. By the way, I wrote (in a different posting) that the leading 1+ is optionally available for use on those local calls in DC area across areacode boundaries. It is REQUIRED if you are calling long distance from the DC area, and is also required on certain local and extended- area calls which have been eleven digits (due to prefix duplication); those local and extended-area calls can reduce to seven digits after the dust settles from the changes just made. Please check to see if you can use 1+NPA+7D on the local call across the areacode boundary, and if you can use 1+NPA+7D on the local call within your own areacode (this is in the DC area). ------------------------------ From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 4 Oct 90 19:53:34 GMT Reply-To: Phydeaux Organization: This space for rent. >> The easiest, at least in NYNEX and Atlantic Bell land, is to call the >> operator and ask "what number is this?" I've never had the request >> refused. >I have tried this a few times with US West, and they NEVER give me the >number. I've only tried it at pay phones and I've *never* been turned down by the operator. Just tell them you're trying to call someone's beeper number and you need to know where you're calling from. reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 40.55N 74.11W h:182 Market St. Saddle Brook, NJ 07662 201-845-0256 Home FAX! 201-845-0258 Send neat stuff! In the Bay Area from 10/5 to 10/14 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 4 Oct 90 04:25:51 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon On Oct 4 at 1:35, bill@trace.eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > Okay, I'm finally gonna ask. Who, out of all the comp.dcom.telecom > and TELECOM Digest readers, is a COCOT owner? I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. COCOT owners are NOT telecom enthusiasts, telephone weirdos (TM), hackers, phreaks, or even telecommunications professionals. They are people who have stumbled on to another way to make a fast buck. They include store owners, groups of investors, individuals who were sucked in on the latest (a few years ago) way to "cash in on the newest investment opportunity". If there were real telecom people owning COCOTs, you wouldn't find such widespread violations. Think about it: would you want to own something that was a technical abortion and a disservice to the public? What I am seeing in the COCOT biz is a few larger companies emerging that own many one-armed bandits. PayTel, ComSystems, etc., seem to be pushing the little guys out of the marketplace --- a lot like the long distance business. And again, I would be very surprised to see anyone at these companies give one jot or tittle about telecommunications. All they care about is that check from the AOS and the cash that falls out of the coinbox. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 4 Oct 90 20:17:06 GMT Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Here's why I agree with Mark Brader that blocking the coin slot on COCOTs is probably a bad idea: Outside 911 land, there is probably only one way to make a free emergency call from some (most?) COCOTs -- dialing the operator and asking to be connected to {police, ambulance, etc.}. Assume that the person in trouble knows the number of the appropriate agency and has a coin. Assume also that seconds count. Do you really trust that the operator whom the person reaches will make the appropriate connection as fast as the person could by dialing directly? Remember, this is a COCOT. Within 911 land, even at phones where free 911 works, many people don't realize that the call is free and will try to deposit a coin anyway. Seeing the coin slot blocked, and being too distraught (or too illiterate) to read the label, someone might give up on trying to reach help from that phone. I wouldn't want to be responsible for such a situation. Would you? Covering the coin slot is a tempting idea. In practice, there are all kinds of reasons not to do so. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 18:13:52 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Mental Harassment Two comments. Call the superintendent at home; it will be much more effective. Also, it might be appropriate if the net were to pull an "Irnalee" on the hospital. If we all called the hospital next monday and asked for Mr. Eaton. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: I've received no further correspondence on this saying the problem is continuing. As I noted yesterday, despite the bravado official attitude expressed by the hospital, and their seeming concern for the patient's rights, I suspect after they were called by the police and the victims, they were probably annoyed that their patient had gotten them into a embarassing mess. They probably went to see Mr. Eaton, raised cain and told him to stay away from the phone or he would get locked up and lose his pass to go outside, etc. If the problem continues, hopefully we will hear more about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Another "Award" Call Date: 4 Oct 90 06:32:50 GMT In article <12693@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > Does anyone know where 904-492 is? (Yes, I know it's somewhere in > northern Florida.) This is easy to find out. Just call "the operator" (to be safe, dial 102880) and say "I need name-place for 904-492." They will tell you what town it is. If your local operator seems confused, say "I need AT&T Inward, Route & Rates operator to tell me the place name for 904-492." Works every time. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 4 Oct 90 06:23:18 GMT In article <12619@accuvax.nwu.edu>, olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: > Suppose someone is flying high over Los Angeles, in circumstances > where FAR 91.21 does not apply. If he uses his cellular phone, it > might activate hundreds of cells and confuse the network. It would be > impolite for him to make a cellular call from there, but would it be > illegal? If so, how? Ted Potter, flying traffic reporter on KOMO in Seattle was using his cellular phone from his traffic spotting plane a few years ago. The FCC called him and told him to STOP. I don't know what regulation they cited. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #713 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10825; 7 Oct 90 3:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29882; 7 Oct 90 1:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02364; 7 Oct 90 0:45 CDT Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 23:55:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #714 BCC: Message-ID: <9010062355.ab24340@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Oct 90 23:55:34 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 714 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Garbage On Hold (was: Music on Hold) [Seth Breidbart] LD Carriers and Taxes [David Lesher] Re: Music on Hold [Dave Levenson] Re: FAX From ATTmail [Tom Lowe] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Jim Youll] Credit Card Codes [Patrick Tufts] San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Clayton Cramer] Re: Music On Hold [Lon Stowell] Re: 19-Inch Rack Standard [Donald E. Kimberlin] Intelligent Channel Banks With ANI Service [deadhead@cup.portal.com] ISDN/SS7 Software Wanted [Brent Capps] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Bruce Hall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Seth Breidbart Subject: Garbage On Hold (was: Music on Hold) Date: 6 Oct 90 14:05:27 GMT Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc / New York City, NY A couple of years ago, I called 47th St. Photo to find out their price/availability of some item. They put me on hold and played a local radio station. That station broadcast an ad for one of their competitors, listing a good price for the item I was interested in. Guess who I bought it from. Seth Breidbart sethb@fir.morgan.com ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: LD Carriers and Taxes Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 22:21:50 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I just got my initial bill for my WD-40 Sprint card use. I've been avoiding using it until the dust settled. It looks like I did the right thing; this bill has my $7.80 credit on it. It also lists the CO by name that I placed the call from; something MCI cannot seem to do. BUT! On my one call of $1.24 , Sprint charged me $.19 in federal excise tax. They also charged me $0.14 in FL gross receipts tax, and $0.40 state sales tax. Hmmmmm. Now, I happen to also have an MCI Expressphone bill in front of me. It too has a two minute call to the 216 as the sole entry. They charged me $.02 in federal tax, and $.01 state and local. (Their call cost me only $0.72 because of Around Town) They did NOT charge me sales tax. These rates jibe with the MCI/Southern Bill bill for my 10222 service. I called Sprint, and the CSR got a little flustered at the large dollar amounts involved ;_}. She promised to check into it, and I'll call again tomorrow. But my big question is: Should I be charged FL state sales tax? To expand the question: how do carriers handle people whose billing addresses are != service addresses? I have a second Expressphone account with a 301 (MD) number (long gone, but the account is still good) that I use for calls while in the District area. What tax should I be charged on IT? If it is billing state dependent, what state should I get my statement mailed to for lowest taxes? (I feel a litle sorry for the billing software writers. If you include a zillion different city/county/state tax rates, how do you EVER get the ruleset correct? Is it the COBOL version of sendmail.cf ;-?) wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Music on Hold Date: 5 Oct 90 02:04:55 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA I encountered a really sensible use for the MOH channel of an automatic call distributor a few years ago. (An automatic call distributor is the machine that tells you something like: "This is the XY&Z Company; all agents are busy. Please stay on the line..." and manages a queue of inbound calls until an agent is available.) I was calling the Washington DC Flight Service Station. A Flight Service Station is an office maintained by the FAA where a pilot calls to ask for weather information, and file a flight plan before departure. Today, a lot of this is done by dial-up computer access, but a few years ago, one did it all verbally. If the weather was super-good, or terrible, you'd always reach an agent (they're called briefers) right away. If the weather is so good that you don't need a briefing, it's easy to get one. If the weather's so bad you can't possibly complete your flight safely, nobody is calling either. It was one of those somewhere in-between days. I wanted to fly home from DCA (Washington National) to MMU (Morristown, NJ). The phone was answered something like: "This is the Washington Flight Service, all briefers are busy. While you're waiting, Washington weather this hour is three thousand scattered, ceiling six thousand overcast, visibility seven ... Baltimore, at 12:00, three thousand five hundred ... and so on. It included Richmond, Philadelphia, Charleston, and ever-widening circles from DCA, eventually including New York. By the time I reached the briefer, I didn't need to take his time asking for weather -- I'd taken notes while in the ACD queue. I just dictated the flightplan, wished him a good day, and headed for the airport. A real time-saver for all concerned. PS: Washington Flight Service no longer provides "aviation weather on hold" as of the last time I flew in that area. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: telecom@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 22:13 EDT Subject: Re: FAX From ATTmail The question was essentially "What is the relationship between AT&T Mail FAX and AT&T Long Distance as far as paying for the Long Distance Calls is concerned?" My understanding is that any non-tarriffed AT&T service pays the standard business rates for long distance calls. The services can sign up for any of the bulk discount plans such as Megacom 800, ProWats, etc, but they pay the same as you or I would if we were to set up such a service. True, the money goes from AT&T to AT&T, but it still is a cost of doing business for that particular service. Tarriffed services, on the otherhand, are different. I don't know how billing for these types of services work, but they are differnt. DISCLAIMER: These are not official statements from AT&T and may be wrong, but what can you do! Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 5 Oct 90 02:36:51 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. >It has been many weeks since the telemarketing firm for the {San Jose >Mercury News} has invaded my privacy. When I raised a big enough stink, >the president of the firm removed my entire prefix (723) from the >calling base. >Frankly, I'm getting tired of these people and am open to suggestions >on how to shut them down permanently and legally. Anyone agree and >have suggestions? Frankly, I am tired of these idiots calling me at work, too. Yesterday my secretary got hit with a call that went something like this: (caller) "Hi. This is Mary from Western Supply. How many toner cartridges did you want this week?" (sec'y) "Toner cartridges? Western Supply? What is this pertaining to?" (caller) (louder) I'm calling about the re-order of toner for your copier. How many cartridges did you want?" (sec'y) (after asking me) "We don't normally buy toner from you." (caller) "Are you stupid? Just GO OVER TO YOUR COPIER AND TELL ME WHAT MODEL IT IS SO WE CAN COMPLETE YOUR ORDER" (sec'y) "We don't HAVE a copier." (caller) --click-- (We really DON'T have a copier here)... This is incredibly annoying, and the bastards don't even give you a chance to find out who they are. No idents given, even if you ask. We absolutely do not accept calls like this for more than the minute it takes to figure out that it's an idiot and okay to hang up on them. You might tell people to watch out for this ruse. We have had two or three calls like this in the past couple months (that I know about). ------------------------------ From: Patrick Tufts Subject: Credit Card Codes Date: 6 Oct 90 16:48:20 GMT Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept >[Moderator's Note: Mother (NOT Clay's mother!) has always hated >{Ramparts Magazine} with a passion since back in the middle sixties >when the magazine announced they would print AT&T's credit card >check-digit formula in their next issue. Technological American Party (TAP), and its predecessor Youth Information Party Line (YIPL) did publish the credit card codes, several years running. BTW - does anyone know what became of TAP? ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Date: 6 Oct 90 17:26:24 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA A local news story yesterday gave a disturbing example of how San Francisco Police Department sets the priorities on 911 calls. A young man leaving a night baseball game at Candlestick Park had car trouble, and found himself stranded in Hunter's Point. (This is a high crime part of San Francisco, for those of you at a safe distance from the madness of S.F.) He arranged a tow to a gas station, and started making arrangements to have someone come and get him. He was unsuccessful. At 1:30 AM, someone called 911 from the gas station payphone to report that his car was being broken into. In the middle of the phone call, the 911 operator heard a scuffle of some sort, and then the phone was hung up. Deciding that this was just a car burglary, the report was not considered an "A" priority call, and so it was one and a half hours before the police responded to it -- by which time the man and the car were gone. The father of the young man found the remains of his son, and the remains of the car, about four days later, while searching the area himself. Is there any sort of model for how 911 calls are to be prioritized? Wouldn't a scuffle in the middle of a call be reason to suspect that someone was being hurt? Or am I just dense? Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ From: Lon Stowell Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 4 Oct 90 23:16:39 GMT Reply-To: Lon Stowell Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA Browbeating the poor dishonest sales critter doesn't really help much. Try notifying the VP or Marketing, Sales, or even the CEO as to why you are taking your business elsewhere. It does work ... surprising how many hotels are beginning to inject some sanity into their telephone rip-offs (er, make that "surcharges") when a few guests contacted the owner or franchisee. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 14:32 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: 19-Inch Rack Standard Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Responding to: Klas Nordstrom In Digest V10, Iss709, Klas asked: >When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? I cannot speak about international standards on this matter, but if you have need for specifications in the U.S., the Electronic Industries Association (EIA) published a standard many years ago. If my fading memory is correct, its title is RS-170. You can get a copy for a modest fee from: Electronic Industries Association 2001 Eye Street Northwest Washington, DC 20006 Tel: +202 457 49 66 Be certain to verify the number of the standard before buying on my say-so. The title of the correct one will be self-evident. As a matter of interest, you will be surprised to see how many manufacturers violate the standard in various details. If you have been engaged in rack-mounting equipment of various vendors, it is not at all unusual to have to perform some hacksaw, hammer and file surgery in the process. Klas further asked: >I do not know if this is the right forum to ask this question but >since the telecom history goes back more than 100 years it is worth a >try. I cannot speak to the issues of what corner of history this method came from, but have reason to believe it predates the Bell hegemony, dating back to days of peak Western Union influence. BTW, 19 inches is not the only "standard." Bell electronics equipment most commonly uses 23 inch racks, while "frames" of electromechanical switching equipment mount in 30 or even 36 inch widths, all using the same 1-3/4 inch vertical increments. I do know the US inch-dimensioned racks all have whole-unit metric equivalents. Because the inch-dimensioned racks do not actually come out to exact inches, the root might well be some European imports of antiquity that set the norm for the US. Any technology historians out there for this one? ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!DeadHead Subject: Intelligent Channel Banks With ANI Service Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 17:15:34 PDT Does anybody know if there is somebody that makes an intelligent channel bank that offers ANI (automatic number identification) feature for less than $10,000? I am looking for something like that to convert T1 to analog which can also pass the ANI digits as DTMF tones to the analog receiver. Thanks very much for any information you can offer - bruce deadhead@cup.portal.com (please email) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 09:53:40 PDT From: Brent Capps Subject: ISDN/SS7 Software Wanted I am looking for sources for off-the-shelf Q.921/Q.931 user side and/or SS7 software modules. They should be compatible with #5ESS, #4ESS and DMS-100; compatibility with DMS-250 and other vendors would be nice, but not required. The only vendors I'm currently aware of are Telenetworks in Pelaluma, CA and (maybe?) Teleos in Eaton NJ. Has anyone had experience with products from either of these two vendors? Is anyone aware of vendors apart from these two? Any help is appreciated. Brent Capps uunet: ...!kentrox!brent Kentrox Ind., Inc. pstn: (503) 643-1681 x325 Portland, OR ------------------------------ From: Dark Star Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 3 Oct 90 21:26:33 GMT Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA In article <12897@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hplabs!mcdcup!phil@ucbvax. berkeley.edu (Phil Weinberg SPS) writes: > In article <12637@accuvax.nwu.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle > (John Nagle) writes: >> It's time to lobby for some standardized way to find out your own >>phone number. With Caller ID, the other end can find out; it's >>annoying that you can't. It would be especially valuable if it were > I once tried to find out the number of an unidentified (untagged) pair > by calling the phone company (Pac Tel) and requesting them to tell me > what number I was calling from. I was refused this information, and I tried that once too with C&P Telephone in the Washington, D.C. area. I've noticed that Domino's pizza delivery has caller ID boxes, so maybe I should call them ask where I'm calling from ;-) Or if you have a lot of lines a trouble keeping them all straight. Not that we have *ever* misplaced a phone line :-), you could buy a caller ID for one phone in the facility and call it to find out! Bruce Hall Domain: bhall@pbs.org Public Broadcasting Service UUCP:...{uupsi,vrdxhq,csed-1,ida.org}!pbs!bhall Phone: 703/739-5048 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #714 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11760; 7 Oct 90 4:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10886; 7 Oct 90 2:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29882; 7 Oct 90 1:49 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 0:50:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #715 BCC: Message-ID: <9010070050.ab27820@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 00:50:08 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 715 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 [Jim Blocker] Re: USEnet PC Access [Christopher Ambler] Roam America [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Norwegian Telephone Dials [hullp@cogsci.Berkeley.edu] Portland, CT Non-ATT 800 Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Speaker Phones and the Courts [Jeff Carroll] Re: Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages [Bill Cattey] Response to International Calling Redlining [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 21:20:01 CDT From: Jim Blocker Subject: Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 Recent talk in the Digest regarding the "censored" _Ramparts_ article on how to steal from Ma Bell made me remember a three-part series of articles that appeared in _73 Magazine_ (an amateur radio magazine) back in 1975. These articles were probably very damaging to TPC since explicit details were provided in one of the articles on how to bypass coin-phone and long distance charges. These articles were very well written and provided me with a lot of insight as to how telephones and the network operated back then. Even though none of the circuits presented in the articles could today be used to defraud TPC (except maybe the "Red Box" :)), they are still interesting from a historical perspective. The author of all three articles was Spenser Whipple, Jr. Here is a brief summary: April 1975: "Lifting Ma Bell's Cloak of Secrecy" described how a telephone set worked, various tones in the network (dial tone, busy, re-order, ringback), and DTMF generators. May 1975: "Inside Ma Bell" described how TPC detected "unauthorized" equipment on your line, how to defeat that detection, and "couplers" for attaching "foreign" equipment to your phone line. June 1975: "Inside Ma Bell" was the most damaging (at least to Ma Bell) of the three articles. It described some more "couplers", but of greater interest were the details on how to build a "Black Box", "Red Box", and the infamous "Blue Box", all devices intended to defraud TPC. The "Black Box" was merely a simple modification to a standard telephone set which allowed one to receive telephone calls without returning an "off-hook" indication to the CO. This worked back then because a "talk path" was established during ringing of the called telephone. By using a blocking capacitor and resistor, you could establish an AC connection (talk path) and talk in between ringing. Since no DC connection was made, the CO never detected the call being answered and the call wasn't billed to the caller. The "Red Box" was used to send coin tones and make free calls from pay phones. The June 1975 article gives two different designs -- one using many transistors, and the other using a couple of IC's. Even though modern-day pay telephones contain circuitry to determine if coins have actually been inserted or not, there may still be some pay phones where the "Red Box" may work. Two designs were given for the "Blue Box". Again, one using many transistors and the other using a couple of IC's. This particular color of box was the most powerful of the three in that it allowed one to send the famous 2600 Hz tone as well as the MF tones that were used for in-band signalling. In the proper hands, this box could be used to place long distance calls virtually anywhere at no charge. Since the telephone network has changed greatly since these articles were written, I doubt very much that any of this information could be used to defraud any local or long distance telephone company. Inquire at your local library to see if they have these old issues. They make for some very interesting reading! Jim Blocker jim%kf5iw@rwsys.lonestar.org KF5IW ..!letni!rwsys!kf5iw!jim ------------------------------ From: Fubar Subject: Re: USEnet PC Access Date: Thu, 4 Oct 90 6:52:8 GMT Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. FSUUCP Version 1.1 release 5 is the most current version of FSUUCP. FSUUCP implements a UUCP/Usenet transfer protocol for MSDOS based machines. It comes complete with a full 7 window uucico, uuxqt with rnews and rmail capability, mail, readnews, postnews, uuq, uusnap, and news utilities like batcher and expire. Unlike other packages, FSUUCP implements these programmes as DOS commands directly. By putting the executables on your PATH, and setting an environment variable pointing to your configuration file, you can have UNIX mail and news on your MSDOS machine from the prompt, just like UNIX. To get a copy of FSUUCP: 1. Get it via anonymous FTP from polyslo.calpoly.edu. The file name will be fsuu11r5.zip. The current naming convention is fsuu[VV]r[R].zip, where VV is the version number in V.V format, and R is the release number. In this case, fsuu11r5 means version 1.1, release 5. Check occasionally on polyslo to be sure you have the latest version. 2. Mail us the $35 shareware registration and we will mail you back a disk with a registered copy. Please specify: A. 3.5" 720K B. 5.25" 1.2Meg 3. Mail us a self-addressed stamped disk mailer with either formatted 5.25" 1.2 Meg or 3.5" 720K or 1.44Meg disk. ***NO 360K DISKS!!!*** Registered users remain registered through all major revisions, or for a full year from time of registering, whichever is longer. That is, if you register your copy of 1.1, you are still registered through 1.2, 1.3, ..., 1.x, and all releases of these versions, and you are also still registered regardless of the version for a full year. Note that if you choose method 3, you DO NOT need to send the registration until/if you decide to use FSUUCP. And, as always, any bug reports or wishlists will be addressed for future releases. Coming Soon: FSBBS 2.0, Fubar Systems BBS with FSUUCP 1.x integrated into the package, plus local boards, DYM, games, files, textfiles, complete full-screen sysop utilities, termcap capability, scheduler, complete development package available, fully expandable, pant pant pant. All this, and shareware too. ADDRESS FOR SENDING DISK: Fubar Systems FSUUCP Request 1525 Mill #6 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401-2543 (805) 54-FUBAR -- BBS (FSBBS 2.0 prototype system) (805) 544-9234 -- Voice support For more information, send mail to: support@fubarsys.com ++Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.com ------------------------------ Date: 5-OCT-1990 02:30:31.13 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Roam America Does anyone who uses an "A" (non-wireline) cell system know what the codes are to activate/deactivate "Roam America" service? We are supposedly getting it in my home system, by no one seems to know anything about it. Also, I noticed that SNET Cellular (the Connecticut "B"/wireline carrier) has a program called "Roam USA". SNET customers who roam outside the SNET system get charged a *flat* $.60 per minute WHEREVER they go in North America, and NO DAILY ROAM CHARGES! (BTW, SNET also has Follow Me Roaming.) If their literature which advertises this is true, I might just get an account with them and use SNET for my FMR calls instead of GTE in San Francisco. (IE, forward my calls to the SNET number, and then use SNET for all my FMR calls ... after about $20 in daily charges a month saved I figure I can break even, not to mention the lower roaming rates!) Does SNET absorb the daily charges themselves, or do they have a special agreement which waives the daily charge for SNET roamers in a foriegn area? One final note: NYNEX/Boston cellular charges AIRTIME for activation and deactivation of Follow Me Roaming. Not only that, but since they charge a $3(?) daily charge, you get billed $3.75 PER DAY, even if you don't make or receive ANY real calls! I called GTE to complain about this, since their literature clearly states that all FMR activate/deactivate calls are free of charge, and they were very quick to remove all the FMR charges ... They said they would also check into this with NYNEX/Boston, since they never heard of this happening before. Well, if anyone at this point can remember my original question, please drop me a note...! :-) Thanks in advance, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Norwegian Telephone Dials Date: 5 Oct 90 06:53:24 GMT Reply-To: Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <13031@accuvax.nwu.edu> ole@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: >The backwards rotary "Oslo" or "X" dial is used *only* within the city >of Oslo. This "backwards" rotary dial is also used in New Zealand but not in Australia. INTERNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.edu BITNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.bitnet UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp ------------------------------ Date: 5-OCT-1990 02:45:51.58 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Portland, CT Non-ATT 800 Calls I recently tried calling that 800-666-6258 number from a payphone in Portland, CT. (203-342 exchange). The exchange 'sounds' like an older X-bar, (1Xbar?) but it may even be a really awful sounding 5Xbar. I dunno... Anyhow, it seems that you CAN'T dial a non-AT&T 800 number from Portland, at least from payphones. After I dialed 800-666-6258, I got a recording saying my call can't be completed. So I called the SNET operator, who tried it, and it didn't work either. She told me to call "00", so I got the AT&T Op., he said "Hmmm..we can't seem to complete this call ... I wonder ..." I then cut in an said "I think it's an MCI 800 number, is that a problem for you?", and the AT&T op said "Hmmm ... could be ... we have lots of trouble with some of the other 800 numbers." I tried calling MCI at 800-444-4444 (I think that was the number listed in the book...) but of course, that didn't work either... Just out of curiousity, I tried a Sprint 800 call (800-877, right?), and guess what? -- that didn't work either! Maybe all the other LD co's should get at least one AT&T 800 so that callers from such older exchanges can reach them! :-) Again, this was from a coin phone, so maybe this isn't a major problem if residence phones can dial MCI/Sprint/whatever 800 numbers properly. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Speaker Phones and the Courts Date: 5 Oct 90 06:52:19 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12692@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jeff Dalton writes: >I'm guessing that a tape recording of a phone conversation cannot be >used as evidence in court unless both parties are aware they're >being recorded. The law in Indiana used to be (and probably still is) that you had to have the consent of the person to whom you were talking in order to tape him, and had to provide the periodic beep to remind him that the tape recorder was running. I don't know what the law is here in Washington State; they don't print it in the phone book like they used to in Indiana. >But what if one end of the conversation is on a >speaker phone with witnesses listening. I would guess that the >witness could testify about the content of the conversation and the >person on the other end of the phone wouldn't have to know someone >else is listening. >Does anyone know anything about this? Only that anyone who has ever talked to a person using a speakerphone would know immediately whether one is in use, and should thus be warned that he is talking to the world and not just to one person's right ear. It would be fairly easy, I'd think, to establish that in court (though I'm not a lawyer). Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 1990 15:41:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Cattey Subject: Re: Hacker Altering Voicemail Messages Making your personal access password easily guessable is a mistake. Users should be educated by the vendor to choose better passwords. The problem in Kingsport TN will go away when everyone picks reasonable passwords. They should consider themselves lucky... According to friends of mine who have been there when voice mail was installed at the compannies where they work, there are three common policies that make it particularly easy for crackers to do much worse things to voice mail than changing message text: 1. The installing companies often keep the same master password for all the systems they install, and never change it. 2. They never disconnect the maintenance console dial-in. That's right! There are voice mail systems that allow anybody who knows the telephone number to dial in and modify it. 3. The installing company insists on keeping secret how simple it is to change the phone system with a few simple commands. I hope that voice mail system providers and purchasers begin QUICKLY to take the same precautions they take with their other computer systems: 1. SECRET passwords. (both at the user and system levels) Changed often. 2. Physical security: Don't have a publicly accessible maintenance console. At the very least, leave it un-plugged until you NEED to receive an AUTHORIZED remote maintance call. 3. A hierarchy of commands and privileges so that someone getting in to the maintenance programs still needs higher levels of privileged (discretionary) access to do things. wdc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 09:40 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Response to International Calling Redlining Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL Responding to: Ravinder Bhumbla (and Telecom Moderator) continuing a long and frustrating thread about blocking international card-charged calls from payphones, Mr.Bhumbla (in Digest V10, Iss712) says: >I called the AT&T operator today to find out a way to get around the >blocking of calling card calls to India from payphones.... And goes on to describe the frustration and obvious untruths that he, like many must be receiving daily about the matter. Our Moderator replied at some length about the wrongness of this, and suggests that it is time some real action took place, saying: >...how stupid does AT&T think their average user must be? No matter >who you call with some authority/knowledge in the matter at AT&T, >you will never get the same answer twice, and you will never get a >*truthful, candid* answer at all! ... and suggests some public action, concluding with: >When you contact the FTC, FCC or telephone administrations, carefully >document your claim with the time, place and destination of your >call. Include the names and titles of any employees of AT&T you speak >with. Let's force the issue! PAT] I wholeheartedly agree with consumer action that gets corporations to pay attention, and here suggest all the participants in this forum have a tool they may not know of. It is the Internet gateway to public E-Mail. On the AT&TMail and MCIMail networks, some very influential people have listings. Here they are: Username: !reallen NumericID: !6284486 Name: Robert E Allen Company: AT&T Address: Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Phone: +1 201 221 5151 MCI ID Name Organization Location 109-0242 William McGowan MCIC Washington DC No further should need to be said in view of what Digest readers have demonstrated from the past, except to say that this may mark an innovative way for top execs to hear from the public. And, as our Moderator advises, ALWAYS ask those Three Little Words: "What's Your Name?" It can work wonders. If you get a refusal, then make note of the time, date, and number at which you got an employee who refused to identify themselves and put that in your report. It could be more powerful than having the name! [Moderator's Note: The first of the two addresses given above would be addressed from the net as 'reallen@attmail.com'. The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what happens and post the responses received. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #715 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12729; 7 Oct 90 5:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04923; 7 Oct 90 3:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10886; 7 Oct 90 2:53 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 1:59:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #716 BCC: Message-ID: <9010070159.ab29469@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 01:59:45 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 716 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service [Bob Yasi] Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service [Jim Youll] Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins [Mike Verstegen] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Which Came First? [Edward Floden] Re: Which Came First? [David E.A. Wilson] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File] [John Higdon] Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands [Colum Mylod] Re: Phone Tree Hardware [Lance Ware] Re: MCI Call Blocking [B. J. Herbison] Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? [John Higdon] Re: Music On Hold [Maurice R. Baker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service Date: 5 Oct 90 20:13:16 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp, San Diego In article <13028@accuvax.nwu.edu> unocss!zeus.unomaha.edu! jsaker@uunet.uu.net tells about his experiences in a telemarketing organization. He describes two verification procedures, tape recording of conversations and call-backs to verify orders placed. I have never been asked if it is OK to record a conversation (except AT&T sometimes answers a call with "this call may be monitored [not recorded BTW] for quality purposes" or something like that. No, a telemarketer never spoke about recording anything. I can't speakk to the verification because I've never changed LD service in response to a telemarketing phone call. -- Bob Yazz -- ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Unauthorized Placement of Long Distance Service Date: 5 Oct 90 22:16:18 GMT Reply-To: Jim Youll Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. In article <13028@accuvax.nwu.edu> unocss!zeus.unomaha.edu! jsaker@uunet.uu.net (Jamie Saker) writes: >In other words, it is extremely unlikely a TSR could successfully >manage to place an order for a service the resident did not request. >(I won't say impossible because there always seems to be an exception >to every rule). Fine. I haven't said a word up to this point, but am interested because it happened to ME a few months ago... One day I came to work and had US Sprint for my LD carrier, and a $5 charge on my bill for the change... I vaguely remember talking to a SPrint rep a few weeks before I realized what had been done, and distinctly said "NO. I DO NOT WANT YOUR SERVICE." Got it anyway. I think it happens a lot ... The supervisor was difficult, but put the change-back through. BUT ... I had to yell and insist on a conference call between Sprint, the local telco's manager who could arrange to take off the service-change charge, and another person. It was a mess. ------------------------------ From: Mike Verstegen Subject: Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins Date: 4 Oct 90 15:53:31 GMT Organization: Domain Systems Inc., WPB, FL decoste@iro.umontreal.ca (Ronald Decoste) writes: >We are also experiencing transmission errors with are dialup lines >since our new phone switch went into operation. Things were so bad >that we had to revert to direct lines from the CO until a solution is >found. >The switch (multiple Meridian SL1's) is connected to the DMS-100 by a >fiber DS-3 link for aapprox. 350 trunks. >Brian Kantor's article suggests that some jumpers must be set properly >on some interface cards. Does anyone know more about this ? Which >jumpers on what cards for the DMS and for the SL1 ? I have experieced this problem when a T-1 has been loop timed at each end of the circuit. In timing distribution, one end (the "better" timing) must always be master and the other end loop (or "slave") timed. By definition the telco will be the master timing source. If your DS-3 is terminating into an external M13 multiplexer, check the timing connection between the M13 and the T-1 terminations on the SL-1. The telco fiber DS-3 should time the M13 mux and the M13 will in turn provide master timing via the T-1 to the SL-1 which should be loop timed. If the the SL-1 is master timed (or the T-1 side of the M13 is loop timed) you will see slippages that will cause data transmissions problems. If the DS-3 terminates directly into the SL-1, the integrated interface probably has the equivalent options settings, either in hardware or software. Mike Verstegen Domain Systems, Inc Voice +1 407 686-7911 ..!uunet!comtst!mdv 5840 Corporate Way #100 Fax +1 407 478-2542 mdv@domain.com West Palm Beach, FL 33407 ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 6 Oct 90 01:55:05 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <12979@accuvax.nwu.edu>, aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) writes: > The current version of the standard has provisions for using 6 PRI > B-channels together (called an H0 channel, 384 Kb/sec) and using 24 > B-channels together (H11 channel, 1.536 Mb/sec [this is AT&T's number, > don't know why it's not 1.544Mb/sec]). AT&T offers a "Switched 384" The 1.536 Mb/sec is 64kb x 24. The oft used 1.544 figure includes the additional 8kb for the framing bit. Each 1/8000 of a second, the line passes 192 bits of data (24 x 8) + one framing bit for a total of 193 bits. Other than keeping frames in sync and defining the A and B signaling frames (or more generally, where one is within the super-frame format), the framing bit also (under ESF) can carry a small amount of network managment data. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 21:23:41 CDT From: Edward Floden Subject: Re: Which Came First? In-Reply-To: message from julian@bongo.uucp > Operator consoles follow normal telco practice. By the way, > TIE once had a combined calculator/phone. I never saw one, so I wonder > what the number pad was like. That was the TIE SmartSet. And the keypad was the telephone-standard 1-2-3, not the calculator 7-8-9. Fortunately, I rarely needed to use the calculator feature when I had one of those turkeys (the microswitches used in the hookswitch circuit failed too often, IMHO). UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!edward ProLine: edward@pro-harvest INET: edward@pro-harvest.cts.com BIX: edward2 ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!edward@nosc.mil CIS: 73220,1624 BIT: edward%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil America Online: Elseware ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Which Came First? Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 06:07:09 GMT I saw a Telecom Australia Card phone the other day. It has 2 keypads - one is a membrane type to enter your PIN for the credit/debit card and the other has real push buttons for dialing the phone number. Both had 123 on the top. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File] Date: 6 Oct 90 10:49:24 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Carol Springs writes: > Covering the coin slot is a tempting idea. In practice, there are all > kinds of reasons not to do so. Be that as it may, covering the coin slot is a gentlemanly, civilized tactic compared to the way the average goon handles an offending instrument. There were two of the older, particularly greedy and offensive COCOTs at a corner that I pass daily. I have placed stickers, called the owner (and talked to his machine), and even called Pac*Bell. All to no avail. Recently, I noticed that the handsets had been ripped off and the upper part of the phones had obviously been in intimate contact with a sledge hammer. Somehow I doubt that these devices would, in their present condition, serve well in an emergency. Better stickers than the capital punishment for phones metted out by some of the less gentle members of society. Then again... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Re: Equivalents of 800/900/976/911 Numbers in the Netherlands Date: 5 Oct 90 10:43:17 GMT Reply-To: Colum Mylod Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands Minor corrections and a bit extra to the article <12935@accuvax.nwu.edu> hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) now follows. Stay on the line! >if it begins it costs >06-0... free >06-11 15 to 30 c/min equivalent of 911 >06-320... 50 c/min. 06-340... same 06-350... same >06-321... 3 to 40 c/min >06-399... 3 to 40 c/min >06-4... free >06-5... peak: 105 c/min mobile telephones > weekend: 62 c/min >06-8... 3 to 40 c/min >06-9... 50 c/min. Generally, dial-a-sex type calls are 06-3 ... while "respectable" if costly calls such as weather reports are 06-9 ... The confusing bit is that the number length varies from short (0611) to medium (060402) to very very long (see below!). >There is no 06-[3589] blocking for residential customers. They do >provide 06-blocking for PBXs. This also blocks 06-11. According to the 'phone book I have, residental blocking IS available, cost is a once-off f35 (‾US$18). PBX blocking cuts off any 06 numbers, but PTT-blocking just cuts 06-320, 06-340, 06-350 and 06-9. Bad idea to cut 06-11 even if it costs. How many countries charge for calls to their emergency numbers? I envision someone in a panic at a payphone while some car victim is bleeding and the caller madly searching for coins so that an emergency call can be made. One aspect of the 06 service is that all mobiles are grouped under 06-5... numbers. This includes carphones, pagers, cellular. A number I came across for a high-pressure cleaning firm must count as the world's most-clicks call for pulse-dialers. Don't call it unless you want to do business. It is given in a guide as "06520000000", which makes 93 clicks total! Yes, that's seven zeros on the end. Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware " Subject: Re: Phone Tree Hardware Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 16:49:46 GMT A company called Magnum Software makes a nice voice mail system for the Macintosh. They have two models, one which can handle outdail, appointment scheduling, telemarketing etc, as well as voice mail. And one which only handles incoming calls, but has unlimited voice mailboxes, etc. There is quite a price difference and the cheaper one is said to be expandable, later. I am not sure if the cheaper one includes it, but the more expensive one can send and store PAX (Video Phone) data. Thier number is 818-700-0510. You can call and play with it after 5 pdt at 818-701-5051 Lance *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ulta.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 08:37:40 PDT From: "B.J. 05-Oct-1990 1122" Subject: Re: MCI Call Blocking On 7 September I sent in an article about MCI call blocking from the {Boston Globe}, which was published in Volume 10 : Issue 626. At the end of the article I wrote: > I called MCI customer service (1-800-444-4444) and and was told that > 16 countries are blocked. They will be sending me the list of the > countries. > [Moderators Note: I doubt they will be sending you anything. AT&T > has told me twice they would send me the list of origin/destination > places they block, and they have yet to provide a list. This is an > illegal, very discriminatory practice -- both by AT&T and MCI. ... Well, MCI took so long to reply that I was starting to believe the Moderator. However, I just received a letter dated 26 September 1990 (19 days after I called) with the following information: Countries blocked for calling card calls are: Bangladesh Malaysia Brazil Mexico China Morocco Colombia Pakistan Dominican Republic Peru Ecuador Senegal Egypt Sri Lanka India Yemen If you need any more info in blockage, please call us. 800-444-3333 The information was handwritten on the back of a generic form letter apologizing for a problem and it has the name of the customer service representative I talked to. Either MCI is willing to publicly admit to the selective call blocking, or this representative wasn't properly trained. B.J. [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing along the answer you received. Now let's see if anyone from AT&T responds with their listing. And if they do? It still does not lessen the illegality of it, nor for MCI. You cannot take a group of people, based on their ethnic origin, for example Chinese or Egyptian people -- and who, after all, would be the most likely users of international calls to those countries? -- and say or imply to them "you cannot be trusted to make a call to your home country on credit; you are likely to defraud us." And please, AT&T, if you bother to respond, no bulljive about how the local telco in San Fransisco is the culprit, or how the telephone administration in China says they will take calls from the USA made on calling cards from AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Ramparts Magazine Article: Still a Threat? Date: 5 Oct 90 11:15:17 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon While I think someone mentioned that a black box is ineffective for ESS and digital offices because an audio path is not created until the called line supervises, no one has mentioned AT&T's defense against muting boxes. An unsupervised AT&T call has audio in only one direction (to the caller). This is one reason for the sudden appearance of automated referral machines. A conversation with an intercept operator is impossible unless the far end supervises. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Have you noticed how, on the rare occassions when one gets a live intercept operator somewhere that callers via most OCC's can't speak with the operaor to answer the question 'what number did you dial?'. The operator will then invariably play a recorded message to you which says "under some circumstances, customers of other long distance companies may not be able to speak with the local telephone company operator. Please dial your long distance operator for assistance." PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 14:35:29 EDT From: Maurice R Baker Subject: Re: Music On Hold Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <12995@accuvax.nwu.edu>, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > Music on hold is bad enough. This selling schpiel is obscene. OK ... how's this for an idea: If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label) should give you the choice of: Silence [maybe a brief reassurance every minute or so that you're still connected, for the faint of heart.] Perhaps a small selection of different music types [i.e., radio stations/Muzak/etc. that play country, rock, easy listening, classical.] A recorded sales pitch or description of the product line Leaving a message for call back (if necessary) when someone is available. [Sure beatshaving to wait ten minutes for the "1st available agent" when all you want is to request a catalog!] -etc. etc. etc.- ... all selected by pressing a Touch-Tone digit. Maybe they could even use the stats on the music type requested to determine demographics of callers, and that sort of thing (just an idea) ... could help them choose where to place future advertising, et al. Any comments? M. Baker homxc!jj1028 or jj1028 at homxc.att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #716 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25178; 7 Oct 90 18:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06214; 7 Oct 90 17:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29731; 7 Oct 90 15:58 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 15:02:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #717 BCC: Message-ID: <9010071502.ab30937@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 15:02:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 717 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NYNEX Settlement [Eduardo Krell] Area Codes in Numerical Order [Sandy Kyrish] Sprint Residential 800 -- Free Signup [Steve Elias] Re: 19" Rack Format [Thomas J. Roberts] A New Way to Get Slammed [Ed Greenberg] Australian Area Code 14 or 014 [Carl Moore] Protocol Analyzers For RS-232 [Alan Medsker] Call Forwarding, Unlimited Service [Jerry Durand] Reminder: Number of Prefixes in 202 and 703 [Carl Moore] Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Steve Forrette] A Positive Use For Caller ID [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 09:05:22 EDT Subject: NYNEX Settlement Excerpts from {The New York Times} and AP news articles. As part of a consent decree between New England Telephone, New York Telephone and the FCC, the two companies will make a voluntary $1.4 million payment to the US Treasury and cut their long distance rates by $35.5 million. The $35.5 million is the interstate portion of the $118.5 million alleged overcharges for equipment, supplies and services paid to Materiel Enterprises Co., an unregulated subsidiary of NYNEX, from 1984 to 1988. The $35.5 million rebate will not affect local phone rates and will be made within 30 days. The $1.4 million payment to the Treasury will be paid by NYNEX shareholders and will not affect telephone rates. This agreement ends one of several pending federal and state actions against NYNEX, which is also the focus of investigations into parties held in Florida for NYNEX employees and vendors which included prostitues. NYNEX denies any ratepayer funds were used in those conventions. As a result of all this, the New York State PUC authorized a study into whether NYNEX should be forced to divest New York Telephone. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 08:31 EST From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Area Codes in Numerical Order Does anyone have an up to date list of U.S. area codes in numerical order? My 1983 list is, of course, laughably out of date. Thank you. Sandy Kyrish MCI ID 320-9613 [Moderator's Note: A file in the Telecom Archives entitled 'areacode.guide' is up to date as of last year. To access it, use ftp commands. 'ftp lcs.mit.edu'. I've already sent Sandy a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint Residential 800 -- Free Signup Date: Fri, 05 Oct 90 10:37:47 -0400 From: Steve Elias Sprint now officially allows residential customers to sign up for 800 service. $10 per month plus their normal long distance rates for calls. They are waiving the signup fee for anyone who signs up during the next three months... eli ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 09:16:55 CDT From: Thomas J Roberts Subject: Re: 19" Rack Format Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article <13001@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by radar@cd.chalmers.se: > When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? As this is a telecom newsgroup, I feel compelled to mention that AT&T equipment racks [5ESS(Tm)] are usually 22.5" wide. NTI racks can be 24" or 44" (?) wide. [These are the widths of the card cages, overall width is somewhat larger.] "The best thing about standards is that there are so many of them." Author Unknown Tom Roberts AT&T Bell Laboratories att!ihlpl!tjrob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 10:26 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: A New Way to Get Slammed... ... or Marketing Out of Control. I found the following comment on Hamnet on CompuServe... "Mark, I have been trying to leave you a reply for two days now but this stupid call waiting that the local phone company gave to everybody free for a month keeps kicking me off if someone calls my number. I plan to try to have it removed from my line tommorow for the third time!..." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 14:12:27 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 Very recently in this Digest was published the following number which would be dialed from the Netherlands: 096-114-112 ... where I am told (via the Digest) that 09 is the international access code in the Netherlands. I tried dialing 011-61-14112 from the U.S., and the call was intercepted (could not be completed as dialed) before leaving the U.S. My list of Australian area codes includes 1 for "Telecom services". And from a little further back in this Digest, I had 0014-881-877 listed for Sprint access from within Australia. Any clarifications on the above? ------------------------------ From: Alan Medsker Subject: Protocol Analyzers For RS-232 Date: 5 Oct 90 18:24:32 GMT Reply-To: Alan Medsker Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc., Marlboro, MA I'm on the market for a fairly inexpensive ($1K) RS-232 analyzer that will let me see, for instance, what a PC is sending to a modem and vice-versa, as well as parity, baud rate etc. Anyone have any experience with any of these types of devices? Recommendations? Thanks in advance, Alan Medsker Viewlogic Systems, Inc. Voice: (508) 480-0881 293 Boston Post Road West Fax: (508) 480-0882 Marlboro, MA 01752 Internet: amedsker@Viewlogic.COM cc:Mail: Alan Medsker at Viewlogic CI$: 76376,662 BIX: amedsker 2 Meters: WB0SQR My opinions, of course. And don't hold me to them. ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!JDurand@uunet.uu.net Subject: Call Forwarding; Unlimited Service Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 10:41:26 PDT I was just informed by my GTE rep that as of 3/10/91 all local business calls will be billed at $0.04 for the first minute and $0.01 for every minute after. We will get the notices in our bills around the first of the year. The exact amount billed may change by the time they announce it, they are still re-working the ZUM charges. I also found out that you can't get distinctive ringing on any line in a hunt group, so I can't make my last line both a FAX and voice line (I have a FAX switch, it only works about 70% of the time). I asked about forward on busy like my GTE Mobilnet number has, but the rep. said that is only for Centrex customers and doesn't work right on business lines at the moment anyway. Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., jdurand@cup.portal.com, 408 356-3886 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 16:24:12 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Reminder: Number of Prefixes in 202 and 703 The recent changes in the DC area do not create a new area code, although the {Washington Post} article (cited earlier) treats these changes somewhat like an area code split. However, the number of prefixes in 202 (DC) and 703 (Va.) area codes is affected: 1. Pentagon, physically in Virginia even though it was in area code 202, is now in area 703. 2. Md. and Va. suburbs have been deleted from area 202. Long distance calls to those areas must use area code 301 or 703 as the case may be. Will whoever keeps count of prefix usage look into this? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 16:50 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL It seems nobody on the net has announced that the PBS program "Nova" opened its new series with a program titled, "Computers, the KGB and Me." This hour-long "Nova" segment features Cliff Stoll himself describing how he, an astronomer by profession, fell into discovering some German hacker/phreaks dialing into Internet computers, declaring themselves "Superuser" and then linking out into MilNet to scan files all over the country for anything the KGB might find of interest. The episode is quite good in that Stoll and the actual participants describe how they set traps for the Germans and got the calls traced all the way back to the source, finally getting four Germans arrested and convicted for using international dial-ups tobreak and enter into U.S. government data bases. In addition to giving a sense of how the international dial networks for voice and data function, its presentation shows how what Stoll did amounted to the classic elements of a detective story, with a true computer-era gumshoe on the job. I can recommend it highly for all to look into their local PBS listings immediately, as "Nova" does get rerun on the secondary PBS channels for a week or so after last Monday's (10/1) premiere showing. It is an excellent one-hour summary of Cliff's book, "The Cuckoo's Egg," and those who can tape it will likely find it useful for presentation to bosses who have a difficult time understanding computer communications security matters. Once again, it is the current segment of "Nova" on PBS titled, "Computers, the KGB and Me." It's worth looking for and taping if you must. [Moderator's Note: It aired here in Chicago this past week, and is worth a look if it hasn't yet been shown in your community. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 6 Oct 90 02:48:35 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon On Oct 6 at 1:20, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I > think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to > report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT There is only one thing he can be using if the reports are broadcast directly and that is a "Part 74" frequency. Part 74 is the section of FCC rules and regs that covers use of broadcast aux frequencies. And the rules are quite explicit that anything meant for direct broadcast must be sent on one of these channels. There are such channels in the 150 MHz and more popular 450 MHz region. The 950 MHz channels that radio broadcasters use to relay program material to transmitter sites also fall under Part 74. Just as someone was busted in the Seattle area for using cellular for this purpose, so was a station in the Bay Area chastised for using the "business band" for traffic reports. The problem is, in metro areas there aren't enough Part 74 frequencies to go around. And even though there are several traffic reporting services that are used by many stations, they must use a coveted Part 74 frequency (whose license is actually held by a designated broadcaster, since only broadcasters can be granted licenses for these channels). Another problem is that use of a frequency from aircraft wipes out its reuse over a vast area. Broadcasters spend many hours a month coordinating the use of these frequencies. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 03:47:03 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File The concern raised by several people regarding the possible affect on public safety caused by the use of these stickers brings up another issue -- the public safety affect of COCOTs in general. As most people who have COCOT experience will tell you, often you will approach a COCOT, and it will be out of order. Totally out of order. You pick up the handset, and there's no dialtone. Or, there is dialtone, but you can't use it, because it's "local" dialtone, and when the phone goes offhook (from the CO's point of view) to place your call, the line is dead. Very very rarely have I ever seen this the case with a Pacific Bell payphone. Now what if there's an emergency? You go offhook to dial 911, and the phone is comletely dead! Now, keep in mind, that before the advent of COCOTs, it's likely that there was a *real* payphone at this location that always worked. COCOTs weren't just added to previosly-vacant locations, but (in the words of a famous Digest contributor) there has been a "wholesale replacement" of Bell payphones. Ones that were always working to serve you in case of emergency. So, isn't the current state of affairs in COCOTery a public safety issue? Anybody that's cocerned about the amount of damage a few Digesters can cause with stickers should be for the total ban of COCOTs they are today, because of the affect on public safety. Or, perhaps, a tariff clause which states that each COCOT operator must see to it that their fleet of payphones maintain the same percentage of "uptime" that Bell payphones have, or lose the right to be in the payphone business? Hey, maybe this is something we could get our representatives and the law enforcement community fired up about. [Moderator's Note: I did not mention it at the time, but this was my thinking about COCOTS in response to the various messages saying that covering the coin slot posed a potential safety issue. In theory, perhaps yes, but in actual practice COCOTS are most unreliable anyway. Here in Chicago, a lot of them (most of them?) are maintained in dreadful condition; the owners seem to milk them as long as they can then either abandon them or sometimes install a new one. A sticker covering the coin slot is the least of the problems with most. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Oct 90 09:02 EST From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: A Positive Use for Caller ID Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL All the discussion of Caller ID seems to focus on negative perceptions of its use with weak, repeated examples of its "value," the inward telemarketing example being most common. It was refreshing tosee the following in "Communications News" for September. It shows how at least one firm has made use of what must be MCI's Caller ID on 800 numbers, improving service to its customers and its competitive stature: "CALLER ID WITH 800 NUMBER CUTS NO-SHOWS "PayLess Car Rental has increased its revenue and cut the number of no-show renters with an 800 number and automatic number identification. "PayLess rents from off-airport sites in 90% of its 120 major-cioty locations. Problem was, as its renters arrived at the airport, rather than wait for a van for a pickup, they would rent from one of the on-airport companies instead. "That left PayLess with a reserved car but no one to take it. It was losing about one in three customers that way. "Now, when renters arrive at the airport, they dial an 800 number and are connected immediately with the nearest PayLess agent who sends a pickup van right away. "The 800 number sends the call to Communications Management and Information (CMI) in Atlanta. The caller's number is delivered as well and run through the CMI database. Based on area code and prefix, the call is" (obviously forwarded to and ... doggoned inaccurate press!) "answered at the nearest PayLess office. "Mike Harley of Gulfport, Fla.-based PayLEss says the number of no-shows is down about 25% so far. Walk-in business hasn't been affected yet, but the company plans to advertise the number more widely." --------- Nice to see someone coming up with a visible way to improve customer service; surprised they didn't make the point of having one convenient, coin-free nationwide number as well. Those here who are car renters know the hassle of trying to get to a local off-airport car rental company office with a different number in every city. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #717 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26263; 7 Oct 90 19:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27389; 7 Oct 90 18:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06214; 7 Oct 90 17:01 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 16:05:48 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #718 BCC: Message-ID: <9010071605.ab10165@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 16:05:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 718 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phreak Arrested in Tennessee Voicemail Vandalism [Paul Schmidt] MARS BBS Sysop: It Was All a Joke [Jim Thomas] Section 508 of PL 99:506 [Comserve via Peter M. Weiss] AT&T Reach Out World Woes [Dave Rand] AT&T Software Failure Information Needed [Angel M. Chan] Help Needed With AT&T Cordless Phone [Doug Black] NEC Model 6/16 Telephones Wanted [David C. Troup] Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [Macy Hallock] Re: Music On Hold [Brian Kantor] Re: Music On Hold [David O'Heare] Re: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [Tad Cook] Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Schmidt Subject: Phreak Arrested in Tennessee Voicemail Vandalism Date: Sat, 06 Oct 90 19:48:36 EDT Organization: KK4FS - Free Speech Forum, +1 615 283 0864 for BBS sixhub!kk4fs!root@crdgw1.ge.com (Paul Schmidt -) writes: > From the JOHNSON CITY PRESS, Wednesday, October 3, 1990 > HACKER ALTERING RECORDED PHONE MESSAGES We now have an update on this: From the JOHNSON CITY PRESS, Saturday, October 6, 1990 PHONE TAMPERING CHARGES FOLLOW ARREST OF AREA MAN From staff reports KINGSPORT, TN - A city man was arrested Friday for allegedly tampering with United Telephone System voice mail boxes. Christopher Stacy Agett, 20, 2016 Woodbine St., was charged with 59 felony counts of interfering with telephone lines and appliances for allegedly replacing voice mail messages with sexually explicit recordings taken from telephone sex lines. In a written statement obtained by UTS security officials, Agett said he dialed into company's voice mail message center and found boxes that were not protected by a code number, or that had a code that was easy to break, such as four sequential numbers. As a result of the incident, UTS officials said in a news release they are taking steps to make the message system more secure. Officials say they won't elaborate on the security procedures "for fear that someone else will comprimise our system." Agett was released on $3,000 bond from Kingsport City Jail Friday afternoon. He will be arraigned Monday morning in Sullivan County Sessions Court. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 02:26 CDT From: TK0JUT2@niu.bitnet Subject: MARS BBS Sysop: It Was All a Joke Pat-- You've obviously heard about the alleged MARS BBS sting -- the ftp BBS at Mississippi State allegedly "busted" for gif files. The problem with the gif files was quite real, BUT THE ALLEGED BBS INVOLVEMENT WAS A **PRANK**. So, if you put out an issue of TCD before we get out CuD, you might want to mention it. We'll have a story on it, but the bottom line is that it was intended as an innocent joke and spread. I finally got ahold of the sysop today (Ed Lukes) and he explained why he did it ... a response to some of the silly mail he was receiving about the gifs, and it was not intended as deception. So, the rumor that the Secret Service was using it as a sting board is *false.* jim [Moderator's Note: Some joke, huh? In these times, jokes like that are NOT funny. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 7 Oct 1990 08:48:07 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Section 508 of PL 99:506 This was found at COMSERVE@RPIECS and was not typed by me. Pete Weiss (pmw1@psuvm.psu.edu) ----------clip here------------ FULL TEXT OF SECTION 508 OF PUBLIC LAW 99:506 Electronic Equipment Accessibility Section 508. (a) (1) The Secratary, through the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabiliation Research an the Administrator of General Services, and in consultation with the electronics industry, shall develop and establish guidelines for electronic equipment accessibility designed to insure that individuals with handicaps may use electronic office equipment with or without special peripherals. (2) The guidelines established pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be applicable with respect to electronic equipment, whether purchased or leased. (3) The initial guidelines shall be established not later than October 1, 1987 and shall be periodically revised by the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Administrator of General Services in consultation with the electronics industry and the Interagency Committee for Computer Support of Handicapped employees as technologies advance or change. (b) Beginning after September 30, 1988, the Administrator of General Services shall adopt guidelines for electronic equipment accessibility under subsection (a) for Federal procurement of electronic equipment. Each agency shall comply with the guidelines adopted under this subsection. (c) For the purposes of this section, the term, "special peripherals" means the specific needs aid that provides access to electronic equipment that is otherwise inaccessible to an individual with handicaps. ------------------------------ From: Dave Rand Date: Sun, 7 Oct 1990 02:08:28 PDT Subject: AT&T Reach Out World Woes ROW is a great plan for me - it covers the majority of places that I call regularly. I switched to it from Reach Out Canada, due to the lower cost of the ROW plan (only $3/mo). It saves me about $200-300 per month on my long distance charges - quite nice! I had a bit of a surpise last month, though. Normally, I am notified by telephone of my month's credit, due to PAC*BELL being unable to bill the AT&T calls at the ROW rates. AT&T re-rates all of my AT&T calls, and credits my account in the next billing cycle (a pain, but the savings do add up). Last month, I didn't get a call. When I called AT&T to get my current credit amount, they were unable to process my request due their computer being down ... I didn't think much of it at the time, guessed at the credit amount, and paid my bill. Today, I received my current billing from PAC*BELL. Surprise! No AT&T credit. And no billing for ROW! Hmm ... calling the AT&T billing info number, I was referred to the ROW office. ROW indicated that my ROW plan was cancelled at my request, and that they had called and left a message on my answering machine asking for confirmation of this change. Needless to say, I assured them that I had not cancelled my ROW plan, and I had received no such message ... they have promised to re-rate my calls for the past two billing periods, and issue a credit within five working days. I now have a note attached to my account that says, roughly: "Customer requests that all change orders be done in writing, no verbal confirmation accepted." The moral of this story: Make them make you put it in writing! :-) Dave Rand {pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr Internet: dlr@daver.bungi.com ------------------------------ From: Angel M Chan Subject: AT&T Software Failure Information Needed Organization: Columbia University Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:29:40 GMT I am looking for detailed information concerning the AT&T network failure incident. I need to know the exact date, information, and consequences related to a large scale network failure (due to the software problems). I would appreciate any comments, opinions, and information on this subject (or one related to it). Thank you. Please respond to angel@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu. Angel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 08:58:31 EDT From: Doug Black Subject: Help Needed With AT&T Cordless Phone I recently bought an AT&T model 5320 cordless phone. It's a great product, *but* the receiver volume is too low for my tastes. Does anyone know if there's a pot inside that I can adjust? Thanks in advance. Doug Black UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!dougb ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!dougb@nosc.mil INET: dougb@pro-exchange.cts.com ------------------------------ From: "David C. Troup" Subject: NEC Model 6/16 Telephones Wanted Date: 7 Oct 90 18:23:03 GMT Organization: Skunk Works Robotics Research I'm looking for some telephones for a small phone system at work. The phones are from NEC, and they're NEC 6/16 models. ON the botom of one of the remaining working phones is "AMR ET-6H-3 (BG)". Thats all I know (and they're six line phones). If someone can dig up some phones I would be willing to purchase them. Please reply via EMAIL, since I can only get on the NET about twice a week, and there is too much to go through at 2400bps. David C. Troup dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 10:33 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 >Tens of thousands of MCI customers across the northeastern section of >the United States had long distance phone problems Wednesday after a >construction crew in Ohio sliced through a fiber-optic cable . >A construction crew employed by the State of Ohio was working on a >bridge on the Ohio Turnpike near North Royalton, a Cleveland suburb, >when 'a digging machine went down in the ground, grabbed the >fiber-optic cable and yanked several feet of it out of the ground', >said MCI. MCI's primary backbone switching center is located in North Royalton Ohio. Its a very new, very modern facility. It also handles a lot of calls. Most of the fiber optic terminals are Fujitsu multi-gigbit per second high density type. Although the building is also equipped with several microwave radio links, most of them appear to be used for local links and telco bypass rather than for backbone communications. MCI is very sensitive about network redundacy and its hard to get them to talk about it. I get the impression that they are very aware of the vunerable postition they are in when something like this happens. I do know they are working very hard to establish better redundancy in their network, but these things take time and money ... and AT&T has a real head start. I talked to a couple of my friends at MCI when this happened, and they were quite perturbed. They were quick to point out that they were able to successfully reroute a large portion of their traffic immediatly. They also reminded me of the major AT&T outage we had in Cleveland a year or so ago ... and that wiped Cleveland off the map completely for AT&T. MCI gives group tours of their North Royalton facility. They are fine hosts and are justifiably proud of this high quality part of their network. When I was there, they spent quite a bit of time disucssing their DMS,SS#7 and DACS implementations, even interrupting some of their technical staff to give me the answers. Overall I rate MCI an 8 and the Ohio Turnpike a 3. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 7 Oct 90 15:19:59 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. In article <13095@accuvax.nwu.edu> jj1028@homxc.att.com (Maurice R Baker) writes: >If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of >time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label) >should give you the choice of: > (several ideas for what you listen to while caught in a telephone > traffic jam) While those are nice suggestions, they miss the point. If more companies started regarding call that was abandoned while on hold as a LOST SALE, they soon start doing something about making sure people weren't put on hold quite so much. It's simple: if you call an organization and get parked for an impolite amount of time, whenever practical, abandon that call and call the competition. If you have to deal with that firm, and it's appropriate, simply ask the clerk to inform his manager that you are unhappy with the length of time you had to wait and you are now much more inclined to call the competition. On a related note, I recently attended the TCA show here in San Diego, and came away with the impression that the largest single emphasis of the vendors at this year's show was on more new and wonderful ways for people to talk to machines. It's sad that a device that was once designed to make communication between humans much easier is now being engineered to make it much less likely. A human-factors consideration: when I was making my living as a computer consultant a few years ago, I became sensitive to the fact that people often needed to call me most when they were having problems with their computers, and that the last thing someone who is already upset with his machine needs to hear is another machine answering the phone when he calls for help. Several of my customers remarked how grateful they were that I had SOMEONE (me or the answering service) available 24 hours to answer their call, even if all they could do was take a message or promise to page me. It was clear to me that the $25 a month for a real person (i.e., an answering service) more than paid for itself in the number of jobs I got. Fooey on whizz-bang technology: people want to talk to people, not machines. Brian ------------------------------ From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 5 Oct 90 13:42:28 GMT Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth In article <12995@accuvax.nwu.edu>, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > [stuff about music/sales spiels on hold deleted] If anyone has cause to call WordPerfect for support and gets put on hold, they do things a little differently: there is a _live_ disk jockey playing New-Agey sorts of music and giving reports on the congestion of the phone lines. Good quality sound, and an 800 number that works from Canada. Nice that somebody thinks about the folks on hold. Dave O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface Date: 5 Oct 90 05:23:02 GMT In article <12757@accuvax.nwu.edu>, decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!nagle (John Nagle) writes: > >In , Tad Cook wrote: > >>I am looking for a device that can go between the telco line side of > >>a key telephone system and a two-way radio system. >This is how it all started. Remember Carterfone? No, I am not looking for something to connect from a telco line to a two-way radio. I just want to be able to control the radio from a spare CO line position on the key telephone. No connection to the public switched network at all. Simplex autopatches are common, and they will connect the radio to the telephone line. I want something that makes the radio look like a phone line to the telephone ... without any ringing. The telephone only needs to contact the radio, not the other way around. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed Date: 5 Oct 90 00:59:49 GMT In article <12749@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lee@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Bob Lee) writes: > If you could find a friend in an area whose calling area is local to > you and to the area you want to call, they could get a line installed > there with call forwarding which they could program for you. They I do something similar for friends in the suburbs all the time. I have residential Centrex service, and there is a Call Transfer feature. They call me, tell me the number they want (local to me ... toll to them), then I hookflash, get second dial tone, dial the number, and hang up. My phone is then free, and it ties up a couple of trunks in my CO. One could build a cheap register-resend circuit to do this automatically (answers, stores the number you dial in, hookflashes, redials the number that you have just entered, then hangs up for the next call) ... in fact, I am sure that this is how some of the private EAS companies around here have done this. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #718 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28466; 7 Oct 90 21:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09542; 7 Oct 90 20:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30452; 7 Oct 90 19:04 CDT Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:22:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #719 BCC: Message-ID: <9010071822.ab03936@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:22:23 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 719 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson EuroComm 91: International Exhibition [TELECOM Moderator] Sprint Appointment Book [nstar!watcher@ndmath.math.nd.edu] Re: 19" Rack Format [Jim Haynes] Re: 19" Rack Format [David Lesher] Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Peter M. Weiss] Re: More COCOTery [Macy Hallock] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Jim Haynes] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Bruce Balden] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 17:00:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: EuroComm 91: International Exhibition Nearly nine thousand visitors are expected to attend EuroComm 91 when it convenes in Amsterdam, January 22-25, 1991. Billed as an international exhibition on telecommunications and data communications, EuroComm 91 will feature pavillions from the UK, the USA and Canada among others. In addition, a major exhibit will be entitled 'World of Networking'. It will demonstrate various LAN applications running over an OSI-based multivendor network. US vendor participation in EuroComm included NYNEX at the 1989 event. NYNEX is involved again this time, as is US Sprint. Bell Atlantic has indicated a strong interest in participating, however their commitment to EuroComm 91 was not firmed up as of late September. In all, dozens of firms are already committed to participate, as of mid-September. There are three parts to the EuroComm 91 Congress: 1. The European Congress program: (In English) A. Market Conditions / Regulatory Developments B. Mobile Communications C. Satellite Communications D. Value Added Networks 2. Mini-congresses focusing on the Benelux Market: (In Dutch) - EDI for the distribution and transportation industries - Mobile communications for security and surveillance - Cable TV's new services - New business opportunities with VANs and WANs - ISDN in practice: Rotterdam '90 - EDI in manufacturing - Information networks in government administration - Telematic services and the rise of the home office - Image processing 3. Public Communications. This special one day program on January 23 will discuss cable and satellite TV and how it is transforming the European cultural and business landscape. This presentation will be given in English. The EuroComm 91 exhibition will be held at the RAI Exhibition Center, Europaplein, Amsterdam, from Tuesday, January 22 through Friday, January 25, 1991 inclusive. The EuroComm 91 Congress will be held simultaneously in the adjoining RAI Congress Centre. Exhibit hours are 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM daily. Exhibitors will have admission from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM each day. The correspondence address for EuroComm 91: RAI Gebouw bv Europaplein 1078 GZ Amsterdam Netherlands Telephone: +31 20 549 12 12 Telex: 16017 Fax: +31 20 46 44 69 The United States representatives for EuroComm 91: Ellen J. Glew, President (and) Lisa Judd Perkins, Senior Consultant E. Glew International Ten Tower Office Park Drive Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 USA Telephone: 617-933-9055 Fax: 617-933-8744 Our USA readers should contact Ms. Glew and Ms. Perkins for a complete package about EurcComm 91, including registration and exhibitor information. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: watcher Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 05:33:35 EST Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd. Subject: SPRINT Appointment Book I got my Sprint Plus bill today. Inside, along with the usual issue of SprintLine ("news and information" form of advertising), there is an order form for a 1991 Appointment Book and/or Pocket Diary, handsomely bound in faux leather, valued at $21.95/$12.95 respectively, available for ONLY (emphasis theirs) $2.00 EACH plus $2.97 shipping and handling (plus applicable sales tax on these amounts). There is a place for me to give them my Mastercard/Visa/Discover number and expiration date ... great ... I could use an appointment book. They'll even put my initials on it at no extra charge. The problem? I DON'T HAVE A CREDIT CARD! So what am I supposed to do with this wonderful LIMITED TIME offer that they have offered to me, their esteemed customer? Probably not very much. This seems like a rather useless direct-marketing program which reeks of a scam to get more credit information on their customers. My other (smaller) concern is the wording "applicable sales tax on these amounts". 'Applicable' is obviously (?) determined by the state I live in. but 'these amounts' undoubtedly refers to BOTH (i.e. the sum total of) the sales price and the shipping/handling. Can they charge sales tax on shipping/handling? I've never heard of this before. Closer examination of their offer shows that I can order as many additional appointment books as I want, at the full price of $21.95/$12.95 (plus $2.97 shipping/handling). This whole thing is almost as sleazy as most 900 numbers. [Moderator's Note: I think you have a major misunderstanding of the promotion. First, this promotion is being offered by several organizations to their customers including American Express, various VISA/MC agents, and others. It is not peculiar to Sprint. I've received three identical offers (including Sprint's) in the past month. The company which manufactures the diary (and fills ALL the orders!) lets each seller refer to it as their own product. My diary from First National Bank will look exactly like yours from Sprint. The three ads I have received thus far, as bill inserts, all allowed payment by credit card only, however what makes you think VISA would need to get 'credit card information on its customers'? The form you read went out millions of times this month, and Sprint stamped their name on a few hundred thousand, and will get a few cents commission on each order going in which keys back to them. So what? Finally, the tax on 'both amounts' refers to the original diary at the introductory price and the additional diaries you order at the regular price. It does *not* refer to tax on shipping and handling. This promotion has been around for years. In the middle seventies at Amoco they were offered by the 'Amoco Merchandise Center' in bill inserts every October. If you don't have a credit card, that's your problem. Your sense of sleaze is greatly misplaced, I think. PAT] ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Re: 19" Rack Format Date: 7 Oct 90 18:48:30 GMT Reply-To: Jim Haynes Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz CATS Let's get nit-picky about trivia. :-) In article <13072@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: >you have need for specifications in the U.S., the Electronic >Industries Association (EIA) published a standard many years ago. If I remember from an old issue of the Radio Amateur's Handbook that there was at one time both a Western Electric 19" standard and a RETMA 19" standard. RETMA (well before that it was RMA - Radio Manufacturers' Association - was the predecessor name to EIA) The WECo standard was strictly multiples of 1-3/4" panels with notches 1/4" in from the edges: so the holes are spaced 1/2; 1-1/4; 1/2; 1-1/4; 1/2 and so on. The RMA standard had additional holes in the iddle of the 1-1/4" intervals. So most racks you get today have a spacing 1/2; 5/8; 5/8; 1/2; 5/8; 5/8; 1/2 and so on. >BTW, 19 inches is not the only "standard." Bell electronics equipment >most commonly uses 23 inch racks, while "frames" of electromechanical >switching equipment mount in 30 or even 36 inch widths, all using the >same 1-3/4 inch vertical increments. I don't know about the 30 and 36 inch stuff; but the Bell 23-inch racks have a standard based on 2-inch vertical increments; or maybe it's integral multiples of 1 inch. I belive the EIA standard also allows for a 24-inch rack, as I've seen some of those in catalogs. I'm dubious about any Western Union connection with all this, because I've seen some Western Union equipment that doesn't fit on 19" racks. But I'm equally eager to learn the True History of this peculiar 19" dimension that has ruled the lives of so many of ur for so long. haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: 19" Rack Format Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 16:56:35 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Somewhere in the backs of long unaccessed core, I seem to dredge up the fact that 19" racks was a Western Onion standard. Lending credence to that is the fact that Ma's is *not* 19", and we all know that Ma never used competitor's standard, especially a successful one. By the way, the standards quote is from Andy Tannenbaum, author of Minex and doer of many other things... wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 7 Oct 1990 09:50:28 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining In article <13083@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) says: >No further should need to be said in view of what Digest readers have >demonstrated from the past, except to say that this may mark an >innovative way for top execs to hear from the public. >[Moderator's Note: (etc.) >The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether >or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it >scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what >happens and post the responses received. PAT] My opinion is that the readership NOT deluge those addresses with mail. I would suggest that spokesfolks from the list e.g., our Moderator be assigned that task. It would be a shame if so much noise were generated that this channel of communication were cutoff. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with PSUVM | VM.PSU.EDU University Park, PA USA 16802 [Moderator's Note: I'm not quite sure I understand your claim. Is it 'noise' if you do not agree with the letter-writer? If Mr. McGowan suddenly began refusing to read/answer his mail personally, would that be a big loss? Can you explain further? You are not suggesting that either MCI Mail or ATT Mail would deliberatly cut the connection and reduce their email universe as a result of a few letters sent through which were (in your estimation) 'noise' are you? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 10:06 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: More COCOTery Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 John Higdon (Telecom Critic At Large) and others said: >> Okay, I'm finally gonna ask. Who, out of all the comp.dcom.telecom >> and TELECOM Digest readers, is a COCOT owner? >I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. Well, I came close.... As most of the Digest readers know, I owned (until this week) an interconnect company in Medina, Ohio. Medina is 30 miles outside of Cleveland in GTE-land. Three years ago my brother and I got fed up with GTE's attitude about pay phones ... my father and other brother own a property managment business and had gone through a lot of grief with GTE over pay phones and suggested that we could do a better job. This gave us almost twenty decent locations in Medina to get started in the COCOT business. COCOT's seemed a natural extension of the phone biz for us, so off I went to NATA to look for hardware ... and I found a lot of junk, but a couple of decent phones were actually made. I ordered two types for evaluation, and in they came along with software to permit remote administration. I was now out $3000, 'cuz these guys only deal COD CASH! I played around with the stuff for a few days and installed one in front of our building on a standard business line (GTE did not yet have their COCOT tarriff in place, they had been dragging their feet with the PUCO for two years...) I also started looking at how to deal with credit card and collect calls. That's where I got a reality check ... AOS's were the problem. Credit cards validation was a problem. A small time COCOT operator had to either deal with high priced and somewhat slimey AOS services or not at all. AT&T did not want to talk to me, much less provide any assistance. Sprint and MCI did not have their operator services up to speed at that time. As long as I did local and sent-paid coin calls, COCOT's were OK...but not practical in today's communications environment. GTE would not give me equal access to their services, either. I went back to selling key systems ... and told my father and brother how to file formal PUC complaints against GTE over pay phone problems. (Coming soon ... my attempt to enter the long distance resale business ... another reality check for a small businessman..) Other comments: The communication business is now very different than five years ago. There are only three successful niches left in private CPE telecom: - The very small one or two man key system business. Low margins and very personal service. - The large, customer oriented regional company. Succeeds in quality service, brand name products and a wide range of services. Very marketing oriented. - The large national company. Usually direct sales by the manufacturer. Looking for large, national accounts. Sells with a "safe to deal with" mentality. This tracks with John Higdon's comments about COCOT companies. Note that there is no niche left for the small to medium size telecom specialist. There is now no growth path for the small shop, except to sell out. (BTW - I sold out my PBX business to a larger office automation company, owned by a friend in Cleveland, and now work for him. F M Systems in Medina continues to do alarm work and a few small key systems, just to aggravate GTE... under the auspices of my brother. I help him out on computer issues and spend most of my time in Cleveland on PBX's and phone engineering now. My wife hasn't seen me in a week ...) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 7 Oct 90 18:35:07 GMT Reply-To: Jim Haynes Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz CATS In article <13068@accuvax.nwu.edu> bgsuvax!jyoull@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jim Youll) writes: > (caller) "Hi. This is Mary from Western Supply. How many toner > cartridges did you want this week?" I've read in the local paper that the D.A.'s office has had a lot of complaints about some copier-supplies firms that market this way. They go beyond being "merely" annoying by fooling people into ordering things they didn't intend to order, at prices higher than their regular suppliers charge. Wonder why these sleazoid outfits happen to pick copier supplies as their merchandise of choice? haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes [Moderator's Note: They are also into selling FAX paper, printer paper and other office supplies in the same way. It is a scam. PAT] ------------------------------ From: balden@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Bruce Balden) Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 7 Oct 90 22:01:22 GMT Reply-To: balden@van-bc.UUCP (Bruce Balden) Organization: USENET Public Access, Vancouver, B.C., Canada In this area, at least, the method is to dial "211". The phone switch then speaks back the number to you. [Moderator's Note: This is another example of the diversity you will find from one telco to another. For thirty years here, 211 got you the long distance operator, in the days when long distance calls could not be dialed direct. Even the 'ring-back code' 571-6 no longer works here. Telcos are starting to be very tight-lipped about this sort of information. Really, you can't blame them. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #719 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05500; 8 Oct 90 3:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14151; 8 Oct 90 2:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00366; 8 Oct 90 1:08 CDT Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 0:39:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #720 BCC: Message-ID: <9010080039.ab17942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Oct 90 00:39:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 720 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Traffic Reporters (was: Cellular Phones on Airport Runway) [Brian Kantor] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [John Stanley] Re: Music on Hold [Jeremy Brest] Re: Music On Hold [John Higdon] Re: A New Way to Get Slammed [John Higdon] Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Jeff Sicherman] SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Traffic Reporters (was: Cellular Phones on Airport Runway) Date: 7 Oct 90 01:06:44 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Some small stations may use cellular phones, but in this part of the world, the traffic reporting companies who do that for several stations use one or more of the Remote Pickup Broadcast channels allocated to their radio clients. You can easily find them on channels in the 450 to 451 MHz range, sometimes on repeaters ("mobile relay") systems and sometimes direct. You should also scan around 161 MHz, as there are a few RPB channels there. Others use various business-band channels to report the traffic conditions to a central office, where an announcer actually provides stations with the report - with these, it's NOT broadcast from the mobiles. (I think direct rebroadcast of Land Mobile channels isn't permitted.) Commonly, stations not using radio circuits used to use automated tone-activated "cart" tape machines to record these broadcasts - a sort of very high quality answering machine, but on a leased line. Some actually used real phone answering machines on POTS lines. Some use multidrop conference circuits like the auto parts dealers do. In one town I know about, it was discovered that one of the announcer-in-a-box traffic report firms was getting its information from eavesdropping on the OTHER firm that actually had a helicopter and mobiles - the quality and completeness of the former's reports dropped noticeably the day the real company changed radio channels. Later, the real company would occasionally report fake traffic jams and accidents to their base station using a code word that told the base that it WAS a fake and not to pass it on for broadcast - but the eavesdropping reporting firm didn't know the code word and would pass on the reports. They're not in business anymore. Oh, then there's the time that Channel X TV sent two of their minicam units to cover a plane crash they'd heard about on Channel Y's news dispatch frequency - when they got there, all there was to be found was channel Y's news director saying something about how he had a feeling they were going to show up. Brian ------------------------------ Date: 07 Oct 90 00:19:07 EDT From: John Stanley <73765.1026@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Regarding a comment on the FCC requesting a traffic reporter to stop using cellular phones from the air, our esteemed Moderator asks: >[Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I >think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to >report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT In Syracuse, Captain Scott King, the only air traffic reporter in Syracuse, uses 170.15 for his downlink. Uplink frequency is unknown, but 170.15 can be used by the studios he talks to (1 AM, 1 FM, and 1 TV, as far as I know.) The city police also monitor 170.15 and can talk to him on it. He regularly uses this frequency to notify them of traffic problems and accidents. This frequency is designated as one of the standard remote to studio links, and is used for many things besides air traffic. Several stations in this area use it for live shots. It was quite interesting to listen during the (Great) New York State Fair, where everyone and their brother was trying to get live stuff from the grounds. The Captain was VERY unhappy that his signal was getting covered. Since there is so little coordination heard on that frequency, there must be another frequency they use, but I have not found it. A friend of mine flies a reporter during the Captain's vacation time. He says there is about 100 pounds of radio gear strapped into the seat. It includes tally lights and all sorts of stuff. There are a lot of extra antennas pasted all over the Captain's plane. His signal from the plane is good enough that he sometimes makes his last traffic report from the ground at the airport after landing. For those with a listening bent, the RTS links and other media frequencies are a great way to keep up with breaking news. The police use too many codes, but the reporters never do. It also gives an insight into the mania that exists in broadcast journalism. One night, I heard a TV remote leave the local hospital (downtown) and arrive at the station (Eastside) in about five minutes, in a race to get a hot tape to air. He must have been doing about 80 and blowing red lights to perform this feat. The tape: a standup in front of the hospital saying that one victim was taken to XXX hospital, but no information was available on his condition. The ground pounding reporters do make heavy use of cellular, sometimes for remote feeds. This is information I heard from someone. I never listen to cellular frequencies. Nope, not me. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Brest Subject: Re: Music On Hold Organization: Swarthmore College, PA, USA Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 23:28:12 GMT In <13121@accuvax.nwu.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >It's sad that a device that was once >designed to make communication between humans much easier is now being >engineered to make it much less likely. >Several of my customers >remarked how grateful they were that I had SOMEONE (me or the >answering service) available 24 hours to answer their call, even if >all they [sic] could do was take a message or promise to page me. >It was clear to me that the $25 a month for a real person (i.e., an >answering service) more than paid for itself in the number of jobs I >got. Fooey on whizz-bang technology: people want to talk to people, >not machines. Brian, if what you want to do is communicate, then having people grateful is not the right metric to base decision making on. People leave watered down messages with secretaries and answering services. Voice mail and answering machines may be displeasing at first, we find that people leave more detailed messages on them, and for good reason: The intended recipient hears the message. It is not translated by someone who isn't current on the subject. That means that the caller is able to make assumptions about the listener's knowledge on the subject. People take a long time to become comfortable with new modes of communication. But it is wrong and reactionary to say that voice mail and answering machines make communications between and among people less likely -- they make it more likely. They just make it less likely that people will need to be on the telephone at the same time to communicate effectively. (For a pretty decent parallel, look at how email improves communications in settings where it is well used.) Jeremy Brest Jeremy_Brest@NeXT.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Music On Hold Date: 7 Oct 90 18:02:46 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Oct 7 at 16:05, Brian Kantor writes: > It was clear to me that the $25 a month for a real person (i.e., an > answering service) more than paid for itself in the number of jobs I > got. Fooey on whizz-bang technology: people want to talk to people, > not machines. And where, oh where, pray tell, do you find this magical answering service? I have been in business for two decades selling and now designing (and selling) equipment and have completely given up on answering services. Unfortunately, I am not, at present, large enough to have a full-time secretary and so I must resort to mechanical means since I am frequently out (and almost never go into the office). Answering services? Phooey! The high turnover morons can't spell to save their lives. They transpose digits in phone numbers. They, themselves, put people on hold forever. "Announcementtechnologiescanyouhold?" And that's after about fifteen rings. And heaven help the customer who actually thinks that he is talking to a bona fide human and starts talking TECHNICAL! (Those messages usually ended up in the service's File 13.) Checking for messages is a real treat. "This is 505, do have any messages?" "Oh yes, Mr. Higdon, quite a few -- oh could you hold please?" [long wait] "Oh, sorry to keep you waiting. Let's see ... An urgent call from a Mr. [unintelligible] who says that your space in San Francisco ... Oh, excuse me just a moment." [long wait] "Sorry. Let's see ... You got the first message..." "No, I didn't understand the name." "Oh, it was ... hold on please." And on and on. Mind you this isn't one service, but the SOP for every one of the six or so services that I tried. And another thing: It wasn't $25/month. It was more like $120-$150 per month. If the morons were underpaid, then someone was getting very rich. You can keep answering services. I (and I'm sure my customers) would rather speak into a mechanical contrivance any day of the week rather than be faced with an over-priced answering service bimbo from hell. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: There are good answering services. Twenty years ago I used one for quite awhile: Annex Telephone Answering, downtown in the Chicago Temple Building. They were good, and they offered flat rate service which as I recall was $35 per month. That included paging me to 'call the office' when they had a message. This wa a bridged service, i.e. they had an extension of my line which came up on their board. Whether or not an answering machine/voicemail is preferable to an answering service depends on the nature of the business and the temperment of the caller. A physician, psychiatrist or social worker might be better off with a live, trained person at an answering service specializing in that sort of client. Annex carried a lot of professional clients; they opened for business about 1920. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A New Way to Get Slammed Date: 7 Oct 90 17:35:10 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon Veteran endurers of Pac*Bell nonsense will recall that several years ago the utility itself got its hand slapped for slamming. It would routinely provide subscribers with Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, or Three Way Calling, without even being asked. But it wasn't for free -- normal rates applied. People would have these features for years without even knowing anything about them. It came to light when people began calling repair service claiming that their conversations would be interrupted with clunks and beeps. Pac*Bell was ordered to remove the services and retroactively refund to any and all who came forward after a media blitz. Another outcropping of that incident was the requirement that all monthly residence bills contain a detailed listing of the monthly charges. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 19:52:23 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining >>The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether >>or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it >>scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what >>happens and post the responses received. PAT] >My opinion is that the readership NOT deluge those addresses with >mail. I would suggest that spokesfolks from the list e.g., our >Moderator be assigned that task. >It would be a shame if so much noise were generated that this channel >of communication were cutoff. Putting on my (unearned) powdered wig again, I also believe deluging an email box with correspondence is unwise and perhaps illegal. There may even be some laws relative to using the telecommunications networks in this manner. First, it is abusive, generally bad form, and potentially illegal (harrassment) to deprive someone (including corporations of the rightful use of their property. I think deluging an email box could be construed to fall under this, even if it has not yet been tested in the court. I'm fairly certain there are similar ones that protect people against constant phone calls whose intent is to annoy or have the effect of interfering with its normal use. Second, for an individual to think about such is contemplation and is not (yet) illegal. For individual to discuss illegal acts can be interpreted as conspiracy to commit, which is illegal. If we want to change phone company behavior, I agree with the responder that lobbying (it's not always a dirty word) is a more responsible way by presenting facts and consensus of opinion and that bypassing the bureaucracy by sending it direct to the email accounts of the corporate leaders is entirely reasonable. The WORST that can happen from THAT is that they ignore it or bounce it down to a peon for a response. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: I think your 'legal advice' is all wet. If several people sending email to the same person(s) at more or less the same time is illegal, then the thousands of people who send public opinion messages to their congress-critters daily via Western Union are all criminals, since several telex machines run almost constantly 24 hours per day in the Congressional Telecommunications Center handling these. When someone publishes their email address -- just as when they publish their telephone number -- they are inviting people to contact them via that media. The 9000+ persons who call 202-456-1414 each 24 hour period -- many of whom actually ask to speak to George -- are also guilty of clogging the circuits, no? Those crackpots! Cut off their phone service and stick 'em all in jail! Furthermore, the people who use their own computers and modems to connect with Western Union to send lobbyist telegram messages should likewise be prosecuted, huh? And to discuss or explain how a 'crime' is committed on its face becomes conspiracy? What lawyer told you that? Therefore television shows which run crime dramas should all be indicted as co-conspirators, right? Of course that won't happen, because CBS has a smart-mouthpiece of their own on retainer. And when Kay Graham or one of my other competitors uses their editorial page to encourage readers to send their opinion on some issue to a corporation, they are also guilty of harrassment, right? I can just hear it now: ... " why poor Bill McGowan ... he had to actually sift through and erase a dozen email letters from folks who don't agree with the way he runs things at MCI ...ahhhhhh" (whining tone of voice). I manage my email just fine, thanks; let him do the same. Lots of publications and electronic media invite, indeed encourage people to assist in lobbying for a given cause. I will do the same. Or is it 'lobbying' when you agree with the cause, and 'harassment' when you do not? Your complaint is invalid. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 19:28:11 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line Does anyone know of equipment that could be hooked to either a single phone or one line of a 1A2 system that could perform some of the functions of SMDR, for both outgoing and incoming calls but at least time recording for incoming. Also, the phones are currently pulse dial ! (Don't bother making suggestions about replacing the system or the phones, I could figure that out myself but is not an option right now.) I imagine some of this could be done with a modem and PC so such software and hardware suggestions are OK but would prefer, if possible, a less expensive device solution. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #720 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06580; 8 Oct 90 4:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05620; 8 Oct 90 3:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14151; 8 Oct 90 2:12 CDT Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 1:17:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #721 BCC: Message-ID: <9010080117.ab16176@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Oct 90 01:17:39 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 721 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson History of Telephone and Electronic Apparatus Relay Racks [Larry Lippman] Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Tad Cook] Re: SPRINT Appointment Book [Steve Forrette] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Tad Cook] Non-911 Emergency Calls via Pay Phones [Sander J. Rabinowitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: History of Telephone and Electronic Apparatus Relay Racks Date: 7 Oct 90 23:35:05 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In articles <13072@accuvax.nwu.edu>, <13103@accuvax.nwu.edu> and <13127@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Donald E. Kimberlin, Thomas J. Roberts and haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu discuss and ask questions about the 19" rack standard. I have commingled the quotes from their articles in order to create a logical flow and shed further light on this issue. > >I do not know if this is the right forum to ask this question but > >since the telecom history goes back more than 100 years it is worth > >a try. > Any technology historians out there for this one? > Let's get nit-picky about trivia. :-) You came to the right place, and to the right person. :-) In the Bell System and WECo world, rack mounted telephone apparatus as we know it today did not begin to develop until about 1917. Prior to that time, apparatus was chiefly constructed in wooden boxes which sat on the floor or hung on walls. Anyone who has ever seen pictures of the first transcontinental telephone line repeater systems will know exactly what I mean. The requirement for repeaters seemed to spur the development of relay racks and a dimensional standard, and as far as I know, sometime between 1917 and 1920 the 23" mounting plate and relay rack standard was born. The first WECo product that I know of to utilize the 23" mounting plate was the 22-type voice frequency repeater, which made its debut in 1920. The 23" WECo standard was based upon mounting plates in 2" increments, with vertical relay rack mounting holes on 1" centers. > >When and by whom was the 19" rack standard invented ? Sometime during the 1920's, and probably by RCA. WECo also made use of 19" apparatus beginning in the 1920's, but its use was primarily restricted to transmission measurement apparatus and other apparatus specifically related to radio communication. The 19" standard (today called EIA) made use of apparatus mounting plates in 1-3/4" increments, with relay rack mounting holes in three-hole spacing increments of 5/8"-5/8"-1/2". While 19" is by far the most common panel width, the EIA standard also covers panels in widths of 24" and 30". Please note that an EIA width is 24" and *not* 23" (a common misconception). > As a matter of interest, you will be surprised to see how many > manufacturers violate the standard in various details. If you have > been engaged in rack-mounting equipment of various vendors, it is not > at all unusual to have to perform some hacksaw, hammer and file > surgery in the process. Tell me about it! Special thanks for notable aggravation in past years go out to Specific Products (frequency standard receiver), Pacific Measurements (digital precision microwave power meter) and various apparatus made by Singer Metrics Division. :-) > I cannot speak to the issues of what corner of history this method > came from, but have reason to believe it predates the Bell hegemony, > dating back to days of peak Western Union influence. I don't believe the 19" rack was originated by Western Union, but I cannot be certain. > BTW, 19 inches is not the only "standard." Bell electronics equipment > most commonly uses 23 inch racks, while "frames" of electromechanical > switching equipment mount in 30 or even 36 inch widths, all using the > same 1-3/4 inch vertical increments. The WECo apparatus standard for 23", 30" and 36" mounting plates are *all* based upon a 2" mounting plate increment with 1" vertical hole spacing. > I do know the US inch-dimensioned racks all have whole-unit metric > equivalents. Because the inch-dimensioned racks do not actually come > out to exact inches, the root might well be some European imports of > antiquity that set the norm for the US. Interestingly enough, the 1970's vintage Japanese wire spring relay-crossbar PABX, such as those made by Hitachi, NEC and OKI, generally used the WECo 36" mounting plate for both relays and crossbar switches. > As this is a telecom newsgroup, I feel compelled to mention that AT&T > equipment racks [5ESS(Tm)] are usually 22.5" wide. Ah, yes the WECo ESS mounting frames. This began as a 23" U-shaped mounting plate whose width was extended by 1/2" of flat metal on each side so that it would mount from *behind* the frame. All traditional 23", 30" and 36" apparatus plates mount from the *front* of the frame. Then there was the WECo 770 and 800-series PABX's which used 36" plates which also mounted from behind the swing-out frames. In closing, I have a special treat for John Higdon. John's favorite :-) telephone company and apparatus manufacturer, GTE/Automatic Electric, has yet another rack standard for some electromechanical switching apparatus: 18-3/8" wide. I will further make John's day by admitting that I have personally experienced aggravation over being unable to mount any 19" apparatus in such frames. :-) Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo||uunet}!/ ¥aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding Date: 7 Oct 90 23:33:24 GMT In article <12898@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hes@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: > I asked the agent leading my tour what was the origin of the name > "cheese box" and he had no idea. I wondered if it was from the idiom > "cheese it" meaning "scram" which was used back in those days. Does > anyone know? I read something one time about a character who worked for the mob in New York or Chicago years ago. He had the nickname "cheesebox" because he had allegedly designed and built the first one of these call forwarders 50 or so years ago in a real cheese box. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 22:08:55 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Re: SPRINT Appointment Book I took advantage of this offer from Citibank a couple of years ago. It's a pretty good deal, I thought, but here's the catch - you agree to be sent them each year, with subsequent years being billed at the full $21.95 price! Actually, you have the option not to purchase in subsequent years. What happens is they send you a notice about a month in advance, reminding you of "the deal," and telling you that you need to send something back if you DON'T want it. But, I just glanced over it at the time, determined it was junk mail, and junked it. Well, when the book arrived, I felt really hoodwinked, but they gave me a refund when I sent them back (refund necessary since they automatically bill your credit card!). Now back to telecom... [Moderator's Note: I should have, but neglected to mention that part about the 'negative-option' in my response yesterday. It is true you get into a cycle with the calendar/diary people which requires you to respond to them every year (regardless of *who* you actually buy it from, i.e. Sprint, American Express, Visa, "Amoco Merchandise Center" a/k/a/ Fingerhut a/k/a "Exxon Merchandise Center", Diners Club et al) but it still is a decent and attractive little book, and hardly the sleazy, scam offer our original correspondent purported it to be. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 7 Oct 90 17:24:14 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon On Oct 7 at 15:02, TELECOM Moderator writes: > A sticker > covering the coin slot is the least of the problems with most. PAT] Another liability suffered by virtually all COCOTs and not suffered by utility phones is the requirement for AC power for operation. This problem came to the fore during last October's shaker. There were vast areas without power (not to mention Pacific Gas and Electric Company's normally poor performance) and a number of people were anable to report emergencies from inoperative COCOTs. I remember one time, late at night, when my car was acting funny out in the desert. No cellular service was available (there is now, thank goodness) but there was a gas station at hand. Unfortunately, it was closed and the COCOT was apparently powered from the pump circuit, since it was dead. This was one of the most frightening experiences to date related to a COCOT. So while we're writing our dream tariff list, how about including a requirement for a floating battery backup that will last some minimum of, say, twelve hours? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: John, thanks for yet another reason why I don't think a sticker over the coin slot is all that likely to cause a tragedy. If the COCOT owners really cared anyway, they'd have a lot better arrangement than they do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 7 Oct 90 23:27:59 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Mark and Jeff, your suggestion is *excellent*. I > think there should be two labels made up: the original, and one that > says 'Emergency calls - no coins needed; dial _________'. Then when > auditing the COCOT for compliance, the person affixing the sticker > should detirmine if (a) emergency calls are allowed for free, as > required by law, and that (b) no initial deposit is required. If this > is the case, then put the second label on also. PAT] How does one determine this, without calling 9-1-1? You could just dial 9-1-1 and then hang up, but 9-1-1 PSAPs don't really like this. In fact, the procedure at the ones I am familiar with is to call back and determine what the problem is. If no one answers, they often assume an emergency where someone dialed 9-1-1 as they were being assaulted, so they roll a police car to the address on the ANI/ALI display to see what is happening. Listening to Seattle Police on my scanner, I hear cars dispatched all the time where the description given by the dispatcher is "ANI-ALI hangup call." Maybe you could dial 9-1-1 and say "oops ... wrong number!", or maybe "Telephone Man! Just checking the line!". Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I do not encourage you to imposter an employee of the telephone company 'just checking the line'. If you must call, just say you are checking to see if 911 is permitted on the line, and vacate quickly. But, see earlier replies in this thread. Given the physical condition of many/most COCOTs, this may be a moot point. Also, the phone probably has a notice on it saying how to place various calls. If the notice says 911 is permitted free, I'd take the owner's word for it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 18:01 EST From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Non-911 Emergency Calls via Pay Phones There have recently been concerns expressed over the last several days over the ability of using COCOTs to access emergency-911 service. However, not all communities have access to 911 service, and in these cases, I would speculate the situation becomes more difficult. The COCOT may be pre-programmed (one would hope) to immediately connect you to 911, but would it be possible to program the COCOT to allow access to one or more local-style phone numbers for emergency purposes? (Or is it so inflexible that to bypass one number, you have to bypass an entire exchange?) FOR EXAMPLE: Until last year, if one wanted emergency assistance in Farmington Hills, Mich., one had to dial xxx-x911, which was normally a local call. One day about two years ago, I witnessed a near-accident involving a stalled vehicle that was blocking part of a very busy road. I pulled over to the gas station pay phone, and dialed xxx-x911, only to receive a recording that the call required 20 cents. I didn't have any change. (This, incidentally, involved a GENUINE telephone co. pay phone.) So I dialed the operator, and requested that I be connected to the Farmington Hills police, and immediately cited their telephone number. The operator refused, and while I forgot her exact reasons for the refusal ("not a real emergency number," I think), she repeatedly asked me to hang up and dial 911 (which at the time didn't work -- it connected the caller to a neighboring city's P.D.). When I asked to speak to her supervisor, she finally connected me to the number. Thankfully, this was not a situation where seconds counted -- but what if it WAS? I wasted about 60 seconds arguing with the operator (and I would have wasted a lot more time if I had to place the call through my calling card). But the trouble is there's no way of knowing if there's a problem until you have to make that emergency call. Since then: 911 is now available here, so that's no longer a problem. But if you're ever in a community where 911 isn't available, and you had to place an emergency call through a pay phone, you'd better hope that you have change or a calling card, or prey that you get an operator who is better informed of the situation. Note: In this message, x's represent numbers deleted by this writer. The First Amendment and all relevant disclaimers apply. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- sjr@mcimail.com | --> 8-) <-- [Moderator's Note: If the COCOT owner can program the phone so that some three digit code (typically 611) rings the answering service where he picks up messages of complaint about his phones (most are programmed to do this), then he should be able to program the phone to have 911 ring some seven digit number for the police in the event 911 is not available. Of course, you'd think telco could do the same in their CO, and intercept calls to 911, re-routing them to the appropriate seven digit number for that exchange. After all, that is much how 911 works anyway in some communities. For example here in Chicago, 312-787-0000 is one of the numbers translated into by 911 for folks on the near north side of the city. Dial that number and you will get Chicago Emergency just as surely as via 911, the difference being the former leaves the dispatcher with a blank read-out; they assume the Bell operator put the call through and forgot to stay on the line to pass the number orally to the dispatcher. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #721 ******************************  ISSUE 722 ARRIVED LATE AND APPEARS IN THE ARCHIVES FOLLOWING ISSUE 725.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03541; 9 Oct 90 5:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06495; 9 Oct 90 3:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30322; 9 Oct 90 2:24 CDT Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 2:05:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #723 BCC: Message-ID: <9010090205.ab16240@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Oct 90 02:05:26 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 723 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: San Fransisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [John B. Meaders Jr.] Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls [Andy Jacobson] Re: Ring-Back and Finding Own Number [Andy Jacobson] Re: More COCOTery [Martin B. Weiss] Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line [Dave Levenson] Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Scott Keller] Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [Bryan M. Richardson] Re: Music On Hold [Brian Charles Kohn] Re: Music On Hold/"Hawk On Hold" [Rich Sims] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Macy Hallock] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Roy Smith] Re: Another Award Call [David Brightbill] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: john@karnak.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.) Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Organization: Capitalist Warmongers, Inc. Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 00:53:53 GMT In article <13070@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Is there any sort of model for how 911 calls are to be prioritized? >Wouldn't a scuffle in the middle of a call be reason to suspect that >someone was being hurt? Or am I just dense? I watch Rescue 911 quite a bit and get the opinion that 911 service is great. This is very disturbing that these operators don't even take the time to found out what exactly is going on. If I were an operator, and the phone hung up on me, I would take this as an emergency and get someone there immediately. I hope I don't get in any kind of trouble in SF where I would need 911 (I don't have any plans to go to SF in the near future anyway, but just suppose I did :-) because I think I would be in serious trouble. I doubt SF has a model for prioritizing. Something out of the ordinary going on during a call (shots fired, scuffle, scream, etc.) should definitely clue a 911 operator that something isn't right. But, I guess SF probably goes on a FIFO (first in, first out) basis :-) (just joking :-)). SF should definitely change their 911 system so that they don't get any more of these instances. John B. Meaders, Jr. 510 Manchester Ct., Hopewell, VA 23806 Voice: 804-458-2983 Net: john@karnak.cactus.org or john@karnak [Moderator's Note: Given my 'druthers, with Chicago and its relatively efficient 911 system and San Fransisco, with the highly publicized mistake by 911 dispatchers, I think I'd still rather be in SFC. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 20:00 PDT From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls. My experience has been the same as Doug Reuben's. I tried calling 800-666-6258 from 415-552 (one of the last XB's in San Francisco.) and got a recording to the effect that the call could not be completed. Apparently the EM switches can not support calls to non-ATT 800 numbers. I attempted it in the first place to see if the ANI demo would work from an EM switch, which I guess I'll never know as the demo is now gone (at least from all the lines I've tried here in L.A.) being replaced by an MCI version of the old "The number you have dialed,....." recording. In reference to a long running debate some months back, when the ANI demo did work, I tried it from UCLA's Northern Telcom PBX, and it of course read back to me the outgoing trunk number, which is the main incomming number for campus, and the only number associated with the call. DID numbers normally don't show up on calls originating from trunk groups. Andy Jacobson (izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 21:31 PDT From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Ring-back and finding own number In reference to the Moderator's comments at the end of #719: Pat, I discovered that here in GTE-land of West LA, none of the old techniques worked for ring-back. (These old techniques being: Calling a special prefix followed by the last 4 digits of your phone number, you get a dial tone that you can not dial against, you give a switchhook flash, get a special tone, hang up and it rings. If when you pick up again, you give another flash, it will ring back again, ad infinitum, but if you just hang up you are back to regular service). There were some suspicious open stretches of prefixes in the 213 that responded like 1ESS's do when you dialed the ringback wrong (954-958), so I got creative. I found that from 213-824, if, instead of dialing 954 and the last 4 digits, I preceded it with a 1, it worked! Ditto for 1-958 from the 208 prefix. Both of these prefixes are on a 1ESS (CLLI=WLANCAXJ). Now in Evanston, Illinois, once they had 1ESS in place, 571 was the ringback prefix for 864, 869, 491, and the non-NU part of 492. 572 was the prefix for 475, 573 for 328, and 574 for 866. (I never got to try the newer 570 prefix.) These no longer work, but if you try 1-57n-XXXX ... Bingo. You should try these around the 312, and 708 areas to see what happens. Interestingly these methods appear to be switch dependant. In MarVista (part of LA, CLLI=SNMNCA??) there is an NT digital switch. One simply dials their own number and hangs up. However in Venice (also part of LA, CLLI=SNMNCA??) you have to dial 113 and your seven digits. In the last two years or so, GTE has upped the stakes. From 213-208, and 213-824 anyway, it only works every third time you try it (you have to repeat the entire process to progress). The first two are either a decoy or perhaps for some different types of ringer I've never tried from. It seems for me its always the third that works, and if I keep trying, it cycles in threes. In reference to finding your own number, in the 1ESS part of LA, you dial 1223. In the digital part, 114. In San Francisco, 760 and another one I can't remember BOTH work (except for a very few prefixes, where it is one or the other). In Chicago, it used to be 290, followed by a flash, but I could never get it to work reliably since 1980. Andy Jacobson (izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu) [Moderator's Note: I've since found that 571 (wait for dial tone, flash hook, dial 6 and hang up, then get ring back) throughout northern Ilinois' old 312 code has been replaced by 1-57x-last four of your phone number (get fresh dial tone, dial 6 and hang up, then get ring back) throughout 708 and 312. In addition to getting a ring back, if you want to test the accuracy of your touchtone pad, after you have dialed the 1-57x-last four and received fresh dial tone, then (against that new dial tone) dial 1234567890. If your tone pad is working properly you will get cla-beep! cla-beep! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 8 Oct 90 13:17:01 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services In article <13054@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. >COCOT owners are NOT telecom enthusiasts, telephone weirdos (TM), >hackers, phreaks, or even telecommunications professionals. They are >people who have stumbled on to another way to make a fast buck. Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more successful. Thus, the abusive telephone would see a drop in traffic and revenue, which should cause the owner to reform their errant ways. Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line Date: 8 Oct 90 12:57:55 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <13140@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > Does anyone know of equipment that could be hooked to either a > single phone or one line of a 1A2 system that could perform some of > the functions of SMDR... I remember seeing something like that available over-the-counter at Radio Shack. The unit resembles a small printing calculator with a modular jack. You use the keyboard for setting date and time, and for administering its options. It prints a one- or two-inch paper tape of call-detail. There may also be some on-demand summary report available. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: sekell@monsanto.com Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway Date: 8 Oct 90 10:00:38 GMT Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO > [Moderator's Note: Well, what is it the traffic reporters use now? I > think the guy for WMAQ News Radio 67 here uses a cellular phone to > report to the news desk. If not, what is he using? PAT Around here, the local clear-channel AM station (KMOX) uses a FM radio system on 161.730 Mhz for their traffic copter-to-base reporting. I'm not sure if this frequency is specifically allocated for this type of service or not. I thought I once heard that this same system and frequency was used as a link to the local Emergency Operations Center for their EBS broadcast audio. Scott Keller - sekell@monsanto.com - 314-537-6317 - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 12:26:40 EDT From: Bryan M Richardson Subject: Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <13027@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >The overflow of calls from MCI on Wednesday went mostly to AT&T, with >some of the traffic going to Sprint. The overflow caused the AT&T >network throughout the northeast to be sluggish and very slow most of >the day. How do you mean "sluggish?" Either calls complete or they don't-- the switches do not queue them up in long lines. I didn't hear any reports of network congestion. Bryan Richardson AT&T Bell Laboratories [Moderator's Note: My experience that day was that while some calls got rejected with fast busy signals, others simply got lost in transit. That is, they wandered away into dead silence, no ring/no busy. After a waiting period of maybe fifteen or twenty seconds, I'd simply abandon the call and dial over. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 12:40:32 EDT From: Brian Charles Kohn Subject: Re: Music On Hold Reply-To: "bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM" Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center => > Music on hold is bad enough. This selling schpiel is obscene. => OK ... how's this for an idea: => If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of => time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label) => should give you the choice of: I want music on hold, interrupted every 30 seconds telling me where I am in queue. Extra points if they give me a good estimate of how long I'll still be waiting. Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 08:53:50 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: Music On Hold/"Hawk On Hold" In-Reply-To: message from brian@ucsd.edu I recently had occasion to call a company with a voice menu arrangement and it was interesting to note that callers were given the choice of remaining on a silent (except for occasional break-ins with a recorded announcement) line or choosing music on hold. An eminently civilised solution, in my opinion. (I chose silence!) I won't even comment on what I think of the level of complexity some outfits have managed to build into their voice menu systems, though! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 08:01 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <13131@accuvax.nwu.edu> >haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu writes: [Discussion of sleazy copier/toner/paper telemarketing practices...] >Wonder why these sleazoid outfits happen to >pick copier supplies as their merchandise of choice? Because it works and they get away with it ... and they sell other things, too. I've seen other common items sold the same way. Sometimes its sold COD, other times they just render a big invoice that looks legit and it gets paid. An awful lot of small and large companies will pay damn near any credible looking invoice...remember telex directories? If the receptionist is given explicit instructions on how to handle telemarketing salescritters, then its easier to control ... most employees are trained to respond to authority over the phone with action, not questions. This is not always in your best interest, and is a sign of poor employee training. Here, all calls where questions are asked about equipment info, etc. are sent to the person who handles our purchasing. Invoices are never ever paid unless a P.O. was issued, with prices on it, so the bookkeeper knows the invoice is OK. COD's must have a P.O. number on the address label or back they go. This is occasionally inconvienient (like the time they sent back a tech manual I ordered and paid for by credit card, but had no PO number ... now we use a personal name, not a company name on those orders) Even the yellow pages bills, advertising bills and long distance invoices are checked for contract compliance before payment. This sometimes slows things up a bit, but you'd be amazed at the errors (accidental and intentional) that have been caught here. Double invoices from some suppliers are often caught... I find my wife often responds to telemarketing people who call her at home. Why? Well, she's a medical lab tech (can you say histotechnologist?) and often answers questions on the phone at the lab. If she asks someone calling who they are or why they need the info, she usually gets yelled at by a rude and impatient doctor. (So much for patient confidentiality)...... I've finally trained her (with her cooperation, of course) to tell the telemarketing types "We do not discuss {financial, real estate, sales} transactions on the phone and hang up. She hang up on Sears the other night. We have found this will work with stockbrokers if used properly, too. (I still haven't got our local newspaper to quit calling, yet.) I'm waiting for her to hang up on a doctor at work by accident one of these days. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Sender: news@phri.nyu.edu (News System) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 15:54:53 GMT And just how does one test a COCOT to see if it can put through a call to 911 sans coin? The only way I can think of is to actually try it, wasting valuable 911 operator time to answer a non-call. On the other hand, if you never try it, you'll never have evidence to confront the COCOT owner with, so it won't get fixed, and potentially somebody will not be able to place a 911 call when they need to. Interesting dilema. 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: Mon, 8 Oct 90 15:56:02 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: Another "Award" Call The number in question (904-492) is located in Pensacola , Florida. P'cola is a military/port/beach town in the western end of the panhandle. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #723 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29489; 10 Oct 90 3:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14067; 10 Oct 90 2:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08538; 10 Oct 90 1:07 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 0:53:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #724 BCC: Message-ID: <9010100053.ab23362@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 00:53:42 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 724 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Electronic Frontier Foundation Hires Staff Counsel [Mike Godwin] Background Papers Wanted on Telecommunications [Jane M. Fraser] Description of Sprint Select Interstate [Ken Jongsma] Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Paul Elliott] Telemarketing Under the Influence [John Nagle] Re: Mental Harassment [Gordon Burditt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Electronic Frontier Foundation Hires Staff Counsel Date: 9 Oct 90 14:12:02 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA This posting is meant to serve two purposes: a) formally announcing that I have been hired as staff counsel by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for whom I will investigate cases that the EFF may be interested in, and for whom I will be coordinating EFF's legal strategy, and b) letting readers of this newsgroup know how to contact EFF about computer-related incidents and cases that raise civil-liberties issues in which you think the organization should be interested. To let EFF know about an interesting or troubling incident or case, you can send information to my address (mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us) or to EFF's general address (eff@well.sf.ca.us). The first address will probably get a slightly faster response, but either is fine. The U.S. Mail address is the following: Mike Godwin c/o Electronic Frontier Foundation 155 Second Street Cambridge, MA 02141. I can be reached by phone at 617-864-0665. Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us Electronic Frontier Foundation ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 16:15:31 edt From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Background Papers Wanted on Telecommunications I am one of 25 members of a committee recently appointed by the Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce to create a vision for the future for Columbus in telecommunications and information services. I, and the rest of the committee, are taking this charge very seriously. As Jonathan York, the President of the Chamber, put it: If Columbus had had such a committee on transportation 10 years ago, maybe our airport wouldn't be such a weak part of Columbus today. We need help in gathering information that will help us with this job. I'll explain in more detail what we are looking for, but the bottom line is: please send me any papers you have or you have written that might help us as background reading for our work. The details now follow. I'm one of two academics on the committee. The rest are business people, ranging from the President of a small tile making company to the President of a large information services company. Not all are in businesses related to telecommunications or information services. We have decided to proceed in three steps: 1- Self education. We need to bring ourselves up to speed on telecommuncations in three areas: a - How are institutions using and how could they use telecommunications in their day-to-day activities? For examples: students registering for classes at Ohio State using BRUTUS, the on-line touch-tone phone system; Point-Of-Sale terminals enabling large companies to keep track of demand and order products to match changing demands; use of satellites to transmit education and training to remote sites; electronic mail and electronic data exhange within and between companies to improve efficiency of operations. We want to focus on Columbus examples where possible, but certainly want to hear about good examples from anywhere. b - How are other cities, states, and countries assisting institutions to use telecommunication technology effectively? Do other localities have a telecommunications policy that would help us in advising Columbus? c - What are the legal and regulatory issues affecting the implementaion of telecommunication services? 2 - Technology assessment. We need to see where Columbus is and where it could be. a - What are the state-of-the-art and expected advances in telecommunication technology and services? Self-education is also needed here, for examples, what is bandwidth, what bandwidth is needed for different applications, the difference between analog and digital. I think we should think about changes that might occur in the future, from the development of optical computer, for example. b - What is the checklist by which a city like Columbus could evaluate its telecommunications infrastructure (including technology, human resources, and whatever else belongs on the checklist)? c - How does Columbus fare in such an evaluation? 3 - Recommendations. Based on our findings in steps 1 and 2, what course of action do we recommend to Columbus to position Central Ohio as a recognized center of excellence in telecommunications and information services? Whew. Yes, it's a tall order. Suggestions welcome. Please send copies or citations to articles you think would help us with any pieces of this. Please send me stuff you have written that would help us. Obviously, papers that are good summaries of big areas would be most helpful. Please tell me parts we've omitted (I hope they aren't big ones). Please call me, or send email, or send US mail. I am really excited that the Chamber thinks this is important enough to spend time on and I'm really pleased with the enthusiasm of my fellow committee members for this huge task. Jane Fraser 614-292-4129 jane@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Associate Director Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 ------------------------------ Subject: Description of Sprint Select Interstate Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 22:11:32 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Someone was asking about Sprint Select. From this month's bill insert: ...Beginning October 1, US Sprint will offer Sprint Select Interstate Evening/Night/Weekend, a custom plan that charges a flat $8.10 a month for the first hour of interstate calling from 5pm to 8am and on weekends. Additional hours in that period are billed at $6.50 per hour, prorated per minute used. ...You'll receive a 10 percent discount off the regular Dial 1 service rates for your interstate daytime long distance calling. Plus, you'll receive five percent off all direct dial intrastate and international, as US Sprint carried calls. Additional calls cost $6.50 per hour, prorated ... and you can receive the same discounts for daytime Dial 1 service and other direct dial calls as you do with Sprint Select Interstate. It's not clear to me that this is a very good plan, not that it is any different that the AT&T ROA plan. I took a look at the bill I received with the flyer. I had 403 minutes of direct dial calls, of which 85% were evening/weekend calls. The average cost for these calls was .11 per minute (including the Sprint volume discount). Sprint Interstate costs .13 per minute for the first hour and .11 per minute thereafter. If you have Sprint Plus (minimum of $8 usage per month), you get the additional hour rate. What's the advantage? Now, the California intrastate rates might be a better deal, but I live in Michigan! Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell in 1975 Date: 8 Oct 90 17:45:23 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <13076@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kf5iw!jim@central.uucp (Jim Blocker) writes... >Recent talk in the Digest regarding the "censored" _Ramparts_ article >on how to steal from Ma Bell made me remember a three-part series of >articles that appeared in _73 Magazine_ (an amateur radio magazine) >back in 1975. These articles were probably very damaging to TPC since >explicit details were provided in one of the articles on how to bypass >coin-phone and long distance charges. >Inquire at your local library to see if they have these old issues. >They make for some very interesting reading! Odds are your library won't have them. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. filed suit against "73, Inc., a foreign [not CA] Corporation, Spenser Whipple Jr.[Peter Stark] , Wayne Green, Virginia Londner Green, and Does 1 through 200, Inclusive" (where the Does were all employees of 73 Inc.). The Superior Court of the State of California ruled, in judgement C 126265, that Each of the Defendants, and each person acting in concert with it, him, or her, is hereby perpetually enjoined and restrained from disseminating, publishing, printing, selling, giving, transferring, or conveying by any means or by any manner, plans instructions, or advice respecting the making, assembly, acquistion, possession, or use of any instrument, apparatus or device, strategem, code, scheme, deception, false pretense or trick which the Defendant knows, or by reasonably investigation should know, has as its purpose the avoidance of charges for the use of telephone, telegraph, and/or any othertype of telecommunications service in which the Bell System is a participant.... Notice to Libraries. Within sixty (60) days following entry of this judgement, Defendant 73 Inc., shall notify each subscriber to 73 Magazine as of June 1975 that appears to 73, Inc. from its subscriber list to be a library, of the existence and contents of this judgement and shall request that each such library refrain from displaying or circulating the article complained of in the complaint on file herein, or any reprint or copy thereof. The notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested... etc. etc., including destruction of the article from the back issues archive. Old Ma Bell sure played hardball. That's just a small excerpt from the judgement, filed Jan. 12, 1976. Of course, subscribers have their copies. Fred R. Goldstein k1io Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Re: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News Date: 8 Oct 90 23:56:30 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <13051@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mitel!spock!meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: > In article <12978@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred > R. Goldstein) writes: > >bits as it desires, preserving the audio content. If you call between > >North America and Europe, the network MUST change speech and PCM audio > >because Europe and North America use different PCM standards! They're > >mutually unintelligible, though both are 64 kbps PCM. Similarly, the > >network MUST NOT change a clear channel (data). > Actually, if you decoded ulaw with an Alaw decoder, or vice versa, the > difference is practically inaudible compared to the use of the proper > decoder. However, the conversion is made anyway, in order to meet the > quantization requirements. While it is true that the mu-law and A-law encoding/decoding curves are very similar, the actual digital representation of the signals is quite different, requiring code conversion to be intelligible. Mu-law and A-law codecs both use a quasi-logarithmic transfer function, to obtain optimal signal-to-noise ratios over a wide dynamic range. The quasi-log characteristic is achieved by breaking a non-linear transfer function into a series of linear "chords", with each chord consisting of several equal-sized steps. The step size is doubled for each successive chord (the piecewise approximated curve is symmetrical about zero). Thus, for a given full-scale value, signals closer to zero are encoded with greater precision than would be obtained with a linear code. The resulting encoding gives nearly equal stepsize (when measured in dB) for signals within the encoding range. The dynamic range of the mu-law codec is approximately 72 dB, which compares well to the 42 dB range of a linear 8-bit code (seven bits plus sign). The mu-law function provides eight chords, of 16 steps each, while for some reason, the European A-law standard has a first chord of 32 steps, and six remaining chords of 16 steps. Mu-law provides better S/N over the full range, while A-law gives reduced distortion at low levels. These differences are almost inaudible, but the standards threw in a big monkey wrench. Mu-law encoding could be called "bit-inverted sign-magnitude", where "positive full scale"= 10000000 "positive zero" = 11111111 "negative zero" = 01111111 "negative full scale"= 00000000 A-law inverts alternate bits, to give: "positive full scale"= 10101010 "positive zero" = 11010101 "negative zero" = 01010101 "negative full scale"= 00101010 I guarantee you, this WILL be noticed! Still, as far as standards are concerned, I guess we "telecom types" don't have it as bad as some other technical fields... Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Telemarketing Under the Influence Date: 9 Oct 90 04:56:48 GMT Received a strange call on my answering machine tonight. Several minutes of party noises and background voices, followed by a giggling female voice giving an MCI sales pitch. Things must be slow at the MCI telemarketing center. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Mental Harassment Date: 8 Oct 90 12:32:40 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >On the radio and in the newspaper today have been articles >about a state mental patient making dozens of obscene phone calls to a >couple. The calls started last Friday and kept up over the weekend. Why can't the telco get involved in this? "Hello, Director of Mental Health Services? We have traced a number of harassing calls as originating at your facility. As you may know, the subscriber is responsible for calls made from his phone. If these calls continue, we will disconnect all your phone service, except that in an emergency, they will be allowed to dial '911', or be dialed from '911'. "You mean you're going to disconnect all the phones at the hospital?" "No, sir, your account covers all the phones at all the State Mental Health facilities in the state. Oops, we just had another call. I'm sorry, but we're disconnecting your service. Please come to our Business Office on Monday, since we're five minutes from closing now, and you won't be able to call. " It would seem to me that calls like these are just as much an emergency and "harm to the network" (therefore justification for immediate disconnection) as someone whose phone is injecting 30 kiloVolts into his local loop. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: As clever as your scenario is, of course it would not really happen. State government and politics play a big role in the success of any telco's existence. Another solution might be to install all COCOT-style payphones for the patients to use. Maybe the patients would get tired of the extremely high rates and poor grade of service rendered. Maybe they would vandalize the phone, etc .... .... And speaking of COCOTs ... ( I needed that lead in!) ... in the next issue of the Digest, you will meet a *real* *live* *COCOT* *owner*. Yes! One has consented to be interviewed in the columns of this little journal. They are an extremely rare breed, so treat him gently and kindly. Watch for issue 725 to hit your email box. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #724 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00955; 10 Oct 90 4:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31800; 10 Oct 90 3:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14067; 10 Oct 90 2:13 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 2:06:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #725 BCC: Message-ID: <9010100206.ab32251@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 02:06:01 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 725 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [B. Churchfield] Re: More COCOTery [Tom Coradeschi] Re: More COCOTery [John Higdon] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Dana Paxson] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Dave Smith] 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [Richard Szabo] Re: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 [ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122] Re: Credit Card Codes [Rop Gonggrijp] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [J. Hhultman] Re: SPRINT Appointment Book [Toby Nixon] Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! [Mark Steiger] Re: AT&T Software Failure Information Needed [Mark Steiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Oct 90 13:27:00 EST From: B CHURCHFIELD Subject: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Moderator's Note: Today I saved the best for first. Say howdy to Mr. Churchfield, who wishes to recant and give his public Confession to the entire congregation here assembled. PAT] ------------------ I own one if these detestable devices, and it is detestable. In fact I get physically sick whenever I see a payphone now. I read the Digest daily and find the COCOT flames very interesting, but quite possibly unfair in some cases. I would quess that a significant portion of COCOTs are a one or two unit mom and pop operation, as my own. In my case after going to a couple of Small Buisness Expos, I became interested in vending to supplement my income. The one drawback to vending is restocking machines. A payphone doesn't have that problem; you just take money out. I called a local vending machine company and sure enough they had payphones for sale and would get back to me. Next day a salesman called and could let me have a phone on location that was generating $500/mo in coin and would only cost me $4500 with a 5/yr location lease. Sounded good but I wanted to see records. No problem -- that info could be provided. That afternoon the salesman called back and said that someone else had a deposit and if I wanted that location I would have to act within the hour. So "stupid" me bought it. Once it was installed I am told that the vendor is also the AOS and that was where the real money would come from (GREAT$$$$!) I have access to the phone counters as it is intelligent, but was provided with limited instructions and was told not to play with them as I would cause the phone to work improperly. My association with the AOS has been bad. I have been ripped on AOS commisions constantly as there is no accountability. The location averages $150/mo in a good month and that is gross; you then have to deduct telco charges and location commission so I am basically losing money on the whole deal. I appreciate Craig Watkins' PA. Regulations for COCOTs in Digest # 709 as it enabled me to bring my phone into compliance. (The vendor did not do this on install or any service calls.) But the guy at "Joe's Bar" or "Jim's Gas and GO" who also owns a COCOT is at the mercy of the vendor who programmed his phone and is unaware of the problem. It doesn't take very many $60 service calls to unjam a coin slot or $100 to replace a handset to put these people in the red, as a payphone does not make a lot of money. It is not always the actual COCOT owner who is the bad guy, but quite possibly a vending company or an AOS who is at the root of the problem. [Moderator's Note: Thank you, Mr. Churchfield, for an interesting account of your experience with COCOTery. All of us appreciate your candor. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 11:38:34 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Re: More COCOTery Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armaments RDE Center John Higdon writes: >I will be very surprised to find one single COCOT owner on this forum. >COCOT owners are NOT telecom enthusiasts, telephone weirdos (TM), >hackers, phreaks, or even telecommunications professionals. They are >people who have stumbled on to another way to make a fast buck. They >include store owners, groups of investors, individuals who were sucked >in on the latest (a few years ago) way to "cash in on the newest >investment opportunity". I must agree with John. A few years back, I had a roommate who was into Amway. This was gonna make him rich (he was sure of it). One of the Amway rackets was ... you guessed it: COCOTs. I don't think he ever sold one of them, but that gives you an idea of the type of Joe who gets into that business. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil <+> tcora@dacth01.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Well John, Tom, today you found one here in the Digest. I hope I made your day! PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 9 Oct 90 12:10:34 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 9 at 2:05, Martin B Weiss writes: > Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to > turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an > correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to > an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more > successful. But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market, informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not been possible with pay phones. First, competing phones are not usually found in close proximity. More and more, you can be assured that if you see a COCOT, a utility phone WON'T be found nearby. This is possibly for the reasons that you cite: the utility phones would, indeed, sap business from a COCOT. But the consumer doesn't control the playing field. If a COCOT owner discovers that a utility phone is causing him trouble, he has it removed -- either directly or by putting pressure on his neighbors. The other side of the coin involves informed choices. There was a time when a Pac*Bell phone and a COCOT were installed side-by-side at a store near Stanford. I stood and watched as one person after another walked up to the COCOT, ignoring the utility phone. Most of these people made simple local calls, but for some reason the COCOT seemed more attractive. (Yes, the Pac*Bell phone worked.) A public phone is supposed to be an instrument of convenience. One doesn't usually walk or drive around "shopping" for the best payphone bargain. Back in pre-MFJ days, it wasn't necessary. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 15:05:02 EDT From: Dana Paxson Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY In article <13090@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Be that as it may, covering the coin slot is a gentlemanly, civilized >tactic compared to the way the average goon handles an offending >instrument. I was getting out of my car at a local bookstore one night when I saw an angry-looking man whirl away from an outdoor pay phone, and with a simple, powerful, belt-level move like a right hook, he ripped the handset, cable and all, right out of the box. I didn't get in his way. I didn't address the issue in any way ... but I sure remembered it. Dana Paxson Systems Architecture Computer Consoles, Inc., an STC Company 97 Humboldt Street Rochester, New York 14609 716 654-2588 ------------------------------ From: Dave Smith Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: 9 Oct 90 23:09:09 GMT Reply-To: Dave Smith Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA How about instead of printing "OUT OF ORDER" on the sticker, printing "RIP-OFF" and then have the reasons. This is better in three ways. 1) People dialing for an emergency won't be confused (although the phone may not let them dial 911, but there's no good way to check that.) 2) Even if someone breaks through the sticker with a coin to make a call, people will still get the message that they shouldn't use the phone. 3) They're more likely to tell whoever's running the phone (if they're available) that they're an SOB. A busted phone is an inconvenience (remember, the average Joe isn't going to understand the reasons on the label, they'll just think it's broken); a scam is an outrage. David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave or dave@fps.com ------------------------------ From: Richard Szabo Subject: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Reply-To: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu Date: Wed 10 Oct 90 00:00:00 GMT Excuse me if this has been answered before; I'm new to the list. In attempting to use my MCI card by dialing 950-1022 from a certain COCOT I got a COCOT recording telling me to deposit 25 cents for the first three minutes. On another COCOT I've used dialing 950-1022 causes the LCDs to light ablaze with the words "FREE CALL"! Aren't 950-xxxx numbers supposed to be free? Rich Szabo Cleveland, Ohio, USA Internet: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu [Moderator's Note: Yes, 950 calls are supposed to be free of charge to the caller. They are sort of like 800 numbers; the charge for the call is paid by the OCC you are using to route your call. Readers, if your labels do not include this additional audit item, maybe it should, although its one of the more obscure things that most users of COCOTs would not understand very well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: munnari!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 ( Clarification from Oz) Date: 9 Oct 90 11:51:58 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <13105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > Very recently in this Digest was published the following number > which would be dialed from the Netherlands: 096-114-112 > ... where I am told (via the Digest) that 09 is the international > access code in the Netherlands. > I tried dialing 011-61-14112 from the U.S., and the call was > intercepted (could not be completed as dialed) before leaving the U.S. > My list of Australian area codes includes 1 for "Telecom services". > And from a little further back in this Digest, I had 0014-881-877 > listed for Sprint access from within Australia. In Australia: 0100 Overseas faults and difficulties 0101 Operator connected calls overseas from private phone 0102 Overseas call charge enquiries 0103 Overseas DA 0107 Op connected calls OS from payphone 0108 Op connected calls to ships at sea (DD not available, unlike UK) 011 Operator connected calls from private phone 012 LD Charge enquiries 013 Local DA 014 Recorded message saying "Number not connected" 015 " 016+6D Telecom Australia pagers pseudo area code 0175 LD DA 0176 Operator connected calls from a payphone 018 Cellular phones pseudo area code 019 Does not give recording, but I don't know what 019x does (not listed) 0011 Voice IDD access 0012 Voice IDD with automatic ring-back of call cost 0013 Not used 0014 International toll free numbers 0015 Fax/data IDD access 0016,0017,0018,0019 not assigned as far as I know 002,003,004 are area codes in Tasmania. ( International +61 02 +6D ) 0055 kickback services like 1-900, 976-, 0898 etc 006 Not used as far as I know 007 NON CELLULAR mobile phones (possibly no longer active) 008 Toll free like 1-800, 0800 etc 009 Not used as far as I know I hope this is clarification enough of all 00x and 01x numbers in Oz. ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: Credit Card Codes Date: 9 Oct 90 02:05:30 GMT Organization: uvabick zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: >Technological American Party (TAP), and its predecessor Youth >Information Party Line (YIPL) did publish the credit card codes, >several years running. >BTW - does anyone know what became of TAP? TAP in the old form does not exist anymore. The last person responsible for its publication was Cheshire Catalyst (Richard Cheshire). Many people paid for his food while they thought they would still get issues. There have been a couple of attempts at making a 'new tap', but none of them captured the spirit of the old (I think at least). The current TAP comes out of Kentucky (P.O. Box 20264, Louisville, KY 40220 to be precise). Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) is also editor of Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.) Postbus 22953 (in DUTCH) 1100 DL AMSTERDAM Any opinions in this posting are wasted on you | tel: +31 20 6001480 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 03:18:37 EST From: jhultman@beethoven.helios.nd.edu Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame In article <13166@accuvax.nwu.edu> dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes: >Why not, assuming one had the evidence in hand that a particular call >attempt was probably fraudulent? It seems hard to believe that any >carrier would dissallow entire classes of calls unless presented with >evidence showing genuinely massive fraud. ^^^^^^^^ This may be a stupid question, but has anyone actually *SEEN* any reports docuenting fraud based on ethnic origin from *ANY* carrier? Or are the LD companies just claiming that fraud exists, when in actuality there is some other (equally arbitrary) reason for (dubious legality) redlining? I think what we might have here is garden-variety discrimination. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: SPRINT Appointment Book Date: 8 Oct 90 16:41:38 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <13126@accuvax.nwu.edu>, our Moderator writes: > Finally, the tax on 'both amounts' refers to the original diary at the > introductory price and the additional diaries you order at the regular > price. It does *not* refer to tax on shipping and handling. This varies on a state-by-state basis as well. I called the Georgia state Department of Revenue about practice shortly after moving to Atlanta from Tallahassee, and was told that Georgia law does indeed allow sales tax to be charged on shipping and handling. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer Fax: +1-404-441-1213 AT&T: !tnixon Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. Voice: +1-404-449-8791 CIS: 70271,404 Norcross, Georgia, USA BBS: +1-404-446-6336 MCI: TNIXON UUCP: ...!uunet!hayes!tnixon Internet: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 14:22 EDT From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: SMDR For 1A2 or Single Line Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13140@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > ...single phone or one line of a 1A2 system ... SMDR... It may not do all you want, and I cringe at the thought of recommending this particular source, but you might look at Radio Shack's gadget. ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Mon Oct 8 90 at 15:35:39 (CDT) Subject: Re: Cliff Stoll's "Cuckoo's Egg" on PBS TV - Now!! Did anyone videotape this episode of NOVA? I think I missed it. :( [Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Mon Oct 8 90 at 15:39:10 (CDT) Subject: Re: AT&T Software Failure Information Needed In the September or October issue of {Popular Science}, they give lots of detalis on the crash along with a sample of the code that caused the problem. Check with the library. They probably have a copy there somewhere. [Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #725 ******************************  ISSUE 722 WAS LATE ARRIVING AND APPEARS NEXT HERE. THEN FOLLOWS 726.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01597; 10 Oct 90 5:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30322; 9 Oct 90 2:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28101; 9 Oct 90 1:20 CDT Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 1:10:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #722 BCC: Message-ID: <9010090110.ab15375@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Oct 90 01:10:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 722 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Strange Ratemaking in Massachusetts [John R. Covert] Voicemail Pirates at 3 O'clock! [William Degnan] Ringing Nuisance [Matt Simpson] ESF Framing Bits [was Re: An Introduction to ISDN] [Chip Rosenthal] Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) [Macy Hallock] Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [Henry Mensch] HELP: Bridge or Router for Two LANs [Tanju Cataltepe] Fraudulent Coin Calls [Dan Hepner] One Way of Answering to Annoying Answering Machine Messages [Alex Cruz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 21:34:51 PDT From: "John R. Covert 09-Oct-1990 0003" Subject: Strange Ratemaking in Massachusetts The Massachusetts DPU has approved an extremely strange set of rate changes for New England Telephone. Unlimited residence rates are increased about $3 per month; rates for measured residence service are increased $1.50 per month plus the elimination of the 30 message unit ($0.0898 x 30 = $2.69) allowance. Residential Touch-Tone is increased from $0.58 to $0.98 per month. The filing proposed no increase in business rates; I'm not sure what was approved. Local calling areas for some (but not all) towns were increased slightly, mostly to make sure that adjacent towns were more likely (but not always) to be local. But the really strange stuff happened with intra-LATA toll. Massachusetts has two LATAs served by New England Telephone: the western LATA (413) and the eastern LATA (617-508). Previously, toll rates within both LATAs were the same. There were the following mileage bands and rates: Day Evening Night 0-10 .19 .09 .12 .05 .07 .03 11-14 .26 .12 .16 .07 .10 .04 15-19 .32 .14 .20 .09 .12 .05 20-25 .38 .15 .24 .09 .15 .06 26-33 .43 .17 .27 .11 .17 .06 34-43 .48 .19 .31 .12 .19 .07 44-55 .51 .20 .33 .13 .20 .08 56-70 .53 .21 .34 .13 .21 .08 71-85 .54 .22 .35 .14 .21 .08 86-up .55 .23 .35 .14 .22 .09 These rates (plus a .44 surcharge) continue to apply unchanged to calls from coin phones (sent paid) and charged to calling cards. They also apply (with higher surcharges) to all other types of operator assisted calls. But here's where it gets weird. For calls dialled from residence phones, the 15-19 band becomes 15-up, so there is a significant rate reduction for calls over 19 miles. But business lines get a better deal. Regardless of distance, they pay one cent per message plus 13.5 cents per minute (day), 7 cents (evening), and 5.1 cents (night). For Boston customers, where everything within 15 miles is local, this is quite a significant reduction, especially for short calls (like telemarketing). Now, to get weirder. In the western LATA, direct dialled calls from both residence and business phones are charged at one cent per message plus 5.5 cents per minute peak (9A-9P) and 3.6 cents per minute off-peak, regardless of distance. Note that with residence message units at 8.98 cents and business message units at 11.1 cents (for five minutes) this makes short toll calls cheaper than local calls! Intra-LATA WATS lines are eliminated. john ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Oct 90 15:04:12 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Voicemail Pirates at 3 O'clock! Organization: Communications Network Solutions (512) 323-9383 An Associated Press article recently reported that in Kingsport, TN, a "computer hacker is tapping into voice mail telephone messages and replacing them with explicit sexual descriptions. A United Telephone Co. Spokesman said they had received 70 complaints. "It's the first time we've had a problem to this degree," he said. The company began offering the service two years ago and has had a few isolated incidents like this. The FBI and local police have been asked to investigate. How does this happen? United Telephone says subscribers frequently use the last four digits of their telephone number as their access code. It is easy to remeber, but just as easy to crack. We have written often about passwords, and access codes. But, United Telephone is not our client and they have apparently not adaquately stressed the importance of having access codes that aren't easily guessable -- until now. They say someone is using a computer to figure out the codes. Perhaps that is true, but it doesn't take a computer ... or a mental giant to do it. If it is a four-digit code, there aren't that many combinations to try. "1234" and "4321" are always real good "first guesses". What security measures did United Telephone take to protect their subscribers? With 70 complaints (this time), probably very few measures were taken. What can system managers do to help secure systems? Make your codes long enough to be difficult to crack. (Four digits are _not_ enough.) Permit variable-length codes (requiring at least six digits). This adds additional combinations. Individuals wishing to have better security can choose longer access codes. Change codes more frequently than you now do. In some cases, changing codes _once_ is more often than you do now. You know who you are. (Does somebody else know, too?) Is a mailbox access number predictable from the its phone number? Is the access code predictable too? How many attempts with a bad passcode will trigger a security response? Is the system "too" user friendly? As business become more and more dependent on electronic communications, it becomes increasingly important to business survial to insure that these assets are protected. William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39.5!William.Degnan ARPA: William.Degnan@p5.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Oct 90 11:45:37 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Ringing Nuisance Ever since my CO cut over to an ESS (I don't know what model), I have occasionally been awakened by a brief jingle of my phone's ringer at about 6 AM. At first, I assumed it was an unwanted side-effect of their nightly testing, and just ignored it, thinking they would eventually fix the problem. Finally, after being awakened about 5:30 one morning by a continous ring which continued till I picked up the phone, I called repair service. The serviceman who was dispatched had no idea what could have caused the continous ring, but confirmed that the brief jingles were being caused by their daily testing, which occurs between 4-6 AM. He did not seem to think that this was a problem which would be, or needed to be, fixed. He said most people just sleep through it. Since I don't get awakened every day, I'm not sure whether it rings every day, and I'm just sometimes in a deep enough sleep that it doesn't bother me. But on the days that it does awaken me, I am definitely aggravated. Short of unplugging my phones at night, does anyone have any idea how I can prevent this ringing, or how I can persuade South Central Bell that is something they can and should fix? ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: ESF Framing Bits [was Re: An Introduction to ISDN] Date: 8 Oct 90 15:01:46 GMT Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX In article <13087@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >the framing bit also (under ESF) can carry a small amount of >network managment data. That "facilities data link" seems to be a frequently underutilized feature. Part of the problem is that different carriers and organizations (and vendors) have defined different standards for what should appear in this channel. Another problem is that the carriers standards usually define a way for them to monitor performance of the user equipment, but don't provide users' the ability to monitor the performance of their network. That is, the carriers are happy to take information, but not give it, and thus many folks are unhappy about that missing capability as well. (I've been away from the specs and pubs and TR's for almost a year now. Maybe the situation has improved.) The big thing ESF gets you which is used universally is a six-bit CRC to provide a check on each 24-frame superframe. Chip Rosenthal Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 08:24 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <13144@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon (Fellow GTE Victim) writes: >I remember one time, late at night, when my car was acting funny out >in the desert. No cellular service was available (there is now, thank >goodness) but there was a gas station at hand. Unfortunately, it was >closed and the COCOT was apparently powered from the pump circuit, >since it was dead. This was one of the most frightening experiences to >date related to a COCOT. This was always a problem, even before COCOT's came into being. As a 20+ year telephone man, I can tell you that I never, ever travel without a butt-in and a few hand tools in my briefcase. A good butt set is better than a mobile phone. (This also makes for interesting conversations at the security X-ray at the airport.) My car broke down our in the country a few years ago. One house in sight. No one home. Since this was my wife's car, no IMTS mobile phone. So, out comes the butt set, I make a credit card call off the house's protector, and my brother is on his way to get us. Same story for a problem at a construction site a couple of years ago. I also use it to summon telco repair to aid customers, friends and the general public when needed. I have also summoned police and medical aid when the need arose. Sort of a telecom good samaritan gesture... Bear in mind, I use this tool only when necessary and in a responsible manner. I also get asked to fix phones a lot when people see it. (which I often do). I have also found other uses for traveling butt sets ... did I ever tell you about my trip to Cancun? I fixed two phone lines for a condo owner while I was there (who I met by accident) and he paid me back with a very enjoyable two days of personal sightseeing and use of a car. Now, lets ask wb8foz about using a butt-set in Havana... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 19:36:05 -0400 From: Henry Mensch Organization: MIT Project Athena Network Services Evangelist Subject: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any reason why they wouldn't do this? Clues will be welcome. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell is willing to issue one bill each month showing all numbers 'associated' with a main number provided the service is at the same location and the phones are on the same prefix and in the same billing cycle. This is good since it allows the useage from all lines in the account group to mutually contribute to volume discounts in pricing, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 08:50:40 EDT From: Tanju Cataltepe Subject: HELP: Bridge or Router for Two LANs Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I am asking this question for a friend in a Turkish university. They have two LANs (Ethernet) of Sun's and Apollo's. These LANs are located in buildings a few miles apart. They cannot put in a direct connection, but they have 4800-9600 bps modems. They want to be able to use TCP/IP applications such as Telnet and ftp between the LANs utilizing the modems. I think the boxes they need are called "bridge" or "router" boxes. Their question is where can they buy these from? Any experiences, tips and pointers will be appreciated much. Tanju Cataltepe e-mail: tanju@honet7.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 17:25:27 pdt From: Dan Hepner Subject: Fraudulent Coin Calls [The Moderator writes] >It still does not lessen the illegality of it, nor for MCI. >You cannot take a group of people, based on their ethnic origin, for >example Chinese or Egyptian people -- and who, after all, would be the >most likely users of international calls to those countries? -- and >say or imply to them "you cannot be trusted to make a call to your >home country on credit; you are likely to defraud us." Why not, assuming one had the evidence in hand that a particular call attempt was probably fraudulent? This seems to have little to do with ethnic origin and much more to do with a systematic analysis of actual fraud. Given the very low actual marginal cost to the phone company of allowing one fraudulent call, it seems hard to believe that any carrier would dissallow entire classes of calls unless presented with evidence showing genuinely massive fraud. I'm puzzled by the Moderator's strong stance on this issue; does he have reason to believe that there really isn't massive fraud? Does he suggest that massive fraud must be tolerated (and paid for by you know who) to protect some "presumption of innocence"? Does he actually believe that MCI or AT&T really don't want the money of certain ethnics? Dan Hepner dhepner@hpda.hp.com [Moderator's Note: In lots of other ways, 'presumption of innocence' is a very important and desirable attitude, regardless of cost. Why do the telcos get to be an exception? Yes, there are problems with fraud, but there are protective techniques in place. A call 24 hours per day to AT&T at 800-222-0300 will put an immediate stop to charging on a stolen card. I've done it when my card was stolen. The hot PIN goes on a negative list in the computer and presto: no more charges allowed to that number and PIN. How does VISA, American Express or Diner's deal with a stolen card? How do banks deal with stolen ATM cards? Even if you did have massive evidence of fraud from a certain group -- and the Nigerian credit card ring working here in Chicago last year was a good example of this -- the federal law in the United States regards credit opportunities is plain: you deal with *single individuals* and their credit-worthieness, not with groups of people. And personally, no I do not think the people of any one country are more likely to commit fraud than another country. Even the 'Nigerian problem' here a year ago did not indict all Nigerians. Visa, Diner's and American Express cannot turn down citizens of China, Israel or India as a class; AT&T / MCI should not be allowed to do it either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alex Cruz Subject: One Way of Answering to Annoying Answering Machine Messages Date: 9 Oct 90 04:20:45 GMT Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC) Many stories have been told on the subject of answering machine messages. I don't have one. On the other hand, I can tell you what I do when I call for the nth time the same person, namely the same machine and I get the usual boring "Hello ... Hello ... guess I'm not here..." and "Hello? ... Hold on let me turn down my stereo..." messages: I simply start talking way before the beep and I modify my message just a little bit; something like this: MACHINE: "...so leave your name, number and a brief message and I will get back with you as soon as I can" BEEEP ME: "...and that's why I decided to call you; I'm sorry about the news and don't hesitate to call me next week to that number. Thanks a lot." CLICK. One friend of mine confessed recently that he returned his brand new Panasonic and got another one after I did it to him a couple of years ago. Alex Cruz Consultant - American Airlines Decision Technologies - Dallas, TX Associate - Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications - Columbus, OH ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #722 ******************************  ISSUE 722 OUT OF ORDER IN TRANSMISSION. 726 COMES NEXT.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27287; 11 Oct 90 1:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09874; 10 Oct 90 23:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13078; 10 Oct 90 22:36 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 22:08:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #726 BCC: Message-ID: <9010102208.ab07920@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 22:07:16 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 726 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls [Mark Steiger] Re: Speakerphones and the Courts [jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com] Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Mike Payer] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Tad Cook] Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls [John Higdon] Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls [Vance Shipley] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [B. Bruce] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [M. Dorl] Re: Ringing Nuisance [John B. Meaders Jr.] Re: Ringing Nuisance [Bill Berbenich] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Dan Hepner] Re: SMDR Device For 1A2/Single Line [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Steiger Date: Mon Oct 8 90 at 15:41:35 (CDT) Subject: Re: MCI Cable Cut Disrupts Thousands of Calls Talkng about fiber cables getting cut, a cable here was cut and made it so no one in morthern Minnesota could reach 911. All 911 traffic was sent through this cable. It is nice to know that some contractor could make a life-or-death situation into a death situation. [Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Oct 9 09:26:08 EDT 1990 Subject: Re: Speakerphones and the Courts In v10 #715, Jeff Carroll writes: >Only that anyone who has ever talked to a person using a >speakerphone would know immediately whether one is in use.... Warning! The phone on my desk, a fairly common AT&T model for System 85/ Generic 2, has a speaker, but no external microphone. When I use the speaker, anyone in my office can hear the conversation. Because I still speak into the handset, the person on the other end will not hear the telltale speakerphone cut-in/cut-out. I wish home speakerphones would use this arrangement, as it would allow my wife and me to "share" calls without subjecting the other party to that annoying speakerphone sound. ------------------------------ From: Mike Payer Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Date: 9 Oct 90 17:17:33 GMT Reply-To: Mike Payer Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA In article <13070@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 714, Message 7 of 12 >A local news story yesterday gave a disturbing example of how San >Francisco Police Department sets the priorities on 911 calls. A young Clayton, I do a lot of work interfacing with law enforcement on 911 type calls. And I can tell you for a fact that when a call comes in from a coin phone the response of the dispatch centers in many cases is "Oh a coin phone, oh well". As a result of this I have told my family and friends that if they are at pay phone they would be much better off dialing "0" and just screaming for help. The operator will have the number you called from and the law enforcement people seem to take these call more seriously. This may sound strange but it seems to be the way it works. I believe part of the problem is the high amount of prank called by teenagers to 911 on coin telephones. It's not unusual to see someone work their way from one end of town to the other dialing 911 on pay phones. Don't construe this as an excuse for the S.F.P.D. it's not. It's just the way the system works. Michael S Payer Jr Administrator FAX 415-867-0344 Emergency Control Center pacbell!pbecc!msp pacbell!pbhya!mpay ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 9 Oct 90 18:18:18 GMT In article <13068@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bgsuvax!jyoull@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jim Youll) writes: > Yesterday my secretary got hit with a call that went something like > this: > (caller) "Hi. This is Mary from Western Supply. How many toner > cartridges did you want this week?" > (sec'y) "Toner cartridges? Western Supply? What is this pertaining to?" > This is incredibly annoying, and the bastards don't even give you a > chance to find out who they are. No idents given, even if you ask. We > absolutely do not accept calls like this for more than the minute it > takes to figure out that it's an idiot and okay to hang up on them. > You might tell people to watch out for this ruse. We have had two or > three calls like this in the past couple months (that I know about). These are getting quite common. Our receptionist routes all calls like this to me, even though handling office supplies has nothing to do with my job description. They usually call and right off want to know the model number of our fax machine or copier. Then they act like they are our "regular supplier." The scam is, they want to find someone new or naive who will accept a delivery of this stuff, and they will tell you that they have a "fantastic deal" for you. I have fun trying to get these folks to give me some kind of basic information about who they are, where they are, etc. I rarely get them to tell me a last name, and the company names are always generic sounding (National Data Supply, etc). They never will give me an address, and rarely anything but an 800 number. Once I ask a couple of fundamental questions that people would normally ask before doing business, they hang up. One guy actually stayed on the phone a whole minute and a half. I joked with him that I was getting two or three calls a week like this, and "they always hang up on me." I got him to promise not to hang up, got a first and last name, a company name, but then he had trouble telling me where he was calling from. "California", he said. "Where in California?", said I. "Uh ... L.A.". I tried to get him to give me an address, and he choked. I asked again for "the actual physical address where you are now". He hung up! These guys must be working under a horrendous quota. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls Date: 9 Oct 90 11:55:09 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 9 at 2:05, Andy Jacobson writes: > Apparently the EM switches can not support calls to non-ATT 800 > numbers. I attempted it in the first place to see if the ANI demo > would work from an EM switch, which I guess I'll never know as the > demo is now gone (at least from all the lines I've tried here in L.A.) The ANI demo worked just fine from my 5XB, so it would not be correct to say that it wouldn't work from mechanical switches. My XBar line can call any 800 number (in fact ANY number) that my 1ESS lines can call. This includes 10XXX, international, the works. It uses the NAC adjunct, which I had assumed to be installed in all mechanical switches requiring it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Non-ATT 800 Calls Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 01:44:08 GMT In article <13169@accuvax.nwu.edu> IZZYAS1@oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) writes: >In reference to a long running debate some months back, when the ANI >demo did work, I tried it from UCLA's Northern Telcom PBX, and it of >course read back to me the outgoing trunk number, which is the main >incomming number for campus, and the only number associated with the >call. DID numbers normally don't show up on calls originating from >trunk groups. The Northern Telecom SL-1 (or Meridian 1 if you prefer) can be configured for either LDN (Listed Directory Number) or PDN (Private Directory Number) CLID. For each customer group in the switch a default is chosen as to which is sent. Any set can have LDN or PDN chosen to overide this. In short; DID numbers can and will appear in your CLID. vance ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Date: 9 Oct 90 16:17:32 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Henry Mensch writes: > I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the > payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET > to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any > reason why they wouldn't do this? I have the same problem with the same LEC. My lines are in a hunt group even, but they have different classes of service. It is the class of service difference, they say, that makes them be billed seperately. One line in METRO (actually CIRCLE which includes METRO), and the other in CONTIG. If your lines are in the same exchange, they should be on the same billing cycle. N.B. that some Cambridge lines out of the same CO (Ware St., not Bent St.) can't be billed together and can't hunt to the other exchange. The problem here is some are stuck on the old # 1 ESS, and others are on the # 5 ESS. ------------------------------ From: "Michael (NMI" Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Date: 10 Oct 90 13:30:22 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center In article <13164@accuvax.nwu.edu>, henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes... >I get two bills for my home phones. It seems pointless (I mail the >payments in the same envelope, etc). It seems reasonable to ask NET >to bill them together. Any reasons why I shouldn't do this? Any >reason why they wouldn't do this? I ordered a second line for my home the other day and was confronted with the same situation. The agent asked if I wanted one bill or two. I replied that I did not care. She then asked what kind of service I wanted. I told her I wanted 60 calls (our other phone is unlimited) and she said in that case, the two bill plan would be cheaper. I suspect that if I had ordered the same kind of service they would have combined the bills. Our phone book has a very good explanation of rates but no mention of this anomaly is included. Makes about as much sense as the $0.01 refund check my daughter got from Wisc Bell last week with $0.45 postage. Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu MACC / University of Wisconsin - Madison dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet 1210 W. Dayton St. / Madison, WI 53706 ------------------------------ From: "John B. Meaders Jr." Subject: Re: Ringing Nuisance Organization: Capitalist Warmongers, Inc. Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 02:30:43 GMT In article <13161@accuvax.nwu.edu> SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: >Ever since my CO cut over to an ESS (I don't know what model), I have >occasionally been awakened by a brief jingle of my phone's ringer at >about 6 AM. This has happened here in Hopewell (C&P Telephone) to me, but since I'm usually at work for most of the day I haven't noticed it lately. What happens to me more often is a message on my answering machine, that turns out to be a bunch of clicks. Has anybody had this happen to them? What causes it? John B. Meaders, Jr. 510 Manchester Ct., Hopewell, VA 23806 Voice: 804-458-2983 Net: john@karnak.cactus.org or john@karnak ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: Ringing Nuisance Date: 9 Oct 90 14:34:02 GMT Reply-To: Bill Berbenich Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons In article <13161@accuvax.nwu.edu> SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: [story of annoying early A.M. test ring and being shuffled off by local telco] >Short of unplugging my phones at night, does anyone have any idea how >I can prevent this ringing, or how I can persuade South Central Bell >that is something they can and should fix? If these calls (rings) are annoying to you, call the SCB annoyance call bureau and report it. You just happen to know that the local telco is causing this annoyance, does that somehow make it okay whereas if Joe Q. Public was the instigator he would likely face some serious criminal harassment charges? If it annoys you, plain and simple, they should correct it. It may not be easy for them to undo and they may suggest that you turn your ringer off or disconnect your phone(s), but if that's unacceptable to you then be insistent. Start at the bottom and work your way up until you are satisfied. It may well be that this would go to the VP level before being corrected. As a later option, if telco tells you to get lost, you can go to the police and explain the situation. Keep records of names, dates, and times from the very beginning, because it will definitely be to your advantage to do so. The state public utilities commission might be receptive to a letter from you if the telco refuses to act in a timely manner, too. Quite likely, being the helpful and responsible folks that they are, the telco will be able to block your line from this testing and you won't have to be too insistent. :-) Bill Berbenich bill@trace.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 16:03:00 pdt From: Dan Hepner Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls jhultman@beethoven.helios.nd.edu writes: >This may be a stupid question, but has anyone actually *SEEN* any >reports docuenting fraud based on ethnic origin from *ANY* carrier? >Or are the LD companies just claiming that fraud exists, when in >actuality there is some other (equally arbitrary) reason for (dubious >legality) redlining? I think what we might have here is garden-variety >discrimination. The Moderator's response referred to one actual case, but to believe that an LD company would arbitrarily redline is to not understand business. This is even more emphasized when considering the inconsequential nature of the loss when low frequency LD fraud is perpetrated. Dan Hepner [Moderator's Note: I assume you knew insurance companies used to redline entire neighborhoods where they thought the losses would be too great for them, based on neighborhood conditions. Most credit card agencies in the early days (circa 1955-70) used to redline in the same way because they figured with the kind of people living in the redlined area, there would simply be too many fraud and/or bad debt write-offs. The government finally had to stop them from doing it. Credit is extended to individuals, based on individual circumstances; it is not extended to neighborhoods, or groups of people of a certain ethnic origin. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Oct 90 22:32:02 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: SMDR Device For 1A2/Single Line Thanks, to several people, for referral to the RS device (if you made a direct message to me and havent gotten a reply, it's because my replies bounced back with your From address). I hopped over the nearest RS store (across the street !) and lo and behold, they had it as a 'managers special' (i.e. unadvertised) for $79.99, down from $ 99.99. I checked the latest catalog and couldn't find it listed there. Based upon some past experience with another phone attachment (43-233, Multiline controller for 1A2 system), this suggests it is being removed from the market and they are starting to clear stocks. Will probably wait a while and see how far it comes down - the controllers got down to 25% of original price, the last time I was able to find one anywhere. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #726 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28335; 11 Oct 90 2:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05182; 11 Oct 90 0:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09874; 10 Oct 90 23:48 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:37:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #727 BCC: Message-ID: <9010102337.ab14747@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:37:09 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 727 Inside This Issue: Professor-Confessor: Patrick A. Townson Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [John Higdon] Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Peter da Silva] Re: More COCOTery [Martin B. Weiss] Re: More COCOTery [Bob Yasi] Improved COCOT Sticker [Lang Zerner] Re: More COCOTery [Andrew Morley] Phone/Net Links to USSR [Jeff Sicherman] MCI Mail Rates Being Increased [Tad Cook] All These Sprint Calling Plans [Steve Elias] Sprint's Answer to ATT USA Direct / International 800 [Steve Elias] AT&T Calling Cards as ID [Bob Stratton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Date: 10 Oct 90 16:52:05 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon Mr. Churchfield's Confession brought the fallacy of COCOTs into even sharper focus. As before stated, the principle of COCOTism is to take a supplier (telco and IEC) and a customer (person on street) who have traditionally done business directly with each other via the public telephone and insert a middleman who expects a significant cut of the action. This means that either the supplier has to significantly discount to the COCOT operator, or the customer is expected to pay more. So far, it has been both, if not more of the latter. But Mr. Churchfield throws another whammy at us. A COCOT feeds not one but many new mouths (owner, vendor, AOS, site owner). And more importantly, the person responsible (owner) is not the person in control (vendor). Is there any wonder that the technical violations abound? Mr. Churchfield's Confession tells me that COCOTs are a bad deal for all: utility, owner/operator, and customer. So once again I ask the question: who was supposed to benefit and how in the matter of COCOTs? With the new Federal legislation, even the AOS operators will no longer be laughing all the way to the bank. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 18:27:33 GMT In article <13201@accuvax.nwu.edu> churchfield1@ncf.al.alcoa.com (B. CHURCHFIELD) confesses: > [... a] payphone does not make a lot of money. It is not always the actual > COCOT owner who is the bad guy, but quite possibly a vending company > or an AOS who is at the root of the problem. Do y'all remember the initial message I posted on this subject, asking folks to consider the poor COCOT owner before siccing the federales on them? I think I'm vindicated by this message. In article <13203@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon professes: > But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market, > informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not > been possible with pay phones. As Mr. Churchfeild's Confession indicates, this is also true for the *owner* of the COCOT. Perhaps instead of attacking the COCOT, point your wrath at the AOS operators/dealers. Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 10 Oct 90 12:56:11 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services In article <13203@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon professes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 725, Message 3 of 13 >On Oct 9 at 2:05, Martin B Weiss writes: >> Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to >> turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an >> correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to >> an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more >> successful. >But this is the flaw in the whole concept of COCOTs. In a free market, >informed buyers make free and informed choices. So far, this has not >been possible with pay phones. >The other side of the coin involves informed choices. There was a time >when a Pac*Bell phone and a COCOT were installed side-by-side at a >store near Stanford. I stood and watched as one person after another >walked up to the COCOT, ignoring the utility phone. Most of these >people made simple local calls, but for some reason the COCOT seemed >more attractive. (Yes, the Pac*Bell phone worked.) >A public phone is supposed to be an instrument of convenience. One >doesn't usually walk or drive around "shopping" for the best payphone >bargain. Back in pre-MFJ days, it wasn't necessary. I agree, John. In fact, the issue of informed choice is much more involved. In a recent paper that I wrote and submitted to the FCC on the NPRM, I argue that informed choice is virtually impossible because of delayed price feedback -- you don't know how much an operator is going to cost until you get the bill, several months later. The literature on the economics of information, such as price search behavior, is based on immediate price feedback (for example, shopping for shoes or baby furniture). It has been able to explain things like price dispersion and the clustering of similar merchants, etc. Even with immediate price feedback, fairly strong information is required of the consumers in many circumstances similar to the AOS case (i.e., where assymetrical information exists). I think that the only real solutions to this problem would lie either in price regulation, as many consumer advocates and legislators suggest, or in requiring a display on telephone instruments that displays to the consumer the cost of the call in progress (or a good estimate thereof). The latter would solve the delayed price feedback problem. The other thing complicating the AOS/COCOT problem is that the competition faced by AOS's is by other AOS's, not by consumers. Thus, we would expect commissions to rise as one AOS tried to get the business of a hotel or COCOT from another AOS, because that is one of the primary modes of competition (of course, there is also competition in service). The only factor that dampens this price spiral is consumer familiarity with a particular telephone or hotel (because, in principle, each owner negotiates a separate deal with the AOS). Once consumers realize that a particular instrument or organization is a rip off, they will avoid it, which tends to moderate the prices. The problem, of course, is with a "new" or unfamiliar instrument. What I meant to suggest in my post is that if enough "ethical" people owned these phones and programmed them correctly, perhaps we could reverse some of the less favorable trends that we all see. Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 11 Oct 90 01:35:30 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles I spoke to Pac Bell this afternoon about COCOT regulations. 10xxx dialing is not required by the California PUC. I had thought this was what their August billing insert had said and wanted to confirm it before posting. They DID know the PUC complaint number right away, though, and I consider that big progress. That number in California is 800/648-6967. It was busy when I called. So it looks like two changes could be made to the labels -- re 10xxx and this 800 number! By the way, I haven't tried it but is it legally required for those blue AT&T non-coin payphones to let you use Sprint if you want? -- Bob Yazz -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 16:04:07 PDT From: Lang Zerner Subject: Improved COCOT Sticker Here is a new and improved COCOT sticker with emergency dialing instructions. It also includes a toll-free number for reporting other illegal COCOTs. Enjoy! [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, the article sent by Lang was 38,000 bytes in length and could not be included here. It is in the Telecom Archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) under the title 'cocot.complaint.sticker'. I know some of you cannot access the archives easily ... and I am reasonably certain Lang does not want to fill all the requests ... so those of you who can get it from the archives please do so. If you cannot access it there, then perhaps Mr. Zerner will mail it to you. Please don't bother him for it if you can use ftp to reach Telecom Archives or if you can use the server at bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu. Thanks. His *is* a better looking sticker, by the way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Morley A.B." Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 10 Oct 90 16:00:56 GMT Organization: University of Southampton, UK I'm sorry to ask such a seemingly simple question, bot what are COCOTs? Presumably something we're not blessed with in the UK. Andrew Morley, abm88@uk.ac.soton.ecs [Moderator's Note: COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone. It is a type of pay telephone operated by a private company instead of the telephone administration. Subject to government regulations (and sometimes despite them!) the owner of the telephone sets the rates and standard of operation. Most are poorly operated and greatly overpriced. They tend to be located in places where more conventional pay telephones are scarce. Despite the fun with words we've been having the past couple days in the Digest, COCOTery and COCOTism are not a philosophy or religous practice. They are, however, a good reason for raising hell. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Oct 90 22:20:12 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Phone/Net links to USSR I know this is not on the usual subject of this forum, but some past postings indicate some knowledge of TELEcommunications in the USSR, maybe more than they have there given the apparent state of things over there (from news reports). This was a request posted to MEDNEWS readers by the moderator of that forum. In any case, it seems a healthy break from much of the bitching and complaining that often characterizes this Digest. If you can help or make any suggestions, please reply to the sinatory at the end of the message or myself and I will forward. Thanks VERY much. [ original message follows ] Could you please post following as an 'urgent' request for information, unless you happen to be able to answer it yourself. Thanks. I have been contacted by the Diabetes Forum administrator on CompuServe regarding the problem of diabetic children in the USSR. A group of parents in need of assistance with information and (to us) readily available material, had contacted him recently. We may be in a position to support these people in a very real sense, but the main problem right now is the almost total lack of communication with the area in question. We have an urgent need for a communications link with USSR not too distant from the town or city of "Krasnodar", zip code 350000. If someone does have knowledge of an Internet link in the USSR, or a FidoNet link, or any other useful network, please contact me as soon as possible at the address below. Help us help those children! Thanks. Martin Wehlou MD WEHLOU@BGERUG51.BITNET 72047,2444 at CompuServe Fax: 32-91-313312 Phone: 32-91-316740 ------------------------------ Subject: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 10 Oct 90 05:39:28 GMT With my MCI Mail bill today was an insert saying that they are going to have a rate change November 1. The rate for an MCI Mailbox will now be THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A YEAR! It was free when I signed up, then $15 a year. They are also raising Telex rates. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: All These Sprint Calling Plans Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 09:05:07 -0400 From: Steve Elias Ken Jongsma wrote about Sprint Select discount plan: > It's not clear to me that this is a very good plan, not that it is any > different that the AT&T ROA plan. I think the big difference between the Sprint Plus type plans and the ATT ROA plan is that Sprint gives you their lowest rate starting at 5pm weekdays, rather than ATT's 10 pm for Reach Out. (Normally, the lowest rates start at 11pm, as I'm sure you know!) These new Sprint plans (Sprint Select, Sprint Int**state) don't look all that interesting to me -- I think they are simply designed to counter to ATTs and MCIs calling plans, and perhaps to satisfy some California customers. (Hi John Higdon! Are you satisfied yet?) eli ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Sprint's Answer to ATT USA Direct / International 800 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 09:30:01 -0400 From: Steve Elias One can now access US Sprint on calls from France to the US ... When I was in France last January, I was amazed at the lousy quality and number of dropped connections on ATT calls from Paris to Boston. If you have a Sprint FONcard and the good fortune to be in Paris, I'd appreciate a report of the quality and longevity of your phone calls! Also, Sprint international 800 service is now available from France and a few other countries. This is probably a result of the same technofeat that makes "Sprint Direct" (or whatever it's called) possible. The customer service rep tells me that my US 800 number is already dialable from France and the UK. eli ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 11:57:16 EDT From: Bob Stratton Subject: AT&T Calling Cards as ID? I share a house with two roommates, one of which has our phone in his name. I recently called AT&T to request a calling card in MY name, and was quite pleased to find that they sent me one, despite the fact that my name is different from the billing name for this number, AND that AT&T isn't my primary carrier. Reading through the literature, I noticed the usual fine print regarding usage, but was surprised to see text to the effect that "this is a credit card ..." and that billing errors are governed under the same (or a similar) set of laws as bankcards. They also had a paragraph about not using your calling card as a form of ID (A reasonable suggestion). To get to the interesting part: Last weekend I was in a local beach town with another reader of the digest, and we wanted to rent a movie from a local branch of a large video rental chain. As I was on a low-overhead trip, I didn't have any credit cards with me - and a credit card is a usual part of the membership registration process for places of this ilk. Imagine my surprise when the clerk said that a "calling card" was fine. I was quite exhausted after a long day, and my normal alarms didn't go off - so I let her have the number [Yes, yes I know ...]. I let her have my ATT card, although, in retrospect, I should have tossed her my MCI or C&W, just to watch the reaction. (I'm really curious.) It seems that this chain is using some sort of loss-prevention database system from a third party, as I noticed small signs about the system, complete with a silly tradename, which I can't remember - I presume the "calling card" requirement is imposed by the database provider. Needless to say, I'm going to be watching my LD bills like a hawk, and I think I'm going to ask the video chain for more details. Has anyone else run into this sort of thing? Bob Stratton | dsc3rjs@nmdsc{20 | 10}.nmdsc.nnmc.navy.mil [Internet] Stratton Systems Design | dsc3rjs@vmnmdsc.BITNET [BITNET only, please!] | +1 703 823 MIND [PSTNet] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #727 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01861; 11 Oct 90 5:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09662; 11 Oct 90 3:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01284; 11 Oct 90 2:53 CDT Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 2:39:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #728 BCC: Message-ID: <9010110239.ab29590@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Oct 90 02:38:57 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 728 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Booth 1000 at Interop '90 Wants You to Stop By [TELECOM Moderator] Old Telephone Identification [Roger Hoover] AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! [jhultman@takagi.helios.nd.edu] British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring [Julian Macassey] Re: Background Papers Wanted on Telecom [kdonow@cdp.uucp] Re: Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) [Craig Watkins] Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Jeff Sicherman] Telephone Harassment [Gordon Burditt] Last Laugh! Answering Machine Message [Gregg Squires] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:57:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Booth 1000 at Interop '90 Wants You to Stop By A piece of mail which unfortunatly just reached me yesterday discusses something of interest at Interop 90, going on now in Los Angeles. At Booth 1000, October 11-12 you will have an opportunity to review the latest implementation of Internet protocols for Unix System V Release 3 and 4 including: TCP/IP SNMP NetBIOS NFS Another theme at Booth 1000 is OSI/TCP coexistence. You will have a chance to review the software required to bridge TCP/IP and OSI networks. You will be able to see a high-performance emulation of STREAMS for non-Unix and real time systems which lets you use any STREAMS-based software product. Admittedly this is short notice. The mail seems to be slow arriving. If you plan on being at Interop '90 either Thursday or Friday you can call direct to Booth 1000: 213-453-8649. They are offering a personal tour to folks who stop in. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 10:54:39 -0400 From: Roger Hoover Subject: Old Telephone Identification I have a few old telephones of different styles. I am interested in finding out when they were manufactured and what years they were in common use. Are there any reference books that give information about and show pictures of old telephones? Alternatively, are there any telephone collectors out there who can tell me something about my phones. I would also like to replace the carbon microphones. (Yes, I have tried the Whap! method). Anyone know any sources? roger hoover rhoover@ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 18:29:16 EST From: jhultman@takagi.helios.nd.edu Subject: AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! AT&T took out a full page ad on the back of today's (Wed Sep 10 1990) {Chicago Tribune} "Tempo" section. Imagine almost the full page in black with little bits of white text, then the normal black-on-white at bottom. "I'm sorry ... We don't offer directory assistance for Europe." "I'm sorry ... That's a country we don't fax to." "I'M SORRY ... I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO LOOK UP A NUMBER IN TOKYO." "I'm sorry ... but I can't put you through to Leningrad." "I'm sorry ... We don't handle calls to places like Madagascar." "I'M SORRY ... WE DON'T HAVE DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE FOR LONDON." "I'm sorry ... The only way you can call there is with AT&T." "I'm sorry..." "I'm sorry..." It's true, with another international long distance service, you could get more of some things. Like excuses. So before you make your next international call, call AT&T. 1 800 523-WORLD. With AT&T's quality and service, there's really no excuse for using anyone else. ------------------ Now imagine me rolling on the ground, about to die laughing. jhultman@takagi.helios.nd.edu ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring Date: 10 Oct 90 14:59:26 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <13005@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TOBY@brownvm.brown.edu (Toby Loftus) writes: > I have a friend who is going to the UK soon and has a modem which will > support CCIT (?) protocols, which I understand are used in the UK. > What I would like is any information on how to physically connect the > modem to the UK outlets. I'm told that the UK has modular plugs, but > ones quite different from US plugs. Any suggestions on how to attack > this? Any company out there which supplies cords with a UK plug on > one end and a US plug on the other? I suppose this should become one of this groups "Frequently Asked Questions". Below is a file I keep on this matter. I hope it helps. Yes, I know various countries have silly protective regulations about what you can do with the service you are paying too much for. But I am interested in telecommunications not restrictive practices. British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring British phones have 3 wires. There are two wires A & B (Tip & Ring) coming into a house. There is no protector. In the primary jack in the house is a 2 uF capacitor. On the end of this cap is the third wire. The AC ringing signal is fed to the phone on this wire and its DC counterpart. See diagram: ----| |------O (3) | | (A) O----------------------O (2) (B) O----------------------O (5) Note: The Numbers in the diagram are the numbers engraved on the jack terminals. If the phone rings continuously, reverse 2 and 5. The ringer is fed by AC current on pins 3 and 5. BT consider the A terminal to be ground. B is measured as 45 to 50 volts above ground. Wiring Colour Codes: The standard inside wire is classic "3 pair". A jack is wired as follows: Pin # Wire colour 2 Blue/White 3 Orange/White 4 White/Orange 5 White/Blue END So if you have a US device that you need to wire into a UK jack this is what you do. Get a US line cord and cut the jack off one end. Go to your local UK electrical shop and have them terminate the end with a UK jack. The center two wires in a US line cord are the phone line, so they should terminate on UK jack pins 2 and 5. Then you plug the UK end into the wall and the US end into your phone, modem, answering machine etc. You can also buy a line cord with a US plug on one end and spade lugs on the other. Using a screwdriver you screw the line cord onto the terminals in a jack or junction box. This works all over the world. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 21:08:52 -0700 From: kdonow@cdp.uucp Subject: Re: Background Papers Wanted on Telecom Contact Mitchell Moss at New York University (Urban Planning). He's written some nice stuff assessing New York City's telecommunications infrastructure. Also John Gebosky in the NYC Office of Telecom should have some very useful information. Finally, I recall that Minneapolis commissioned a comparable study some years ago from some outfit called the Elra Group. Someone in the city government should be able to help. Good luck. Give me a ring at 202-863-0890 bif you want to talk more. Ken Donow National Center for Telecommunications and Information Policy 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Suite 220 Washington, DC 20024 ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Lack of Payphones (was: COCOT-in-Violation Label File) Date: 11 Oct 90 01:25:52 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13163@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Macy Hallock writes: > This was always a problem, even before COCOT's came into being. As a > 20+ year telephone man, I can tell you that I never, ever travel > without a butt-in and a few hand tools in my briefcase. I travel with a light (somewhat cheap) single piece phone, an RJ11 jack with spade leads and some jumper-clips (in addition to some RJ11 cables for a modem). Although quite possibly less reliable and less sturdy than the butt set, depeding upon type, it can be smaller, lighter, and certainly less expensive if you don't already have a butt set! Quite useful for voicemail, DISA, etc from non-TT hotel rooms. I second the motion on the hand tools (I recently picked up one of the small (small calculator-sized) DVM's for my case -- it was on sale at Radio Shack for around $15). Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Date: 11 Oct 90 01:34:50 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13201@accuvax.nwu.edu>, B CHURCHFIELD confesses: > I appreciate Craig Watkins' PA. Regulations for COCOTs in > Digest # 709 as it enabled me to bring my phone into compliance. Give the PUC a call; their 800 number should be in your phone book in the government section. They will probably take a while to answer (they seem to be understaffed -- big surprise, eh?), but they will probably be happy to send you a copy of the regulations dealing with COCOTs. There are certainly many, many that I did not cover -- I just went after the most annoying ones (to me). Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Oct 90 10:06:20 PDT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [ Insert moderator's tirade here ] :-) I think my first statement adequately disclaimed any real legal expertise. My powdered wig may indeed be all wet. However, if expertise, legal or otherwise, is a criteria for commenting in the digest, I think the submission list will have to be cut down to a very few individuals, from what I have read here. I think PAT's logic circuit was left on hold :-). Not every email address, even when published, is designated or intended as the recipient of very large volumes of communications, any more than having your phone number in the white or yellow pages entitles people to overwhelm it with calls and make life miserable for you or make your phone (system) unavailable for practical use. Most of the phone numbers you cite as (counter)examples are intended and even promoted for such use and the consequential volumes are expected. The fact that they are often (wo)manned to handle the load indicates this. This applies also to sending communications to corporations in general, especially customer service and PUBLIC relations. > And to discuss or explain how a 'crime' is committed on its face > becomes conspiracy? What lawyer told you that? Therefore television > shows which run crime dramas should all be indicted as > co-conspirators, right? PAT missed the point entirely. IF depriving somebody of the rightful and reasonable use of their property/service is illegal (there is such a thing as telephone harassment, but I don't know if there is, either explicitly or implicitly, an email equivalent - is the medium critical?) then a GROUP of people planning to do something WITH SUCH INTENT is a type of conspiracy. Remember, the original discussions suggested how neat it would be to overwhelm these people with email messages. How would you construe the meaning/intent of that ? I will not repeat the arguments about the wisdom of civilized and organized argument as a form of lobbying over mass electronic yelling. Based upon past moderator's notes, I really expected a more 'moderate' point of view from PAT. Maybe he had a rough night - there sure was a deluge of digests to my mailbox. Hmmm, maybe I have an email harassment case there :-) Oops, I think I invited them by subscribing. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: I do not think I said it would be 'neat' to overwhelm anyone with anything. I think a couple names and email addresses were given saying persons dissatisfied with some aspect of the service provided by the companies represented by those two gentlemen could write to them at the addresses provided. It is not harrassment when you write someone to express an opinion or complaint to them. Furthermore, I would have *no idea* how many people would be writing. Maybe everyone but a few people are happy with things the way they are. There is no deprivation of property involved. Those people are not being deprived of the use of their email service in any way. And what makes you think that anyone who would write to either of those persons would engage in 'electronic yelling'? And who are you to define 'electronic yelling'? You are making a lot of presumptions which are false on their face. Preprinted postcards and individually written letters flood into the offices of AT&T daily lobbying for one thing or another. Are those folks depriving anyone of the use of the mail? Both Mr. Allen and Mr. McGowan receive lots of mail from the public each day. Are those men, in your opinion so special, and so different that they should not have to read an email letter from a commoner? Your argument is still invalid. Finally, thanks for your comments about my logic circuits. I really appreciated that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Telephone Harassment Date: 9 Oct 90 05:59:13 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt Mr. Moderator, I urge you to be careful about posting calls for mass retaliation by phone. I would hate to lose the Telecom Digest because the government views it as a weapon of telephone harassment, regardless of how much the targeted government agencies deserve it. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with including email addresses found in public directories in the Digest, provided they are not presented with the idea of "let's bomb these guys into submission". Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon P.S. In light of recent budget problems, what would happen if ALL Federally- controlled prefixes moved into area code 900? [Moderator's Note: First, let's begin with you showing me where in the Digest you have ever seen a message saying 'bomb them into submission' or where you saw a message calling for 'mass retaliation by phone'. I am not going to waste space here reprinting all the original messages on the theme of 'who should we complain to about redlining by telcos on international card calls?' YOU go back and re-read them. Since email is as legitimate a form of communication as paper mail, then there is absolutely no reason why email letters cannot be sent to persons and corporations to express opinions and ask for explanations. It is not my concern if one person or one million people write. Second, you say 'you would hate to lose the TELECOM Digest because the government views it as a weapon of telephone harrassment' ... and that is all well and good, but until you can show me where you have given the same admonishment to the {New York Times} and the {Washington Post}, both of whom routinely urge their readers to contact legislators, corporations and government agencies regarding issues those two newspapers want to settle, then I'd suggest you stay off my case. I have more readers here each day than several hundred small town newspapers ... they should encourage readers to lobby on issues of importance but I should not? Third, your little postscript merits an answer: If all goverment agencies took their calls on 900 numbers that would suit me fine, and it would further illustrate just how unreachable and uncompromising most government agencies can be. Could the Congress-creatures be installed on that area code also? Please?? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gregg Squires Subject: Last Laugh! Answering Machine Message Date: 10 Oct 90 17:51:15 GMT Organization: Citibank A friend's line answers with his mother... Mom: "Hello?" Caller: (usually) Hello! Is Kevin there? Mom: one moment... (Mom puts down phone and footsteps follow...) Mom: (in background) "Kevin dear, are you awake? There's a phone call for you..." Kevin: (sounds groggy) "Umm, no, I'm not awake" Mom: (returns to phone) "I'm sorry, but Kevin isn't here now, please leave a message!" BEEP! This always works the first time. Who would disbelieve Mom? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #728 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28109; 12 Oct 90 3:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18486; 12 Oct 90 2:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23772; 12 Oct 90 1:03 CDT Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 0:55:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #729 BCC: Message-ID: <9010120055.ab12128@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Oct 90 00:55:05 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 729 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Censorship and 73 Magazine (was Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell) [John DeArmond] International Directory Assistance [John R. Covert] Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [Brian Jay Gould] Telecom Acronyms [The Age, via U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] The Cost of Numbers [Tommy Ace] ISDN Translations [Paul Mooney] Conferencing of International Calls [Sanjay Manandhar] A Recorded Announcement From the Tax Authorities [Jean-Pierre Radley] SP-2188 / SP-2388 Standards [Stuart Lynne] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John G. DeArmond" Subject: Censorship and 73 Magazine (was Re: Ripping-off Ma Bell) Date: 10 Oct 90 22:29:35 GMT Reply-To: "John G. DeArmond" Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) In article <13197@accuvax.nwu.edu> goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 724, Message 4 of 7 >In article <13076@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kf5iw!jim@central.uucp (Jim >Blocker) writes... >>Inquire at your local library to see if they have these old issues. >>They make for some very interesting reading! >Odds are your library won't have them. >Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. filed suit against "73, Inc., a >foreign [not CA] Corporation, Spenser Whipple Jr.[Peter Stark] , Wayne >Green, Virginia Londner Green, and Does 1 through 200, Inclusive" >(where the Does were all employees of 73 Inc.). The Superior Court of >the State of California ruled, in judgement C 126265, that I saw this article today and it stunned me. Not only had I, as a long time subscriber of 73, ever heard of the suit, but I was also surprised that Wayne Green would take such a ruling laying down. So I picked up the phone and called 73 Magazine. Talked to a "Linda". She brought Bill Brown, who is apparently the editor in chief into the conversation. There was one problem. There has been so much turnover at 73 that no one remembered much about the case. After some research, the called me back. They said that there was indeed such a case that was limited strictly to the State of California. They said that someone remembered there being a letter sent out to CA subscribers asking them to tear the pages out of their magazines. They could not remember whether or not the case was appealed. They stated that they were sure that the case never got outside of CA. Linda started to apologize (sp) for the article and I interrupted her to explain that my interest was a First Amendment concern and not about the content. She then made a statement that stunned me. She said that they were not concerned about that aspect and in fact she'd hate think that someone could publish the plans for an atomic bomb or something without the government getting involved! Can you believe that? Prior restraint endorsed by a publisher. Oh well, the Bill of Rights was nice while it lasted .... John De Armond, WD4OQC Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, Ga {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 17:37:10 PDT From: "John R. Covert 11-Oct-1990 2031" Subject: International Directory Assistance Issue 728 mentioned the AT&T ad with: >"I'm sorry ... We don't offer directory assistance for Europe." >"I'M SORRY ... WE DON'T HAVE DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE FOR LONDON." I just called my MCI operator and asked for Directory Assistance in Europe. She told me to dial 10288-0. (As did my Sprint operator.) I said, "But that's AT&T! Why is MCI telling me to call AT&T?" Because MCI does not provide that service; AT&T does. I said, "Sounds like AT&T's the real phone company." What really worries me is that International Directory Assistance, now free, might start costing money. Why should AT&T carry the D.A. traffic to all the international countries? And why won't the other carriers do it? john [Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact John, your concern about international DA eventually having a price tag on it is well grounded. For the past couple years, those of us who make extensive use of international calling via AT&T have seen things get tighter and tighter at the Pittsburgh Operating Center. They are becoming quite aware of the fact that MCI and Sprint are telling their customers to get DA from AT&T for free, then to come back and place the actual call on their carrier. That's nothing new; MCI has been notorious for skimming the cream since they began operations in the late sixties. I make many business (international) calls from home at night to countries where the time is offset by 9-15 hours from me simply because there is no 'window' available during the regular business day to conduct business with, say, India. I have to bring the file home with me at night. Circuits to India are *jammed tight* all night long. Its bad enough I have to put it on the Demon Dialer and then bang away for 45 minutes to break through ... without having to spend 15-30 minutes on the line to reach directory in New Delhi. I used to get DA from the office in the daytime, simply because at (relative to their time) 2 AM everyone is asleep in India: low traffic, fast connect to DA, on and off in a couple minutes typically, five minutes at most. Now Pittsburgh won't do it any longer ... get the DA when you are ready to have *us* place the call, they tell me. Why is this? Ask the MCI cream-skimmers and abusers why! They know the scoop. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Jay Gould Subject: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted Date: 12 Oct 90 02:04:06 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. I can now get ANI (NJBell calls it CLASS service) at my home. I'd really like to get an ANI box with lots of features. An LCD display, printer, RS232, large memory, and a partridge in a pear tree. Anyone know of a good source? Brian Jay Gould ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Telecom Acronyms Date: 12 Oct 90 13:14:34 +1000 Organization: The University of Melbourne From {The Age}, 12th October, 1990, Melbourne, Australia. By Leon Gettler, Communications reporter. Is it all over between PETA and LES since she found out about the LEOPARD? Was SID linked to the MAFIA? And where did DRACULA fit into all this? Was he really a VAMPIRE or just one of the DAGS? Confused? Just consult the Telecom staff dictionary, an introduction the to world of tele-babble. Insiders in every profession have their jargon, but no one generates it faster than telecommunications engineers. Take, for instance the story of the chap sent to Cairns on an emergency mission several years ago when the phone system was wiped out by flood. He designed the Cairns restoration and provisioning program. No prizes for working out the acronym. "It just rolled off the tongue," said a Telecom official this week. Step into the world of telecommunications and you find yourself in a sea of acronyms and jargon. Some examples: DNA (does not answer), DND (did not dial), MBC (major business customer), HC&F (heat, coil and fuse), LIBFA (line bearer fault analysis), DELY (delivery), CIE (customer interface equipment), PP (prompt public telephone) and TTT (terminatng trunk tandem). Traditionally, acronyms have been used to help us remember terminology. Usage has transformed many into ordinary words. Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services is always Qantas. The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps gave us Anzac, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is NATO. But Telecom Australia seems to have done the reverse. It produced DRACULA (data recording and concentrator unit for line applications), VAMPIRE (videotex access monitoring and priority incident reporting equipment), LEOPARD (local engineering operations processing and analyses of recorded data), MAFIA (maintenance and fleet information analysis), SULTAN (subscribers' universal line testing access network), CARGO (complaints analysis recording and graphing organisation), CATNAP (computer-aided network assessment program) and DAGS (digit-absorbing group selector). In many ways, Telecom employees are lucky. They can see PARIS (product accounting and reporting information system) or even MARS (microfiche auto-retrieval system). They don't even need a MAP (manual assistance position), the work station for telephonists. Telephone operators-turned-philosophers can turn to PLATO (programmed evaluation review technique) over a few POTS (plain old telephone services) of CIDER (costing input, data editing and reporting) or SODA (service order debit advice). and romantics can contemplate EROS (emitter-receiver for optical systems). But things can get confusing, too. COLDEWS (computerised lines depot external works scheduling) does not cover grass in the morning. And TACONET is short for Telecom Australia computer network, not tapas tucker. Similarly, CONTRAFAST is not a Nicaraguan health regime but the consolidated trunk forecast. Are Telecom employees happy with the ALP (associated line prime) after the [Australian] Labor Party's national conference last month? And does COM (computer output to microfilm) suggest that the reds have escaped from under the beds and infiltrated the phone exchanges? The names are also a worry. There are nine males (REX, JACK, SID, DAVID, LARS, LES, LEN, MARC AND SAM) but only four females (PETA, DAISY, DOT AND SUSIE). Koorie and other non-English names do not get a mention. And what about the indelicacy of TART (TACONET availability and response time monitoring) and TIT (technician in training)? ---------------------- Don't blame me if my fingers did not type what my eyes saw! Danny [Moderator's Note: Thanks for taking the time to type in such a clever report. Speaking of obscure acronyms, everyone must know of CARE, the organization which provides assistance to other countries in need. But do you remember what the letters mean? Committee on American Relief in Europe. And lest we forget, the zip in the postal Zip Code refers to the Zone Improvement Plan. Seriously. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 22:11:26 PDT From: Tommy AcE Subject: The Cost of Numbers A friend in Colorado who just changed his phone number reported to me the following curious policy in effect there (presumably, this also applies when new service is established): The telco (U S West) gives you a list of three dull phone numbers you may choose from. If you don't like any of the three, you can pay $50 for the privilege of choosing from a telco-selected list of five numbers which are more interesting-sounding; these might end in something catchy, like 2211, 0909, or whatever. In addition to the $50 one-time charge, you pay $3 every month. If you don't like the idea of choosing from a list of three or five numbers, you can request the number of your choice for a mere $200, and $10 per month thereafter. This clinched it for me; I'm definitely not moving back to Colorado now. And I thought the $1.50 a month I pay for my number here in PacBell-land was ridiculous. It used to be (at least in my limited observations) that many telcos would allow subscribed-selected numbers for free when practical. The thought of not charging for something must have become too abhorrent, and fees for the privilege were created. Evidently, it then became abhorrent to U S West that the fees were nominal when they could be exorbitant, and now you have the current situation. Tom Ace {pyramid,sun}!hoptoad!lever!ace ------------------------------ From: Paul Mooney Subject: ISDN Translations Date: 10 Oct 90 16:52:35 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA While looking into some ISDN "stuff" I ran into the following acronyms for which I would like "translations." Any help would be appreciated. 1. SMDS a. DQDB b. MSS c. IMSSI (Obviously the documentation was not complete. However, a xxxx router can have up to 6 SMDS links. A DQDB is another box at a remote site which can be daisy chained or stand-alone). Thanks, Paul Mooney Network Services Hewlett Packard ------------------------------ From: Sanjay Manandhar Subject: Conferencing of International Calls Date: 11 Oct 90 13:59:30 GMT Reply-To: Sanjay Manandhar Organization: MIT Media Laboratory If I subscribe to call conferencing on my LD lines, is it possible to call country A and then add country B in a conference call? Is conferencing only within the same LATA or is it applicable to LD and international? Who provides it? Thanks, Sanjay Manandhar sanjay@media-lab.media.mit.edu MIT Media Laboratory (617) 253-0312 20 Ames Street, E15-355 Cambridge, MA 02139 USA [Moderator's Note: There is some confusion in your use of terms, I think. 'Call Conferencing' a/k/a Three Way Calling is offered by your local telco. It can be used on any calls anywhere, local or long distance. There are no restrictions by LATA, etc. You dial up one call, connect, flash, dial the second call and flash again. All three parties are connected. There is a service from AT&T called 'Alliance Teleconferencing' which allows conferencing of more than two places at one time, but again, you can conference to wherever you can otherwise call, local or long distance. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jean-Pierre Radley Subject: A Recorded Announcement From the Tax Anuthorities Reply-To: jpr@jpradley.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) Organization: High-Q Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 00:11:39 GMT This afternoon, my secretary said, "Quick, pick up my line!" and I said, "Just transfer it to my number", but she repeated her phrase, more loudly. A canned announcement from the tax authorities in Albany was prattling about our company's allegedly not having remitted withheld taxes for some week in August. Strange use of technology. The recording had already started to play, to my secretary, before I cut in. And if we were a larger company with a switchboard, the message would have been played to an audience that could not, and maybe should not, be hearing it. Who thought this one up? Jean-Pierre Radley HIGH-Q jpr@jpradley CIS: 72160,1341 ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) Subject: SP-2188 / SP-2388 Standards Date: 11 Oct 90 02:54:26 GMT Organization: USENET Public Access, Vancouver, B.C., Canada I just received some news from Joe Decuir, chairman of TR29.2 on availability of the Class 1 and Class 2 proposed fax standards. >1. EIA-578, Class 1 >SP-2188 has been approved by EDEC for publication as EIA-578. ANSI approval >is expected by 10/19/90. EIA publications expects to have it for sale by >11/1/90, for $15. >2. SP-2388, Class 2 >SP-2388 can be bought, from EIA Standard Sales Dept, as "BSR/EIA-SP2388" for >$28. For further information contact the EIA at: 2001 Eye Stree, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 202-457-4900 Class 1 suggests a very simple interface where almost all of the work to implement the fax emulation (the infamous T.30 state machine) is done in the host. Basically commands to send/receive HDLC data, and send/receive fax data are defined. You get to do the rest. Class 2 provides a more complicated interace where the fax emulation is done in the modem, but controlled by the host. Approximatetly 40 commands are defined to control the modems behaviour, transfer data, and control the emulation of the fax protocols. You have to know enough of the T.30 state machine to control it, but you don't have to actually implement it at the host level. [While this sounds hard, it's simple enough that procomm can send or receive a fax using this protocol with a script and one additional program to send/receive the fax images. The extra program is apparantly only required due to procomm being unable to pass null bytes.] Stuart Lynne Unifax Communications Inc. ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) sl@wimsey.bc.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #729 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01228; 12 Oct 90 6:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22948; 12 Oct 90 4:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13345; 12 Oct 90 3:07 CDT Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 2:12:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #730 BCC: Message-ID: <9010120212.ab16556@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Oct 90 02:12:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 730 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Automated Computer Calls [Harvey Newstrom] Strange Answering Machine Messages [David Lemson] Telephones at the Baseball Stadium [Carl Moore] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Julian Macassey] Re: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased [Sanjay Hiranandani] Re: Speakerphones and the Courts [Lars Poulsen] Re: ESF Framing Bits [Kay Fleskes] Re: Phone/Net Links to USSR [David Brightbill] Re: San Fransisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [David Brightbill] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hnewstrom@x102c.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) Subject: Automated Computer Calls Date: 11 Oct 90 13:49:37 GMT Reply-To: hnewstrom@x102c.ess.harris.com (Harvey Newstrom) Organization: Harris_Electronic_Systems Telecommunications Network_Engineering Every couple of weeks I get a telephone call with a recorded message from Patrick Air Force Base "...reminding you of your impending appointment tomorrow. If you are unable to make your appointment..." The problem is, I am not associated with Patrick AFB in any way. It gives me an electronic menu to get an operator, but usually no one answers. It also gives a number to call to manually make an appointment, but when I call that number, I get a recording telling me to call the automated number. I finally got an operator when I went through the menu. She had no idea how to fix the problem, but told me where the recording was coming from so I could call that office directly. When I called that office, they had no idea how to fix it, but gave me the number of the operator who does that. It was the the first operator who had no idea how to fix it. I told both parties to find someone and fix it, because it is not my problem. I am waiting to see if the problem goes away. Harvey Newstrom hnewstrom@x102c.ess.harris.com uunet!x102c!hnewstrom (407)727-5176 FAX:(407)727-5118 P.O.Box 37; M/S 15/8873; Melbourne, FL 32902 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 15:28:35 CDT From: David Lemson Subject: Strange Answering Machine Messages People have been talking recently about strange answering machine messages appearing mysteriously. This reminds me of something that has happened a lot on my parents' answering machine (a Phone-Mate two-line model). It hasn't happened in the past few months, I don't really know why. My dad's office has a voice mail system, and when you ring my father's phone and he doesn't get it within three rings, it switches over to the voice mail message. Also, we have SpeedDial from the phone company (SWBT). (I think we have a 5ESS switch, if that makes any difference) On Speed Dial number 2, we have my dad's work number programmed. Well, the strange occurence is that sometimes we'd find a message on the answering machine consisting of a ring or so and my dad's voice mail message. Then, the standard "If you'd like to leave a message, press one ..." message and the answering machine timed out on the silence from the other end. Pretty weird, huh? It seems like the answering machine picked up the phone and dialed "2", even by pulse. But why would it do this, and why would it only happen every so often. I know some reader of the Digest has to have heard of something like this! (HA!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 17:19:57 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Telephones at the Baseball Stadium If you have watched major-league baseball on TV in the U.S., you have seen (from time to time) a manager or coach getting on the telephone to his team's bullpen (the place where substitute pitchers make their warmup pitches). Does anyone know what system is involved (i.e. number of digits dialed, etc.)? I take it that it also connects to the clubhouse area (locker rooms, etc.), given the second incident related below; or could that be a separate phone? In the 1960s, I recall reading about Moe Drabowsky, a relief pitcher (was with the Baltimore Orioles in 1966) playing a prank by calling the opponents' bullpen. This year(?), I HEARD about the late manager Billy Martin (I believe he died late in 1988) getting ejected from a game, and then staying in touch on the clubhouse phone. An umpire (who noticed someone frequently using the phone) eventually sneaked up on the dugout, then burst in shouting "WHO YA TALKIN' TO ON THAT PHONE?". (I used some slang; for non-English speakers, it's "Who[-m] are you talking to on that [tele-]phone?".) The telephone user said "Nobody, sir!" or similar, and the umpire went ahead and ripped the phone off the wall. (A player, coach, or manager who is ejected is, in effect, suspended for the rest of the game, and is thus not permitted to communicate with his team.) [Moderator's Note: In the case of our Chicago teams, all the administrative phones within the ball park run through the PBX in the offices. Both the White Sox (Comiskey Park, 312-WAGner 4-1000) and the Chicago Cubs (Wrigley Field, 312-BUckingham 1-5050) have PBX systems with three digit extensions which dial 9 for outside lines or 8 for WATS lines, including the dugout phones, locker rooms, etc. By the way, it is pronounced /wag/-ner, like a dog wags its tail, not /vawg/-ner, as in Tannhauser. Both parks have had those phone numbers or permutations of them for over seventy years, although the PBX equipment is newer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 11 Oct 90 15:11:22 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <13221@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: Mucho stuff about dealing with toner conmen deleted - but worth a read. > One guy actually stayed on the phone a whole minute and a half. I > joked with him that I was getting two or three calls a week like this, > and "they always hang up on me." I got him to promise not to hang up, > got a first and last name, a company name, but then he had trouble > telling me where he was calling from. "California", he said. "Where > in California?", said I. "Uh ... L.A.". I tried to get him to give > me an address, and he choked. I asked again for "the actual physical > address where you are now". So now you know what all the out of work actors do in LA. When they are not working on their hair, they work in boiler rooms. I am ashamed to say that the capital of telephone con men is LA. The "office supplies", charities, long distance service and such stuff are worked mostly from Los Angeles. The securities cons are worked mostly from Newport Beach in nearby Orange County. So if it's diamonds and oil wells, it should be Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa. If it's ball point pens and Toner, it should be West LA, Mid Wilshire. There are exceptions. I know of one Oil and Coins boiler room in Century City (Adjacent to Beverly Hills), but the owner lives in Costa Mesa. They like to use actors for several reasons. They are usually desperate for a temporary job so they can whizz away for auditions. They can assume personnas - I knew one that played a devout Jew for the Jewish community and it worked well for him. In the want ads in this town there are constant ads for "telemarketing" jobs. Some claim in the ads that the locations have windows. The average boiler room is a cheap location filled with folding tables and single line phones fed with POTS business lines. Some have Centrex. The better places put Confidencer noise cancelling transmitters on the handsets. Some boiler rooms only handle one or two scams, often the scam of the owner, some are renta-voice places and play the scam that someone is hiring them for. There are many exceptions to the above rules, I have been in some very well furnished boiler rooms. The better places are doing something more lucrative than copier supplies. The top of the line places make millions on oil. diamonds, coins, precious metals, whisky futures etc. All of these places change their names and sometimes their locations with great regularity. How long have these slimeballs been operating? Well, some of them used to sell carbon paper over the phone. Having seen boiler rooms from the other side, I would say a good rule of thumb is: Never buy anything over the phone. Never agree to anything on the phone. The cute girl who tells you she is working her way through college could be a 40 year old mother of three still waiting for a good movie part. 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: Sanjay Hiranandani Subject: Re: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased Date: 11 Oct 90 17:06:57 GMT Reply-To: Sanjay Hiranandani Organization: SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center In article <13237@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 727, Message 8 of 11 >With my MCI Mail bill today was an insert saying that they are going >to have a rate change November 1. The rate for an MCI Mailbox will >now be THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A YEAR! It was free when I signed up, then >$15 a year. They are also raising Telex rates. I was quite upset about that too. It's highly unlikely that I will renew my subscription next year. ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Speakerphones and the Courts Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 17:38:46 GMT In v10 #715, Jeff Carroll writes: >>Only that anyone who has ever talked to a person using a >>speakerphone would know immediately whether one is in use.... In article <13219@accuvax.nwu.edu> jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com writes: >The phone on my desk ... has a speaker, but no external microphone. >When I use the speaker, anyone in my office can hear the conversation. >Because I still speak into the handset, the person on the other end will >not hear the telltale speakerphone cut-in/cut-out. Radio Shack has a free-standing telephone amplifier that can do this. (It has a MUTE button). We like it for that reason. I used it for a while at the office (at my previous job) but gave up because it did not co-exist well with our 1A2 key system. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Kay Fleskes Subject: Re: ESF Framing Bits Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 12:36:31 PDT In article <13087@accuvax.nwu.edu> BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >>the framing bit also (under ESF) can carry a small amount of >>network managment data. Specifically, 4Kbps worth of data. and chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >That "facilities data link" seems to be a frequently underutilized >feature. Part of the problem is that different carriers and >organizations (and vendors) have defined different standards for what >should appear in this channel. Another problem is that the carriers >standards usually define a way for them to monitor performance of the >user equipment, but don't provide users' the ability to monitor the >performance of their network. That is, the carriers are happy to take >information, but not give it, and thus many folks are unhappy about >that missing capability as well. "Intelligent Diagnostic CSUs" are commonly used to make this information available to the customer. Different vendors support the customer to different levels, but all venders are required to support the minimum set of functionality identified in the T1.403 and 54016 Specs if they want to have the blessings of these people. Additionally, the vendors may implement a superset of functionality, usually to make themselves more attractive to their customers. In our own case, we give the customer the ability to generate the same requests that are being issued towards our equipment (which doesn't do much good unless it is used in a point-to-point application, or in a private network), AND, the ability to monitor the data that the carrier can request from us. Therefore, the customer has the ability to monitor the service that is being provided to them by their carrier. >The big thing ESF gets you which is used universally is a six-bit CRC >to provide a check on each 24-frame superframe. The CRC error count is a much more accurate indicator than BPVs, because it can detect logical errors in the data stream. Both the 54016 and T1.403 specs require a measure of the level of these errors. 54016 requires a running count to be kept for retrieval by a data link message, and T1.403 requires that within the Performance Response message that is sent on the data link once per second, there is an indicator of the error count for the previous four seconds. Kay Fleskes Design Engineer ADC Kentrox (...kentrox!kay) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 14:41:56 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: Phone/Net Links to USSR I've learned a little more about email connections to Krasnodar. Bob Brodel who is one of the directors of our sister city program sent me a copy of a longish article he sent to the Bitnet list. The following is extracted from that letter with his permission. There is a man (in Krasnodar) who is president of a club called "Parents of Diabetic Children." His name is Eugene Makarets. His postal address is: 35000 CCCP G. Krasnodar UL. Shaumyana, D.55, KV.66 Makarets, Eugene USSR Eugene does not speak English. The most direct electronic way to contact him is via FAX. The Krasnodar English Club Business Center has a FAX with international access. Their FAX number is (8612) 558747. Mark the fax ATTN: Marina Martinova and ask her to forward it to Eugene. She will translate it and see that he gets it. We have one person in Krasnodar who is accessable on Internet via the San Francisco - Moscow Spacebridge. Mail addressed to: "cdp!krasneft@labrea.stanford.edu" should arrive in his mailbox. The guy in Krasnodar is Alexander Samarin. Because of the nature of his account, it is real expensive for him to email back. He deals in Roubles and the gateway charges are in "hard currency" He should be able to get mail to Eugene Makarets. Put ATTN: Makarets, Eugene in the subject line. Include a FAX number for Eugene to respond back to. Bob also says that there are two TELEX units in Krasnodar with international access. They are at the Eye Micro Surgery Institute (Dr. Yakovchuk, Director) telex 123220 (CERTA SU) and the Rice Research Institute (Professor Alyoshin, Director) telex 279117 (AQVA SU). The country code is 871. Bob and I are working on getting a UUCP connection between a university in Krasnodar and the Moscow node. Does anyone have the email address of the guy at the node in Moscow? If you have any trouble connecting with Krasnodar, let Bob know. His email address is broedel@fsu.bitnet. I'd also be happy to help. Just to give you more background, Krasnodar is the sister city to my town of Tallahassee. We have sent a modem to a Soviet hacker in Krasnodar and are in regular contact with folks there. MD's from Krasnodar have traveled to Tallahassee for training and visa versa. A UUCP link to there is something I have been promoting for a while. I know that there is a node in Moscow via Finland. I'm going to explore ways of making the Krasnodar link. The main deal will be finding bucks for the phone charges. David Brightbill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 11:22:43 -0400 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities One technology which has been experimented with to solve the pay phone false alarm problem is a fire alarm kiosk which a user has to enter and close the door. The door latches and stays locked until a fire or police person responds to the call and let's the citizen out. There are a ton of obvious disadvantages having to do with civil liberty, etc. One benefit is for folks being attacked by muggers. They can pop into a kiosk and hang out till help comes. If memory serves, the kiosks were tried in a large NE city about four or five years ago. Davie Brightbill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #730 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18352; 13 Oct 90 13:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31100; 13 Oct 90 11:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23155; 13 Oct 90 10:23 CDT Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 10:08:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #731 BCC: Message-ID: <9010131008.ab24605@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Oct 90 10:08:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 731 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More COCOTery [Lang Zerner] Re: More COCOTery [Rich Sims] Re: More COCOTery [Will Martin] Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [John R. Levine] Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [Tad Cook] Re: Improved COCOT Sticker [B. S. Oplinger] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Christopher Gillett] COCOT Labels and COCOTS (and Bell Phones) in NYC [amb@ai.mit.edu] COCOTs and the CA PUC [Gordon C. Zaft] COCOT Tariffs in DC/MD/VA [Bob Stratton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 13:05:41 PDT From: Lang Zerner Subject: Re: More COCOTery Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article <13233@accuvax.nwu.edu> yazz@prodnet.la.locus.com (Bob Yasi) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 727, Message 4 of 11 >[PacBell] DID know the PUC complaint number right away, though, and I >consider that big progress. That number in California is 800/648-6967. The PUC told me that they had delegated the COCOT complaint function to PacBell. The number they gave me (which is on the improved labels) is 800/231-1863. I confirmed that number before putting it on the label by calling and asking the PacBell rep, "Is this the correct number to call to register complaints about customer-owned pay phones in violation of PUC regulations?" She said it was, and that you needed to provide either the phone number or correct street address of the offending device in order to register the complaint. Regarding the 10xxx question, is there anyone who has a copy of the actual regs so we can find out what really needs to go onto the label? Be seeing you... Lang ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 23:59:57 EDT From: Rich Sims Subject: Re: More COCOTery In-Reply-To: message from mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu > Perhaps more "real people" should be investing in COCOTs as a way to > turn around the market abuses. Economic theory would suggest that an > correctly programmed phone charging competitive rates placed next to > an incorrectly programmed one charging much higher rates would be more > successful. Thus, the abusive telephone would see a drop in traffic > and revenue, which should cause the owner to reform their errant ways. As you say, "economic THEORY"!! That assumes the general public is even aware that there's a difference in the two side-by-side phones. I don't believe that is the case. I suspect the majority of the people who use the phone system think in terms of "_THE_ phone company", and equate that phrase to some string containing the word "Bell". Casual conversations with a number of folks indicate (to me) that aside from the readers of this group, a "very knowledgeable" individual is one who knows that there is more than one L/D carrier available. I also think that if the "general public" were aware of what is really happening, the problem would not be COCOTs and their operators, but more likely, a rash of lynchings and organized vandalism! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 10:59:04 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: More COCOTery Telecom readers might be interested in the following, related to the recent COCOT discussion: Since Telecom participants kindly provided the 800 numbers to call to request the various flavors of AT&T catalogs, I did so, getting the consumer-goods catalog at home, the big-business datacomm catalog here at work, and the small-business "Sourcebook" using my wife's former business name. In the latter, on pages 106-7, AT&T sells COCOTs. They definitely appeal to greed; the main illustration is a fiendishly-grinning man pulling a box overflowing with quarters out of his own (presumably :-) "AT&T Private Pay Phone Plus". For those that care, this phone costs $995 (plus backboard or enclosure, at various prices and styles). The latest rates downloaded into the phone costs $110 yearly for monthly updates, or $60 bi-monthly. (There's no mention of how the initial rates get loaded if you don't buy this service.) One interesting footnote indicates that there must be COCOT-free areas in the country -- I don't recall ever seeing this mentioned in the Digest. "Legal restrictions prevent the sale of Private Pay Telephones to customers in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Oklahoma." So does that mean that there are no COCOTs in those states? Or does it actually indicate that only the telcos within those states can sell COCOTs, or something else? Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge MA Date: 10 Oct 90 10:50:58 EDT (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <13206@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >In attempting to use my MCI card by dialing 950-1022 from a certain COCOT >I got a COCOT recording telling me to deposit 25 cents for the first >three minutes. Around here, I've walked up to more than one COCOT, dialed 950-1022, and been advised to "deposit nine dollars, and ninety five cents, for the first one minute." Perish forbid their AOS should lose even one overpriced call. Does anyone know offhand whether the Mass. DPU has any COCOT rules? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 10:56:01 PDT Date: 12 Oct 90 17:55:59 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Yes, 950 calls are supposed to be free of charge to > the caller. They are sort of like 800 numbers; the charge for the > call is paid by the OCC you are using to route your call. I was told by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission that COCOTs could legally charge for 800 calls. I asked about this because of the 800 access to US Sprint with a FON-Card. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Ask them for a written copy. To charge the caller for an 800 number makes two people pay for the call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 11:18:40 EDT From: "B. S. Oplinger" Subject: Re: Improved COCOT Sticker Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center I looked in the telecom-archives directory for the file cocot.complaint.sticker and could not find it. Am I doing something wrong? brian oplinger@crd.ge.com [Moderator's Note: It was a little delayed in getting placed in the archives, but it is there now. Sorry. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 10:52:53 PDT From: Christopher Gillett Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File In article <13145@accuvax.nwu.edu> Tad Cook writes: >Maybe you could dial 9-1-1 and say "oops ... wrong number!", or maybe >"Telephone Man! Just checking the line!". >[Moderator's Note: I do not encourage you to imposter an employee of >the telephone company 'just checking the line'. If you must call, just >say you are checking to see if 911 is permitted on the line, and >vacate quickly. But, see earlier replies in this thread. Given the As an individual who has worked as a volunteer to various emergency services organizations (fire dept and civil defense), I must strenuously object to the practices described by Tad and PAT. 911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies ONLY and should never be called unless there is truly a crisis. In many areas, dialing 911 (or the equivalent) when there is not actually an emergency is illegal. And while the chance that an unnecessary call will foul something up, or slow something down are admittedly remote, why take the chance? Also, many dispatch outfits will roll at least a police car if they suspect "something fishy" (like maybe somebody trying to attract the attention of the police without giving away that they are actually calling them. Yup, that sounds like something out of James Bond, but it's happened before and probably will again). Why risk a patrol officers life by making him or her drive to a pay phone (at a higher than usual rate of speed), just because you decided to play "wrong number" games with the dispatcher. I consider erroneous calls to 911 nearly as bad as pulling an alarm box just for fun. It's unnecessary, wasteful of resources, dangerous for the ES people, and potentially very costly. I understand the frustration with COCOTs, and I've had unpleasant encounters with several in my travels. But, as much as they are a hassle, my feeling is that they should never, ever be disabled, or made to appear as though they are not in service simply because they don't meet regulatory specs, or because they charge lots 'o dollars to use them. If there's an emergency and I find a COCOT, I don't care if it costs a quarter, or even a dollar, so long as I can get somebody to help by reaching 911, or an operator, or even somebody else who can call for help for me. Let's look at this from a different angle. Suppose, for a moment, that one of you overzealous, frustrated, wanna-be-regulators slaps a sticker over a working COCOT because it won't let you dial until you stick in a quarter. Some unfortunate soul runs up to it to call 911 to report the massive coronary he just witnessed taking place. This fellow sees the out of order sign, and since he doesn't have time to read all the fine print, goes off in search of another phone. And let's just suppose that this fine out of order sign means that it takes an extra two minutes to get the EMTs rolling. If the stricken individual died, and a relative found out that a delayed response contributed substantially to his demise, *and* found out that the delay was caused by one of these phony Out of Order stickers, then the relative would be right to track the lot of you down and sue all of you,as well as the COCOT operator, and anybody else involved. (I can see a sharp rattlesnake bringing suit against anybody acknowledging participation in this "stickering" by alleging some sort of "conspiracy". It probably wouldn't stand up in court, but it could well make your life miserable, cost you a bunch for your own rattlesnake, and net the plaintiff's attorney a ton of free publicity), Yes, COCOTs are a pain. Yes, many do not meet regulatory specification. Yes, something should be done about it. If you want to sticker the phone, then make up a polite sticker, designed to get attention, that doesn't block the coin slot or render the phone totally inoperative. The sticker should ask the reader to not use this telephone and give reasons why. That way, when Joe Passerby wants to call home to say he'll be late for dinner, he might think twice before using the phone. But when urgent help is needed, there's at least a chance that somebody will make the damned thing work enough to get assistance. Just my $0.02 (well, ok $0.50). Usually lurking, Christopher Gillett gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Hudson, Taxachusetts (508) 568-7172 Semiconductor Engineering Group/Logic Simulation Group Disclaimer: Ken Olsen speaks for Digital...I speak for me! ------------------------------ From: amb@ai.mit.edu Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 03:35:59 EDT Subject: COCOT Labels and COCOTS (and Bell phones) in NYC A point to consider: C&P Tel and New York Tel (Bell SOP?) put nasty yellow stickers over the coin slot of non-working phones, although most can still call 911; they at least would seem to deem the 911 thing a non-problem. And here's something else for you COCOT/911 obsessionists: A COCOT that I've always had a particularly hostile relationship with (closest public phone to my house by about 0.5 miles) apparently offered absolutely no way of reaching a real carrier. Until one day I needed to call 911 from it, which connected me to a New York Telephone operator. Go figure. [And a digression on the state of public telephones in New York.] The usual cause of out-of-order Bell phones, at least around here, is that the digestive tract of the phones, for some scam or another, is non-functional. The new model that NY Tel uses can be enabled to lock up the coin slot when the coin return knob is turned; I believe that they can and will do this *remotely* if someone reports problems, as I've seen many a phone with the metal bar blocking the coin path which sprouted a yellow sticker a few days later. (On a few occasions I've turned the coin return knob, which brings out the metal shield, and heard a metallic *chonk* from the guts of the phone, whereupon it stayed shut.) The coin phones in Grand Central station were at one point being disabled on an almost daily basis for various scams involving getting clueless commuters to drop their cash in a dead phone and then using some special technique to get it out. Luckily, New York City has an *incredible* number of NY Tel public phones. They quote the approximate population somewhere in their ads but I've missed it -- everything from the latest AT&T models to old (WECo?) three slot models. (Well, I found one in the basement of a very old building, in perfect working order with the latest info pacards.)) Manhattan -- a few COCOTS per block, a few Bell phones per square yard. (Most COCOTS, actually, seem to get destroyed very fast. The same is somewhat true of the Bell phones, but repair service is great.) ------------------------------ From: "Gordon C. Zaft" Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 09:11:11 PDT Organization: NSWSES Code 4Y33 - Opinions: Are Mine Alone Subject: COCOTs and the CA PUC I called the 800 number for the California PUC on Tuesday 10/9 and asked for information about the recent ruling on COCOTs. After a little delay I got a very helpful woman who held me on the line while she xeroxed a copy of the press release for me and then took my address and promised to send it right out. It took me a couple times before I got through. At any rate, I'm waiting until I get the press release and read it over before I go out on a COCOT hunt. Gordon Zaft zaft@suned1.nswses.navy.mil NSWSES, Code 4Y33 suned1!zaft@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5007 Phone: (805) 982-0684 FAX: 982-8768 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 16:17:46 EDT From: Bob Stratton Subject: COCOT Tariffs in DC/MD/VA This morning I went on a quest for COCOT tariffs for the Washington DC Metropolitan area. What I learned was somewhat surprising... I called the Washington DC PSC (Public Service Commission), and asked for the COCOT tariffs - they told me they'd mail them the same day. I had similar luck with the Maryland state PUC. They, too, told me they'd drop them in the mail. I called the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and was told that COCOT vendors must follow the coin station tariffs for the applicable RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Company), and that they would cost me $1.00 per page (21 pages). I then called C&P Telephone (tm) [A Bell Atlantic company], and spoke to the coin phone service people, who gave me an 800 number just for COCOT information. When I called these people, as a potential COCOT vendor (It pained me - the things one must go through for enlightenment...) the CSR told me that he'd send me the whole information packet, which contains the tariffs for DC/MD/VA/WV, and it wouldn't cost me a cent. Does it seem like the Virginia SCC is in bed with the RBOC, or just incredibly lazy?! I called the C&P business office asking where I could view the tariffs, and had to wait on hold for ten minutes while a confused rep checked - only to be informed that I must make an appointment, or they wouldn't show them to me! So much for informed consumers and regulation. Bob Stratton | dsc3rjs@nmdsc{20 | 10}.nmdsc.nnmc.navy.mil [Internet] Stratton Systems Design | dsc3rjs@vmnmdsc.BITNET [BITNET only, please!] | +1 703 823 MIND [PSTNet] Disclaimer: The above opinions are mine alone - Who else would want them? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #731 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19138; 13 Oct 90 14:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18519; 13 Oct 90 12:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31100; 13 Oct 90 11:29 CDT Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 10:40:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #732 BCC: Message-ID: <9010131040.ab27777@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Oct 90 10:40:04 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 732 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Macy Hallock] Re: Ringing Nuisance [William Degnan] Re: Ringing Nuisance [Tad Cook] Re: MCI Mail Raises Rates [Sandy Kyrish] Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [John Higdon] Re: ISDN Translations [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Norman Yarvin] Re: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1 [Raymond Koverzin] Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages [Don Alvarez] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [John David Galt] Re: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 [Walter Doerr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 21:29 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 >Mr. Churchfield's Confession tells me that COCOTs are a bad deal for >all: utility, owner/operator, and customer. So once again I ask the >question: who was supposed to benefit and how in the matter of COCOTs? Hmmm... I am certainly no fan of COCOT's. I cannot agree with the conclusions John draws from the facts presented, though. What conclusions would we reach if we applied the same arguments to the AT&T break-up? At one time, the local telco and the sole provider of long haul services used the same argument in an attempt to convince the world that competition would raise costs and damage the network. As most of us have already noticed, the U.S. telephone network still works... So, what is different here? Why are COCOT's, after politicians, the bane of the telecom user? To continue with the same analogy: What completed the tranformation of the US network to successful competition in long distance market, to the beneift of all users (large and small), was the introduction of equal access. This created a level enough playing field that 1+ services compete. In theory, at least, all carriers pay the same rates to the telcos and receive the same services. Once the carriers completed the construction of their networks, and the telcos installed equal access, true competition emerged. In the COCOT business, this is not the case. Ever tried to get answer supervision or Coin Trunk services from a telco? They give it to their own phones, but not on COCOT lines. Ever wonder why AT&T has not entered the COCOT business except in very high traffic locations where high volumes of credit card calling exists (like airports)? They can't get decent, equal coin trunk services from the telcos either. IMHO, COCOT's won't be practical until the CO based coin services are made available to all paying customers. I think the telcos could find this quite profitable if they could only change their monopoly-based way of thinklng. Note: I have intentionally not gone into technical detail concerning the operation of coin trunks and other CO type services. I have also omitted discussion of the cost of back-hauling calls and credit card database access. This has been done to keep this posting to a reasonable length. I'm sure we can cover these topics in some detail on follow up postings. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 12:16:19 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Ringing Nuisance On Matt Simpson (SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu ) writes: MS>Ever since my CO cut over to an ESS (I don't know what model), I MS>have occasionally been awakened by a brief jingle of my phone's ringer MS>at about 6 AM. At first, I assumed it was an unwanted side-effect of MS>their nightly testing, and just ignored it, thinking they would MS>eventually fix the problem. MS>...how I can prevent this ringing, or how I can persuade South Central MS>Bell that is something they can and should fix? This is an easy one. You opened a trouble ticket months ago. They haven't fixed it. Send a letter to the business office outlining your attempts to get them to stop their test on your line. Request out-of-service credit from the date you first reported the problem. You might consider if you wish to CC: Public Service Commission, 730 Schenkel Lane, P.O. Box 615, Frankfort, KY 40602. 502 564-3940. (You _are_ in Kentucky, aren't you?) Sometimes you can get better results when you only talk _about_ the Commission to the telco. So it might be better not to involve them until you decide that you have run out of options. The Commission might be kind enough to send you a copy of any requirement that you receive out-of-service credit for unresolved troubles. 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!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 [Moderator's Note: But as the next message indicates, this may not really be a telco problem, and he may not get backing from the Commission at all. It might be that equipment on his side of the demarc is malfunctioning: telco has no obligation to correct that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Ringing Nuisance Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 22:28:47 PDT In article <13161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: > Ever since my CO cut over to an ESS (I don't know what model), I have > occasionally been awakened by a brief jingle of my phone's ringer at > about 6 AM. > Short of unplugging my phones at night, does anyone have any idea how > I can prevent this ringing, or how I can persuade South Central Bell > that is something they can and should fix? The CO doesn't actually put ringing voltage on your line. But your phone is seeing a sudden change in DC voltage, and is mis-interpreting that as ringing voltage. This is similar to the problem where you have a rotary dial extension telephone which causes other phones on the line to ring slightly while it is being dialed. This is called "bell tap", and should not happen in properly designed ringers. Unfortunately, many manufacturers don't test for belltap anymore. But a solution would be to find phones that are not bothered by belltap. I have noticed the same ringing from my 5ESS in the wee hours, but it only happens on my one phone that is belltap sensitive. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 07:59 EST From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: MCI Mail Raises Rates I *don't* work for MCI. But I am not very upset about the raised mailbox rate (o.k., a little). MCI Mail is now a much more value-added service than it was when it was free. If you don't use it much, it can be steep. But if you do, you can take advantage of these features: easy gatewaying into just about every other e-mail service (Internet, etc.) (how do you think I get TD?), a gateway into Dow-Jones News Retrieval, fax-out capability (a real lifesaver for me when I didn't have a fax. I made several transmissions to Australia by fax and considered the few dollars I paid VERY reasonable). I also have used it to upload magazine articles to editors. A feature lets you tag each message with a code so you can see where you spent your money every month, or charge back expenses. In fact, I closed down my ATTMail box a few months ago because I realized that MCI Mail could consolidate all my e-mail traffic. Sure, I'd like the mailbox fee to go away, but then I'd like CompuServe to be free, to not pay $33/mo. for metropolitan area calling, etc. MCI Mail is a good value for regular users. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted Date: 12 Oct 90 10:32:08 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon On Oct 12 at 0:55, Brian Jay Gould writes: > I can now get ANI (NJBell calls it CLASS service) at my home. Gentle Reader: Miss Etiquette hates to pick nits, but the reason NJ Bell calls it CLASS is because that is what it is. ANI (Automatic Number Identification) was developed in the 1950s for the purpose of ticketing calls made over the DDD network. Any switch on the face of the planet can be adapted for ANI. CLASS, on the other hand, is relatively new technology requiring SS#7 signaling between participating offices. Among its many features is the infamous Caller-ID. While there has been some interchanging of these terms on this forum, it would be well to realize that ANI and Caller-ID are not one and the same. 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: ISDN Translations Date: 12 Oct 90 20:46:31 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <13266@accuvax.nwu.edu>, paul@hpsciz.sc.hp.com (Paul Mooney) writes: >While looking into some ISDN "stuff" I ran into the following acronyms >for which I would like "translations." Any help would be appreciated. >1. SMDS Switched Multi-Megabit Data Service. A Bellcore invention, not really part of ISDN. It's a public network _connectionless_ service, using the 802.6 (DQDB) MAC protocol but with E.164 (ISDN) addresses. Initially definied data rates are 44 Mbps (T3) and 1.5 Mbps (T1), but then there's a lot of overhead so your mileage may vary. > a. DQDB Distributed Queue Dual Bus. The name of the IEEE 802.6 protocol, based on the development of QPSX Inc. of Perth, Western Australia but with a lot of changes in committee. It's a Metropolitan Area Network MAC protocol, media-independent but aimed at the 30-150 Mbps range. It offers packet and circuit (isochronous) bandwidth. > b. MSS MAN Switching System. The name of an SMDS network node, a connectionless packet switch using the 802.6 protocol for access lines. > c. IMSSI Inter-MSS-Interface. The circuits between MSSs, enabling a multi-switch SMDS network to be built. It's all defined in some Bellcore TAs, like TA-TSY-000772. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Norman Yarvin Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Date: 12 Oct 90 22:58:48 GMT djb@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (David Brightbill) writes: >The door latches and stays locked until a fire or >police person responds to the call and lets the citizen out. So if the call to the fire department is for real, the caller gets roasted while waiting, and if it's a false alarm, the vandal must destroy the booth on his way out. >One benefit is for folks being attacked by muggers. They can >pop into a kiosk and hang out till help comes. A very low percentage of muggings occur within a few feet of a phone booth. For those that do, a simple door latch would work as well. ------------------------------ From: Raymond Koverzin Subject: Re: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1 Date: 8 Oct 90 17:38:15 GMT Organization: Northern Telecom, Mtn. View, CA In article <12658@accuvax.nwu.edu>, vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) writes: >In article <12606@accuvax.nwu.edu> David Gurevich writes: >>specs called the Switch - to - Computer API (SCAI). SCAI would >>provide common ground for any host to communicate to with any >>switch. Nothern Telecom have an interface of this type now; >>Meridian Link. >AT&T, Mitel and others have them too. All are incompatable. >IBM have a tool box called CIT (Computer Integrated Telephony) for the >AS/400. DEC have a similiar offering. CIT is actually an offering from DEC. I used to work at Mitel on the switch-to-computer link Mitel calls, Host Command Interface (HCI). We were working with DEC to help them define the application interface for CIT, which was for their VAX minis. I believe IBM's version is called Callpath. Raymond Koverzin ------------------------------ From: Don Alvarez Subject: Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages Date: 12 Oct 90 21:16:08 GMT Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey In article <13271@accuvax.nwu.edu> FREE0612@uiucvmd (David Lemson) writes: >the strange occurence is that sometimes we'd find a message on >the answering machine consisting of a ring or so and my dad's voice >mail message. Then, the standard "If you'd like to leave a message, >press one ..." message and the answering machine timed out on the >silence from the other end. Pretty weird, huh? What's happening is: Someone (probably from your dad's office) tries to reach him at his office. Your dad's voice mail picks up. The person says "drat... maybe he's at home", and tries your dad's house. The answering machine picks up at the house, and the caller says "double drat." and decides to talk to your dad tomorrow, never having actually spoken to either machine ("drat" is a non-verbal expression). Why do you get the weird recordings? The person calling your dad has a phone system which supports call forwarding. Call forwarding on this system is activated by calling a number, "flashing" the switch hook (ie hanging up briefly), calling a second number, and either "flashing" the hook a second time for three-way calling or hanging up permanently to perform a call transfer. The person making the calls obviously doesn't understand how their phone works, and is unknowingly transferring calls right and left (and probably doing accidental threeway calls on a regular basis as well). don alvarez ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 22:02:59 PDT I have also gotten some annoying sales calls from the Mercury, though not lately. At least they seem to obey the law against having a computer initiate the call, without a human being talking to you first. There are several companies, including one in San Jose, which are still flouting this law and appear to be getting away with it. It occurs to me that many of us could creatively define our terminating equipment as "computers," and sue these people under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (a law which deals with the unauthorized use of other people's computers, among other things). I'm not a lawyer but would like to see this notion tested in front of a jury. ------------------------------ From: Walter Doerr Subject: Re: Australian Area Code 14 or 014 Date: 13 Oct 90 10:58:30 GMT Organization: infodn, Dueren, West Germany In article <13105@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) wrote: > I tried dialing 011-61-14112 from the U.S., and the call was > intercepted (could not be completed as dialed) before leaving the U.S. Either the phone company implemented International Sleazeball Blocking (tm) or the call didn't go through because the number was not complete. I found similar numbers on the Video/Teletext pages of the German TV station 'SAT 1', offering a dial-a-horoscope type of service. The numbers given were 0061-14-112-xx, where xx are two digits corresponding to your sign. xx is in the 52-75 range, but 85 is used too. > And from a little further back in this Digest, I had 0014-881-877 > listed for Sprint access from within Australia. This number is dialable from Germany as 0061-14-881-887. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #732 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26832; 13 Oct 90 22:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30054; 13 Oct 90 20:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20159; 13 Oct 90 19:51 CDT Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 19:27:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #733 BCC: Message-ID: <9010131927.ab08821@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Oct 90 19:26:47 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 733 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation" [Jeff Carroll] Re: Identifying Old Phone(s) [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: SMDR Device for 1A2/Single Line [John Stanley] Re: A New Way to Get Slammed [John David Galt] Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Clayton Cramer] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Arthur S. Kamlet] Re: More COCOTery [John Higdon] Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [John Higdon] Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages [Christine K. Paustian] Re: Conferencing of International Calls [Steve Elias] Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Sander J. Rabinowitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation" Date: 11 Oct 90 05:41:04 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12849@accuvax.nwu.edu> dgc@math.ucla.edu writes: >In TELECOM Digest, V10, No. 693, Roger Clark refers to new FCC >regulations concerning inside wirng rules and, in particular, refers >to "the point of demarcation" between the telco's wiring and the >subscriber's wiring. >Does the FCC require that there be such a point of demarcation? I >live in GTE country and neither I, nor my neighbors, have such a >point. Does this point (which I assume is a modular jack and plug) >have to be accessible without entering the subscriber's premises, or >at least without passing through a locked gate or door? I am served by US West. The only feature I have in my wiring which could be called a "point of demarcation" is a small terminal block on the inside wall of my garage, covered by a neoprene boot which says "Bell System" on it. Clearly no one has been out to install a "point of demarcation" or any other wiring at my house since long before the MFJ - possibly not since Judge Greene was in law school. Remember, the "point of demarcation" was brought to us by the same brilliant legal minds who gave us the law against listening to cellular telephone transmissions, which made most of us who own TV sets criminals. In my case, that point coincides with a well-identifiable point inside my house - other people may not be so "lucky". Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: 11-OCT-1990 15:40:37.65 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: Identifying Old Phone(s) [In response to a post by RHOOVER@ibm.com, asking if there was any guide to old telephone designs/types]: Roger- I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I have two "picture charts" from Western Electric which have a pictoral history of the many new phone designs introduced by the Bell System from the early 1900s to the 1970s. (Actually, one goes up to 1969 or so, and the other was a modernized remake of the first chart with numerous changes which was issued in 1976 for the Bell System Centennial [I think that was in '76...]) Both have a good deal of info besides the pictures, and some interesting photos of early picturephones (I think the 1969 one has the model "I" picturephone, while the 1976 one has a more modern "II" (or "III") issue). There are also panel phones, a "home interphone system" (which was still available in 1982!) with separate speakers which you could place at your front door, early multi-line business phones, Call-Director sets, touch-tone phones with only 10 buttons (they didn't seem to have the "*" or the "#" when the photos were taken, although by 1969 I thought this was standard...), and in the 1976 version, they had a Mickey-Mouse (I THINK) Design-Line phone, which you could go buy at your nearest Bell Phone Center store. Note that this is only for Western Electric equipment, no Northen Telecom stuff or ITT (although ITT generally copied a LOT of AT&T designs, it would seem...). So they won't have some of the newer Bell Canada stuff like the "trimline" phone that is sort of squarish (I can't recall the name of it now ... they make a big deal about it in the back of the Toronto telephone directory in a section about Bell Canada's achievements). I MAY be able to shrink it down and make copies if anyone would like one, but I'm not sure ... It is quite large (poster sized), and I'm not sure how well the color will be converted to black and white. If anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll see what I can do ... (maybe I can just FAX it in sections? :-) ) Perhaps your local telco still has a few of these things around. They used to hand them out at "Open Houses" to show how great the Bell System is (errr ... unfortunately I mean "was"), and since the local Bells are no longer the "Bell System" anymore, perhaps they have a few that they no longer have a need for. I dunno ... it may be worth a try. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Subject: Re: SMDR Device for 1A2/Single Line From: John Stanley Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 21:33:59 EDT Organization: One Man Banned JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > I hopped over the nearest RS store (across the street !) and lo and > behold, they had it as a 'managers special' (i.e. unadvertised) for > $79.99, down from $ 99.99. I checked the latest catalog and couldn't > find it listed there. Based upon some past experience with another > phone attachment (43-233, Multiline controller for 1A2 system), this > suggests it is being removed from the market and they are starting to > clear stocks. Will probably wait a while and see how far it comes down If this is the device I think it is, it was removed from this area many months ago. The story I got from the RS salesman was that this thing has a single chip controller that is prone to die and the only way to fix it is to replace the entire unit. I haven't seen one lately, though I haven't been looking. He didn't have any, nor did anybody else in the area. They were going for 50% or less. I also seem to remember that I first heard about this box from TELECOM Digest, but I don't have the archives to check. It might have been a different news group altogether. ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: A New Way to Get Slammed Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 22:55:05 PDT John Higdon (john@bovine.att.com) writes: >People would have these features for years >without even knowing anything about them. It came to light when people >began calling repair service claiming that their conversations would >be interrupted with clunks and beeps. >Pac*Bell was ordered to remove the services and retroactively refund >to any and all who came forward after a media blitz. Another >outcropping of that incident was the requirement that all monthly >residence bills contain a detailed listing of the monthly charges. I saw the same news stories I think you did, but I read them more carefully. No one got service they hadn't asked for, but lots of telemarketing calls were made to offer Custom Calling -- and a few elderly people thought they said "customer calling" or some such thing and agreed to it without understanding it. I don't like this kind of aggressive marketing, but it is possible (and one would assume) that the marketing people did not intend to deceive anyone. I wonder if the costs of these customers' stupidity wound up in my rates? ------------------------------ From: Clayton Cramer Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities Date: 13 Oct 90 18:28:20 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <13278@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djb@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (David Brightbill) writes: > One technology which has been experimented with to solve the pay phone > false alarm problem is a fire alarm kiosk which a user has to enter > and close the door. The door latches and stays locked until a fire or > police person responds to the call and let's the citizen out. There > are a ton of obvious disadvantages having to do with civil liberty, > etc. One benefit is for folks being attacked by muggers. They can > pop into a kiosk and hang out till help comes. If memory serves, the > kiosks were tried in a large NE city about four or five years ago. I'm told that Citibank Automated Teller Machines had such an arrangement at one time in NYC, for the obvious reason that ATMs attract thieves. However, telephone booths are not made of bulletproof glass -- and if I were calling the police to report a major felony in progress, I would want at least that minimal level of protection. Of course, there's always gasoline and a match, which may make even bulletproof glass rather irrelevant. Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 16:06:07 EDT From: Arthur S Kamlet Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio > |You can also call 1-800-666-6258. This gives you a lot of advertising > |bla-bla AND your phone no. I called this number from Columbus, Ohio (area code 614) and got the following message: "The 800 number you have dialed, 800 666-6258, has been changed. The new number is 817 877 5629 ... VTKE" I guess too many of us were calling the 800 number. Art Kamlet a_s_kamlet@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 13 Oct 90 12:36:01 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon On Oct 13 at 10:08, Will Martin writes: > One interesting footnote indicates that there must be COCOT-free areas > in the country -- I don't recall ever seeing this mentioned in the > Digest. "Legal restrictions prevent the sale of Private Pay Telephones > to customers in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Oklahoma." Yes, indeed, there are no COCOTs in these states. How do they get away with it, since it comes down from Federal regulation on high? I don't know. Perhaps someone can tell us how these states, in their infinite wisdom, are allowed to protect citizens from the scourge of mankind when those of us in reputedly more progressive states have to suffer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Date: 13 Oct 90 13:01:30 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Macy Hallock writes: > At one time, the local telco and the sole provider of long haul > services used the same argument in an attempt to convince the world > that competition would raise costs and damage the network. But COCOTs cannot be compared to competition in the long haul services arena. If I choose Sprint as my IEC, I deal with Sprint. Sprint does not resell AT&T and mark up the price, it sells me its own LD service and may actually be cheaper. It may even be better. THAT's competition. > So, what is different here? Why are COCOT's, after politicians, the > bane of the telecom user? A COCOT on the other hand, resells me Pac*Bell for local calls (I used to be able to get it directly with a Pac*Bell payphone), and resells me AT&T, Sprint, or Fred's Ripoff AOS (giving me no choice in the matter -- unlike a Pac*Bell phone) and marks the price way up. And unlike a Pac*Bell phone, a COCOT guesses at supervision and always guesses wrong at an unanswered cellular call, since there is a recording telling you that the unit is unavailable. Twenty cents down the drain. In addition, I can't shop because of physical location and convenience restraints. > What completed the tranformation of the US network to successful > competition in long distance market, to the beneift of all users > (large and small), was the introduction of equal access. Yes, I agree. But there is no movement afoot anywhere to bring this to COCOTs. Equal access was a cornerstone of the MFJ; it is a dirty word to the sisters Bell when applied to COCOTs. Unless COCOTs can get coin service from the telco, they will always be garbage. There are those in Pac*Bell who tell me that the COCOT owners/operators want coin lines about as much as an IRS audit. Because of the nature of the beast, a lot of the control of a coin phone goes back to the telco CO. This means less gouging on calls, less "accidental" collection on incompleted calls, no intraLATA bypass, or any of the other shenanigans that COCOT owners have as a trademark. No, coin COS lines are not popular on either side of the asile. > IMHO, COCOT's won't be practical until the CO based coin services are > made available to all paying customers. I think the telcos could find > this quite profitable if they could only change their monopoly-based > way of thinklng. I agree, but don't hold your breath. When neither the supplier nor the customer (COCOT owners) want something, its chances of becoming reality are dim. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: ckp@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 12:36:53 PDT On the subject of peculiar responses by telephones and voice-mail services, I have an ongoing situation with my office audix mailbox and my home phone. Whenever I call into my audix from home to check messages, it calls me back after I hang up. Never says a thing - dead air - but the phone will ring (you can bet on it) as soon as I hang up the receiver. *WHAT* makes this happen? Christine K. Paustian ckp@cup.portal.com Los Numeros On-Line sun!portal!cup.portal.com!ckp PO Box 149 1:272/39 FidoNet Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 Where Radio Is Fun Again ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Re: Conferencing of International Calls Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 09:04:57 -0400 From: Steve Elias In the interests of "equal time", I'd like to point out that ATT's Alliance Teleconferencing is not the only LD carrier conferencing service. Sprint has such a service, and MCI probably does too. eli ------------------------------ Reply-To: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" Subject: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? Date: 12 Oct 90 16:45:51 EDT (Fri) From: sjr@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Sander J. Rabinowitz) I am trying to find out more about AT&T Mail, in view of the fact that MCI Mail is raising its rates. I called AT&T Customer Service to see if I could talk to someone regarding this, and I got transferred to three different departments, all of whom never heard of AT&T Mail! One rep thought I was talking about fax machines, while a second rep thought I was looking for an answering machine! Was I way off base in thinking AT&T Mail was a direct alternative to MCI Mail? And if not, is there a number I can call to find out more about AT&T Mail? Thanks in advance. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- sjr@mcimail.com | =) [Moderator's Note: AT&T Mail is a direct, and very good alternative to MCI Mail, although AT&T apparently does not really want any new customers or anyone asking for information since they keep their Customer Information Center employees in the dark about it and they don't give any information about it to their (long distance service) Customer Service people either. To be certain that no one reaches them -- you know how much of a nuisance a potential customer can be! -- they keep their 800 number out of the data base (555-1212 has no info on it) and 201-555-1212 doesn't list it either. We went through this once before, and they said they would 'fix' the problem with their phone listings, but you know how that goes. The user's manual I have does not contain any address, but it does admit to one phone number for AT&T Mail: 800-624-5672 if you look through the book long enough (I have the 1986 version). You can also use the MCI Mail gateway to write to !atthelp at AT&T Mail. Its a shame when I have to do their public relations for them, isn't it! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #733 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05480; 14 Oct 90 4:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24158; 14 Oct 90 2:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23322; 14 Oct 90 0:56 CDT Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 0:50:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #734 BCC: Message-ID: <9010140050.ab09134@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Oct 90 00:50:02 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 734 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Choice, and Then a Choice [J. Stephen Reed] GTE/Contel Merger [Mathew Zank] Long Wait Pays Off [Eduardo Krell] MCI's "Consumer Defense Plan" [Carol Springs] Book Review: Loving Little Egypt [RISKS Digest via Jody Kravitz] 900 Scum Targets Local BBS's [W. Patrick Walsh] Looking For Playhouse BBS [Mark Steiger] How Does International Calling "Work"? [Gabe Wiener] Hints For Using Archives Mail Server [Sander J. Rabinowitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 02:54 EST From: "J. Stephen Reed" <0002909785@mcimail.com> Subject: A Choice, and Then a Choice Today (Oct. 12), in the (and, I presume, in other large daily newspapers) there appeared a full-page ad from the Seven Sisters of local telephony. The message from the BOCs read, in part: "America's students could have low-cost access to the nation's leading scholars over existing telephone lines. But government restrictions limit their choice. [Picture of three students standing rapt before a monitor.] "You could have instant access to all kinds of time and money saving services over the telephone. Europeans, for example, have access to advanced electronic yellow pages over the phone on a mini-screen. But government restrictions limit your choice. [Pix of a monitor with French viewtext service displayed.] "DOESN'T AMERICA DESERVE A CHOICE? "[Summary of the argument for allowing BOCs to provide information services and long distance, familiar to most tuning in here.] Let Congress know that you want the right to choose. And, you want it now." Methinks the BOCs doth protest too much. I have no wish to rehash the breakup of the Bell System on here (your Moderator and I have done so for hours on end over Chicago pizza). But I have to wonder how long the BOCs are going to insist on having their many restrictions removed ... yet resist any notion of a removal in law, as well as in fact, of their local monopoly powers. The problem that some raise of duplicating networks and phone numbers under local competition is not a real problem -- beyond getting obstacles out of the way. Bellcore and the ITU can work out details if they are allowed to do so. Some screwy and onerous antitrust laws would have to be discarded, but they ought to be anyway. And there is likely to be tremendous pressure toward one-home-one-number on the part of residential consumers, for few people would live with yet another phone hassle. (Residential service is the only "two numbers" area at issue. Businesses already put up with two systems, in a sense. Have you noticed how little outcry there has been over having to handle fax numbers voice numbers? If businesses can deal with this -- and telex and MCI/AT&T/etc. mail numbers as well -- they'll either absorb handling more than one voice number system or will stampede in the marketplace to what they have now.) Multiple local telco connections to one instrument or PBX may not have been physically possible for most of this century, but the only real thing that stands in its way these days is the local regulatory apparatus. Bandwidth and channel capacity? Two-thirds of the nation has a second cable coming into the house already. Were any of you as impressed as I was by the special edition here by Donald Kimberlin (end of August) and its facts on ending the local dial tone monopoly? The unused capacity on cable TV systems that are is enough for another Bell System network! Why shouldn't they be free to interconnect and resell it? Even if the arguments of T. Vail & Co. for one unified near-monopoly system were justified in the 1910's on technical grounds (I doubt it), they are being undercut more each day. Everything from Motorola's new Iridium satellite system to your cellular phone is undercutting those ideas. I, a telephone non-junkie, can see this. So can the BOCs. And they'll fight to the death under law for power that they are highly unlikely to keep in an open marketplace. At one time there were no phone choices, period. Market pressure and, I admit, overhasty action on Judge Greene's part has opened up choices within the home, or apartment building, and from the CO out to most of the world. The only place we still have monopoly is from the junction box in the basement to the COs. Why must this last segment of the phone network remain a monopoly cast in concrete? If the Seven Sisters let go of the local monopoly -- and admit to it under law, as well as in fact -- they might just get their chance to compete in those lucrative information services. We'd all be better off. Steve Reed Liberty Network, Ltd. * P.O. Box 11296 * Chicago, IL 60611 0002909785@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: Steve is correct about the many discussions we've had 'over pizza', but he forgot to mention how many pitchers of beer were also involved; and that of course has a direct relationship to the lucidity and validity of the arguments presented as the night goes on. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mathew Zank Subject: GTE/Contel Merger Date: 12 Oct 90 07:11:20 GMT Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} Here is the latest news on to GTE/Contel Merger: GTE Corp and Contel Corp said that they made all state and federal regulatory filings the companies say are necessary to complete the annouced merger of the two firms. They also made all the fillings that they believe are required by 16 state PUC's. No news yet on the date which the merger will take place. Matthew Zank - Eau Claire, Wi netcom!zank@apple.com -or- 0003690668@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 14:15:01 EDT Subject: Long Wait Pays Off (extracted from an AP wire) LONG WAIT -- A woman bugged about paying toll charges just to talk to her daughter six miles away has won a 17-year battle to get the phone company to change its rate structure. Thanks to Estelle Simon, New England Tel. on Oct. 19 will eliminate toll charge for calls between neighboring exchanges and reduce rates for other in-state calls. The ruling affects more than 100 exchanges around the state. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: MCI's "Consumer Defense Plan" Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 12:34:38 EDT In the October 12 {Boston Globe} is an article by Lawrence Edelman with the headline "MCI Offers Consumer Defense Plan." According to the article, MCI, the "most often cited" slammer, submitted to the FCC yesterday a five-point plan which "would protect consumers against slamming while preserving competition." Seems that MCI doesn't like AT&T's January proposal to the FCC that would require carriers to get written authorization before switching people -- "this would favor AT&T and inconvenience consumers." (!) Instead, MCI proposes the following (quoted verbatim from the article): o Minimum disclosures in all telephone sales calls, including the name and company of the sales representative and a warning that the call could result in a change in long-distance service. o Monitoring procedures to assure that telephone sales representatives adhere to approved procedures. o Verification of all switches by someone independent of the sales force. o Free and convenient return to the original long- distance carrier in the case of slamming. o Audits by independent firms of sales procedures. The article also mentions that at least 100,000 people were slammed by some carrier or other last year. Since that figure would represent only those customers who noticed and decided to do something about it, I'd reason that the actual numbers are much higher. Guess MCI is looking for a new reputation as consumer advocate. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 08:58:37 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Book Review: Loving Little Egypt I saw this in comp.risks. It seemed relevant: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 15:34:11 PDT From: dick@ccnext.ucsf.edu (Dick Karpinski) Subject: Loving Little Egypt - phone freaks In Loving Little Egypt (ISBN 0 14 00.9331 1), the protagonist is a weak sighted boy who discovers vulnerabilities in the in-band signalling of the early dial telephone network. This delightful tale includes episodes of interaction with Bell, Edison, Tesla and others in a quest to improve the security of the phone system. Comparisons with Morris come readily to mind. The interactions among the blind phone freaks also invite comparison with the Whole Earth Review article on the facts and people involved by the Secret Service in Operation Sun Devil. This book uses science and technology as major plot elements, which seems to be a major problem for folks like the operatives in Sun Devil. The risks involved here range from technical vulnerabilities to serious loss of freedoms due to heavy handed tactics by uncomprehending agents of law enforcement organizations. Dick ------------------------------ Subject: 900 Scum Targets Local BBS's Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 16:50:05 EDT From: "W. Patrick Walsh" Well, the 900 scum have found the world of local BBS's to advertise on. When I was looking around on a local system here in MA, I ran across the below message. Since most BBS's in this area are hosts to a large number of children, no doubt the operators of this service are targeting kids to call this number. (And you'll note there is no "Children - get your parent's permission..." in this text...) ----- Begin Forwarded Text Hello, I have a question for you. How many times have you wished you didn't have to go to work today? Maybe you have wanted to stay home and call all the boards around. Could be that you wanted to go to your favorite store and buy whatever interested you. Maybe you wanted to go fishing or play a round of golf or whatever. If you're anything like me, you've probably felt like that about three or four times a week. Well, I believe I've found a way to get that option and I'd like to share it with you. Right now there are hundreds of people making thousands of dollars every month. Working 5 minutes a day and using free 900 telephone numbers. This is so easy it's almost scary. It's all perfectly legal and legitimate. Right now you can capitalize on the latest trend in information marketing. All you need to do is call 1-900-???-???? ext. 740 ($2.00 per min.) for complete information on how to develop and write a message, how to acquire a free 900 telephone number, and how to advertise your 900 number. Don't wait. This is a tremendous chance to have all the financial rewards you know you deserve. --- End Forwarded Text MD [Moderator's Note: I deleted the 900 number which the author had included. No free ads here for such services. Besides, if you have time to make frivilous calls, I'd rather have you calling the courthouse asking for Irnalee, or 202-456-1414 asking if you could speak with George or Barbara. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Date: Sat Oct 13 90 at 17:59:18 (CDT) Subject: Looking For Playhouse BBS I am looking for the number of the Playhouse BBS located in Van Nuys. Anyone on here know what it is? Thanks, [Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud] ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5 UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: How Does International Calling "Work"? Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Fri, 12 Oct 90 23:33:04 GMT With all this talk about international calling, I had a few questions I wanted to ask. Here goes: 1. When a US customer makes a call overseas, does the foreign telco receive any money from the American carrier? And vice versa? 2. When AT&T was divested and other carriers started carrying int'l calls, did every telco around the world then have to accommodate a new set of incoming international trunks? 3. When an international call come IN to the U.S., which carrier carries the call from wherever the cable comes on shore (or the satellite downlink is located) to the customer who may be in another state? And now for a broader question: What is the exact structure of the international telephone system? When a US customer makes a call to some place off the beaten track, say Kuwait, Iraq, or Bhutan, how is the call being routed, generally speaking? Who decides on that routing? And another question: I was recently told that Bhutan was the most recent country to get telephone service. To that end, how does a country installing a national telephone system go about putting itself "online" with the rest of the world? Thanks, Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gabe@ctr.columbia.edu gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 90 12:26:39 EDT (Thu) From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" Subject: Hints For Using Archives Mail Server On October 10, the Moderator wrote (in reference to COCOT labels): >I know some of you cannot access the archives easily ... and I am >reasonably certain Lang does not want to fill all the requests ... so >those of you who can get it from the archives please do so. My message applies to anyone with an MSDOS machine who has gateway access to Internet via MCI Mail (and possibly Compuserve, AT&T Mail, etc. as well) who obtains files by sending an anonymous FTP request to the mail server (MBX: BITFTP@pucc.princeton.edu). I won't repeat the method of doing this, because the Moderator already has a good tutorial on this (see TELECOM special issue, dated 7 September 1990). I have MCI Mail, and what I found that many of my file requests come out OK, but that every once in a while, I get a file that looks like this: >The following line should contain ASCII characters 0x20-0x5F: > !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[¥]^_ >begin 0600 ACCESS.CODES >M1G)O;2! 9&5L=&$N965CM($UO;B!*86X@,C(@,30Z,#0Z-#$@,3DY, I296-E:79E9#H@9G)O;2!-24Y4M > (several hundred lines deleted) This is a UUENCODED file, and it still has to be decoded before the file is readable. (My understanding now is that the Mail Server was attempting to send an 8-bit data file down a 7-bit data path, hence the UUENCODing.) If you have access to CompuServe, go into the UNIXFORUM, and in Library 13 is a file called UU.ZIP. (This is a compressed file--you need a utility called PKUNZIP to decompress it -- available on most MSDOS BBS systems.) Upon decompression, two files are created: UUENCODE.EXE and UUDECODE.EXE. You use the latter program to perform the decoding. Caveats: 1) There is hardly any documentation. 2) The output file has line feeds, but no carriage returns. 3) I cannot predict the results that can occur with any input file. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- sjr@mcimail.com | ==> 8-) <== [Moderator's Note: Thanks for this additional hint in using the Archives mail server. For the majority of our readers who are NOT directly on the Internet, ftp is unavailable. The mail server will work, but as Sander notes, the larger files are now going out uuencoded, and unless your site has the ability to uudecode, you have a problem. In addition to the files he recommends above, you can also get a comprehensive help file by writing to 'bitftp.pucc.princeton.edu' and putting the single word HELP in upper case at the left margin of the first line of text. You'll get back a file that explains how to get into all sorts of interesting archives including the one for telecom at lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #734 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07149; 14 Oct 90 6:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09212; 14 Oct 90 5:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25680; 14 Oct 90 4:02 CDT Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 3:21:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #735 BCC: Message-ID: <9010140321.ab15208@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Oct 90 03:20:55 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 735 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson My Email to Mr. Robert E. Allen and AT&T's Response [Ravinder Bhumbla] Re: International Calling Redlining [Gilbert Amine] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Dan Hepner] Email Addresses: Public? Private? Somewhere in Between? [Wes Morgan] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Joel M. Snyder] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: My Email to Mr. Robert E. Allen and AT&T's Response Date: 12 Oct 90 23:36:01 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego Last week I had posted a message here about the problem I had due to redlining of payphones to prevent calls to certain countries. As a response to my posting, Donald Kimberlin had posted the e-mail address of Mr. Allen. I sent email to Mr. Allen at that address and today I received a call from the local AT&T operator services regarding the message. I was told that I would be hearing from Mr. Allen separately and this call was to address any problems I had. I am posting both my message to Mr. Allen and the AT&T response below. I'll be posting Mr. Allen's response if and when I receive it. (Note: The only change I have made to this message is to delete the actual name and AT&T number of the supervisor I had talked to.) ------My message to Mr. Robert E. Allen----- To: reallen@attmail.com, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: International Calling Redlining from Payphones Reply-To: rbhumbla@ucsd.edu (Ravinder Bhumbla) Dear Mr. Allen, I received your address as a response to a message I had posted on the mailing list Telecom-Digest (Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom). I had tried to place calls to India from payphones in San Diego, California using my AT&T Universal Card and had been unable to complete my calls. I had later tried to find the reason for this by calling the AT&T international information at 1-800-874-4000 on October 4, 1990 from my home phone number (619) 587-8536. Claiming that she did not have any information about this, the operator asked me to contact the long distance operator at 00. Immediately after the above call, I called the long distance operator at 00. The long distance operator, too, claimed that she had no information about it and could not suggest who would have the information either. At her suggestion I decided to talk to her supervisor who she connected me to. The supervisor told me that AT&T had nothing to do with the blocking and it was done "at the request of the country that was being called". To my incredulous reply that I couldn't believe that a country like, say, Liberia could ask them to block calls from a downtown Los Angeles payphone, she replied that "that was their prerogative". At my request, she gave me her name, Mrs. XXXXX (she refused to give me her full name), and her number, ####. As I had doubts about the veracity of the statements of the AT&T supervisor, I posted a message about this to the Telecom-Digest mailing list (which, by the way, is read by more than 30000 people worldwide). While posting my message, the Mdoderator of the list gave his opinion that the information given by the supervisor was incorrect. His opinion was that this "redlining" of payphones to block calls to specific countries was done by the long distance company (AT&T in this case). He was of the opinion that this activity is illegal (as it seems to deny service on the basis of national origin). At the suggestion of another reader, who provided the list with your address I am sending this message to formally request you to provide me information about AT&T's policy on blocking calling card international calls to specific countries. In case the information provided to me by the AT&T supervisor was incorrect, willfully or otherwise, I would like to request you to provide the employee(s) with the correct information and to insure that AT&T subscribers are not misled when they request information from AT&T. In case AT&T *is* responsible for this redlining I wish to protest against this policy and request you to have it withdrawn. You can contact me through e-mail at rbhumbla@ucsd.edu. I can be reached by telephone at (619)587-8536. My mailing address is: Ravinder Bhumbla 8282, Regents Road, #102 San Diego, CA 92122 Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information. Thanking you for your time, Sincerely, Ravinder Bhumbla PS - I am sending a copy of this message to the Moderator of the Telecom-Digest mailing list. I intend to post this message and your response to this to the mailing-list when I receive your response. -------End of my message-------- As a response to this message, which I had e-mailed on Monday, Oct 8, I received a call from the local AT&T operator services today, Friday, Oct 12. I was told that I would be hearing from Mr. Allen separately and this call was to address any problems I had. A summary of our discussion follows: The AT&T representative told me that the supervisor I had talked to earlier had indeed been incorrect. The redlining of payphones to block international calls is done by AT&T and not by the country that is being called. She said that this is done by their security operations when analysis of a particular type of calls shows more loss than revenue. Evidently, San Diego is one of those high fraud areas (frankly I find that hard to digest considering the minuscule size of the Indian population here. I would be willing to bet that they just group all the so-called high-fraud countries together and block either all or none of them). She told me that all the supervisors have been briefed on the correct reason for this redlining, and her excuse for the earlier misinformation was that Mrs. XXXX was inexperienced and was substituting for the regular supervisor. She told me that a way around my problem would be to talk to the supervisor on duty when trying to make international calls. The supervisors have been advised to make their own judgement at the moment whether to override the blocking. She did apologize for this inconvenience to AT&T customers due to fraud by some. She, however, did not mention any plans AT&T had to stop this redlining. Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Office Phone: (619)534-7894 [Moderator's Note: Thank you for passing this along. If Mr. Allen or an associate in his office responds to you, we'd appreciate seeing that response also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 10:00 EST From: Rochelle Communications <0004169820@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: International Calling Redlining I have been following with real interest the discussion on whether IXCs can legally block calling card calls to selected foreign countries, in order to protect themselves from fraud. I want to share my experience with one of the carriers in this regards: I placed the call on my SPRINT FONcard. The call went through OK, but several days later, my FONcard account was no longer valid. I later found out that the vigilant fraud control office at US SPINT, in their infinite wisdom, determined that somebody must have stolen my card, since I have never called Saudi Arabia on my FONcard before!! Uh? US SPRINT eventually re-instated my account. They assured me that this action was taken "in order to protect me", and that they had tried to call me at home to verify the call (but did not leave a message on my answering machine). Gilbert Amine [Moderator's Note: You know who they were trying to protect ... and while I don't cotton to long distance fraud of any carrier, it seems to me they are treading in dangerous legal territory by simply cutting off your card with no notice or warning ... leaving you to accidentally find it out later. What if you had been in a strange city over a holiday weekend and without the means to otherwise make a call? I guess Sprint is not that concerned about inconvenience to their customers when their calling card is disrupted. They've also done this kind of thing (arbitrary cut off of FON Card) to young people traveling around the USA on vacation who were using cards their parents had given them for their well-being. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 17:29:51 pdt From: Dan Hepner Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls >Credit is extended to individuals, based on individual circumstances; >it is not extended to neighborhoods, or groups of people of a certain >ethnic origin. PAT] Imagine you're a merchant offering your own credit, say a jewelry store. Now imagine that a particular form of jewelry, say ruby studded belly button plugs, has one distinction: of 146 ruby studded belly button plugs sold on credit, 143 turned out to be to people who had used falsified credentials. Now you buy RSBBPs for $12.50, and they retail for $900, and that's why you sold 143 to fraudulent customers, but by now you're tired of the ripoff. You advise your staff: no more credit sales of RSBBPs. The next thing you know, out there on Usenet, the moderator of comp.jewelry is griping because he has noticed that the only people who bought RSBBPs were people with holes in their belly buttons, people of the "holey belly button ethnic origin". Discrimination! the moderator screams. You cannot conclude that just because 98% of the previous credit sales of this item were fraudulent that this individual wishing to buy is likely attempting fraud. There are principles involved here! You must complete the transaction regardless of your knowledge. Just pass the costs along to your other customers who do pay their bills. Dan Hepner [Moderator's Note: In your hypothetical example, if 98 percent of the merchandise sold on credit was lost due to fraud, then the merchant did a very poor job of screening persons applying for credit. Can you say Credit Bureau? Do you know what they are used for, and how they operate? If the merchant handed out his credit cards freely to whoever asked for them without bothering to check credit references, or verify the person's address or place of employment, then he should not be surprised at the fraud he suffers. And despite the fraud he suffers due to his careless handling of his credit accounts, there are honest folks who might wish to buy the merchandise and pay for it on convenient terms. If an honest customer reports that his credit card has been lost or stolen -- or otherwise compromised -- then if the merchant makes little or no effort to prevent sales to that account, he should not be surprised at the losses suffered. Unlike the example you gave, where the characteristics of the supposed buyers of the merchandise are so common that they would apply to almost every single human being, it is quite unlikely that most Americans would have any reason or interest in calling a foreign country from a payphone in an ethnic neighborhood. Most calls to such places would be from business telephones or at the very least, private residential telephones. The characteristics of the buyers of international long distance phone service from pay telephones in certain neighborhoods of our inner cities are rather specific. The persons involved are most likely immigrants to the USA from the country involved. If they are in legal possession of a telephone calling card, they should be permitted to use it. If they are not in legal possession of the card, then it should be a simple enough matter to have the network spot the call, and notify a human being who would in turn arrange to have a police officer tap on the person's shoulder as they were standing there making their fraud call. It has happened that way in the past! To the extent that telephone calling cards are defined as instruments of credit, then the rules of the Federal Trade Commission would apply. The FTC has said by all means vigorously prosecute credit fraud. The FTC has also said credit grantors may not block entire categories of people from obtaining credit merely because some creditor-defined ratio of fraud to legitimate transaction has been exceeded. That, after all, is what credit bureaus, check verification and similar services are for: to say who is credit worthy and who is not. Imagine Amex or Diners saying to an Indian or Korean or Israeli that they are not going to honor a given credit transaction because "... people from your country tend to commit fraud a lot...". If Bob Allen -- who has written to the Digest before -- or someone from his office wishes to respond, I'll be privileged to print their letter here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wes Morgan Subject: Email Addresses: Public? Private? Somewhere in Between? Date: 12 Oct 90 20:46:22 GMT Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky After all the discussion about email addresses at AT&T and elsewhere, I thought I'd pass on some information from att.com: One can obtain the email addresses of AT&T employees by several means. If you send email to "lastname@att.com", you receive via return email a listing of all AT&T employees with that last name who have email addresses. "firstname.lastname@att.com" works as well, narrowing your search significantly. Finally, "firstname.middleinitial.lastname@ att.com" returns the email address corresponding to a specific name. This might be a way of deciding whether or not AT&T considers an individual's email address to be "public". If email to "Robert.Allen @att.com" returns a valid email address, I would consider that address to be public information. Wes Morgan, not speaking for | {any major site}!ukma!ukecc!morgan | the University of Kentucky's | morgan@engr.uky.edu | Engineering Computing Center | morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC.BITNET | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 1990 22:16:04 MST From: Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? Interestingly enough, there is an article in {Portable Computing} which showed up on my doorstep today, discussing Email services. (November, 1990 issue, pp. 42) I will include brief excerpts from a well-done table; if you are serious about these services, get it from your library or coerce me to photocopy and mail. ------------- AT&T Mail 800-367-7225 Sign-up $30, includes one year of service, after that $30/year. No fee to read, fee to create. FAX, paper mail, other nifty services. Gateway to Internet. CompuServe Easyplex 800-848-8199 Sign up $40, $1.50/month maintenance, costs based on time connected. FAX, paper mail. Internet gateway. Genie/GE Mail 800-638-9636 Sign up $30, no maintenance fee. Costs based on connect time. paper mail. (Internet gateway unknown) MCI Mail 800-444-6245 (these rates are known to be out-of-date) $25/year fee. Costs based on connect time plus per message fee. FAX, paper mail. Internet gateway. Prodigy 800-822-6922 $50 signup fee (this is wrong, as well. You can get the software plus signed on for free via many PC/Mac publications this and last month). Usage $10/month flat. no other services. Sprint Mail 800-835-3638 $20/year fee. Costs based on connect time plus per message fee. FAX, paper mail, storage fees. (Internet gateway unknown). Western Union Easylink 800-247-1373 $2.50/month fee. No connect fee (depends on network, may be non-zero). Message fees. FAX, mailgram (paper mail). (Internet gateway unknown, but I think it exists, perhaps through DASnet?) Joel M Snyder, The Mosaic Group, 627 E Speedway, 85705 Phone: 602.626.8680 (University of Arizona, Dep't of MIS, Eller Graduate School of Management) BITNET: jms@arizmis Internet: jms@mis.arizona.edu SPAN: 47541::uamis::jms ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #735 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23131; 14 Oct 90 22:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25787; 14 Oct 90 21:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21197; 14 Oct 90 20:08 CDT Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 19:45:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #736 BCC: Message-ID: <9010141945.ab32283@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Oct 90 19:45:14 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 736 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Saudis Complain, so AT&T Pulls the Plug [TELECOM Moderator] NATA Unicom '90 News [TELECOM Moderator] Can They Get Away With This? [Brian S. Oplinger] Immunization Against COCOTism [Jerry Leichter] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [John Higdon] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [David A Smallberg] Re: A New Way to Get Slammed [John Higdon] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Chris Johnson] Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages [David E. Lemson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 18:37:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Saudis Complain, so AT&T Pulls the Plug AT&T has halted a popular service that provided American soldiers in Saudi Arabia with free calls home, as of this past Thursday. So many soldiers took AT&T up on the offer of free three-minute calls to the US that Saudi telephone administration officials complained that the barrage of 1000 calls an hour was straining their telephone network. AT&T had planned to allow the free calling service to continue for another week, but based on Saudi complaints discontinued it three days ago. AT&T spokesman Rick Wallerstein said, "They were absolutely insistent that we stop it immediatly." American military men and women placed more than 100,000 free calls since the company's 'USA Direct Military Service' was started the first week of October, Wallerstein said. He noted that the company did not expect to receive the volume of calls it did, which accounted for the massive network congestion problem in Saudi Arabia. Soldiers in Saudi Arabia will now pay $16.04 for a ten minute call to anywhere in the USA, but the specially-arranged version of USA Direct to assist the service members will be continued for ease in calling. Wallerstein said that AT&T's other assistance to the military, called 'Desert FAX' will continue until the end of the year. Under this program, Americans can send FAX messages to specific service members at no charge from facsimile machines located at AT&T phone stores and sixty other military bases in the United States. Families of armed forces members use the FAX service about 4000 times per day said Wallerstein. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 18:55:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: NATA Unicom '90 News The theme of the North American Telecommunications Association trade show later this month is "Networking Your Communications Technology". This year marks the twentieth anniversary of these annual trade shows in Washington, DC. The event will be staged from October 31 - November 2 at the Sheraton Washington Hotel, Washington, DC. There simply isn't enough room in the Digest this time (because of our own rapidly expanding user participation and flow of messages) to discuss Unicom '90 in great detail, but a few notes are in order: Daily programs will include: 10/31 Sizing Up the Telecom Market Communications Services Management Voice Processing: Applications for the 90's The Care and Feeding of Your Top Salespeople Getting and Closing the Sale Managing Insurance Costs Washington Update: The Business of Politics Capitalizing on the Centrex Resurgence Through CPE 11/1 National Electrical Code Alert The Harry Newton Extravaganza: What's Hot, What's Not The New Markets For Videoconferencing Sales Agency: Getting the Relationship Right Profiting With Payphones Communications Roundtable: Cordless and Wireless Revolution Standing Out in the Selling Crowd: Difference is the Message 11/2 The Future of Wire and Local Area Networking Power Protection: What's Current? The Secondary Market: Are You Missing the Boat? Avoiding the Toll Fraud Nightmare Plus exhibits galore, all three days. The full registration package is $440 for persons who are not members of NATA. The fee to visit the exhibition hall only is $30. For more information, or to register for Unicom '90 write or call: Unicom '90 333 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2200 Chicago, IL USA 60601 Phone: 800-328-6898 or 312-236-6476 Payment can be by credit card or check. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 12:56:41 EDT From: "B. S. Oplinger" Subject: Can They Get Away With This? Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center In article <13495@accuvax.nwu.edu> John_David_Galt writes about Mercury marketing: >I have also gotten some annoying sales calls from the Mercury, though >not lately. At least they seem to obey the law against having a >computer initiate the call, without a human being talking to you >first. This is not the first time I have seen a reference to this 'law.' Both my roommate and I have student loans serviced by the Student Loan Servicing Center of PA. We both live in NY. Does this means two sets of laws apply (one at each end)? He is rather bad about paying his bills. I use CheckFree, which pays them electronically, automatically each month. I get a prerecorded message which starts 'This is the Student Loan ... please hold because we must talk to you about an urgent matter about your account.' (Wording close but not exact.) I really hate hanging onto the phone for a couple minutes (last week they called each night and I waited for up to five minutes, after all they are paying for the call, since they are such a pain in the ...) After this wait they wanted to speak to my roommate. I really dislike this. Can they get away with this? I would have no problems with a daily live-person call asking for my roommate to please pay his bills (they have to make a living too), its just this automated called for a nameless person that bugs me. brian oplinger@crd.ge.com <#include standard.disclaimer> [Moderator's Note: When the computer calls you, just hang up. They'll call back in person eventually. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 12:39:05 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Immunization Against COCOTism In a recent issue of TELECOM Digest, John Higdon wonders why some states have banned COCOTs, despite Federal regulations. Here's a guess: Connecticut, at least, is served by SNET, which was never owned outright by AT&T and was not part of the Greene breakup. Is the Federal regulation allowing for COCOTs part of the breakup? I think it's highly likely that telephone service in Alaska and Hawaii also is provided by companies that did not have the "standard" relationship to Ma of the usual Bell's. That covers three of the five states that ban COCOTs. I don't know about the other two (Arkansas and Oklahoma) but I'm pretty sure that SNET was not the only semi-independent local provider that was immune to the breakup. (BTW, the SNET/NY Tel boundary is strange: It runs through Greenwich, Con- necticut and then up and "over" Pound Ridge and Lewisboro, New York. It's interesting that all of these areas - NY Tel or not, New York or Connecticut - are in the 203 area code; in fact, Pound Ridge is in Stamford's local calling area and vice versa, while Lewisboro shares a local calling area with Darien, Connecticut. New Canaan is uniquely privileged: It also shares a local area with Pound Ridge, which it does not abut, while Lewisboro doesn't share local calling areas with either Pound Ridge or Stamford, although it abuts both! From what I hear from friends in Greenwich, those who fall in the areas of Greenwich served by NY Tel complain about it continuously - the service is poor and based on obsolete equipment. Since NY Tel serves a grand total of three exchanges in Connecticut, I'm sure they aren't very worried about what the Connecticut regulators have to say - and the NY regulators don't much care what the non-NY-voting Connecticut ratepayers have to say. One of these days, I'll have to find out if there are any COCOTs in the NY Tel areas of Greenwich. Since it's mainly residential, NOT finding any would not necessarily say very much.) Jerry ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? Date: 13 Oct 90 21:55:02 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon On Oct 13 at 19:27, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: AT&T Mail is a direct, and very good alternative to > MCI Mail, > [...] > for AT&T Mail: 800-624-5672 if you look through the book long enough This number is correct -- at least it's the number on my bill. I have found AT&T Mail to be quite reliable, useful, and VERY inexpensive. It is $30/year plus usage. My account is a "UNIX" account in that all transactions are effected via uucp, where AT&T Mail is a "uucp neighbor". I can't offer any experience about the interactive side of the service. I do remember that it was hell finding someone at that organization who would set up an account. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I've been a customer of AT&T Mail since 1986, and MCI Mail since about 1983. My experience with AT&T Mail was the same as yours. I had to almost beg them to set up the account. The person in charge of that was always 'away from their desk', 'out to lunch', 'in a meeting', or 'on vacation'. You'd have thought I was a bill collector trying to get money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 18:49:30 PDT From: David A Smallberg Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article <13495@accuvax.nwu.edu> portal!cup.portal.com! John_David_Galt writes: >I have also gotten some annoying sales calls from the Mercury, though >not lately. At least they seem to obey the law against having a >computer initiate the call, without a human being talking to you >first. ... I understood this to be California law, also, but I found no reference to it at the UCLA Law Library. Any Californian have the section number? In any event, does the law cover non-sales, informational messages? Our local high school has a computer that apparently calls all the parents of students every Saturday afternoon and plays a recording of school-related information about the upcoming week. (Of course, the first part of the message talks through answering machines' outgoing messages.) Is this legal in California? While perusing the code books, I did spot the law that explicitly makes it illegal in California to use the toll-avoidance signalling methods discussed in this forum last month (You know, "I'd to make a collect call for " that means "Hey, mom! Call me at my dorm room right now.") David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das [Moderator's Note: The government never has to follow the rules the rest of us have to follow, didn't you know that? PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: A New Way to Get Slammed Date: 13 Oct 90 22:14:43 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt writes: > I saw the same news stories I think you did, but I read them more > carefully. No one got service they hadn't asked for, but lots of > telemarketing calls were made to offer Custom Calling -- and a few > elderly people thought they said "customer calling" or some such > thing and agreed to it without understanding it. My acquaintance with the matter came not from the media but from the PUC releases concerning the affair. In truth, there were many cases (regardless of the media account) in which services that were unordered were connected and charged for. In addition, there were occasions where service was ordered disconnected and Pac*Bell failed to comply and continued charging for it. This worked well on business accounts where harried bookkeepers would be faced with many bills for many lines and not know that some other department had ordered service disconnected. My clients had a few of these. Pac*Bell is still somewhat slow about disconnecting some types of service (notably WATS lines), but they are now very good about stopping the charges on the day of the disconnect order! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Thu, 11 Oct 90 18:30:50 GMT In article <13166@accuvax.nwu.edu> dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 722, Message 8 of 9 >[The Moderator writes] >>It still does not lessen the illegality of it, nor for MCI. >>You cannot take a group of people, based on their ethnic origin, for >>example Chinese or Egyptian people -- and who, after all, would be the >>most likely users of international calls to those countries? -- and >>say or imply to them "you cannot be trusted to make a call to your >>home country on credit; you are likely to defraud us." >I'm puzzled by the Moderator's strong stance on this issue; does he >have reason to believe that there really isn't massive fraud? Does he >suggest that massive fraud must be tolerated (and paid for by you >know who) to protect some "presumption of innocence"? Does he actually >believe that MCI or AT&T really don't want the money of certain ethnics? >[Moderator's Note: In lots of other ways, 'presumption of innocence' >is a very important and desirable attitude, regardless of cost. Why do >the telcos get to be an exception? Yes, there are problems with >fraud, but there are protective techniques in place. A call 24 hours .... >problem' here a year ago did not indict all Nigerians. Visa, Diner's >and American Express cannot turn down citizens of China, Israel or >India as a class; AT&T / MCI should not be allowed to do it either. PAT] That last is thought provoking to me. Do we have evidence or proof that credit card companies do _not_, in fact, blanket turn down applications from citizens of say Nigeria or Brazil? And maybe the situation is somewhat different between VISA and MCI, for example. In the former, if someone calls VISA and says a charge is not one they made, and refuses to pay the bill, chances are if VISA cannot prove they made the purchase, they will at minimum invalidate the account due to suspicion of theft. And the consumer may still have to pay $50. But if someone claims hundreds of dollars worth of phone calls were not theirs, what happens? ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 [Moderator's Note: The same thing, more or less. The PIN becomes invalidated, and under some circumstances the card holder has to pay $50 for not acting as promptly as possible to have the card shut off. You can call AT&T 24 hours per day to report abused, stolen or lost calling cards, just like any credit card. And I think you have the moral and legal obligation to assist AT&T in preventing fraud on your account. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David E Lemson Subject: Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 20:04:00 GMT ckp@cup.portal.com writes: >Whenever I call into my audix from home to check messages, it calls me >back after I hang up. Never says a thing - dead air - but the phone >will ring (you can bet on it) as soon as I hang up the receiver. >*WHAT* makes this happen? Funny you should talk about this. We have this problem, too. That same voice mail system that has left funny messages on our home answering machine almost ALWAYS causes the phone to ring right after you hang up on it, but only when checking messages. But, it doesn't always happen, and I suspect the ringback has to do with the fact that we have three-way calling, and that's what's causing it. I don't know. It's really weird. David Lemson, UIUC d-lemson@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #736 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01145; 15 Oct 90 5:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09434; 15 Oct 90 4:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31405; 15 Oct 90 3:16 CDT Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 2:30:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #737 BCC: Message-ID: <9010150230.ab15241@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Oct 90 02:27:40 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 737 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Technophone MC-915-A Programming Information [TELECOM Moderator] Follow Me Update [Douglas Scott Reuben] The Media and I [John Higdon] Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases [Paul Wilczynski] Re: GTE/Contel Merger [kdonow@cdp.uucp] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Tad Cook] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Ravinder Bhumbla] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 1:50:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Technophone MC-915-A Programming Information Although I've had my Radio Shack CT-301 cell phone for awhile now and am quite happy with it, I gave in to temptation the other day and bought a new 'bag phone' which was on sale at Leader Communications in Chicago for $100 in a special one day only sale late in September. Manufactured by Technophone Corporation of Melbourne, FL, this phone has a three watt output, a dual NAM and several other good features including very easy programming right from the keypad. The most common features are programmed using the 'Menu' key on the keypad. These features include: Menu # 00 Display own phone number 01 Display own serial number in hex format 02 Display last call time 03 Display total airtime since last reset. To reset, enter your four digit PIN, and press Menu key again. 04 Ignition Sense. With this enabled, the phone is switched on using the vehicle ignition switch or by the four digit PIN when in mobile mode. The phone is turned off using the ignition key, the PIN, or with the on/off switch on the phone. When disabled, the phone is switched on and off using the on/off switch on the phone or with the four digit PIN. 05 Horn Alert. When properly wired via the car battery in Mobile mode, an incoming call will sound the horn or blink the car lights as desired. When horn alert is turned off, the phone rings in the usual way. 06 Mobile/Portable mode. In mobile mode, phone is normally powered from car battery. Lights on phone stay on. In portable mode, phone illumination is switched off after thirty seconds to save battery power. 07 Restricted Calling. Toggled on, the phone can only be used to dial a number from the twenty memory locations. Attempts to manually dial other numbers fail. Toggled off, the phone can dial from the memory or keypad as desired. Your four digit PIN has to be used to toggle this condition on or off. 08 Change PIN. Enter the old four digit PIN followed by the new four digit PIN, which then takes effect immediatly. 09 Enable Service Mode / Service mode on/off. Use this menu item to see your current status: (a) channel you are using; (b) incoming/outgoing signal strength and system ID. When on a call, the display shows additional information including SAT expected and SAT frequency received (hz). 10 Auto Roam. Do you want to automatically go into roaming mode when you leave home territory? Toggle this on or off. 11 Normal / Inverted system. If you are 'normally' on A, this changes you to B and vice versa. 12 Select NAM 1 for operation. 13 Select NAM 2 for operation. Press 0 to toggle between NAM shown the other NAM. Certain other information will be displayed on a second screen. There are 31 memory locations, 00 through 30. 00 is reserved for the last number dialed. The main display shows received signal strength in the form of little squares which light up. The more squares (one through six) the better your signal at the moment. To program the two NAMS: Press on/off key to power up phone. Press CLR three times in rapid succession. Press # 0 0 0 0 0 0 # # 9 5 3 7 3 9 # STO 2 9 STO STO. Press on/off to power down the phone. Immediatly press on/off to power up the phone. Display will now read WHAT NAM? Enter 1 or 2 to correspond with the NAM you wish to program. The display will read AREA ID. Enter the five digit number. Press the * key. The display will read some ten digit number. By default it will read 666 888 6666. Enter the ten digit telephone number for this NAM. Press the * key. The display will read O/LOAD CLASS. Enter the two digit number, typically in the range of 00 - 15. Mine is set at 04. Press the * key. The display will read GRP ID. Enter your two digit group ID Mark. Enter 15 to advise the tower you have all 832 channels available. Press the * key. The display will read EXp ?. Enter 0 or 1 for your Extended Address Bit. Press the * key. The display will read IPCH. Enter the initial paging channel. This is typically 333 for A carriers and 334 for B carriers. Press the * key. The display will read SYSTEM ID. Store the three letter system ID, or any three letter code to remind you what system you are on. For example, to enter NYC, press the 6 key two times and the display will show N. Press # to step to the next letter and press the 9 key three times to get Y. Press the # key to step to the next letter and press the 2 key three times to get C. Press # to terminate the process. The letters Q and Z, and a blank space are represented by the digit 1. Press the * key. The display will read SAVE NAM? Press SEND to save the NAM or END to disgard the change. Then press END again to terminate the edit session and power down the phone, or in response to WHAT NAM? press another number to repeat the process for another NAM. ------------------ Leader Communications is a Cellular One agency; this means I had to sign a three month contract with Cellular One, but the prices are quite competitive to Ameritech, and in some cases better, depending on the individual application. My service from Cellular One is $7 per month plus 13 cents per minute of calling at night, and $4.95 for all custom calling features. The one thing I don't like as well about this phone is the length of time to charge the battery. Unlike the CT-301 where the battery is about the size of a large ice-cube and takes one hour to fully charge (for 16-18 hours of standby), the battery on the Technophone is much larger and must stay in the charger for several hours. Two towers in my area are only a mile away from me: one on the telephone exchange at 5000 North Clark St. (Chicago-Edgewater) and another one at Clark and Howard Streets on the Evanston side of the street by the CTA el train turnaround. Cell One and Ameritech share most of the towers here. Over all, not a bad phone, and worth at least the C-note I paid for it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: 14-OCT-1990 21:01:02.17 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Follow Me Update Hi- I heard from a GTE rep. on Friday (who actually called me to apologize for the problems I've been having!), who left me a message on my voicemail in response to my inquiries about excessive delays with Follow Me Roaming. She said that many of the "dead period" delays in activations, from 12AM to sometimes as late as 3AM (ET), were due to a heavy system load that the FMR system was unable to handle. She said that they were aware of the problem, and have received numerous calls about this, indirectly, from customers who were missing calls because of this. I was told that they are working on it, and that I should notice a change for the better soon. I've noticed recently that the "dead period" hasn't been so bad at all. On Friday night (actually Sat. AM), I activated FMR at 12:20AM, and within 4 minutes it was working fine, and lasted the whole day. (IE, I didn't just happen to catch it at the "end" of the daily cycle.) So hopefully this was due to some progress being made at GTE/FMR rather than due to a low weekend user load. I'll call back on Monday to talk to the GTE rep. in more detail... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet P.S. If anyone else has noticed a change, either better or worse, please let me know so I can (hopefully) bring this to the attention of the FMR people now that they seem to be interested! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: The Media and I Date: 14 Oct 90 22:37:53 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon It shouldn't be necessary to mention any of this, but from time to time we forget that most of what is in the media is incomplete, misleading, wrong, even sometimes intentional fiction. One should take with a grain of salt anything about telecommunications, or for that matter any technical field that appears in the newspaper or on television news. Repeatedly there are rule or technical changes that I have been made privy to, either through mailings, e-mail, personal contacts, or business relations that are subsequently discussed in the {San Francisco Chronicle} or the {San Jose Mercury}. Without fail, the news accounts are, at the very least, misleading. I've railed before in this forum about the incompetency of the media, but at no time like the present has this fact been driven home. Jeez, I wish I could discuss some of the cases I'm working on presently -- and how reality squares with media coverage. (Hint: it doesn't; not by a long shot.) Hopefully, when these cases are concluded, I can give all and sundry an earful about our worthless news agencies. (Actually, I'm also very angry about a certain "fact-based" program that "re-creates" history -- as viewed by law enforcement.) Therefore, I'm serving notice that in the future, as in the past, anything I bring up here is personal knowledge, inside information, empirical observation, or educated guesses. It does not come from the media, unless I specifically mention that it does, or more commonly quote an article verbatim. I would assume that most who contribute herein will dig deeper than media accounts for the "real" dirt as well. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: 14-OCT-1990 18:31:08.11 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" Subject: Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases Not only is MCI going to charge $35 per year for a mailbox, but in my bill insert there was also a line saying: "Letterhead and Signature Graphics: $30.00/Year" Signature and graphics used to be FREE...one would pay a $20 registration fee and have no annual "storage" charges for this service. MCI claims that "...[T]he changes in pricing are a response to higher costs and MCI's efforts to unify pricing while continuing to provide customers with the highest quality communications services." (^^^^^^^ = priced?! ) Hmmm ... I guess the costs for storing my signature and letterhead must have gone up dramatically, no? ;-) $65/year is way too high to pay for this service ... do any of the other E-mail providers out there allow users to store and print letterheads/sigs. on paper and/or fax letters? Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 18:54 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases To those who noted the couple of rate increases on MCI Mail: Don't forget about the fact that, in the past 18 months or so, MCI Mail ... -- introduced toll-free access. -- lowered rates for the average email message (501-2500 characters) by 25% (from $1.00 to $.75). -- lowered fax rates from $.60 for the first 1/2 page and $.40 for add'l half-pages to $.50/$.30. -- introduced the Preferred Pricing option which gives up to 75% savings for the first 40 email messages and/or pages of fax. I don't like price increases either, but there are two sides to this coin. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services MCI Mail Agency ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 16:40:35 -0700 From: kdonow@cdp.uucp Subject: Re: GTE/Contel Merger I've heard from sources inside Contel's upper management that they expect it to occur during the first quarter of 1991. ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 18:23:17 PDT In article <13482@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: > 911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies > ONLY and should never be called unless there is truly a crisis. Maybe in your area. In Seattle, you can't call the police to report ANY non-emergency without dialing 9-1-1. One time I wanted to report a car parked illegally on the sidewalk in front of my house. I looked up "Parking Enforcement" in the phone book. They told me to call 9-1-1. "But isn't 9-1-1 for emergencies only?" "NO! Who told you that?" In retrospect, it makes sense. All calls come through a central point, and untrained citizens like myself aren't making judgements on what is and isn't an emergency. By the way, I agree with Christopher's comment that it is not a good idea to call 9-1-1 from a payphone and say "just testing." Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago we are also told to dial 911 for only a dire emergency, where police intervention is needed immediatly. We are not to use it for anything after the fact such as stolen autos, or for that matter, burglaries unless they are going on at the time you are placing the call. We are told in the rules that non-emergency police matters are to be placed with 312 - PIG - 4000, or 312 - PIG and the four digit extension of the desired department or officer if you know the extension you want. Ditto the Fire Department. But in actual practice when you call the local station house (they all have regular numbers in addition to their PIG centrex numbers) about half the time you get told to call 911 and have it filter back to them. The exception seems to be if you are working with a particular detective or someone in one of the tactical units. They like taking their own phone calls direct, usually on their private lines. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls Date: 15 Oct 90 03:50:40 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego I hate to add more noise to this topic, but I couldn't stop myself. In article <13526@accuvax.nwu.edu> by dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) the Moderator writes: >Imagine >Amex or Diners saying to an Indian or Korean or Israeli that they are >not going to honor a given credit transaction because "... people from >your country tend to commit fraud a lot...". I don't know if this is relevant, but I have been told that since last year, CITIBANK has stopped giving VISA credit cards to foreign nationals. When I was in Virginia about two years back, my bank, Dominion Bank had a place for "nationality" in their credit card application and denied a credit card to all foreign nationals. As far as I know, it is NOT illegal to discriminate on the basis of national origin against people who are not US citizens (I find that understandable, though not necessarily justifiable). Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Office Phone: (619)534-7894 [Moderator's Note: Lots of merchants and/or creditors won't extend credit outside the USA for the simple reason they have little or no enforcement mechanism. Suit is a cumbersome process when an overseas solicitor must be employed. To totally exclude all non-USA citizens who are visiting us from receiving credit is one thing -- to issue credit to out of country people and not others is illegal. A creditor can say "I do not issue credit cards outside the USA". He cannot say "I allow some people visiting here (or in the process of becoming citizens here) to have credit, but not certain others." Either no credit outside the USA or credit extended individually to all applicants on a fair basis, using factual data about the individual to make the decision. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #737 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26792; 16 Oct 90 3:07 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12125; 16 Oct 90 1:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22554; 16 Oct 90 0:29 CDT Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 0:05:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #738 BCC: Message-ID: <9010160005.ab09111@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Oct 90 00:05:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 738 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson UK Begins Charging For Directory Enquiries [John Ray] An Old Switchboard on Display [TELECOM Moderator] Special Exchanges List: Request For Data [David Leibold] Cheap Cellular Mobile Phone [Mike Koziol] Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS [Sue Welborn] How Are 66-Blocks Usually Wired? [John Parsons] Accessing Archives Through Mail [Toby Nixon] Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations [David Barts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Ray Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 09:16:52 BST Subject: UK Begins Charging For Directory Enquiries British Telecom (BT) here in the UK have announced the introduction of charges for the first time for the Directory Enquiry Service effective from April 2nd, 1991. At the same time call costs are being reduced by an average of six per cent. BT state that over 800 million calls a year are made to Directory Enquiries. The Directory Enquiry service costs 250 million pounds a year to run, the cost being shared by all subscribers (estimated at ten pounds a year). BT claim only a quarter of these subscribers use the service including credit and telemarketing companies. Here are the salient points as extracted from the October 90 BT inhouse magazine "Telecom Today". All prices are quoted in Sterling (for USA readers, current exchange rate is $1.94 to the pound). UK and International Directory Enquiry Calls will cost 37.8p (43.5p including VAT). Call Unit price will be reduced from 4.4p (5.06p including VAT) to 4.2p (4.83p including VAT). Blind and Disabled users will continue to get free Directory Service (using a special phone number of 195) and will be registered with their own PIN ID number. The service is to be run from a special centre in Sheffield and will eventually employ 500 staff. Payphones will continue to have free calls to Directory Enquiries as well as private rented payphones on the Payphone Line classification. For business users, two new services have been introduced. Phone Base is accessed via modem and terminal/computer and provides access to the phone number database. No subscription are charged, the cost of the call varies from 6p a minute (Cheap rate) to 13p a minute (peak rate). Also announced is a CD-ROM subscription service. For 2,200 pounds a year the CD-ROM's are updated quarterly and provide all UK numbers for those users suitably equipped. John Ray |Phone : +44 727 836421 x4713 Marconi Instruments Ltd |Fax : +44 727 839447 (Gp3) Longacres |UUCP : ..!mcsun!ukc!hrc63!miduet!ray ST ALBANS Herts |NRS : ray@gec-mi-at.co.uk AL4 0JN |Packet Radio (AX25) : G8DZH @ GB7ESX England ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 0:58:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: An Old Switchboard on Display Mark Earle, a reader in Corpus Christi, TX sent me an interesting photograph of an old (very old!) cord switchboard retired from service some 36 years ago and now on display at the Riviera Telephone Company in Kleberg County, TX (near Kingsville, home of the King Ranch). According to the General Manager and Vice President of Riviera, Mr. Bill Colston, Jr. this board was in service until 1954, at which time they cut over to whatever they are running now on 512-296. Mark noted in his letter that he saw the board when he was at the telco on business for his employer, Corpus Christi State University. The University rents tower space from the telco on a 450 foot tower telco uses for their IMTS service, which seems to be preferred in that part of the country over cellular due to its longer range. The University has a tower on the antenna about half way up which is used to access some remotely located tide measurement systems. In addition, the University has a telephone at the tower blockhouse to control the relay device. In his meeting with Mr. Colston, he got a chance to see the really antique switchboard they had used almost a half-century ago in the area. Unlike 'newer' cord boards, this one has a microphone standing up on a metal pipe into which the operator would speak. The operator used earphones for listening, but there was no mouthpiece on the headset like the 'newer' models. In addtion, this board had the great big (by comparison) jacks and plugs, a good half-inch in circumference, unlike the much more slender plugs in later years. The picture he sent also showed the little metal relays on the top half of the board which would click and drop whenever a subscriber went off hook -- a very early form of call supervision. A large bundle of wires coming out the side of the cabinet were the pairs going to the subscribers. They went out of the board, through a hole in the wall, up into the air and were then strung on poles everywhere to reach the subscribers. I wish there were a convenient way to include the picture he sent me as part of this article, since it was quite interesting and brought back many old memories. I worked at many cord boards in the 1960-70 period, but I never worked at any quite as old as the one shown in the picture he sent me. The ones I worked at all had individual lights for the subscriber lines and lights for the operator's cord pairs for the purpose of supervision. The picture he sent me shows no lights at all -- just the little metal relays along the top part of the board. This leads me to belive the board was probably built shortly after the turn of the century, particularly because of the 'candlestick' mouthpiece and separate hearing piece for the operator, which was common on all telephones of that era. The single piece listen/talk receiver did not come along until sometime in the twenties, and the single piece operator headset came along about the same time. Apparently this switchboard was retired when Riviera converted to dial service in 1954. Thanks to Mark Earle for sending the photo with his letter to me at my post office box (TELECOM Digest, POB 1570, Chicago, IL 60690). I appreciated seeing it and reading a little of its history. Mark can be reached in care of his BBS: 512-885-7564 in Corpus Christi. He is also known as Fido node 1:160/50.0 if you would care to contact him through the net. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Special Exchanges List: Request For Data Date: Sat, 13 Oct 90 20:50:45 EDT With all the talk about ANI numbers, and special exchanges like 976 and that, I would like to compile a list of the various special exchanges that are out there. They would be of the following categories... 1. 976 and special announcement/pay exchanges (like 556 used in PA, or 720 used as a conference service in BC). Please identify the specific nature of the exhcnage if possible. 2. Test numbers like ringbacks, ANI. Please **MAIL** to djcl@contact.uucp for the exchanges you know of, and I'll send a list for post/archive once done. Thanx djcl@contact david.leibold@canremote.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 09:49:31 EST From: Mike Koziol Subject: Cheap Cellular Mobile Phone There was an ad in yesterday's {Rochester Democrat and Chronicle} that had a couple of inexpensive cellular phones listed: Unitel (?) mobile phone $19.90!!!! (antenna $29, install $69) Motorola M750 handheld $295. Both require one year service contract ($9.95 /month basic service) with 30 minutes of long distance, 60 minutes of non-peak calling and a voice mailbox free for three months, through our local Cellular One outfit. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 21:56:00 EDT From: Sue Welborn Subject: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS Reply-to: Sue.Welborn@p3.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 For anyone looking for information concerning the blocking of calls to BBS's by Teleconnect, you can find the text of the articles that were written by contacting Jim Schmickley either by the US Mail address or on the BBS's listed at the end of this note. The original text is over 27,000 bytes long, and I did not wish to tie up TELECOM Digest with four to six very long messages. I am currently waiting for a reply from Jim as to the current status of the situation. The date of the last file concerning this matter is January 1989. Any replies can be directed to: Sue.Welborn.@p3.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------- As many of you know, an attempt by one alternative long distance telephone company to tell us what bulletin boards we aren't allowed to call, through the mechanism of "blocking" those numbers, has serious implications for free telephone communications throughout this country. If Teleconnect can block computer/data calls, would they not have as much "right" to also block voice calls to you, your doctor, or whoever? And, if Teleconnect is permitted to block calls, other long distance carriers can be expected to follow suit, if they aren't already. In eastern Iowa, we are waging a dedicated fight to stop this abuse of consumers and abridgement of our rights by this long distance carrier. The battle to date is detailed in this archived file. Yes, the story is long, but you should find it very interesting. Please read it, and then help us in the fight for all our rights. We need your moral support, your help in spreading the word, and any "blocking" experiences you may have had to add to our ammunition. And, we also need your financial support to help cover expences encountered so far and anticipated in the upcoming formal hearing. Please send contributions to: Hawkeye Personal Computer Users Group Anti-Blocking Expense Fund c/o Pat Alden, Treasurer 840 Maggard Iowa City, IA 52240 If you wish to communicate with me directly, BUT PLEASE DO NOT SEND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ME, my address is: James H. Schmickley 7441 Commune Court, N.E. Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Telephone (voice): (319) 393-2036 Two local BBSs are serving as clearing houses for additional information on the blocking situation; they are: Hawkeye RBBS, Ben Blackstock, SysOp (319) 363-3314 The Forum PCBoard, John Oren, SysOp (319) 373-2975 E-mail on the "blocking" issue may also be posted on QwikNet on the SYSOPS Echo Conference or the TECH Echo Conference. msged 1.99S ZTC Sue's Point of View, Omaha (1:285/666.3) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Sue.Welborn@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: Actually Sue, if you want to send these articles along, we'll use a selection here and put them all in the Telecom Archives for future reference. The blocking of paid traffic by a telco is quite unethical to say the least, if not actually illegal, which I suspect it is, without going to look through a bunch of tariffs. Its the old bit about telcos not being legally permitted to deny service to *qualified* subscribers; a qualified subscriber being one who has demonstrated the ability and willingness to pay for the service; no more, no less. What the customer actually talks ahout on the phone -- or in this case what data is passed is none of telco's concern. The subscription includes receiving incoming calls. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 15:08:07 mdt From: John Parsons Subject: How Are 66-Blocks Usually Wired? Let's say I have four incoming lines and a dozen phone outlet boxes, each fed by three-pair cable. I want them in a "star" arrangement, using a "66-block", so that each outlet may be connected to any incoming lines at random. I can think of more than one way to do this, but I'd like to stick to a "standard" scheme just in case someone else ends up maintaining it. For discussion purposes, assume the block is vertical, and I'll call the top row of "jaws" 1A 1B 26A 26B, the second row 2A 2B 27A 27B, etc. Let's call the incoming wires T1 R1, T2 R2, etc. and the wires to the outlet boxes Ta Ra, Tb Rb, etc. Also, can more than one wire be reliably connected to each "jaws" terminal on the block? Thanks, John Parsons ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Accessing Archives Through Mail Date: 15 Oct 90 16:01:04 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA Since I've recently done the research on how to do this, I thought I'd post a brief message on how ANYONE who gets comp.dcom.telecom can access the Telecom Archives through MAIL rather than FTP. As our Moderator has mentioned, the key is using an FTP server. All you do is send a message to the server, containing the FTP commands you want to execute. It sends you back a transcript of the activity, then, as separate messages, any files you requested. The email address of the server I've been using is "bitftp@pucc. bitnet". First, to get a list of valid commands, send a message to this address which contains only the word "HELP" on the first (and only) line of the message. To get a directory of the Telecom Archives, send a message to "bitftp@pucc.bitnet" containing the following: ftp lcs.mit.edu user anonymous cd telecom-archives ascii dir quit To request a file, for example the "cocot-in-violation-label", send a message containing the following: ftp lcs.mit.edu user anonymous cd telecom-archives ascii get cocot-in-violation-label quit It's really that simple. I'm sure some more experienced users may expand on this. The HELP file is very useful. I've been really pleased with the response time of the server -- less than 24 hour turnaround on most request, some in less than four hours. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer Fax: +1-404-441-1213 AT&T: !tnixon Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. Voice: +1-404-449-8791 CIS: 70271,404 Norcross, Georgia, USA BBS: +1-404-446-6336 MCI: TNIXON UUCP: ...!uunet!hayes!tnixon Internet: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending this article. I'd like to add a couple points: As they say, uucp-kids, don't try this on your home system without a frank discussion with your postmaster/sysadmin first. Some of the files are huge, and uucp sites rely upon the good will of the sites they connect with to send/receive mail. Sure as I'm sitting here drinking coffee, a connecting site will beef if you get umpty-jillion bytes of stuff shoved through at one time. For next: the address given above as 'bitftp.pucc.bitnet' is the same as 'bitftp.pucc.princeton.edu'. Its the same machine, just coming from another network is all. Use the Internet version of the address if you are on uucp, fido, or mcimail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 08:26:24 pdt From: David Barts Subject: Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com (Carol Springs) writes: > ...[list of MCI proposed anti-slamming practices]... MCI forgot: o If any customer claims he or she has been "slammed" and there is no written documentation of the customer's approval of the change, the customer's word is taken to be correct, the customer is switched back to his original LD carrier AT THE SLAMMER'S EXPENSE, and THE CUSTOMER IS NOT CHARGED IN ANY WAY FOR LD SERVICE FURNISHED DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THE SLAMMING WAS IN EFFECT. The unsolicited service is considered to be a free gift to the customer. *That* would stop the practice of slamming in a hurry. It would also make carriers get written verification, which just goes to show the superiority of ATT's plan. If the mail carrier brings a Ronco Spit-o-Matic prune pitter to my doorstep, along with a bill that says "Please remit $49.95", and I did not order any prune pitters from Ronco, I can consider this to be a FREE GIFT and throw the bill in the wastebasket, where it belongs. There is no reason why an LD carrier should be considered different in this respect. If I don't order something, I shouldn't have to pay for it. Period. > Guess MCI is looking for a new reputation as consumer advocate. With advocacy like that, who need adversaries? Trusting MCI to come up with a meaningful set of anti-slamming procedures is like trusting Saddam Hussein to come up with a meaningful plan for Mideast peace. David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #738 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28322; 16 Oct 90 4:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19551; 16 Oct 90 2:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12125; 16 Oct 90 1:34 CDT Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 1:12:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #739 BCC: Message-ID: <9010160112.ab00896@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Oct 90 01:12:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 739 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Mail Obscurity [John Higdon] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Sandy Kyrish] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Howard Pierpont] Re: Telecom Acronyms [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages [William Degnan] Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages [Don Alvarez] Re: PA COCOT Checklist [Joel Upchurch] Re: More COCOTery [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) [Jim Haynes] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Jeff Carroll] Re: A New Way to Get Slammed [Tom Gray] Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases [Jack Dominey] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Benjamin Ellsworth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: AT&T Mail Obscurity Date: 15 Oct 90 16:10:37 PDT (Mon) From: John Higdon Earlier this afternoon, a gentleman called from AT&T who, in essence, apologized for the difficulty in getting through to people who could set up various AT&T accounts. So, here are more numbers for anyone wishing to communicate with people concerning AT&T, or even wishing to contact other departments. If you are looking for an AT&T phone number, start with 800 FIND ATT. It was a call to this number that produced these two: 800 MAIL 672 (we already knew that one--it's for customer service on an existing AT&T Mail account. 800 367-7225 This number is for setting up an AT&T Mail account. I guess AT&T would still have trouble selling heaters to Eskimos. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: On the other hand, MCI would have no trouble at all selling refrigerators to Eskimos. They'd simply have their telemarketing people call and take every 'no' answer for a 'yes' answer ... :) But seriously, AT&T has one thing they need to work on: marketing and sales techniques. They have nearly a century of the old-ways to overcome. Its less than a decade into divestiture, and they won't learn all their lessons immediatly. For such a long time they did not have to *sell and promote* their services. Now they do, and they had better learn well what some of their Johnny-come-lately competitors have known all along: Sell, Sell, Sell! Agressively promote your services and equipment. They're catching on, but its taking time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 07:45 EST From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? While AT&T Mail is fully featured, etc., you would NOT necessarily switch over to it because MCI raised its rates! The AT&T Mailbox fee is $30.00 already, and they really zing you on message charges -- you are charged for the creation *and* the transmission of the message. So after about seven or eight messages, you would have made up the $5.00 savings in up front mailbox fees. About the only mailbox I can think of that has no fee is the "mail" feature of CompuServe, although there you pay for on-line time ... oh well, STILL no perfect world. [Moderator's Note: You are correct that the subscription and per-use prices on AT&T Mail would be no saving over the new MCI rates, but the quality of service is important also; and generally, given my druthers, I prefer AT&T although I have service on both. I find AT&T Mail a little easier to work with. They also have pretty good help documentation, and their shared folders (sort of like a public bulletin board) are easy to use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? Date: 15 Oct 90 02:35:42 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. JMS@carat.arizona.edu writes: >Genie/GE Mail 800-638-9636 >Sign up $30, no maintenance fee. Costs based on connect time. paper >mail. (Internet gateway unknown) As of October 1st, this is incorrect. GEnie just announced what they call STAR*SERVICES. $4.95 a month flat rate for EMAIL, Stock Quotes, single player games and other basic services. Roundtables (newsgroups), uploading/downloading and other services are at the usual hourly fee. Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 08:12:07 PDT From: Howard Pierpont 291-8680 15-Oct-1990 1114 Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? My Sept 1990 copy of AT&T Home-Office Resoures lists the following in the AT&T Home-Office Resoure Line Directory: 1-800-722-2688 100 AT&T Products and Services Lists a number of products but... 170 AT&T Mail. I can post a full listing if requested, including how to get on the distribution list. Howard F. Pierpont DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORP 450 Donald Lynch Blvd., Marlboro, MA 01752 508-490-8680 ------------------------------ From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Telecom Acronyms Date: 15 Oct 90 02:57:00 GMT Organization: Biar Games, Inc. U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >Telephone operators-turned-philosophers can turn to PLATO (programmed >evaluation review technique). Hmm. Mayhaps they should be more PERT. PLATO is "Programmed Learning for Automated Teaching Operations," created in the early '70s at the University of Illinois at Urbana (future home of HAL), marketed into an early semi-grave by CDC, but well remembered as having some of the all-time best multiplayer games ever written. Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor trebor@biar.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 90 15:47:11 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages On David Lemson (FREE0612@uiucvmd ) writes: DL>...we'd find a message DL>on the answering machine consisting of a ring or so and my dad's DL>voice mail message. Then, the standard "If you'd like to leave a DL>message, press one ..." message and the answering machine timed out on the DL>silence from the other end. Pretty weird, huh? How about the possibility that your dad called home, hit your answering machine, flashed for new dial tone and made another call. The switch at your dad's office tried to ring the held call back to him, saw that his phone was in use and sent it to his voice mail. "Have your machine call my machine...we'll do lunch." 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!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ From: Don Alvarez Subject: Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages Date: 15 Oct 90 13:11:08 GMT Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey In article <13541@accuvax.nwu.edu> (David E Lemson) writes that they have also had problems with their voice mail ringing them back when they call in to check messages. He points out that this doesn't happen all the time. If your system is anything like the one we had at MIT, then the problem is that you are hanging up too quickly. The machine is probably programmed (for better or for worse) to call you back and continue the call if the connection is 'accidentally' disconnected. I suspect that there is some point in the mail-check process before which hanging up will cause a ring-back and after which it will not. don alvarez ------------------------------ From: Joel Upchurch Subject: Re: PA COCOT Checklist Date: 15 Oct 90 11:17:00 GMT Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL Another couple of things to consider for your COCOT checklist: 1. Does it try to charge you for long distance for local calls? I was trying to make a call from a local call from a pay phone at a shopping center and it asked me to deposit an additional dollar before it would complete the call. I tried it again and it said the same thing. I spotted a another pay phone on the other side of the parking lot and walked over to it. It was a Southern Bell phone. I made the call from there, without any additional extortion. 2. Does it comply with equal access requirements? When I tried to use 10ATT from a pay phone at Nashville airport it didn't work. When I asked the operator to connect me with an AT&T operator, the operator said that this was a private phone company and they weren't required to connect me to the long distance carrier of my choice. I mentioned FCC equal access requirements and the operator replied that they didn't have to connect me to an AT&T operator, but they would make an exception this one time. Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: More COCOTery Date: 15 Oct 90 16:08:36 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <13505@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >On Oct 13 at 10:08, Will Martin writes: >> One interesting footnote indicates that there must be COCOT-free areas >> in the country -- I don't recall ever seeing this mentioned in the >> Digest. "Legal restrictions prevent the sale of Private Pay Telephones >> to customers in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Oklahoma." >Yes, indeed, there are no COCOTs in these states. How do they get away >with it, since it comes down from Federal regulation on high? COCOTs resell local exchange service and intrastate toll calls. Those are within the domain of state regulators, so states have the right to restrict them. If COCOTs were configured to _only_ carry interstate calls, then it might be possible to put one in those states too. But most calls are intrastate. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Re: COCOTery!!! (I is ONE!!) Date: 15 Oct 90 23:15:28 GMT Reply-To: Jim Haynes Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz CATS One thing I learned from this exchange is that owning a COCOT is somewhat similar (except for the amount of money involved) to owning a fast food franchise. That is, someone puts up the money to buy the coin phone, pays for the location, services the machine, etc. A different entity corresponding to the franchisor exists to provide various services such as AOS and maybe scouting out the location and sells these services to the franchisee at perhaps inflated prices. This bears on the suggestion that there should be competing COCOTs side-by-side and the public would choose the one(s) offering better services at lower cost. I think that would work only if the franchisors were able to establish readily-identifiable brand names, and mark their phones accordingly, and advertise. Thus you would have McDingdong's and BurglarKing phones side by side, and the two companies would constantly slug it out in national TV ads, and when you used one of these phones you would expect the same consistent grade of service from one installation to the next. As for me, I'd rather buy stock in a telephone company than buy a COCOT. haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 16 Oct 90 01:49:07 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle In article <12952@accuvax.nwu.edu> levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes: >>[Moderator's Note: Most telcos seem to change the number a lot, and >>they tend to be in the range of 200-xxx-xxxx. PAT] >Here in NETel land, I have never seen it change. It's always been the >above number (except one CO where it's always been 200-2622 (!)). (At >least since around 1970, anyway, when Cambridge got in a lot of new >ESS stuff; previously you could find your own number on several >exchanges by just dialing 225.) I tried the number given in the original post, supposedly valid from "US West land", the other night at home (Bellevue, WA, served by US West). Didn't work. I tried it from the office, too, but I didn't expect it to work here (where the telco is Boeing Computer Services). Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: A New Way to Get Slammed Date: 15 Oct 90 16:23:32 GMT Reply-To: Tom Gray Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <13502@accuvax.nwu.edu> portal!cup.portal.com! John_David_Galt writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 733, Message 4 of 11 >John Higdon (john@bovine.att.com) writes: >I saw the same news stories I think you did, but I read them more >carefully. No one got service they hadn't asked for, but lots of Bell Canada was doing just that putting unordered custom calling features on people's lines. They were doing it across whole office code blocks. They said tat they were offering a free sample of their service whic of course wouldn't be in anyway deleterious to the customer. One woman was operating a small consulting business from her home. Call waiting was applied to her line without her permission. Customers were calling her line and recieving continuois ringing Previously if she had been on the line with a customer, other customers received busy. She received many queries as to whether she was still in business. ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Mon Oct 15 17:05:16 EDT 1990 Subject: Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases In V10#737, Douglas Scott Reuben (dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu) plaintively inquires: >Not only is MCI going to charge $35 per year for a mailbox, but in my >bill insert there was also a line saying: >"Letterhead and Signature Graphics: $30.00/Year" >... do any of the other E-mail providers out there allow users to store and >print letterheads/sigs. on paper and/or fax letters? AT&T Mail charges $12/year for Signatures, Logos, and Letterheads. There's no one-time fee. I have most of the pricing for AT&T Mail available, but it's in print rather than on-line. But I'd be willing to key most of it in and submit it to the Digest if there's Overwhelming Public Demand. And if you'd like to order an AT&T Mail account, or get some glossy brochures, the number is 800-624-5672. Or 800-MAIL672, if you prefer. Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Marketing 800-241-4285 AT&T Mail !jdominey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 15:29:31 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls > ... To totally exclude all non-USA citizens who are visiting us from > receiving credit is one thing -- to issue credit to out of > country people and not others is illegal. ... PAT If DISCRIMINATION of foreign nationals based on country of origin is legal (and I believe it is), then *by definition* they may do precisely that. You are free to discriminate against anyone you like on any basis EXCEPT those specifically mentioned by law. The protection of these laws, when push comes to shove, is most likely only extended to citizens of the USA. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@cv.hp.com All relevant disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #739 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01125; 17 Oct 90 4:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18962; 17 Oct 90 2:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01107; 17 Oct 90 1:44 CDT Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 1:25:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #740 BCC: Message-ID: <9010170125.ab28614@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Oct 90 01:24:58 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 740 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [TELECOM Moderator] Telephones at Fallingwater [Sharon Crichton] AT&T Reductions on Custom Network International Calls [Carol Springs] An AT&T Salesperson Responds to 'Heaters and Eskimos' [Ed Hopper] Request For Information on SourceLine [David Leibold] Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [99700000] DTMF in France [Benny Schnaider] Information Needed on Lantastic by Artisoft [DJH128@psuvm.psu.edu] Re: AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! [Bill Ezell] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 0:35:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Michael Glodek must feel like a million dollars today. He's the landscaper who was building a new lawn for a home at 3521 Madison Avenue in Oak Brook, IL on Monday morning when his digging machine uprooted what Illinois Bell termed a 'very major, very important' part of their interoffice network covering northern Illinois. Glodek said, "I didn't do a JULIE because no one said there were any lines in the immediate vicinity." JULIE is the organization which keeps track of underground telephone and electric cables, plus water and gas pipelines in northern Illinois. A spokesperson for Illinois Bell retorted that "Every contractor is to do a JULIE before they start work, and he knew it as well as anyone..." Glodek said his machine 'snagged something down there', but he thought it must have been part of an old septic tank system which was common in that area many years ago ... so he decided to 'dig right in and root it out ...' and in the process he literally severed several thousand conversations then in progress on the fiber optic cable. Folks at IBT found out about it instantly, of course, but finding out *where* the problem was located was another matter. Some frantic employees of Illinois Bell set out in various directions looking for trouble. But as in May, 1988 after the Great Fire, their cellular phones were dead also, since the cable which had been cut served both Cellular One and Ameritech here. Using two-way radios, the employees began coordinating their search. Once the cut was located, two-way radios were used to bring many employees to the location in minutes. From about 9:30 AM Monday, when the cable was cut until more than twelve hours later, at 10:04 PM, Bell employees worked feverishly to restore service in what was described as the 'worst telephone outage in the area since May, 1988'. It took only about fifteen minutes to locate the cut and Mr. Glodek, who was still standing there wondering what to do next ... In terms of severity, the disruption in service knocked out all interoffice traffic between central offices in the 708 area code. Some re-routing of calls was possible, but like Hinsdale in May, 1988, the cut cable was so important and so strategic that very little could be done for the several hundred thousand subscribers in northern Illinois who were unable to place calls outside their local exchange all day. If you have a detailed map of northern Illinois, you will note the area involved: From Elk Grove on the north to Hinsdale on the south; from Oak Park on the east to St. Charles on the west ... all interoffice service was out, and much local service around Oak Brook was out. All cellular service throughout 312/708 was out, since both Cellular One and Ameritech have their offices in Schaumburg, right in the affected zone. Naturally many paging devices were out, since these are also operated by companies in the western suburbs. Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood lost all phone service for ten hours, until 8 PM Monday night. Illinois Bell was able to provide the hospital with a limited amount of cellular service and two-way radio service late in the morning. 911 service was out everywhere for several hours. Police officers cruised the streets and used their radios to relay reports from citizens. Ohare Airport operated at one-third its normal schedule, since the control tower was totally cut off from the FAA Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center in Aurora, IL. FAX machines and computers throughout the area were out of service, and several companies simply let their employees go home for the day. The abruptness of the cut, forcing thousands of calls off line all at the same time caused some major confusion for several minutes as Illinois Bell operators became deluged with requests to 'assist in dialing' numbers which not only did not answer, but simply returned dead silence to the caller. Once network re-routing got under way, limited as it was minutes after the problem was isolated, the burden on the operators became somewhat less, but Chicago (312) callers, who were never without operator service (lots of 708 people go over the cut cable to reach an operator) still bombarded the operators for several hours with requests for assistance in calling the suburbs. No one in 312 or 708 could reach the cellular companies to find out why their cell phones were dead ... much of the affected (708) area could not even reach the operator, repair service, directory or the business office. Bell issued an emergency press release about 10 AM Monday which went out over radio and television stations throughout the day advising of the problem and that service would be restored as soon as possible. Additional employees helped the operators handling calls, and by early Monday afternoon it was pretty common knowledge that a major crisis in the telephone network was going on here. Emergency lighting was installed at the work site, and Bell employees planned to remain on duty around the clock until everything had been restored. At 10:04 PM the supervisor on duty announced the splicing had been completed. Mr. Michael Glodek just stood there watching ... he admitted 'this is probably going to cost me a lot of money, but that is what my insurance is for ...' "You bet it will cost him a lot of money," said a Bell spokesperson. "He'll get sued I'm sure." Hinsdale and May, 1988 are still sensitive issues here; Glodek opened an old wound, and will no doubt rue the day he didn't bother to 'do a JULIE' before starting his work. He'll be getting sued for a long time to come. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Sharon Crichton Subject: Telephones at Fallingwater Date: 16 Oct 90 20:13:26 GMT Reply-To: sharonc%meaddata@uunet.uu.net Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH [For you telecom readers who enjoy stories about telephone history and trivia, here's a story for you.] At "Fallingwater," the Edgar Kaufmann summer home designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the telephone installation was performed by Merton W. Crichton (my grandfather), Ike Schriver, Alfred Blosser, and their foreman Ross Sennett. All were employees of the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, probably based out of the Pittsburgh or Uniontown area office (the house was built in 1936 and my dad was born in Uniontown that year). According to my grandfather, Mrs. Kaufmann wanted to use her French style phones. In 1936, it was unheard of to use any phone equipment other than Bell System equipment. But with pressure from her millionaire department store owner husband (Kaufmanns department stores, for those readers not from Pittsburgh), Bell allowed the use of the French phones. But only after the inner workings had been replaced with Bell System parts! Mrs. Kaufmann was very fussy about cleanliness. She required the men to remove their shoes upon entering the house. So they did the work in their stocking feet. From the house, the pole lines and wires went down the hill to the B&O RR tracks. From there, the lines separated. One line went to the nearest central office at Ohiopyle, the other went all the way to Pittsburgh, approximately 75 miles, so that the Kaufmanns could also have a Pittsburgh number and line at their summer place. This was also practically unheard of in 1936. If you go to Fallingwater (the Pennsylvania Conservancy now owns it and gives tours), don't look for the phones. They have been removed. But the old poles and lines might still be there in the woods. If anyone is interested in the more technical details, I can ask my grandfather (he's now in Winter Park, Florida). Sharon Crichton CDS Systems Evolution Mead Data Central sharonc%meaddata@uunet.uu.net P.O. Box 933 sharonc@meaddata.com Dayton, OH 45401 ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: AT&T Reductions on Custom Network International Calls Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 10:06:24 EDT From the "Bits & Bytes" section of the October 22 {Business Week}, edited by John W. Verity: A Big Cut for Big Business' Overseas Phone Bills Most foreign phone companies routinely overcharge for calls Americans make to their countries by laying on large "call-completion" fees. Those charges make up about half of the roughly $2 billion deficit the U.S. runs in international calling ... Now [AT&T] has arranged for future reductions of up to 50% on completion fees on its calls to Britain, Australia, France, Japan, Canada, and Belgium. AT&T negotiated the lower rates for companies that run custom phone networks on its circuits. AT&T's Ray Butkus, director of international business services, says it was helped by multinational companies that asked foreign phone companies for concessions. MCI and Sprint are expected to demand equal cuts for their customized networks. Still, custom networks are for heavy callers. Little guys still pay the full bill. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Hopper Subject: An AT&T Salesperson Responds to 'Heaters and Eskimos' Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 21:10:57 CDT Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > I guess AT&T would still have trouble selling heaters to Eskimos. As one of the much-maligned AT&T sales people, I have to speak up. I will not contend that there aren't problems. Particularly with people who sat on their a** during the old Bell days, but AT&T Mail *IS* being aggressively promoted. If you're a Fortune 500 company, I'll bet you've had a proposal. The problem, and it is the same problem that has been plaguing most lines of business in the company for years, is not in the people, it's in the upper-level management direction. In the past, they have stuck exclusively to large accounts. That is starting to change now and with the WU acquisition, should increase. I would imagine that a call to 800 directory assistance would have yielded the appropriate numbers quickly. Unfortunately, the mass 800 numbers (800 222-0300 & 0400) are easily thrown by the slightest out of the normal question. Ed Hopper AT&T Computer Systems Division [Moderator's Note: Unfortunately, 800-555-1212 was *exactly* where I tried to find the number in reference to SJR's original note. To be certain it was not just a fluke or an inexperienced operator, I called a second, then a third time. They had loads of listings for AT&T, but none for Mail. PAT] ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Request For Info on SourceLine Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 23:46:50 EDT Some months ago, someone mentioned a service called SourceLine which was a modem-based service in the US for teletext, etc. Could those in the know please *MAIL* down the details of the service, how long it lasted (i forget whether it still exists, or whether it died off) etc. I'd like to check some of this info and relate it to the current Alex service that is operating in Toronto and Montreal. Thanks, || djcl@contact.uucp alternate: david.leibold@canremote.uucp ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Date: 16 Oct 90 17:58:21 GMT Reply-To: Jim Haynes Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz CATS I got to wondering what happened to the Telephone Pioneers organization after the great Bell System breakup. haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes [Moderator's Note: They are still around in the local operating companies, and at AT&T. There was some question back in the early eighties if His Honor was going to permit that fine, charitable organization to continue or if he would insist on busting it up also and forcing its disbandonment. I have not heard anything much about them lately however. They used to do a lot of very good work with handicapped people here; building special telephones for them, etc. If anyone reading this is a member, how about an update from your chapter of the Pioneers? PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: eli@pws.bull.com From: Benny Schnaider Subject: DTMF in France Date: 17 Oct 90 00:53:47 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corp., Sunnyvale CA I have a problem in using DTMF dial up modem in France. The modem that I am trying to use worked O.K. in the USA. I have full control on various DTMF parameters: * Signal Duration. (msec) * Signal level. (dB) * Interval between each digit. (msec) * Any general clues about DTMF in France vs. DTMF in France ? * Any specific setting for the above parameters ? * How about other European countries ? Regards, Benny Schnaider benny@vlss.amdahl.com Amdahl Corporation, 1250 EAST Arques Avenue, M/S 246, Sunnyvale CA, 94088-3470 (408) 296 - 0596, (408) 737 - 7883 ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Tuesday, 16 Oct 1990 17:28:54 EDT From: DJH128@psuvm.psu.edu Subject: Information Need on Lantastic by Artisoft I am looking for information on Lantastic. I am particularly interested in talking to someone who has installed the system already. I would like to connect three pc's together and share one hard disk between all three. I heard that Lantastic is very reasonable and was PC editors choice in PCmag. Is ethernet necessary or will arcnet do? Can all three users access a single-user program's .exe, and .com files, and have their data files stored on their local hard disk? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: Bill Ezell Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! Organization: Software Innovations, Inc. Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 12:53:16 GMT In <13243@accuvax.nwu.edu> jhultman@takagi.helios.nd.edu writes: >AT&T took out a full page ad on the back of today's (Wed Sep 10 1990) >{Chicago Tribune} "Tempo" section. Imagine almost the full page in black >with little bits of white text, then the normal black-on-white at >bottom. >"I'm sorry ... We don't offer directory assistance for Europe." . . . > So before you make your next international call, call AT&T. 1 >800 523-WORLD. With AT&T's quality and service, there's really no >excuse for using anyone else. I wonder just what AT&T is advertising? I distinctly remember a series of ads some months ago where AT&T strongly implied, if not outright stated, that one could easily get directory information for foreign countries. Well, one day I needed to find a number in Germany. After being transferred by various AT&T operators to various other AT&T operators, I finally ended up at 'international something-or-other', and was told: A) there were no such ads. B) there was no way to get foreign DA, except by calling an operator in the country in question. C) I couldn't call a foreign operator, anyway. D) thank you for using AT&T. I suppose all of this is actually good service; at least AT&T knows that there are other countries, unlike some of the competition (foreign country ... is that somewhere like Maine?). Bill Ezell Software Innovations, Inc. wje@siia.mv.com (603) 883-9300 [Moderator's Note: The above points are partly correct: (a) there were ads saying it was easy to do; (b) true; (c) again true, your local operator connects you in some cases, and passes the call to the international operators in Pittsburg in other cases from where the connection is made; (d) you're welcome, I'm sure! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #740 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04077; 17 Oct 90 6:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32433; 17 Oct 90 4:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16932; 17 Oct 90 3:49 CDT Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 2:46:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #741 BCC: Message-ID: <9010170246.ac13981@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Oct 90 02:45:46 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 741 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS [Jim Thomas] Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS [John Higdon] Follow-up: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Edward Vielmetti] So Which Mail is Best? [Mike Danseglio] Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [Steve Forrette] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Steve Forrette] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Paul Orgren] Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail [John Cowan] Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: PA COCOT Checklist [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Telecom Acronyums [Gordon C. Zaft] Vanity Numbers (was Re: The Cost of Numbers) [Jerry B. Altzman] How To Address A User on Fido (was: Old Switchboard) [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 02:40 CDT From: jt Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS I was one of those who, in 1988 and early 1989, had numbers I regularly dialed blocked by Teleconnect. Whatever the legality of the practice, Pat Townson's comment on the (lack of) ethics of this practice should be underscored. When the blocked numbers were dialed, a brief pre-recorded message announced that the number could not be reached. It took a number of persistant calls through the hierarchy and eventually into security and management divisions before they *finally* admitted that the calls were being blocked. I found only two persons in that organization who were relatively undeceptive in initially acknowledging the practice. When I first began my inquiries, I was repeatedly told that it was "probably" a technical bug and the service folk would look into it. On one occasion, after repeated calls, I was told that a particular number would be unblocked, and it was, for about 12 hours, then it was re-blocked. Some of the numbers were "underground" boards, but one was a public BBS. Initial attempts to deal calmly, politely, and reasonably with Teleconnect were unsuccessful. I found them to be arrogant, deceptive, and insensitive. In bureaucratic "polite speak," they essentially said "screw you." Their rationale for blocking was not that the numbers themselves were a problem, but that some users were using "codez" to call, so they stopped *all* calls. Neither the callers nor the sysops were not notified of this practice. Whether blocking is legal or not, it certainly raises ethical questions. Although I unequivocally oppose the practice, I would have better feelings about Teleconnect if they had been upfront from the beginning and warned potential modem users that some numbers would be blocked, or if they had been forthright about their practice. At that time, they also had inferior service to a number of areas, a problem I have never had with either ATT or Sprint. Needless to say, they lost a customer amidst considerable rancor. If anybody is litigating, I still have some copies of the correspondence laying around if they want them. A final thought -- there was an article on the founder of Teleconnect in a recent trade journal. Funny, they mentioned nothing about the blocking practice in the glowing tribute they paid him. [Moderator's Note: But at least they didn't give you the traditional excuses AT&T uses to block calls: (1) the local telco does it, not us; (2) the subscriber receiving the calls asked us to not pass the traffic. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS Date: 16 Oct 90 01:32:02 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon On Oct 16 at 0:05, TELECOM Moderator writes: > The blocking of paid traffic by a > telco is quite unethical to say the least, if not actually illegal, > which I suspect it is, without going to look through a bunch of > tariffs. It would seem that in addition to being illegal, a telco or IEC could possibly jeapordize its common carrier standing by such actions. One reason that a telco, RCC, or IEC is protected from legal liability as a result of what travels over its facilities is that it is required to serve all qualified customers (those who pay). If any carrier is going to start making judgements about what will and will not be transmitted, assumptions could be made that the management has assumed responsibility for the messages. If some harmful or potentially harmful messages were passed (say, classified material leaked to a reporter) it could be said that the carrier had failed in its (self-imposed) duty. This is the stuff lawsuits are made of. It's called negligence. In essence, a would-be common carrier can't have it both ways. Either it passes all messages on a content-neutral basis, or it assumes responsibity (and liability) for the content of the information it carries. No? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 12:27 EST From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Follow-up: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? This is just to let everyone concerned know that a rep from AT&T did call to express his concern for the problems I had encountered trying to get a hold of someone at AT&T Mail, and stated that my original message had been circulated to an undetermined number of people in an attempt to rectify the problem on a long-term basis. I don't think I am at liberty to discuss specifics, but it is my understanding that corrections are now being made and that hopefully more information about AT&T mail will be more readily available in the future (outside the TELECOM community, that is). BTW: I think someone already wrote this, but the numbers provided for AT&T mail in previous articles (I used the one in John Higdon's article) do work, and I was able to get a knowledgeable rep on the first attempt. Sander J. Rabinowitz | 0003829147@mcimail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- sjr@mcimail.com | 8-) ------------------------------ From: Edward Vielmetti Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. Date: 17 Oct 90 00:40:35 In article <13528@accuvax.nwu.edu> JMS@carat.arizona.edu writes: Sprint Mail 800-835-3638 $20/year fee. Costs based on connect time plus per message fee. FAX, paper mail, storage fees. (Internet gateway unknown). Sprint Mail (nee Telemail) has an Internet gateway at sprint.com, aka sprintf.merit.edu, in Ann Arbor. Mail to postmaster@sprint.com should yield acceptable results for more information. I've never used it myself, its addressing is X.400ish & thus really ugly. Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept moderator, comp.archives claimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of Merit Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 23:29:35 EDT From: Mike Danseglio Subject: So Which Mail is Best? There has been quite a bit of debate concerning the various e-mail services available to the public lately. I just want to know which I should subscribe to! Which is best? Could anyone post a fairly definitive message addressing this? Thanks! Mike Danseglio University of Central Florida BitNet: dansegli@ucf1vm InterNet:dansegli@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 01:23:53 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? Reply-To: forrette@cory.Berkeley.EDU In article <13480@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs. washington.edu writes: Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 731, Message 5 of 10 >> [Moderator's Note: Yes, 950 calls are supposed to be free of charge to >> the caller. They are sort of like 800 numbers; the charge for the >> call is paid by the OCC you are using to route your call. >I was told by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission >that COCOTs could legally charge for 800 calls. I asked about this >because of the 800 access to US Sprint with a FON-Card. >[Moderator's Note: Ask them for a written copy. To charge the caller >for an 800 number makes two people pay for the call. PAT] In California, this is indeed the case (actually, it may have changed since the new COCOT regulations went into effect in August, but it definately was the case before that time). I have it in writing from Pacific Bell. They may charge up to 10 cents (cash deposit) for 800 calls, calling card calls, collect calls, etc. What's lame about this is that you simply can't make a call without a coin deposit (except for 911, etc.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 02:16:20 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Organization: University of California, Berkeley >>I have also gotten some annoying sales calls from the Mercury, though >>not lately. At least they seem to obey the law against having a >>computer initiate the call, without a human being talking to you >>first. ... >I understood this to be California law, also, but I found no reference >to it at the UCLA Law Library. Any Californian have the section >number? Many of the "laws" regulating telephone usage are administrative laws, not statutory laws. They are in the form of tariffs on file with the PUC. Although not "laws" as most people think of them, since they weren't passed by the legislature, they have the same force and effect (ever heard of the Internal Revenue Code?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 17:45:31 EDT From: Paul Orgren Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Something just occurred to me -- does the S.J. Mercury bother their own subscribers with the telemarketing calls? If they do, it seems they would have a lot of annoyed customers getting monthly calls though they already subscribe. If they do not, then they *do* have a way of blocking specific numbers (contrary to their claims of not being able to do that). On a related topic: when I moved to Houston in 1980, within hours of my phone being connected, I received a call from the Houston Post inviting me to subscribe. It seemed that Southwestern Bell must be giving them lists of newly connected numbers. Paul Orgren (orgren@rtc.reston.unisys.com) ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 17:43:24 GMT In article <13584@accuvax.nwu.edu> hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: >Since I've recently done the research on how to do this, I thought I'd >post a brief message on how ANYONE who gets comp.dcom.telecom can >access the Telecom Archives through MAIL rather than FTP. Let me also mention (plug, plug) the FTPget script, available at comp.sources.misc archives everywhere. This rather short Bourne shell script, suitable for Unix systems, will allow you to access the FTP mail server at Princeton from the Unix command line, without having to compose a mail message. To retrieve a file from the Telecom Archives, the command would be: ftpget lcs.mit.edu -d telecom-archives -t cocot-in-violation-label And bingo, the message comes back in the overnight email. The script as distributed does NOT have the server name in it, so you need to edit the script (following the instructions) to include the server name bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu. Comments about FTPget may be sent to me. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) e'osai ko sarji la lojban ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail (FTP servers) From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 19:29:29 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > The email address of the server I've been using is "bitftp@pucc. > bitnet". Toby, I wonder if you would be kind enough to ferret out an unambiguous path to pucc.princeton.edu from a major backbone? I have sent repeated HELP requests to this server, only to have my mail fall into some black hole. I have never received an answer. Or is there a way to specify a return path? (in case my From: line is getting hammered enroute). Roy M. Silvernail now available at: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: PA COCOT Checklist Date: 16 Oct 90 16:55:33 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <13593@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Joel Upchurch writes: > Another couple of things to consider for your COCOT checklist: > 1. Does it try to charge you for long distance for local calls? From memory, I believe that the PA regulation is that the COCOT may not charge more than the tarrifed amount. Never had problems with that in this area, but then again, I avoid the suckers as much as possible. > 2. Does it comply with equal access requirements? This is an interesting point. My checklist was designed as a form for the PA PUC. From the regs that I read, I got the impression that PA doesn't have specific equal access regulations for COCOTs (although they might have been in a section that I didn't have a copy of). Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: "Gordon C. Zaft" Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 16:25:39 PDT Organization: NSWSES Code 4Y33 - Opinions: Are Mine Alone Subject: Re: Telecom Acronyms Robert Woodhead writes: >Hmm. Mayhaps they should be more PERT. PLATO is "Programmed Learning >for Automated Teaching Operations," created in the early '70s at the >University of Illinois at Urbana (future home of HAL), marketed into >an early semi-grave by CDC, but well remembered as having some of the >all-time best multiplayer games ever written. Actually PLATO is still somewhat alive-and-well; CDC sold it to The Roach Organization (TRO). Meanwhile, UIUC has come up with the successor to PLATO, NovaNET. NovaNET combines the features of PLATO with lowered cost due to satellite distribution of host-to-terminal data. Gordon Zaft | zaft@suned1.nswses.navy.mil + NSWSES, Code 4Y33 | suned1!zaft@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov + Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5007 | Phone: (805) 982-0684 FAX: 982-8768 + ------------------------------ From: "Jerry B. Altzman" Subject: Vanity Numbers (was: The Cost of Numbers) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 17:36:04 GMT On the subject of vanity numbers-- A friend of mine's (who reads the net, does he read c.d.t?) father told the phone company that he wanted an easy phone number to remember because he had 'retarded children at home' and so he got a number of the form: ABB-BBAA for what was reported to be 'no extra charge.' I don't believe my friend or any of his siblings are retarded, but my friend and I have done some pretty stupid things together :-) jerry b. altzman 212 854 8058 jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 13:37 EDT From: John Cowan Subject: How To Address a User on Fido (was: Old Switchboard) Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. In article <13579@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >Mark can be reached in care of his BBS: 512-885-7564 in Corpus >Christi. He is also known as Fido node 1:160/50.0 if you would care >to contact him through the net. You should probably also mention that Mark is mark.earle@f50.n160.z1.fidonet.org to the non-Fido world. Not everybody knows how to do the Fidonet<-> domain system translations. cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #741 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00834; 18 Oct 90 5:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24282; 18 Oct 90 3:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14852; 18 Oct 90 2:31 CDT Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 1:20:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #742 BCC: Message-ID: <9010180120.ab21877@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Oct 90 01:20:20 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 742 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households [Peter G. Capek] Refunds Possible From Bell of PA [Craig R. Watkins] Sweden Already Charges for Directory Enquiries [Dan Sahlin] Why Companies use Music On Hold [Kevin Collins] Portable Phone Tranceivers [Mark Richard-Fogg] NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Carl Moore] Comparisons Wanted Of Cellular Phone Costs [Hank Nussbacher] Problem With Relocated Phone [Stan Voket] Looking For Help With AT&T 801c ACU [Thomas Lapp] Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone? [Carl Moore] What Networks Can I Reach? [Dave Mc Mahan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 01:15:21 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households {The Wall Street Journal} of October 16 has an article describing recent announcements by MCI and Sprint of new programs to market 800 service to residences. Highlights: MCI: "Personal 800" service, says it is an alternative to collect and credit card calls. Two billing options: if you have MCI long distance, 800 service is $2/month on top of the PrimeTime calling plan. Calls are $6.50/hr from 1700 to 0800 wkdays, Saturday, and Sunday 'til 1700. At other times, calls are 25 cents/minute, minus 10% discount. If you don't have MCI LD, then it is $5/month and 25 cents/minute all the time. Apparently in either case, MCI customers get will get a four-digit private security code to avoid the reception of unwanted calls. (Anybody know how this works? Does the caller use it? I presume called party uses it, since he pays. But presumably he must know who is calling to be able to decide.) Sprint: $10/month, normal long distance charges (presumably based on distance and time and time of day). Says calls are 12-15% cheaper than "regular dialing" because "small-business rates" apply. $50 installation fee is waived during three month startup promotion. "Somebody who has more than 6 or 7 collect calls a month, or 12 credit card calls a month, would be a candidate." The article also mentions AT&T's Call Me card, and says they have no plan to change their service but "are glad to see that MCI and Sprint have addressed this need." It also gives some examples of usage, most of which are pretty obvious. The claim is that the total US market for calling-card and operator-assisted (I presume this includes both collect and third-party billing, which are not replaced by 800 service) is $8 billion, according to MCI. Nothing is said about ability to restrict the origination points of calls to these 800 numbers, or about ability to call them from abroad. Isn't it now the case that one or both of these carriers provide something similar to AT&T's USA Direct service to allow calling to 800 numbers from abroad? Observation: Isn't there a real potential for running out of numbers here? There's really only one area code's worth of 800 numbers, and several hundred thousand of those have been assigned already. If these services are successful in any serious sort of way, I see a real constraint. Even if it were technically feasible to add another area code or two for "reverse bill" service, advertising it and getting people to know, as they do today, that "1-800" is free would certainly take a while. Peter Capek ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Refunds Possible From Bell of PA Date: 17 Oct 90 23:51:50 EST Organization: HRB Systems Copy of "Action Alert" received via USMail 16-Oct-1990: Bell Customers Are You Eligible For A Credit Or Refund? Check your October bill from Bell of Pennsylvania to see if you received a credit. The credit should appear on the page titled "Additional Credits and Charges", usually found on page 6 or 7 of the bill. Bell agreed to pay a credit or refund to residential customers who ordered or began to receive Touch Tone Service or any Custom Calling Service (Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, Three-Way Calling, or Speed Calling) at any time from January 1, 1985 until March 20, 1988. The amount of the credit will be based on the number of these services you had during this period. Customers will receive a $14 credit for each service. Look at your October bill closely. If you do not receive a credit on your bill but ordered or began to receive any of these services between January 1, 1985 through March 20, 1988, please call Bell at: 1-800-321-0064 You do not have to be a current customer of Bell to qualify. Former customers may be entitled to a refund. Call the "800" number listed above if you think you are eligible. If you have or had optional services you didn't order or thought were required for phone service {you may have a right to more than the $14 credit for each service}. If you are not satisfied with the amount of the credit or refund you received from Bell, call the company at the above telephone number. Bell representatives will review each call and determine whether you are qualified for a full refund and, if so, the amount of that refund. This credit or refund is the result of a settlement of the Consumer Advocate's complaint filed in March 1988 and joined in by a prosecuting team from the PUC. The complaint alleged that Bell violated Commission regulations and charged that Bell did not clearly tell customers that the services listed above are optional. It also charged that Bell gave false and/or misleading information about certain optional services such as Touch Tone Service. Bell denied and continues to deny these charges. You should check your optional telephone services to make sure you have only the ones you want or need. Please read the attached "Action Alert" for tips to help you decide. Prepared by Consumer Education Bureau of Consumer Services Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ---------- The attached "Action Alert" described, among other things, that "To have telephone service, you are required to have only the following: 1. A dial tone line. 2. A local calling plan. 3. Federal line cost charge. All other services, such as Touch Tone, Inside Wire Maintenance Plans, Call Waiting and Call Forwarding, are optional, and are not necessary to have telephone service." ---------- This information was typed in and may contain errors. For more information or an official copy, contact the PA PUC. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: Dan Sahlin Subject: Sweden Already Charges for Directory Enquiries Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 13:49:05 GMT In Sweden you are charged SEK 6.90 (about 1USD) per minute when calling 07975 for directory enquiries. This started about two years ago, and there was a lot of opposition. The blind and handicapped get their telephone subscription rate reduced, but they do not have a special number. The crazy thing is that you are charged per minute. That is, if the operator is slow, you will have to pay more. They claim that they usually handle an enquiry within a minute, and according to my experience this seems true. Directory enquiries for other countries is still free. Are there any more countries where you have to pay for directory enquiries? Dan Sahlin email: dan@sics.se ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: Why Companies Use Music On Hold Date: 17 Oct 90 17:19:58 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca After reading all of the postings on use and abuse of {Music,Silence, Hawk} On Hold, voice menu systems, etc., I get the distinct impression that (some of) the readers of this forum may not realize why companies use these features. Bottom line: companies that receive incoming calls (for sales, service, or whatever) want callers to stay on the line. Any time the customer can't get through, his resentment meter inches ever closer to the red line. MOH makes *most* people feel more comfortable on the line, so they wait longer before hanging up. Voice menu systems, if done correctly, give better response time to the customer AND reduce costs for the call center (by automating simple tasks, like account balance lookup). It is for these reasons (and others) that companies use services such as MOH (NOT because they have "callous disregard for their customers"). Call center managers *do* view callers who hang up while on hold as lost revenue. One of the main features of an automatic call distributor (ACD) is the statistics the system keeps on "avg. time on hold" and other such categories - the manager of the call center uses this info to make decisions about staffing, performance, etc. If you're bothered by the way a company handles (your) incoming calls, let them know what you want! If they get enough complaints [and have a decent ACD! :-)], they will be more than happy to change. I'm sure not all companies are sensitive to the needs of their customers; any *successful* company, IMHO, *must* be. Kevin Collins | Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | San Jose, CA Voice: +1 408 441 2489 | My opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ From: Richard-Fogg Subject: Portable Phone Tranceivers Date: 17 Oct 90 18:53:18 GMT Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO We are seeking a supply of "portable phone" radio transceivers. Our application is remote sensor data collection, local area networks, and telephone switch modification. If you know of such a supplier, please inform us by e mail. Many Thanks, Mark Richard-Fogg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 23:59:05 EDT From: cmoore@brl.mil Subject: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll Some telecom items, in this newspaper excerpt referring to an opinion poll. New York Times, Oct. 14, 1990, page 25 column 1, first 3 paragraphs only. How the Poll Was Conducted "The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll is based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 8-10 with 960 adults around the nation, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. "The sample of telephone exchanges called was selected by a computer from a complete list of exchanges in the country. The exchanges were chosen so as to insure that each region of the country was represented in proportion to its population. For each exchange, the telephone numbers were formed by random digits, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted numbers. The numbers were then screened so that only residences would be called. "The results have been weighted to take account of household size and number of residential telephone lines and to adjust for variations in the sample relating to region, race, sex, age and education." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 12:55:40 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Comparisons Wanted of Cellular Phone Costs I would like to do a comparison of cellular phone costs (initial equipment costs, monthly fixed fees, etc.). I would appreciate anyone in any country to send me their information and I promise to summerize it and repost a summary to this list. Thanks, Hank ------------------------------ From: Stan Voket Subject: Problem With Relocated Phone Date: 17 Oct 90 21:59:19 GMT Organization: gaboon, UNIX 386 System, New Fairfield, CT I was just given an "older" black, desk style telephone unit. There is an "AT&T" on the underside of the handset. It works perfectly in it's former location (I've tested it there.) but 30 miles away it acts differently. When any numerical key on the keypad is pressed, no tone is generated. Moreover, the speaker in the handset seems to "deaden" for the duration of the keypress. I'm baffled. Is this due to some local anomaly in my area? Can the phone be made to work at it's new home? Thanks for the help! :-) - Stan Voket, asv@gaboon - OR - ...uunet!hsi!stpstn!gaboon!asv - - Voice: (203) 746-4489 - FAX 746-9761 TELEX 4996516 - [Moderator's Note: The most common reason touch tone keys will not sound when pressed is because the polarity is reversed. Try switching the wires where you have the phone connected. If you have red on red and green on green at the junction box they *should* work provided the original installer did it correctly. Swap them out to green/red and red/green. See if the touchtones sound now. If they sound, then the touch tones should 'cut' the dial tone and work. If they sound, but do not cut the dial tone, then you are out of luck: the line is not equipped to tone dial. Muting the earpiece when the buttons are pressed is a common practice. The sound level is reduced; otherwise you would go deaf if you were on the phone constantly dialing all day and listening to the loud tones. The contact on the tone pad which shorts the earpiece line works whenever a key is depressed. It has no relationship to whether or not the keys actually sound tones. (See above explanation about why the tones may or may not sound.) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 13:02:52 EDT From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Looking For Help With AT&T 801c ACU I have an AT&T 801c ACU which I have connected to an IBM 37x5 FEP running bisync protocol. I have an application which sends a dial string to the ACU over an RS-366 line. I would like to be able to put a "pause" in the dial string, but do not know what this ACU uses for a "pause one second" command. The 801c manual is less than helpful. Does anyone know or work with this device? Does anyone know of RS-366 defines a pause character like the "," which is a Hayes standard for async modems using the Hayes command set? Thanks, tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) : 4398613@mcimail.com (work) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 9:51:05 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone Would it be possible for a baseball dugout to have phones connecting only to, say, the bullpen? (That is, take the phone off the hook and it automatically rings that other location, such as you might see in an airport for a car-rental company.) [Moderator's Note: Yes, it would be possible. I see a lot of ring-down lines in offices. Amoco Sales Authorization in Des Moines, IA has such a phone which when taken off hook rings on a desk at Diner's Sales Authorization in Denver, CO. and vice-versa. They use it to verify Torch Club cardholder charges at Diner's establishments and Diner's card holder charges at Amoco stations. But a ring-down line, like an FX line, is an overkill unless you keep it loaded at all times and can justify the savings over DDD, which is hard these days. From a dugout to a bullpen would be such an overkill when the already-in-place PBX connects them anyway with three digit dialing, no? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: What Networks Can I Reach? Date: 16 Oct 90 03:39:55 GMT Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services I was asked an interesting question the other day. Someone I work with wanted to e-mail another party, but that party only had BIX and CompuServe. I have seen postings as to how to contact accounts on other networks, and wondered how many there could be. I would also like to know the Usenet address of any servers that form a bridge between Usenet and another network. Networks that I know of and would like info on contacting are: BIX CompuServe MCI Mail Genie (is it still around?) Telex If you know of another network that can send e-mail, please let me know. If you know how to send stuff via Usenet into and out of that network, please also forward that information. I will collect the responses and make up a guide for crossing boundaries. If you want the guide, e-mail me for it. Please give me some time to collect addresses and contact methods before you start asking for the guide. dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #742 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09598; 18 Oct 90 12:03 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28559; 18 Oct 90 9:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21659; 18 Oct 90 8:37 CDT Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 8:10:48 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #743 BCC: Message-ID: <9010180810.ab23857@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Oct 90 08:10:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 743 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Choice, and Then a Choice [Martin Schoffstall] Re: A Choice, and Then a Choice [Jeffrey Jonas] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Bill Berbenich] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [John Higdon] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Andrew M. Boardman] Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS [Brian Kantor] Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Peter da Silva] Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [Alex Lai] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Tom Olin] Re: The Cost of Numbers [John Parsons] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Frederick Roeber] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Schoffstall Subject: Re: A Choice, and Then a Choice Reply-To: Martin Schoffstall Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 05:42:09 GMT This is enormously galling to the people who have spent large amounts of time building the US Internet over the last five to ten years, let alone the US Public Data Networks. Mostly what I see are the Europeans emulating what happened in the US several years ago: governent sponsored/controlled research&education T1 TCP/IP and "OSI", while the US begins the moves into commercial internetworks. Right now we have hundreds of Columbia students using terminal servers in Boston, Hartford, WhitePlains, NYC, Newark, DC, LA using the PSINet portion of the Internet. Rutgers has an in depth NJ system for its use, as does Merit for the state of Michigan, all of them are free to the students and in truth pretty low cost to the sites that amortize the internetworking bill. While I think Yellow Pages is nice for industry/business/home (partially why it was done in France) I don't think students are a good represenative audience, I needed to know where a couple of pizza places were because that is all I could afford. Even today as a business person, I'll use the White Pages 500 times more than I do the Yellow Pages. Hence the Internet interest in White Pages using X.500, something working today. What they had was a monopolistic situation that got a lot of terminals into a lot of places, and the continuation of a now ancient technology that in no way compares against an Xterminal which I can drive from home with a V.32/V.42bis modem, or better yet on my LAN connected to the Internet. I'm sure if we had let Bell stay in control or allowed the RBOC's to mandate the future, I'd be using a 600 baud V.52 terminal equivalent right now. Honestly, if this is the best example that they are going to cite, then there is no good reasons to even let them do more than POTS. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 06:49:07 -0400 From: synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: A Choice, and Then a Choice Steve Reed writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 734, Message 1 of 9 (Describing how the BOCs want to go into the information services...) "[Summary of the argument for allowing BOCs to provide information services and long distance, familiar to most tuning in here.] Let Congress know that you want the right to choose. And, you want it now." I'm not swayed by the ad because: 1) The phone companies already spend millions of dollars on their PACs (political action committees) and other lobbyists. 2) Aren't there enough computer networks already? What do the phone companies want to do: compete with Compuserve, Dow Jones, Prodigy, Delphi, USENET, Fidonet, etc.? Unless they have something new and unique, they'll have the upper hand that the decree was preventing. 3) I don't believe that France and other countires invested so heavily in videotext because the wanted to, but because they HAD TO to catch up with their backlog! I've heard that France had a waiting list years long to get a phone, so it was common for a phone number to stay with the house/apartment, thus making the phone book/directory assistance useless. Someone had to bankroll the videotext business, so what was the motivation? It sure wasn't purely a desire to advance the state of the art! 4) How will it be tarriffed? Have NYNEX's "INFO LOOK" and the Canadian ALEX videotext done well enough to justify such services? I don't believe so. I think the BOCs have run out of worthy causes to spend their advertising money are are trying to create a new market, and get their finger in the pie. Just like the misc.consumers discussions about how banks are making people use the ATM machines in favor of real tellers, the phone company will encourage people to use the on-line services in preferance to the live operators for directory assistance, etc. I'm not saying it's all bad. There are too many places that don't have phone books. If they made those calling card phone CRT terminals interactive and allowed things like directory lookup (to eliminate the usually mutilated phone book), rate lookup and showing the cost of the call DURING THE PHONE CALL, then fine, expand those services and bring them to my home. Do you see these tests anywhere? NO! If the phone companies were serious, there would be test markets first. Side effects of such phones would be: 1) Encourage people to get and use calling cards since the terminal phones don't take coins. 2) Knock the heck out of COCOTs that can't offer these services. (Ummm, unless there's equal access to this information (haha, non BOC payohones don't even get call supervision) then the BOC equipment will have yet another monopoly on service.) Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 10:46:52 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I don't know for sure how the Merc does it, but the local papers here do it something like this: "Hello, this is Mrs. So-and-so with the Gotham Observer. I'm just calling to see if you are getting your paper/Gotham Observer okay?" They call everyone. They don't call just the subscribers. If you say "Well no, I don't subscribe," then they launch into a sales pitch and afterward they'll put your number on a list for intensive grilling and telemarketing. If you say, "Usually, but not today," then they'll arrange some sort of compensation (a manager will even bring you a paper, supposedly). If you say, "yes, getting it just fine," then they thank you for your time and go on to the next number. Seems like the safe way out (if you detest telemarketers) is to say "everything is just fine," or something like that. Is this the practice used in anyone else's community? Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Your scenario matches the Chicago Tribune almost exactly. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 17 Oct 90 11:53:19 PDT (Wed) From: John Higdon On Oct 17 at 2:46, Paul Orgren writes: > Something just occurred to me -- does the S.J. Mercury bother their > own subscribers with the telemarketing calls? Oh, yes, they certainly do. I have been a subscriber at this residence since 1968. Most of my friends and associates are also subscribers and are also plagued with the calls. The line goes like this: "This is Jim from the San Jose Mercury News. Are you receiving the paper OK?" In essence, they are trying to come off as a QC call. Presumably, if you don't take the paper you would so state and then be subject to the sales pitch. I actually fell for this line the first several times. Then it occurred to me that NOBODY follows up on service satisfaction two or three times a week, week after week. And do so calling every line in the house. Of the many e-mail suggestions that I have had, one of them was "Subscribe to the damn paper and then they will stop." Unfortunately, I'm sure there have been non-subscribers who have been beaten into submission. They subscribed to the paper just to stop the calls, and then found to their dismay that it brought no relief. Truth in Advertising would suggest that the Merc solicitor would give the disclaimer, "Consent to this subscription offer will not stop the solicitation calls." John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 15:25:30 EDT From: "Andrew M. Boardman" Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again >Something just occurred to me -- does the S.J. Mercury bother their >own subscribers with the telemarketing calls? They quite possibly do. As long as the first thing they ask is "Do you currently receive the S. J. Mercury" they can continue with "Do you find you service satisfactory? Good. Bye." leaving the customer with the warm feeling that the Mercury cared enough to call. ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS Date: 17 Oct 90 22:38:36 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. On Oct 16 at 0:05, TELECOM Moderator writes: > The blocking of paid traffic by a > telco is quite unethical to say the least, if not actually illegal, > which I suspect it is, without going to look through a bunch of > tariffs. The excuse I'd heard was that the blocked BBSs seemed to attract larger numbers of callers using fraudulent calling card numbers and such. Thus the blocking of domestic calls falls into the same category as other carriers blocking calling-card access to entire countries from sections of our own. That doesn't explain why dial-1 or 10xxx service would be blocked, but perhaps their equipment wasn't programmed to tell the difference. Whatever the case, it seemes pretty slimy to me. Brian ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 23:33:36 GMT In article <13600@accuvax.nwu.edu> ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: > protection of these laws, when push comes to shove, is most likely > only extended to citizens of the USA. One of the remarkable things about that remarkable document, the Constitution of the United States of America, is that it *does* apply to non-citizens. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 11:54:29 -0400 From: Alex Lai Subject: Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted In a previous article, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Any switch on the face of > the planet can be adapted for ANI. Then why haven't they? Why haven't they offer ANI service as they have done with call-waiting, call-forwarding, and etc? > CLASS, on the other hand, is relatively new technology requiring SS#7 > signaling between participating offices. Among its many features is > the infamous Caller-ID. Could you please elaborate on CLASS? > While there has been some interchanging of these terms on this forum, > it would be well to realize that ANI and Caller-ID are not one and the > same. What's the difference between ANI and Caller-ID? Alex Lai Ohio University Communication Systems Management Athens, Ohio Internet: alai@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu ad094@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 08:58:10 EST From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: >911, and other emergency services numbers, are for emergencies ONLY and >should never be called unless there is truly a crisis. Interesting dilemma. How do you suggest that one determine if a COCOT will dial 911 when it is needed without dialing 911 *before* it is needed? I'm not suggesting that everybody start testing all COCOTs once a week, but given the widespread problems with COCOTs, there needs to be some method of detecting and correcting deficiencies, especially potentially life-threatening ones. >If there's an emergency and I find a COCOT, I don't care if it costs a >quarter, or even a dollar... You should care, in case you don't have any change when an emergency arises. But I agree we should not intentionally disable a phone that might have to save somebody's life someday. Tom Olin uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 14:10:17 mdt From: John Parsons Subject: Re: The Cost of Numbers > A friend in Colorado who just changed his phone number reported to me > the following curious policy in effect there (presumably, this also > applies when new service is established): [ details of gouging deleted... ] I just ordered new service north of Denver last week. A month or so ago, I called US West's biz office for info, and they told a similar tale regarding number selection: 1st list of three available numbers is free, successive three-number lists at $10/list, or request a specific number and be charged ‾$70 if it's available. No mention of perpetual monthly charges. So last week when I actually placed the order, the rep said, "Your new number will be 772-xxxx." "What if I don't like that number?" I asked, playing dumb -- not too difficult for some of us :) -- "Just a moment," then a list of three other numbers, all 772-xxxx. "Gee, I was hoping to get one in the 678 exchange so it would be similar to my existing number." (I don't want wrong numbers from callers with cheap bouncey keypads, either). "One moment...", then a list of three 678- numbers. I picked one. No mention of extra fees. I wish I'd remembered to ask the rep's name. > This clinched it for me; I'm definitely not moving back to Colorado > now.... Tom, even if phone service was $100/mo more costly here in CO than in CA, I wouldn't move back. I'm saving much more in mortgage costs, auto insurance, etc., AND I prefer skies that are blue ;-) Cheerio, John Parsons ------------------------------ From: Frederick Roeber Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 17 Oct 90 14:09:29 PST In article <13607@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Michael Glodek must feel like a million dollars today. He's the > landscaper who was building a new lawn for a home at 3521 Madison > Avenue in Oak Brook, IL on Monday morning when his digging machine > uprooted what Illinois Bell termed a 'very major, very important' part > of their interoffice network covering northern Illinois. Why aren't these networks, which are obviously so important (both directly (e.g. 911, hospital pagers, and air traffic control) and indirectly (i.e. major economic impact)) multiply connected? Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@vxcern.cern.ch r-mail: CERN/SL-CO, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: +41 22 767 5373 [Moderator's Note: In fact, Illinois Bell has been working on such a system since 1988, following the Hinsdale fire. It will be completed in 1991. Unfortnatly, the incident this week was in an area that had not yet been completed. Bell referred to that as quite an irony: They had worked for two and a half years on the new system, and gotten stung on one of the few parts still undergoing change. Also, IBT filed suit against the contractor on Wednesday for about one million dollars. A large business in the area filed a class action suit against the contractor for five million dollars; on behalf of all affected businesses in the area. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #743 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26835; 20 Oct 90 3:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19405; 20 Oct 90 1:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29548; 20 Oct 90 0:54 CDT Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 0:38:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #744 BCC: Message-ID: <9010200038.ab08284@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 90 00:37:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 744 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Will Martin] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Martin Harriss] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Toby Nixon] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Thomas Neudecker] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [David Gadbois] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations [Jon Baker] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 10:13:36 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! >Michael Glodek must feel like a million dollars today. He's the >landscaper who was building a new lawn for a home at 3521 Madison >Avenue in Oak Brook, IL on Monday morning when his digging machine >uprooted what Illinois Bell termed a 'very major, very important' part >of their interoffice network covering northern Illinois. >Glodek said, "I didn't do a JULIE because no one said there were any >lines in the immediate vicinity." JULIE is the organization which >keeps track of underground telephone and electric cables, plus water >and gas pipelines in northern Illinois. A spokesperson for Illinois >Bell retorted that "Every contractor is to do a JULIE before they >start work, and he knew it as well as anyone..." >Mr. Michael Glodek just stood there watching ... he admitted 'this is probably >going to cost me a lot of money, but that is what my insurance is for ...' >"You bet it will cost him a lot of money," said a Bell spokesperson. >"He'll get sued I'm sure." >Hinsdale and May, 1988 are still sensitive issues here; Glodek opened an old >wound, and will no doubt rue the day he didn't bother to 'do a JULIE' before >starting his work. He'll be getting sued for a long time to come. There's something missing here. Why would this guy be sued, and by whom? 1) Is there a *law* to the effect that someone digging on private property must "do a JULIE" or otherwise investigate what may be underground there before digging? Sure, doing that is a good idea, but is it actually legally required? 2) This was work on ordinary (it appears) residential property. Why would a major utility service trunk, as opposed to a feeder, be located under such property, as opposed to under municipal-owned or public property like a right-of-way, where one would expect such utility services to be run? Would there be something in the homeowner's deed or title-search papers showing an easement for this use, that the homeowner would be expected to know about? Or is this all "hidden" and secretive? There obviously was no sign there indicating an underground cable ran that way; I've seen such signs many places, and I would have thought it was the duty (and good business sense!) of the telco to keep such signs maintained and in-place over such an important cable run. 3) If the telco doesn't even keep warning signs there, how could they sue this contractor? Sure, they have infinite lawyers and anybody can sue anybody else for *anything*, but, aside from that practical consideration, what basis would they have for this suit? 4) Who else would/could sue this guy? Any and every phone user who was inconvenienced? Again, if he broke a law about digging without checking first, I could see that, but if there wasn't any law, what would be the grounds for such suit? 5) Suppose he had "done a JULIE" and checked and that system had been wrong, and told him the area was clear, and he dug and the same thing had happened? (Something for comp.risks. :-) Who would then have been at fault? Who owns/runs "JULIE" and how does it work? 6) This was a pretty obvious situation; you've got a guy with a backhoe in open land with a big hole and two broken ends of cable sticking out. Suppose the work had been done by one of those horizontal-digging underground-boring machines, putting in a drainage pipe or something, that chewed through the cable under an undisturbed surface, and the machine just chomped the cable like it was a tree root and continued on. No one doing the work might even notice. Now here you have "n" miles of underground cable, no obvious hole anyhere, and a break somewhere. With copper wire, you can use time-domain reflectometry or something like that to get some idea of where to start looking, but can you do that with fiber optics? You know, if these cable locations are public info, and a lot of them are under private residential property, this sounds like a great terrorist scenario -- just buy up strategically-placed houses and secretly tunnel underground to those cables/pipes/conduits. At one time, all over the country, just chop them in a combined strike. The whole infrastructure falls with no visible cause! You could be obvious about it and use bombs to cut the lines, but just cutting them without visible actions would be much more effective. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil [Moderator's Note: Effective soon, a new law here requires contact and approval from JULIE prior to digging in the ground. After a review of appropriate platt maps and easement documents, JULIE will approve the dig or decline its approval. If approved, JULIE will issue a unique authorization code to the person(s) doing the digging which, in the event of a cable cut or other damage such as a broken gas pipe will serve to indemnify the person(s) digging. We have *lots* of buried cable and pipelines here. And, they run under all sorts of private property. At the present time, the law (being changed) does not *require* JULIE approval, but recommends it. The law in Illinois grants easement rights to utilities, meaning if they have a cable running under your land, they have a right to examine/repair it without your permission, and you must obtain their permission to remove it or otherwise injure it. Who would sue him? The telco (or other utility), for damaging their property, as per their easement rights. Bell did in fact file suit Wednesday to the tune of one million dollars against the contractor. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Date: 18 Oct 90 15:54:47 GMT Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" Organization: Bellcore In article <13607@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: [ much stuff deleted about cable being dug up ] I seem to remember that after Hinsdale, IBT agreed to make modifications to its network so that this sort of thing would not happen again. Have they decided against this? Maybe they just hadn't got around to it yet? I presume that at the very least, Mr Glodek will be facing a large bill from IBT for this disruption, and possibly law suits from other affected parties. I sure hope that he has good insurance! Martin Harriss martin@cellar.bae.bellcore.com [Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, that project has been going on for the past year and a half ... it is about a year from completion. Bell said it was ironic this latest event occurred in one of the areas scheduled for modifications over the next few months. Yes, he is facing a large bill. See notes above. Multiple lawsuits were filed on Wednesday by IBT and various companies. Some lawsuits named Bell as well, and on those, IBT said they would force the contractor in as a co-defendant along with them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Date: 18 Oct 90 13:34:48 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <13624@accuvax.nwu.edu>, orgren@rtc.reston.unisys.com (Paul Orgren) writes: > Something just occurred to me -- does the S.J. Mercury bother their > own subscribers with the telemarketing calls? If they do, it seems > they would have a lot of annoyed customers getting monthly calls > though they already subscribe. I subscribe to both the {Gwinnett Daily News} and {Atlanta Journal} here. I nevertheless get telemarketing calls from both roughly every other month. Once we explain that we already subscribe, they politely ask if our service is satisfactory. It's not just a blow-off, either; I have on a couple of occassions mentioned to these telemarketing folks that I've had problems with lost or wet papers, and subsequently received follow-up calls from supervisors in the circulation and customer service departments. I think I'd prefer not to get called at all, but at least they don't just hang up. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice: +1-404-449-8791 AT&T: !tnixon Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc.| Fax: +1-404-447-0178 CIS: 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP: uunet!hayes!tnixon MCI: 267-0805 Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 13:51:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Neudecker Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again I don't know about the Mercury Marketing program but in Pittsburgh the local scam is to say "Hi I am AAAAA with the Pittsburgh Press, I am calling to see if you recieved your paper today?" A "yes response branches to a thank you and hope we can continue to serve you." A "I don't subscribe" response then brings up "do you want to?", with what ever is the current special new price. When directly asked, the operator states that they work for the newspaper but a response of "I didn't receive tonight's paper, can you have one sent out?" always blows them away. They would then hangup or say this or that but never would they provide a replacement paper or a return phone number. I have a couple of lines in and more than one listing name on the line so I would these calls about once a month on each line/listing. Tom Neudecker Pittsburgh, Pa. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 18:06 CDT From: David Gadbois Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again orgren@rtc.reston.unisys.com (Paul Orgren) writes: >On a related topic: when I moved to Houston in 1980, within hours of >my phone being connected, I received a call from the Houston Post >inviting me to subscribe. It seemed that Southwestern Bell must be >giving them lists of newly connected numbers. I actually worked in the Post subscription department in late 1980. (I was only 15 at the time, and I only lasted a week on the job -- even then I realized how sleazy it was.) We got $0.50 per subscription we sold. There was one guy there whose mother was a real estate agent. She would give him lists of new rentals and sales in town. He was probably the one who called you. He made a killing since at the time an ungodly number of people were moving to Houston every week. I recall that he went to great pains not to let the Post find out about his inside source -- they thought he was just an unbelievably good salesman. The rest of us were stuck with going through entire prefixes, one number at a time. David Gadbois ------------------------------ Date: 18-OCT-1990 00:25:30.11 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 733, Message 11, the Moderator writes as follows in reply to sjr@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Sander J. Rabinowitz): >You can also use the MCI Mail gateway to write to !atthelp at AT&T Mail. AT&T Mail now seems to have an Internet gateway as well, as I discovered shortly after my return to these shores after 11 weeks abroad. From an Internet site, I believe the address atthelp@attmail.com should work to reach AT&T Mail's Customer Assistance Center. From AT&T Mail, the "registered UNIX site" internet! acts as Internet gateway machine (a DIR internet! while connected to AT&T Mail's modem at 1 800 624 5123 will tell you all I know about that site). BTW, it used used to be possible to enroll with AT&T Mail on line at that 624 5123 ( = MAIL 123 ) number, but I've forgotten the magic incantations required. As to comparisons between MCI, ATT, and CompuServe e-mail services: my ATTMail telex number has my FEJLINTON userid as answerback, while my MCIMail telex number has the universal MCI UW answerback all accounts get. (CompuServe, last I checked, had one common inbound-telex number/answerback for all subscribers -- first telex-message line must be the recipient's ID). ATTMail retries telex sendings for at most four hours, while MCIMail lets you specify a longer retry period (this can be important when telexing eastern Europe) -- similarly for FAX transmissions (re CompuServe I dunno); ATTMail permits sending to a remote printer fed by modem from a phone line, while neither MCImail nor CompuServe have made me aware of any such capability on their parts; ATTMail permits bangpath-style addressing (which I prefer to X.400) in more contexts than do either mcimail or CompuServe; Costs are roughly comparable -- fax, telex, and paper-mail charges are sometimes lower on ATTMail, sometimes lower on MCIMail, all depending on length of document and destination (again, re Compuserve I dunno); MCIMail, unlike ATTMail, makes access to DJ/NR available, at added cost,while ATTMail, unlike MCIMail, lets you do a HELP UNIX [#] query, which will list all registered UNIX sites [whose names begin with the letter # ]; ATTMail recognizes a -C as a "get me a command-prompt NOW" interrupt, while MCIMail has no counterpart -- if something really long wants to scroll by you while using MCIMail, you've just got to wait until it's over (and that happened to me once -- the whole To:-list of one of the Boston Agency's periodic information bulletins had to expose itself to me, all of it -- and that while I was still using 300 baud! -- before the brief message came on); I've almost never hit a busy signal on _any_ of their modem lines. As you can tell, I use both -- and belong to CompuServe, too -- and am basically happy with what I get. PS: AT&T Mail's CAC phone number 1 800 624 5672 is basically a 9-to-5 operation as far as decent staffing goes. Fred , ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations Date: 17 Oct 90 17:48:39 GMT Organization: gte In article <13585@accuvax.nwu.edu>, davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) writes: > o If any customer claims he or she has been "slammed" and there is no > written documentation of the customer's approval of the change, the > customer's word is taken to be correct, the customer is switched back > to his original LD carrier AT THE SLAMMER'S EXPENSE, and THE CUSTOMER LD carriers are currently required to obtain written permission from the subscriber to change the LD carrier. AT&T did NOT request that an already-existing regulation be passed anew; they proposed that the regulation be more strictly and universally enforced. The alternate carriers object to stricter enforcement, because of the alleged difficulty in getting customers to send back the signature card. > IS NOT CHARGED IN ANY WAY FOR LD SERVICE FURNISHED DURING THE PERIOD > OF TIME THE SLAMMING WAS IN EFFECT. The unsolicited service is > considered to be a free gift to the customer. This would be an interesting new twist, and probably justifiable based on your Ronco Spit-o-Matic analogy. If you didn't request the service or product, you don't pay the bill. JB [Moderator's Note: Except some legal beagles contend that by lifting the phone receiver and dialing the desired digits you were in fact requesting or soliciting the service. By failing to dial the 10xxx code on the front, you are requesting the service from the 'default' carrier, which might not be the carrier you want. To insure you get the one you want, you can always dial 10xxx. So, the legal beagles say you can sue the carrier who wrongfully took over the default on your line, but they in turn can sue you for not paying for the calls they handled for you. I guess it washes out. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #744 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29136; 20 Oct 90 5:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11349; 20 Oct 90 4:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24078; 20 Oct 90 2:58 CDT Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 2:05:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #745 BCC: Message-ID: <9010200205.ab16307@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 90 02:05:19 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 745 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Larry Svec] Telephone Pioneers Still Active in Canada [Henry Troup] Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Jon Baker] Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS [Kian-Tat Lim] Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS [Jon Baker] Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail [Toby Nixon] Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail [Gregory Gulik] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Thomas Ho] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Daniel Alan Fleming] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Barton F. Bruce] Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Macy Hallock] Re: AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! [Eduardo Krell] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Svec Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Date: 18 Oct 90 17:00:42 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I am not a Telephone Pioneer but I recall seeing in the 1990-1991 ARRL Amateur Radio Repeater guide, a Chicago Repeater on 444.775 Mhz whose sponsor organization is "TELEPHONE PIONEERS". The trustee of the club is WA9PAC (I guess I could lookup the name in a callbook). I'll have to jump on and talk to some of those HAMS/TELEPHONE PIONEERS some time and see what's going on ... you scanner listeners in Chicago area might pick up some info by listening in as well. Larry Svec - KD9OF (good in 1987 or newer callbooks) home: 708-526-1256 e-mail: uunet!motcid!svecl work: 708-632-5259 fax: 708-632-2413, -3741 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 90 10:23:00 EDT From: Henry Troup Subject: Telephone Pioneers Still Active in Canada I'm not a member, but the Telephone Pioneers are still quite active in Canada. Here at BNR, I can buy telephones from them (fund raising) and they still do the beeper balls, talking book repairs, donations to hospitals, etc. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | Ten more years and I uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 | qualify as a Pioneer! ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Date: 19 Oct 90 20:13:13 GMT Organization: gte In article <13612@accuvax.nwu.edu>, haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu (99700000) writes: > I got to wondering what happened to the Telephone Pioneers > organization after the great Bell System breakup. > [Moderator's Note: They are still around in the local operating ..... > them lately however. They used to do a lot of very good work with > handicapped people here; building special telephones for them, etc. If > anyone reading this is a member, how about an update from your chapter > of the Pioneers? PAT] Couldn't claim to be a member (and doubt I ever will be, since those working for 'them' don't seem to be eligible), but I do know that The 'Pioneers build a park right near work here, in Phoenix, specifically for the handicapped. Of course, it has full wheel-chair access ramps all over, including special ramps and safety-bars going down into a swimming pool, and numerous other recreational facilities. It has received a small degree of recognition in the press. I don't know why all public parks don't have such facilities. It's not like it would useless to non-handicapped people. JB [Moderator's Note: You say you could 'never be a member since those working for them are not eligible', but I think the rule is you have to be employed by a telco for twenty years to be eligible. At least under the old consolidated Bell System, twenty years continuous employment was the required minimum for Illinois Bell people. The various chapters have always been very dedicated and mindful of the needs of handicapped people, particularly regarding use of the telephone by those people. The Telephone Pioneers has a long, very glorious history, dating back to the beginning years of AT&T. And of course, as most of you know, Alex Bell was a teacher of deaf students, and was himself increasingly deaf in his old age. During her lifetime, his wife Mabel also devoted herself to serving handicapped people. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 11:56:04 -0700 From: ktl@grieg.wag.caltech.edu Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA In article <13618@accuvax.nwu.edu>, John Higdon mentions that blocking of calls to specific numbers could jeopardize the telco's common carrier standing. Since the carrier is regulating traffic content, it could be seen as liable for negligence in not stopping other harmful traffic. The way that telcos (Pac*Bell in particular) seem to get around this with regard to undesirable 976 or (900) type traffic is to get the public utilities commission or equivalent to write the content regulations into the tariffs. Since the regulation is imposed from above, there is no liability issue. Since the telcos typically have the PUCs in their pockets and since the audience for the content is typically limited and nonvocal, there is little to stop this process. Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wag.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ From: Jon Baker Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS Date: 19 Oct 90 20:18:23 GMT Organization: gte In article <13618@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > In essence, a would-be common carrier can't have it both ways. Either > it passes all messages on a content-neutral basis, or it assumes > responsibity (and liability) for the content of the information it > carries. No? I agree with you entirely, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Recall GTE terminating transmission of Triple Xtasy? In that case, they seemed to be awfully concerned with the content of what they were transmitting. JB ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail Date: 18 Oct 90 13:39:59 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <13626@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > Toby, I wonder if you would be kind enough to ferret out an > unambiguous path to pucc.princeton.edu from a major backbone? My requests from back with the "From:" field containing: From: uunet!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!BITFTP1 To be honest, I don't know enough about the internet backbone to be able to offer more than that. Perhaps if you just used this address instead of "bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu" it might work, since UUNET apparently knows how to get there. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice: +1-404-449-8791 AT&T: !tnixon Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc.| Fax: +1-404-447-0178 CIS: 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP: uunet!hayes!tnixon MCI: 267-0805 Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: 'bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu' and 'bitftp@pucc.bitnet' are one and the same. Use whichever works best. As Toby points out, you can route through uunet, but I suggest you avoid it when possible, as those folks (uunet) get enough abuse as it is from fellow travelers passing through on their nickle. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gregory Gulik Subject: Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail Date: 18 Oct 90 22:09:49 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL >In article <13584@accuvax.nwu.edu> hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby >Nixon) writes: >Since I've recently done the research on how to do this, I thought I'd >post a brief message on how ANYONE who gets comp.dcom.telecom can >access the Telecom Archives through MAIL rather than FTP. I wasn't goint to plug MY ftp look-a-like, but I guess I'm going to have to. I wrote a series of programs that help you easily access files available by anonymous ftp. I posted it it alt.sources a while ago, and will be posting a new and greatly improved version there some time next week. If you don't get the alt. heirarchy, send me mail at home (greg@gagme.chi.il.us) and I'll E-mail it to you.. Gregory A. Gulik uunet!motcid!gulik || greg@gagme.chi.il.us || gulik@depaul.edu [Moderator's Note: And I will take this opportunity to plug Greg's public access site. Greg is a starving college student, and can use the support of Chicago area users. Send him $20-30 and get full access to Usenet. Its worth every nickle. I'm on line there myself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 18:25:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Ho Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? I was NOT aware of an ATTmail-Internet gateway, but I guess that one exists. How would an ATTmail user address mail to the Internet/Bitnet? [Moderator's Note: An example: 'internet!eecs.nwu.edu!telecom' PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? Date: 18 Oct 90 19:24:20 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <13587@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail. com> writes: > ...About the only mailbox I can > think of that has no fee is the "mail" feature of CompuServe, although > there you pay for on-line time ... oh well, STILL no perfect world. There is about to be a way to get an Internet mail address "free", or so it seems. The DEC Users Society (DECUS) runs a BBS called DECUSERVE, that currently has a $65/year fee, and is about to have a 56kb Internet connection installed. The interesting thing is that the Decus leadership are in the process of lowering the $65/year to $0/year. Decus membership IS required, but costs nothing. There are "Cannons of Conduct" that must be read and signed. Call DECUS @ 1.508.480.3635 (they are moving soon, this should work for a while) for info on DECUS. ------------------------------ From: Daniel Alan Fleming Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? Date: 17 Oct 90 16:25:19 GMT Reply-To: Daniel Alan Fleming Organization: Days Inns of America In article <13587@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 739, Message 2 of 14 >While AT&T Mail is fully featured, etc., you would NOT necessarily >switch over to it because MCI raised its rates! The AT&T Mailbox fee >is $30.00 already, and they really zing you on message charges -- you >are charged for the creation *and* the transmission of the message. While this is probably true of the average user, there are other options. AT&T sells (for a pretty penny I might add) a software series called PMXStarmail for a variety of their systems. This is a full screen mail program that allows you to create the mail onsite, avoiding the creation cost. At my previous job we had our AT&T 6386 set up as an AT&T Mail Post Office. Another nifty piece of software (also expensive) is the MS/DOS software ACCESS Plus. This allows mail messages to be downloaded to your PC from your AT&T Mail post box. This program runs RAM resident and can be hot keyed to. While you are busily working up your budget in Lotus 1-2-3 or playing the latest in Sierra Games a message will appear stating you have mail. We were running Windows 3.0 with eight different software packages and never had a problem with the hot key. It was a nice set up. Of course, we had to find out about the package ourself and order it despite having a dedicated AT&T sales rep. The quote I have heard and come to appreciate is: "AT&T couldn't sell drugs at a Grateful Dead concert." Alan {uunet}!gatech!daysinns!alanf ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number Date: 18 Oct 90 19:34:24 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In case no one has mentioned it: 958 works in many NewYork City exchanges. Just dial those three digits, nothing else. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 08:54 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: COCOT-in-Violation Label File Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <13482@accuvax.nwu.edu> Christopher Gillett writes: >As an individual who has worked as a volunteer to various emergency >services organizations (fire dept and civil defense), I must strenuously >object to the practices described by Tad and PAT. [Description of possbile effects of 911 call deleted] Yes, this can be a problem and the comments posted here are quite valid. I always test the software of the phone systems in install for 911 operation. Not to do so would be negligent. However ... since I know the 911 setup here fairly well, I call the 911 dispatch center who would get the call on their regular POTS number and announce the fact I would like to test from a particular location and number. I have never been refused or treated rudely. In fact, the operators seems quite pleased with the courtesy. My only bad experience is with the City of Cleveland. The POTS number for the 911 dispatch is not published and they took a long time to find a way to transfer me to the dispatch supervisor. After much fumbling and a considerable delay, I was able to talk to a supervisor and proceed. (This is normal procedure when dealing with any governmental unit in major cities, IMHO). > If you want to sticker the phone, then make up a polite sticker, designed > to get attention, that doesn't block the coin slot or render the phone > totally inoperative. The sticker should ask the reader to not use > this telephone and give reasons why. What I want is the opportunity to make an informed choice. I do not want others making the decision of whether or not I can use a particular COCOT based on their opinion of its programming and operation. An information sticker that does not damage the phone, conpsicuously placed, allows me to make a more informed choice. The public can then vote with their pocketbooks, without possibly being denied the use of a phone in an emergency. I still think PUC complaints are a fine idea. The regulators look at the volume of written complaints when making decisions, especially when driven to do so under pressure from the media or legislators. A COCOT vendor with a record of written complaints will be more likely to comply when pressure is applied by the PUC. I have yet to see an example PUC complaint letter that I really like. I have not taken the time to look at Ohio PUC regulations concerning COCOT in any depth lately, so I am not aware of any particularly effective regulations than can be used to deal with problem COCOT's. And I confess that I feel as though embarking in a campaign against COCOT's in this state would be playing into the Phone Co's hands ... they have lobbied hard against COCOT's here, and have thrown up every obstruction to them they could, including rendering the least amount of service they could. All in all, ripping the d*mn things off the wall would be far more satisfying, but the felony charges that would follow would result in considerable personal inconvenience to me at this time. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Makes Me Laugh! Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 22:47:47 EDT I've reached foreign DA by asking an AT&T operator to connect me to one. I've never been denied nor charged for this service. In the last year or so, I've used DA for London, UK and for several south american countries. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com [Moderator's Note: The only times I have been denied the service is when I planned to place the call later and Pittsburg thought I was trying to get free DA so I could then place the call on MCI. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #745 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15618; 20 Oct 90 21:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13077; 20 Oct 90 20:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03600; 20 Oct 90 19:05 CDT Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 18:57:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #746 BCC: Message-ID: <9010201857.ab27426@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 90 18:57:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 746 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Networks Can I Reach? [Peter M. Weiss] Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households [Bill Huttig] Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [Steve Rhoades] Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases [Tad Cook] Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [John Stanley] Re: Why Companies Use Music on Hold [David Tamkin] Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [John Higdon] Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [B. S. Oplinger] Need Help With French Dialing Conventions [Peter Capek] A Good Word For MCI Mail [Paul Wilczynski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Penn State University Date: Friday, 19 Oct 1990 13:56:12 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: What Networks Can I Reach? In article <13759@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Dave Mc Mahan says: >If you know how to send stuff via Usenet into and out of that >network, please also forward that information. An excellent document on this very subject is fetchable by sending a note to the listserv@unmvm.unm.edu with body of text: GET NETWORK GUIDE It contains a Copyright 1990, John J. Chew. It was last stored on the listserv 10/10/90. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | vm.psu.edu | psuvm 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM University Park, PA USA 16802 | Secrecy is the guardian of bureaucracy [Moderator's Note: But actually, you won't have to go to the trouble. I happen to have a copy of the Network Guide someone sent me, and it will appear in a special issue sometime Saturday evening. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households Date: 19 Oct 90 18:17:25 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <13749@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter G. Capek) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 742, Message 1 of 11 >MCI: "Personal 800" service, says it is an alternative to collect and >credit card calls. Two billing options: if you have MCI long distance, >800 service is $2/month on top of the PrimeTime calling plan. Calls [details deleted] I called MCI today the rep said that they have a special department at 1-800-373-7184 that will handle the program. (on Monday) I called anyway and the person there said it was for NEW Accounts only and that they would only give the $5/mo plan to old customers ... you have to sign up as a new primetime customer to get the $2/mo price. It seems that MCI always lets new customers in on programs a few months ahead of the old ones.. which really isn't fair. Bill ------------------------------ From: Steve Rhoades Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 18:07:39 GMT In article <13758@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >Would it be possible for a baseball dugout to have phones connecting >only to, say, the bullpen? (That is, take the phone off the hook and >it automatically rings that other location, such as you might see in >an airport for a car-rental company.) I work for the Los Angeles Coliseum on weekends and we have a phone in the video control center labeled "Raider Hotline". Basically, it's a ringdown from Raider management to us. It has a strange ring - It's one, long, continuous ring until we answer. It rarely ever rings but when it does, we jump :-). On a related note, Pac*Bell here in California offers a service called Direct*Connection. You lift the receiver of the calling phone and it places a call to whomever is pre-programmed. The phone instrument is normal - It's a class of service set up in the CO. They are starting to replace the system used by our emergency highway call boxes with this system. (rings down to the highway patrol) They're also being used as emergency phones in elevators. Internet: slr@tybalt.caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: ...elroy!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 15:29:50 PDT From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) In article <13548@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0002293637@mcimail.com (Krislyn Companies) writes: > To those who noted the couple of rate increases on MCI Mail: > Don't forget about the fact that, in the past 18 months or so, MCI > Mail ... -- introduced toll-free access. But when I complained about the ending of the local numbers, they told me they were centralizing the service via MCI 800 numbers as a COST SAVING MEASURE. > -- lowered rates for the average email message (501-2500 characters) by 25% > (from $1.00 to $.75). > -- lowered fax rates from $.60 for the first 1/2 page and $.40 for add'l > half-pages to $.50/$.30. So the 40% increase in mailbox fees is a CROSS SUBSIDY? > -- introduced the Preferred Pricing option which gives up to 75% savings > for the first 40 email messages and/or pages of fax. But you PAY $10 per month for this! > I don't like price increases either, but there are two sides to this > coin. And this is verbatim the company line that my MCI Mail agency rep gave me! > Paul Wilczynski > Krislyn Computer Services > MCI Mail Agency OH! ANOTHER MCI Mail agency rep! In article <13547@accuvax.nwu.edu>, DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes: > Not only is MCI going to charge $35 per year for a mailbox, but in my > bill insert there was also a line saying: > "Letterhead and Signature Graphics: $30.00/Year" I finally got a response from MCI on my rate complaint. They couldn't answer right away because they were in the middle of moving. Because of the lack of response, I sent a message to Bert Roberts, MCI chairman. (One of the neat things about MCI Mail is that you can enter a name, and see who is on there. You can send mail to Bill Gates and John Sculley too.) One of the folks who called me back was answering my message to Roberts. The company line from marketing is that they hadn't raised their rates in "several years" (I pointed out that I had only owned a PC since July 88, and was an MCI Mail subscriber sometime after that. I remember the last 40% rate increase, so it can't have been "several years.") They said that in the mean time, they had added lots of new features, like FAX dispatch, and 800 access. I pointed out that these are all features that one pays for individually, so it does not make sense to say that this is the reason (well, 800 service you don't pay for ... but signature graphics you do). So if they were raising the mailbox fee because of these features, then that means that the low volume users are cross-subsidizing the pay-per-use features. I also pointed out that when they made the 800 service universal, they eliminated my local access numbers, which I had complained about at that time. There were times back then when the 800 service experienced blockage, and I needed to use the local numbers. Anyway, when I complained previously about the ending of the local service, they told me they were doing some cost saving to centralize the access via 800 service. So this time around, I asked: "How can you now say that you are raising the rates to pay for a service that was originally instituted for cost saving??" Bottom line: They are raising the rates. Period. One interesting thing ... the billing insert didn't say this, but the rep pointed out that since I am on the $10 per month high volume plan, I don't pay an annual fee anyway. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: John Stanley Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 14:07:56 EDT Organization: One Man Brand Kevin Collins writes: > If you're bothered by the way a company handles (your) incoming calls, > let them know what you want! If they get enough complaints [and have a > decent ACD! :-)], they will be more than happy to change. I'm sure not > all companies are sensitive to the needs of their customers; any > *successful* company, IMHO, *must* be. Candidate for abuse of ACD and phone system in general: A large, book-o-the-month club has just billed me for a book not ordered nor sent. I call the number on the invoice for customer support. A recording answers: "Thank you for calling XYZ company. Our new customer service number is xxx yyy-zzzz." This wasn't the telco intercept, it was an XYZ recording I had to pay for. Ok. Called xxx yyy-zzzz. ACD answers: "If you are calling about paying an invoice, please call aaa bbb-cccc. If you are calling for customer service, please press 1 now." Now, it seems to me that an ACD with ONE entry in the menu is pretty worthless. It does nothing but eat up my time. (In essence, after the billions of $$ of telco equipment sorted out the ONE place I wanted to talk to, the XYZ company has a 5k$ box sorting its incoming calls into one basket.) It also seemed pretty un-friendly that I could have been stuck calling, not the one number published on the bill, but THREE numbers to get to talk to them. And least friendly of all was that the XYZ company answers the first number instead of having a non-supervising telco intercept. I tried explaining this all to the supervisor. She gave me a number that was, according to her, a direct incoming line to customer support. It was the same as the ACD number. Will they change? I doubt it. Not many people would realize they had to pay for the first intercept. Nor would they realize the stupidity of one-item ACD's. So most customers wouldn't complain. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music on Hold Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 15:40:26 CDT Maurice Baker wrote way back in volume 10, issue 716 (ok, I'll get caught up on reading some day soon, honestly): | OK ... how's this for an idea: | If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of | time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label) | should give you the choice of: [selections deleted] The customer service lines at CompuServe now offer a choice between recorded CompuServe usage tips and music while you're on hold. It's a start. One presses a tone digit, as in Mr. Baker's suggestion, to express one's choice. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted Date: 18 Oct 90 22:51:02 PDT (Thu) From: John Higdon On Oct 18 at 8:10, Alex Lai > Then why haven't they? Why haven't they offer ANI service as > they have done with call-waiting, call-forwarding, and etc? Miss Etiquette is most dismayed that gentle reader is still confused. ANI is not a service offered to subscribers, but to IECs (who may extend the data received to LARGE customers). Most switches DO have ANI else how would they bill long distance calls except with operator inquiry? > Could you please elaborate on CLASS? The family of CLASS features, including but not limited to Call Back, Camp On, Call Block, Call Allow, AND Caller-ID, is accomplished through software in the CO switch. The features are offered directly to customers. For the features to work between COs, it is necessary that participating offices communicate with each other via SS#7. This is a data channel that transmits the called number, calling number, and various other information about the caller and callee. Since the information travels in a high speed data circuit rather than as MF tones in the voice channel, the requisite poop is exchanged without delay. > What's the difference between ANI and Caller-ID? ANI, Automatic Number Identification, refers to the fact that the CO switch can figure out what line is placing a particular call. In SXS switches it is accomplished with some arrangement involving high frequency tones (Larry L. would better be able to explain it), while crossbar has some mystical-looking array of toroidal transformers with wires weaving in and out. These Rube Goldbergian schemes were developed years and years ago so that long distance calls could be dialed and billed automatically. Later, when independent IECs came about, the caller's number that had been scooped up with ANI was (and still is) transmitted to the IEC as extra MF digits in the string preceding each call. Caller-ID is a service that transmits the caller's number directly to the called party. The actual technical means has been the topic of other discussions. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 09:28:26 EDT From: "B. S. Oplinger" Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center cmoore@brl.mil describes the process for a NY Times/CBS News poll: How pray tell can they have generated 'telephone numbers ... formed by random digits, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted numbers' and then caused them to be 'screened so that only residences would be called?' Is there some magic way to tell if a number is residential or commercial, especially the unlisted ones. Or is this simply a case of a newspaper article mixing facts and fiction? brian oplinger@crd.ge.com <#include standard.disclaimer> [Moderator's Note: I think they made the assumption (mostly correct) that business phones would probably not be non-pub; thus in the process of sorting out who to call and who not to call, all non-pubs were assumed to be residential for the purpose of filing the number in one compartment or another. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 01:19:51 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Need Help With French Dialing Conventions Can someone please describe, here or privately to me, what the current rules are for dialing in France? As I understand it, all French numbers are now 8 digits, there are no city codes, and dialing within France always involves 8 digits. But I believe that there's some strangeness with respect to dialing the Paris area (Ile de France?) from the rest of the country. Also, what needs to be done to dial from outside France, and is Paris distinguished from the rest of the country in this regard? Thanks... Peter Capek ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 18:57 EST From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: A Good Word For MCI Mail Mike Danseglio writes ... >There has been quite a bit of debate concerning the various e-mail >services available to the public lately. I just want to know which I >should subscribe to! Which is best? MCI Mail is PC Magazine's Editor's Choice e-mail service. I'll be glad to send detailed info if you drop me a note directly. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services MCI Mail Agency [Moderator's Note: Since I slipped in my own little pitch for AT&T Mail the other day, and Fred gave a good review of both, I thought I'd include Paul's pitch for MCI Mail to close this issue. That special issue of the Digest "Network Guide" will be issued next. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #746 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17705; 20 Oct 90 23:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07210; 20 Oct 90 22:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00981; 20 Oct 90 21:10 CDT Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 20:53:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Network Guide BCC: Message-ID: <9010202053.ab06648@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 90 19:53:00 CDT Special: Network Guide Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Introduction [TELECOM Moderator] Network Guide [John J. Chew, via Syd Weinstein] Email Addresses: Public? Private? Somewhere in Between? [M. Schoffstall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Introduction to Network Guide Date: 20 Oct 1990 This issue of the Digest is devoted to a theme near and dear to my heart: universal, and easy to use email. For a long time now, I have campaigned for an expansion of the email universe. Furthermore, I believe email should be, and will eventually be as easy to use and commonplace as a telephone call. Internetwork email is becoming easier and easier to use, but there are still those systems which seem to relish making it as hard as possible to connect with another network. And there are those networks, that for whatever reason seem to feel a policy of exclusion is in their best interest -- a policy which prevents their subscribers from writing to other networks, and keeps other networks from reaching them. Thank goodness both MCI Mail and AT&T Mail wised up early on to the fallacy behind this kind of exclusivity: there is no advantage in limiting the number of people who can reach you or be reached by yourself. I'll repeat what I have asked for many times in the past: Interconnectivity between networks and sites where the routing is totally transparent to users. I'd like to see the time when something like the Network Guide -- valuable as it is -- is no longer required. A user would enter an address and be done with it, and the standards would be the same from one network to another; from one site to another. Likewise, the "White Pages" mentioned in the second message of this special issue is an idea whose time is overdue. As David Tamkin points out in a message which will appear in a future issue of the Digest, unlike a telephone call, where a call (wanted or unwanted) ties up the use of the service for the subscriber, email does not deprive the subscriber of the right to receive and send other email. Email can be a very powerful force in our society. 'The Power of the Pen' should not be overlooked in this medium as a way to raise issues, ask questions, advise others and educate ourselves. If you decide to try using the White Pages, you might be surprised at the number of people you can reach through email. Enjoy this issue of the Digest! Patrick Townson -------------------------------------- From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Network Guide Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 14:54:30 GMT claris!netcom!mcmahan@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: >I was asked an interesting question the other day. Someone I work >with wanted to e-mail another party, but that party only had BIX and >CompuServe. >If you know of another network that can send e-mail, please let me >know. There is a generic file posted every so often by John J. Chew in comp.mail.misc and news.newusers.questions called the Inter-Network Mail Guide. Here is a recent issue for your information: Inter-Network Mail Guide - Copyright 1990 by John J. Chew $Header: netmail, v1.12 90/07/06 20:38:28 John Exp$ # For those of you who were wondering what happened to the June 1990 issue, # there wasn't one, because of a lack of important changes to the data, # and because I've been busy with other things. Even worse (:-), there # will not be an August 1990 issue as I will be temporarily between net # addresses as I take a nice long holiday between jobs on different # continents. If you have information to add or requests for subscriptions, # send them as usual to me at and they should # catch up to me with some delay wherever I end up. I'm off to enjoy # my summer now, bye! -- John # # COPYRIGHT NOTICE # # This document is Copyright 1990 by John J. Chew. All rights reserved. # Permission for non-commercial distribution is hereby granted, provided # that this file is distributed intact, including this copyright notice # and the version information above. Permission for commercial distribution # can be obtained by contacting the author as described below. # # INTRODUCTION # # This file documents methods of sending mail from one network to another. # It represents the aggregate knowledge of the readers of comp.mail.misc # and many contributors elsewhere. If you know of any corrections or # additions to this file, please read the file format documentation below # and then mail to me: John J. Chew . If # you do not have access to electronic mail (which makes me wonder about # the nature of your interest in the subject, but there does seem to be # a small such population out there) you can call me during the month of # July at +1 416 979 7166 between 11:00 and 24:00 EDT (UTC-4h) and most # likely talk to my answering machine (:-). # # DISTRIBUTION # # (news) This list is posted monthly to Usenet newsgroups comp.mail.misc and # news.newusers.questions. # (mail) I maintain a growing list of subscribers who receive each monthly # issue by electronic mail, and recommend this to anyone planning to # redistribute the list on a regular basis. # (FTP) Internet users can fetch this guide by anonymous FTP as ‾ftp/pub/docs/ # internetwork-mail-guide on Ra.MsState.Edu (130.18.80.10 or 130.18.96.37) # [Courtesy of Frank W. Peters] # (Listserv) Bitnet users can fetch this guide from the Listserv at UNMVM. # Send mail to LISTSERV@UNMVM with blank subject and body consisting of # the line "GET NETWORK GUIDE". [Courtesy of Art St. George] # # HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE # # Each entry in this file describes how to get from one network to another. # To keep this file at a reasonable size, methods that can be generated by # transitivity (A->B and B->C gives A->B->C) are omitted. Entries are sorted # first by source network and then by destination network. This is what a # typical entry looks like: # # #F mynet # #T yournet # #R youraddress # #C contact address if any # #I send to "youraddress@thegateway" # # For parsing purposes, entries are separated by at least one blank line, # and each line of an entry begins with a `#' followed by a letter. Lines # beginning with `# ' are comments and need not be parsed. Lines which do # not start with a `#' at all should be ignored as they are probably mail # or news headers. # # #F (from) and #T (to) lines specify source and destination networks. # If you're sending me information about a new network, please give me # a brief description of the network so that I can add it to the list # below. The abbreviated network names used in #F and #T lines should # consist only of the characters a-z, 0-9 and `-' unless someone can # make a very convincing case for their favourite pi character. # # These are the currently known networks with abbreviated names: # # applelink AppleLink (Apple Computer, Inc.'s in-house network) # bitnet international academic network # bix Byte Information eXchange: Byte magazine's commercial BBS # bmug Berkeley Macintosh Users Group # compuserve commercial time-sharing service # connect Connect Professional Information Network (commercial) # easynet Easynet (DEC's in-house mail system) # envoy Envoy-100 (Canadian commercial mail service) # fax Facsimile document transmission # fidonet PC-based BBS network # geonet GeoNet Mailbox Systems (commercial) # internet the Internet # mci MCI's commercial electronic mail service # mfenet Magnetic Fusion Energy Network # nasamail NASA internal electronic mail # peacenet non-profit mail service # sinet Schlumberger Information NETwork # span Space Physics Analysis Network (includes HEPnet) # sprintmail Sprint's commercial mail service (formerly Telemail) # thenet Texas Higher Education Network # # #R (recipient) gives an example of an address on the destination network, # to make it clear in subsequent lines what text requires subsitution. # # #C (contact) gives an address for inquiries concerning the gateway, # expressed as an address reachable from the source (#F) network. # Presumably, if you can't get the gateway to work at all, then knowing # an unreachable address on another network will not be of great help. # # #I (instructions) lines, of which there may be several, give verbal # instructions to a user of the source network to let them send mail # to a user on the destination network. Text that needs to be typed # will appear in double quotes, with C-style escapes if necessary. #F applelink #T internet #R user@domain #I send to "user@domain@internet#" #I domain can be be of the form "site.bitnet", address must be <35 characters #F bitnet #T internet #R user@domain #I Methods for sending mail from Bitnet to the Internet vary depending on #I what mail software is running at the Bitnet site in question. In the #I best case, users should simply be able to send mail to "user@domain". #I If this doesn't work, try "user%domain@gateway" where "gateway" is a #I regional Bitnet-Internet gateway site. Finally, if neither of these #I works, you may have to try hand-coding an SMTP envelope for your mail. #I If you have questions concerning this rather terse note, please try #I contacting your local postmaster or system administrator first before #I you send me mail -- John Chew #F compuserve #T fax #R +1 415 555 1212 #I send to "FAX 14155551212" (only to U.S.A.) #F compuserve #T internet #R user@domain #I send to ">INTERNET:user@domain" #F compuserve #T mci #R 123-4567 #I send to ">MCIMAIL:123-4567" #F connect #T internet #R user@domain #I send to CONNECT id "DASNET" #I first line of message: "¥"user@domain¥"@DASNET" #F easynet #T bitnet #R user@site #C DECWRL::ADMIN #I from VMS use NMAIL to send to "nm%DECWRL::¥"user@site.bitnet¥"" #I from Ultrix #I send to "user@site.bitnet" or if that fails #I (via IP) send to "¥"user%site.bitnet¥"@decwrl.dec.com" #I (via DECNET) send to "DECWRL::¥"user@site.bitnet¥"" #F easynet #T fidonet #R john smith at 1:2/3.4 #C DECWRL::ADMIN #I from VMS use NMAIL to send to #I "nm%DECWRL::¥"john.smith@p4.f3.n2.z1.fidonet.org¥"" #I from Ultrix #I send to "john.smith@p4.f3.n2.z1.fidonet.org" or if that fails #I (via IP) send to "¥"john.smith%p4.f3.n2.z1.fidonet.org¥"@decwrl.dec.com" #I (via DECNET) send to "DECWRL::¥"john.smith@p4.f3.n2.z1.fidonet.org¥"" #F easynet #T internet #R user@domain #C DECWRL::ADMIN #I from VMS use NMAIL to send to "nm%DECWRL::¥"user@domain¥"" #I from Ultrix #I send to "user@domain" or if that fails #I (via IP) send to "¥"user%domain¥"@decwrl.dec.com" #I (via DECNET) send to "DECWRL::¥"user@domain¥"" #F envoy #T internet #R user@domain #C ICS.TEST or ICS.BOARD #I send to "[RFC-822=¥"user(a)domain¥"]INTERNET/TELEMAIL/US #I for special characters, use @=(a), !=(b), _=(u), any=(three octal digits) #F fidonet #T internet #R user@domain #I send to "uucp" at nearest gateway site #I first line of message: "To: user@domain" #F geonet #T internet #R user@domain #I send to "DASNET" #I subject line: "user@domain!subject" #F internet #T applelink #R user #I send to "user@applelink.apple.com" #F internet #T bitnet #R user@site #I send to "user%site.bitnet@gateway" where "gateway" is a gateway host that #I is on both the internet and bitnet. Some examples of gateways are: #I cunyvm.cuny.edu mitvma.mit.edu. Check first to see what local policies #I are concerning inter-network forwarding. #F internet #T bix #R user #I send to "user@dcibix.das.net" #F internet #T bmug #R John Smith #I send to "John.Smith@bmug.fidonet.org" #F internet #T compuserve #R 71234,567 #I send to "71234.567@compuserve.com" #I note: Compuserve account IDs are pairs of octal numbers. Ordinary #I consumer CIS user IDs begin with a `7' as shown. #F internet #T connect #R NAME #I send to "NAME@dcjcon.das.net" #F internet #T easynet #R HOST::USER #C admin@decwrl.dec.com #I send to "user@host.enet.dec.com" or "user%host.enet@decwrl.dec.com" #F internet #T easynet #R John Smith @ABC #C admin@decwrl.dec.com #I send to "John.Smith@ABC.MTS.DEC.COM" #I (This syntax is for All-In-1 users.) #F internet #T envoy #R John Smith (ID=userid) #C /C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/ID=ICS.TEST/S=TEST_GROUP/@nasamail.nasa.gov #C for second method only #I send to "uunet.uu.net!att!attmail!mhs!envoy!userid" #I or to "/C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/DD.ID=userid/PN=John_Smith/@Sprint.COM" #F internet #T fidonet #R john smith at 1:2/3.4 #I send to "john.smith@p4.f3.n2.z1.fidonet.org" #F internet #T geonet #R user at host #I send to "user:host@map.das.net" #I American host is geo4, European host is geo1. #F internet #T mci #R John Smith (123-4567) #I send to "1234567@mcimail.com" #I or send to "JSMITH@mcimail.com" if "JSMITH" is unique #I or send to "John_Smith@mcimail.com" if "John Smith" is unique - note the #I underscore! #I or send to "John_Smith/1234567@mcimail.com" if "John Smith" is NOT unique #F internet #T mfenet #R user@mfenode #I send to "user%mfenode.mfenet@nmfecc.arpa" #F internet #T nasamail #R user #C #I send to "user@nasamail.nasa.gov" #F internet #T peacenet #R user #C #I send to "user%cdp@arisia.xerox.com" #F internet #T sinet #R node::user or node1::node::user #I send to "user@node.SINet.SLB.COM" or "user%node@node1.SINet.SLB.COM" #F internet #T span #R user@host #C #I send to "user@host.span.NASA.gov" #I or to "user%host.span@ames.arc.nasa.gov" #F internet #T sprintmail #R [userid "John Smith"/organization]system/country #I send to "/C=country/ADMD=system/O=organization/PN=John_Smith/DD.ID=userid/@Sprint.COM" #F internet #T thenet #R user@host #I send to "user%host.decnet@utadnx.cc.utexas.edu" #F mci #T internet #R John Smith #I at the "To:" prompt type "John Smith (EMS)" #I at the "EMS:" prompt type "internet" #I at the "Mbx:" prompt type "user@domain" #F nasamail #T internet #R user@domain #I at the "To:" prompt type "POSTMAN" #I at the "Subject:" prompt enter the subject of your message #I at the "Text:" prompt, i.e. as the first line of your message, #I enter "To: user@domain" #F sinet #T internet #R user@domain #I send to "M_MAILNOW::M_INTERNET::¥"user@domain¥"" #I or "M_MAILNOW::M_INTERNET::domain::user" #F span #T internet #R user@domain #C NETMGR@NSSDCA #I send to "AMES::¥"user@domain¥"" #F sprintmail #T internet #R user@domain #I send to "[RFC-822=user(a)domain @GATEWAY]INTERNET/TELEMAIL/US" #F thenet #T internet #R user@domain #I send to UTADNX::WINS%" user@domain " # END Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: Martin Schoffstall Subject: Re: Email Addresses: Public? Private? Somewhere in Between? Reply-To: Martin Schoffstall Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 05:51:21 GMT If you telnet into wp.psi.com and login as "fred" you will find some number of organizations in the US Internet who believe that some amount of information even beyond the email address is public. The organizations range from Kodak to DOE, to Columbia to Cray. This service is an Internet wide WhitePages service of which either Marshall Rose or I could try to retell some of the stories of this two year old project containg 100,000's of thousands of entries, most kept up to date on a weekly or monthly basis. But only if there is interest. Marty [Moderator's Note: Marty, thanks for passing along this valuable address for the readers of the Digest. I hope at least a few folks will make use of it. And yes please, share your stories. Better still, how about a short tutorial with examples of how to use the White Pages. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Network Guide ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18969; 21 Oct 90 1:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07303; 20 Oct 90 23:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07210; 20 Oct 90 22:14 CDT Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 21:49:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #747 BCC: Message-ID: <9010202149.ab22621@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 90 21:49:06 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 747 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [Michael H. Riddle] Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [Roy Smith] Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [Vance Shipley] Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Michael H. Riddle] Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Floyd Davidson] Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [Heath Roberts] Re: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 11:33:44 GMT In <13758@accuvax.nwu.edu> Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: >Would it be possible for a baseball dugout to have phones connecting >only to, say, the bullpen? (That is, take the phone off the hook and >it automatically rings that other location, such as you might see in >an airport for a car-rental company.) >[Moderator's Note: Yes, it would be possible. I see a lot of ring-down >lines in offices ... But a ring-down line, like an >FX line, is an overkill unless you keep it loaded at all times and can >justify the savings over DDD, which is hard these days. From a dugout >to a bullpen would be such an overkill when the already-in-place PBX >connects them anyway with three digit dialing, no? PAT] Isn't there an "in-between" alternative, where the instrument appears to be dedicated ring-down service, but in reality places the call when the customer goes off-hook? I remember this in the Autovon world of several years ago. The call went out with a preprogrammed precedence levl high enough to guarantee success in well over 90% of the situations, yet avoided tying up the circuits during the idle time. The advantage to the user was that, in the heat of the momenet, there was no need to misdial any numbers. What I'm not sure about is whether such a service is tariffed anywhere today, or why one wouldn't use a "smart phone" to dial on its own. Particularly if the stadium had a reasonably modern PBX with an executive override function, there would be no problem with busy signals. Any comments? riddle@hoss.unl.edu riddle@crchpux.unl.edu mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org Sysop on 1:285/27 @ Fidonet [Moderator's Note: Bell used to offer something called a 'one number dialer' which was a phone without a dial on the front of it, and a special box on the wall where the phone plugged in. The box had something in it which when the phone went off hook would dial the desired number as programmed in the box. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 12:28:29 GMT > a ring-down line, like an FX line, is an overkill unless you keep it > loaded at all times and can justify the savings over DDD When I was a kid growing up in New York (1960's) there were green boxes on lamp posts containg phones with which you could call the police. You didn't have to dial, just lift the handset. Anybody know exactly what these were? Leased ring-down lines from NYTel or private wires actually owned by the police department? And where did they ring-down to? The nearest precinct house, or some pre-911 central location? On another topic, I notice everbody using the term "slamming" to refer to unauthorized changing of default long distance carrier. Is that a standard term, or is it just TELECOM Digest vernacular? 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 [Moderator's Note: We had some of those here also, along with the non-speaking kind where you simply pulled down on a little lever inside the box. You'd hear it start 'whirring' inside as it sent a pre-programmed code to the nearest police/fire station. They were supplied by the local telco. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 11:56:13 EDT Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone Reply-To: vances@ltg.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group Most PBX's do hotline in software, and some even allow incoming calls normally but lifting the receiver hotlines to a predetermined DN. If you're only going to call the bull pen then why bother dialing? Vance [Moderator's Note: The only reason you would 'bother dialing' is because you might want to instead call upstairs to the VIP Suite to talk to your wife who was sitting there watching the game instead of calling the bull-pen. One number dialing makes a phone too restrictive and should only be used when the phone needs definite security against misuse. PAT] ------------------------------ From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 17:40:11 GMT In <13623@accuvax.nwu.edu> Steve Forrette writes: >>>I have also gotten some annoying sales calls from the Mercury, though >>>not lately. At least they seem to obey the law against having a >>>computer initiate the call, without a human being talking to you >>>first. ... >>I understood this to be California law, also, but I found no reference >>to it at the UCLA Law Library. Any Californian have the section >>number? >Many of the "laws" regulating telephone usage are administrative laws, >not statutory laws. They are in the form of tariffs on file with the >PUC. Although not "laws" as most people think of them, since they >weren't passed by the legislature, they have the same force and effect >(ever heard of the Internal Revenue Code?) A little research time at the University of Nebraska College of Law library revealed the following, which I think answers the followup to the original question (note this is California law. As the earlier post notes, each state is different). ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE ARTICLE 1. AUTOMATIC DIALING-ANNOUNCING DEVICES s 2871. Definitions As used in this article, "automatic dialing-announcing device" means any automatic equipment which incorporates a storage capability of telephone numbers to be called or a random or sequential number generator capable of producing numbers to be called and the capability, working alone or in conjunction with other equipment, to disseminate a prerecorded message to the telephone number called. s 2874. Operation of device (a) Whenever telephone calls are placed through the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device, the device may be operated only after an unrecorded, natural voice announcement has been made to the person called by the person calling. The announcement shall do all of the following: (1) State the nature of the call and the name, address, and telephone number of the business or organization being represented, if any. (2) Inquire as to whether the person called consents to hear the prerecorded message of the person calling. (b) The calling person described in subdivision (a) shall disconnect the automatic dialing-announcing device from the telephone line upon the termination of the call by either the person calling or the person called. s 2876. Penalties Any person violating this article is guilty of a civil offense and is subject to either or both of the following penalties: (a) A fine of not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation, levied and enforced by the commission, on complaint or on its own motion, pursuant to Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 2100) of Part 1. (b) Disconnection of telephone service to the automatic dialing-announcing device for a period of time which shall be specified by the commission. riddle@hoss.unl.edu riddle@crchpux.unl.edu mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org Sysop on 1:285/27 @ Fidonet ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 11:36:06 GMT >[Moderator's Note: Effective soon, a new law here requires contact and >approval from JULIE prior to digging in the ground. After a review of >appropriate platt maps and easement documents, JULIE will approve the >dig or decline its approval. If approved, JULIE will issue a unique >authorization code to the person(s) doing the digging which, in the >event of a cable cut or other damage such as a broken gas pipe will >serve to indemnify the person(s) digging. ... >The law in Illinois >grants easement rights to utilities, meaning if they have a cable >running under your land, they have a right to examine/repair it >without your permission, and you must obtain their permission to >remove it or otherwise injure it. Who would sue him? The telco (or >other utility), for damaging their property, as per their easement >rights. Bell did in fact file suit Wednesday to the tune of one >million dollars against the contractor. PAT] All of the above sounds reasonable to me, *except* that last line. He should counter sue for harassment. They've filed suit without even trying to negotiate a payment for their damages, and they are obviously trying to collect more than the cost of the damage he did. What he damaged was apparently one each fiber optic device. He probably owes them the cost to repair it. Several hundreds, or a few thousands, of dollars. What I object to is going after the cost of lost service. That was caused by proven bad management and bad planning. The study done following the Hinsdale fire disaster is all the documentation needed to prove it. NOBODY builds non-redundant systems and puts critical traffic on them. (At least nobody with good management and good planning does.) Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu 8347 Richardson Hwy. floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 [and related to Alascom, Inc. by a pay check, only] [Moderator's Note: They apparently did ask him to pay, and reasonably assuming he would not do so voluntarily, they filed suit. As to the amount of the damages it goes a lot further than 'one each fiber optic device' as you stated. How much is the salary for a dozen men being paid union wages working several hours overtime? How much did it cost the Traffic Department to rush several additional people into service as operators during the crunch of calls? A special bank of cell phones and two way radios was set up for the hospital to use all day. Were those free? What about the public relations people who rushed a press release into circulation and spent the day on radio talk shows explaining the problem? What about the cost of responding to the several lawsuits filed against *telco* -- as though it was *their* fault that service was out -- by several business places in the area? Should telco go to the Legal Aid Bureau? The cost to telco might well have approached a million dollars by the time all was back to normal in 708-land. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 16:20:56 GMT >> Any switch on the face of >> the planet can be adapted for ANI. >Then why haven't they? Why haven't they offer ANI service as >they have done with call-waiting, call-forwarding, and etc? First, this statement should be qualified to read "any digitally- controlled switch..." After all, there are still some step and crossbar switches out there. The problem isn't so much with individual switches. It's with connecting all these switches together. Call forwarding can be done to any number from your local CO -- it just out-dials the number your phone is forwarded to on a trunk line (unless it handles the line the call is forwarded to directly) and the call is completed like any other. The switch just connects the incoming call with the outgoing trunk. Call-waiting is not available in all areas, only those that support it. Supporting it generally means that both serving switches, regardless of manufacturer, have SS7 (Signalling System 7), which defines a protocol for one switch to say "tell me when number XXX-XXXX is available, I have a call waiting on XXX-XXXX. When the line becomes free, the second switch calls back and says "Yo: that call you had waiting? I can complete it now. Please ring your party..." Likewise with CLID: instead of a switch just saying "this call is for XXX-XXXX", SS7 defines a protocol like "I have a call for XXX-XXXX from XXX-XXXX (or maybe from "calling number blocked") and the caller's name is so-and-so (or once again, maybe "the caller asked me not to identify him"). So if the switches your call is routed through don't support this kind of signalling protocol, it's not going to work... Availability of a common protocol is the primary technical reason ANI/CLID doesn't work everywhere, but another big reason is that individual state PUC's are not allowing such service to be provided. Here in North Carolina, the State Attorney General has declared that CLID is illegal... >> CLASS, on the other hand, is relatively new technology requiring SS#7 >> signaling between participating offices. Among its many features is >> the infamous Caller-ID. >Could you please elaborate on CLASS? Common Local Area Signalling System defines features like Call waiting, Ring-again, Call forwarding, Calling line ID, etc ... The features are not themselves new, nor it the standard, but it's just now being implemented across networks. >> While there has been some interchanging of these terms on this forum, >> it would be well to realize that ANI and Caller-ID are not one and the >> same. >What's the difference between ANI and Caller-ID? From my understanding, ANI is not always available in real time. I think originally this was available on incoming WATS (800) lines so businesses could see where their calls were coming from, and showed up on the bill at the end of the month. Caller ID occurs in the first half-second or so when the called phone starts to ring. Of course, ANI has been improved somewhat, and does work in real-time now, but only from switches that support SS7. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI Mail Rates Being Increased Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 14:28:13 CDT Tad Cook wrote in volume 10, issue 727: | With my MCI Mail bill today was an insert saying that they are going | to have a rate change November 1. The rate for an MCI Mailbox will | now be THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A YEAR! It was free when I signed up, then | $15 a year. They are also raising Telex rates. I'd say it's more of a "fee increase" or a "charge increase" than a "rate increase" because the costs per letter are not going up. Anyhow, the annual mailbox fee has been $25 for some time now; Tad/Paul/Tadpole (is that how you got the nickname?), check how much you were charged on your last anniversary. Although the stated annual mailbox fee was $25 when I signed up this past April, it was waived for my first year under some special that I was told I had lucked into. Perhaps such specials are very frequent and either just about everyone gets the first year's fee waived, or perhaps Tad also signed up under such a special offer and the stated annual mailbox fee was already greater than zero at the time. Customers on the preferred pricing option (which is still $10 per month) will have the annual fee waived after the first year, as before; I called and checked on that as soon as I received the notice in my own September bill (which, by the way, arrived rather earlier in the following month than previous bills had, around October 8 rather than the nineteenth or twentieth; they must be trying to improve their cash flow). David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #747 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20269; 21 Oct 90 2:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00561; 21 Oct 90 0:21 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07303; 20 Oct 90 23:17 CDT Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 22:35:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #748 BCC: Message-ID: <9010202235.ab17751@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 90 22:34:56 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 748 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [David Tamkin] Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? [Herman Silbiger] Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [D. Tamkin] Re: Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations [David Newman] Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail [Peter M. Weiss] Re: A Choice, and Then a Choice [Peter da Silva] Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Marion Hakanson] Telco "Customer Service" [Steve Forrette] Exchange Mapping Project [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 14:41:35 CDT Jeff Sicherman wrote in volume 10, issue 728: | PAT missed the point entirely. IF depriving somebody of the rightful | and reasonable use of their property/service is illegal (there is such | a thing as telephone harassment, but I don't know if there is, either | explicitly or implicitly, an email equivalent - is the medium | critical?) then a GROUP of people planning to do something WITH SUCH | INTENT is a type of conspiracy. Remember, the original discussions | suggested how neat it would be to overwhelm these people with email | messages. How would you construe the meaning/intent of that ? Mr. Sicherman, you overlook one difference between the telephone and email: if you are bombarded with incoming telephone calls, you cannot use your phone for outgoing calls, nor can you receive desired incoming calls, so indeed you have been deprived of a service you are paying for. But if you are bombarded with email, your outgoing email can still get out and your desired incoming email (at least on a large commercial system like MCI Mail or AT&T Mail, where storage space is not a factor) still reaches you. You may be exasperated, annoyed, angered, or incensed, but you have not been deprived of email service. If you wish to bombard me, kindly do it on GEnie or MCI Mail; at my accounts on local pubnet sites, storage limitation *is* a factor. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 21:26:04 EDT From: hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <13587@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: > While AT&T Mail is fully featured, etc., you would NOT necessarily > switch over to it because MCI raised its rates! The AT&T Mailbox fee > is $30.00 already, and they really zing you on message charges -- you > are charged for the creation *and* the transmission of the message. There is a charge for the creation of messages if you do it on line. There is a very good user software package called AT&T Mail Access, on which you can create messages, and with a single Function Key press upload your messages and receive messages addressed to you. The software has many other nice features, you can create a directory, use aliases, etc. Herman Silbiger hrs@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 14:12:43 CDT Policies vary from telco to telco. When my second number was an auxiliary line of my first number, I had to accept a single bill from Centel to get the auxiliary-line billing arrangement. The two drew off the same prepayment for message units, regardless of which line I placed a local call from, and ANAC gave the main number for both. Some long-distance companies listed all calls as having been dialed from the main number; some listed them separately. AT&T told me, contrary to what I've since read here in Telecom Digest, that I'd need separate ROA accounts for the two lines and would have to pay two minima per month or take ROA on only one line. I told AT&T no thanks. Later I realized that CallPak 200 would not be enough (especially after they fixed the billing software error that was allowing me four hundred units per month before billing additional units instead of just the two hundred I was paying for) and wanted to switch to CallPak Unlimited. Centel told me that (unlike the old "Family Plan" in Illinois Bell's CallPak days, where any residential CallPak could cover two lines for about 20% more cost than for having it on a single line) they would not allow auxiliary lines with CallPak Unlimited; that would allow (for the flat $6.91 per month for an auxiliary line) unlimited Inner Met calling from both lines. I would have to get separate billing and at least CallPak 80 on the other number. Since I make enough calls to Barrington (outside the Inner Met area but still cheaper to dial via Centel than via an IEC), I figured heck, I'll use up the eighty units by making Outer Met and other intra-LATA calls from my CallPak 80 line, and if I go over the eighty units, extra Outer Met units cost the same from either number. So now I get two bills, sometimes arriving a day apart but usually coming together. ANAC (for the few months afterward that I could still reach it) gave each line's own number and long-distance bills now show the number of the line I called from, not that that matters much. I can still enclose a single check and both bills' payment coupons in one envelope if I drop the payment off at a Centel night depository; I hesitate to think what would happen if I tried to mail a single check to their collection center in Lincoln, though: they'd probably credit the whole payment to only one number and I'd need to get the Des Plaines office not only to reallocate the payment but also to remove the late charges: Lincoln's done that before. Anyhow, ask the telco; I'm sure they'd prefer combining your bills just to save on paper, postage, and inserts. I've told Centel that they're welcome to stuff my bills into one envelope; unfortunately, the billing facility in Lincoln isn't sophisticated enough. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: David Newman Subject: Re: Proposed Anti-Slamming Regulations Date: 20 Oct 90 20:16:19 GMT Reply-To: PUT YOUR NAME HERE Organization: MCC Austin, Texas Yesterday I got a call from MCI. He begain his solicitation, and I interrupted to say "I have ATT, and I don't want to switch thank you." The salesman tried to continue his spiel. I said: "As I said, I don't want to switch, and furthermore, I don't want to be slammed." He asked what slamming was (come on!), and replied that for him to change my carrier, I would have to recieve *three* phone calls, and provide my social security number. A couple of questions: 1) Was he giving me the run-around? Three phone calls to verify the change seems quite odd. I thought that the net-consensus was that there would be one call-back, not two. 2) IF he was telling the truth, why does the phone company have my SSN? This also seems odd to me. 3) Finally, it doesn't seem too likely that he didn't know what "slamming" was: is this term used widely as it is here on the TELECOM Digest, or is it a bit of jargon that we have picked up by reading the Digest? I found it incredibly annoying that the guy just refused to take NO for an answer. The conversation continued beyond the portion that I have reported, and I finally had to just hang up on the guy - he would not end the conversation and go away. It is interesting that they would violate the normal "ettiquette" of telephone behavior in this way, and yet another reason to avoid subscribing to their service, in my (twisted and unusual) opinion. Dave ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Saturday, 20 Oct 1990 12:21:06 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: Accessing Archives Through Mail There are two forms of addressing to BITFTP (the userid): Bitnet (PUCC) and Internet (PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU). The former reacts to NJE/RSCS/UREP/Jnet interactive messages for some commands ("help" and "how are you?" - minus the quotes), and both respond to RFC822 mail (including the above commands) entered as body of text (the Subject: line is ignored). The "how are you?" is useful to ascertain the health and backlog of the server. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | vm.psu.edu | psuvm 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM University Park, PA USA 16802 | ------------------------------ From: peter da silva Subject: Re: A Choice, and Then a Choice Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 13:14:10 GMT In article <13761@accuvax.nwu.edu> synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net writes: > "[Summary of the argument for allowing BOCs to provide information > services and long distance, familiar to most tuning in here.] Let > Congress know that you want the right to choose. And, you want it > now." SouthWestern Bell has already implemented such a service in Houston, under the name SourceLine. They did so well at it that it's now out of business and a commercial competitor, U.S.Videotel, has taken over. The service is simply horrible, and a lot of people are signing up for the "free" terminals then calling a local BBS that has installed V.23 compatible modems. I wouldn't worry too much. USV and Prodigy are the bottom of the barrel as far as such services go. I think it'll be like when AT&T went into the computer business... all the monopolistic might in the world won't help if you're embedded in the Bell Corporate Culture. SouthWestern Bell *still* hasn't a clue as to what a BBS really is. Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. peter@ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Marion Hakanson Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? Date: 18 Oct 90 06:32:31 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR In article <13612@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Haynes writes: >I got to wondering what happened to the Telephone Pioneers >organization after the great Bell System breakup. >[Moderator's Note: They are still around in the local operating >companies, and at AT&T. There was some question back in the early >. . . >them lately however. They used to do a lot of very good work with >handicapped people here; building special telephones for them, etc. If >anyone reading this is a member, how about an update from your chapter >of the Pioneers? PAT] I'm not a member, but I'm the next door neighbor to the real thing. My neighbor worked for AT&T, and now works for USWest (he still says AT&T once in awhile by mistake, though :-). He calls his group "Telephone Pioneers of Oregon" (note that USWest covers a lot more territory than just Oregon), and indeed describes it (and his involvement) as organizing fund-raising events for charities, often related children and the handicapped in some way. I get the impression that these folks are pretty committed to whatever cause they choose for their one big event each year. I can relate an anecdote he shared with me. It seems that in downtown Portland there is a pair of buildings which used to be owned by AT&T. If I've got the story straight, the former Pacific NW Bell (now subsumed by USWest) resided in some part of one of the buildings, and there was apparently a substantial underground tunnel between the two, to facilitate the convenient sharing of heat and cooling, and of course for electrical and foot traffic as well. When the breakup came, the tunnel had to be filled in, and a new energy system had to be installed in the orphaned building. That's some demarc, eh? Marion Hakanson Domain: hakanson@cse.ogi.edu UUCP : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!ogicse!hakanson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 03:41:23 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Telco "Customer Service" As most of us know first-hand, a lot of the people working Customer Service in the telecom industry seem to be poorly trained, and not very knowledgable of how the telephone network really works. Since I know how much I enjoy hearing everyone else's horror stories, I thought I'd pass along a few of my own: US West: "Why not select the PIN of your Call Me card to be the same as your regular calling card, so that it's easy to remember?" Upon reporting a number that results in a "dead line" when dialed, Pacific Bell Repair stated "oh, that's normal. Sometimes we don't give a recording, just a dead line." Anonymous cellular telephone salesman: "This model is nice because it has true TouchTone. On the older cellular models, even though it's pushbutton, you have to wait for the number to pulse out when placing a call." Cellular One of Sacramento: "You have to pay airtime for calls forwarded from your cellular phone, because these calls actually go over the air." And perhaps the best one of them all, Cellular One of San Francisco: "10XXX dialing isn't available because it's incompatible with the microwaves we use between cell sites." Can anyone top these? [Moderator's Note: Cellular One/Chicago in their printed manual says that keeping a call on hold on your cell phone while accepting a call waiting will incur two overlapping airtime charges. Why? Because, as the rep told me, both calls are being transmitted through the air even though on one of them no one is talking at the moment. Hmmm. Likewise she said three-way cell calls incur double airtime since *your phone* (my emphasis) is connected to two people at one time. I asked if she meant their switch was connected to two people at one time, and it was sending me *one* transmission of the two callers combined. She said she hadn't thought about it that way before. Double hmmm. Yes readers, send along your 'can you top this' stories. PAT] ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Exchange Mapping Project Date: Wed, 17 Oct 90 23:28:25 EDT [from Bell (Canada) News, 15th Oct 1990] TORONTO - When a few metres can make all the difference in the world, an accurate map can save a lot of headaches. At Bell all 630 exchanges are now available using a digital computer-based map system. "Exchange boundaries are based on the physical plant," explains Carrie Brown, manager, Rates and Exchange Planning. "And they're regulated by tariff." Problems sometimes crop up when a customer close to the boundary wants phone service based on the other side of the boundary. The new, more accurate digital maps should help the Business Office identify potential problem areas well in advance. The computer-generated maps will also be useful in other departments such as Outside Plant. "We're far ahead of the average company with this digital mapping process," says Carrie. "Other utilities are knocking on our door for the information." The computer program being used to create the maps is known as Cable CAD and had been used by OP [Outside Plant (?)] to locate underground cable and determine pole locations. The Rates & Exchange group recognized the software's potential for its map drawing department. Using the new system, all mapping information can be exchanged using a personal computer and disc. The project took a little over a year to complete. "For us, it was a real accomplishment to convert all 630 maps from paper to computer," says Carrie. There are also some new kinds of maps that have never been possible to hand draw before. "This is a milestone for us and for all of our map users in the field." djcl@contact.uucp ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #748 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22195; 21 Oct 90 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07483; 21 Oct 90 1:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00561; 21 Oct 90 0:21 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 0:09:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #749 BCC: Message-ID: <9010210009.ab04485@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Oct 90 00:09:29 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 749 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Equal Access and COCOTs [Steve Forrette] A New Way to be COCOTted [Larry Rachman] Bell Canada Charges for Local Directory Assistance [Henry Troup] Denmark Also Charges for Directory Enquiries [Per G|tterup] Answer Supervision on PBX [Dave Michaels] Are Indiana White Pages Aailable on Electronic Media? [George Goble] Autoconnect From DA in PA [Ken Jongsma] Two Islands in Washington, DC [Carl Moore] Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [mdb@abcom.att.com] Information Needed on Intecom CBX [Carlo Milono] Portable "Uplinks" Question [John McDermott] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 04:18:37 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Equal Access and COCOTs A few months ago, I set out to find out what the REAL story was regarding COCOTs and equal access. I found out that in California, Pacific Bell and the PUC have both determinted that the owner of the COCOT is the "customer" of the service from Pacific Bell's point of view, and thus is able to choose the default carrier, and to block access to other carriers at will. 10XXX dialing does not have to be allowed. However, one will note that the CPUC only has juristiction over intra-state calls. To find out about inter-state calls, I checked with the FCC. After several layers of people, I was able to talk to an attorney at the FCC that lent me his knowledge for about 45 minutes. He was very knowledgable about COCOTs and the regulations concerning them - I had obviously reached the right person. As he was an attorney, his legal expertise was a "little" above that of the average telecom person. He stated that as far as the FCC was concerned, that Equal Acess and 10XXX dialing was required from all coin stations, whether owned by the local carrier, or privately owned. Although the states may allow as they wish for intra-state calls, *all* payphones must allow 10XXX (or some similar function if 10XXX is not technically possible on the set in question) for all inter-state calls, period. Any phone that does not is in violation of FCC tariffs and perhaps the MFJ. He said that if a consumer filed a complaint, that a letter would be sent to the COCOT's owner, stating what the problem was and that it needed to be fixed. If a satisfactory response was not received within a resonable time, the matter would be followed up on. If the COCOT owner fails to correct the problem, the FCC will order the local carrier to disconnect it. No questions asked. He seemed very sympathetic to my cause. Also, we talked about the deal of COCOTs eating money or charging calling cards for uncompleted calls. We talked about the fact that real supervision is simply unavailable for local calling, and that some of the cheesy AOS's may not have the equipment to do it right, and just use a timeout. He indicated that federal regs required uncompleted calls not to be charged, period. If the AOS doesn't have the equipment to deal with it, then they are in violation if they falsely charge for an uncompleted call that happens to ring too long. He was of the mentality that "if you don't know much about telephones, you shouldn't open your own phone company." I finally had found someone in government that had the "proper" attitude towards this problem. Unfortunately, time constraints and apathy prevented me from taking him up on what he said and filing a complaint. With the recent rekindling of the topic in the Digest, perhaps I'll do so now. Once I find out the proper address and procedure to file the FCC complaint, I'll post it. BTW, when speaking with the COCOT department of Pacific Bell, they told me that at most only two or three phones had *ever* been disconnected for tariff violations. I asked how they reconciled this with the fact that over 99% of them are blatantly *breaking the law*. "Sir, the PUC sets the policy - we just do what they say." Now get this, the woman at the PUC said that she would be surprised if the number of disconnects was even as high as two or three! Well, the FCC may be our answer. Reminds me of the scene from Die Hard: "Disconnect the whole power grid? I don't have the authority." "Authority? How about the United States Government!" [Moderator's Sunday Sermon: Do you recall the story about Emma ("Mother") Jones, who was one day being interviewed by a newspaper? She was asked, "What is your occupation?" "My occupation? My occupation?? I'm a Hell-Raiser," she bellowed. Now I am not going to change the name of our little journal to the "Mother Jones Digest" because I'd probably run afoul of the copyright held by the magazine. Nor would the Mother Bell Digest be a good name ... :) but it does occur to me that the combined Hell-Raising of Telecom readers who know the rules and want to see some major reforms in the industry would go a long way toward getting some changes made. Despite some comments you have read here (because unlike Kay Graham I usually print what my detractors say about me) about how we musn't upset the applecart and offend the 'authorities' by complaining too loudly or too much, lest they break our network connection, or indict us all for conspiracy to deprive someone of the use of their mailbox, email is a good, and powerful tool. Use it to write people. *I won't tell you what to write about -- or where*. Just write. You know where to find the names and email addresses of the people who have the authority to change things. Public Relations and Customer Service Departments do not have that authority. Write to the people who do, even though they would probably prefer you write to Public Relations or Customer Service instead, allowing them to remain in their state of bliss. Pity their poor secretaries: Instead of simply shielding their bosses ears from 'inappropriate' phone calls, they'll have to start screening all the email as well, to make sure some commoner doesn't send him something to read and think about. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 90 07:37:06 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: A New Way to be COCOTted A business associate of mine recently received a phone bill that included two collect calls he had no recollection of. The source turned out to be interesting one. I should probably preface this by saying that this fellow has a popular teenage daughter, which seems to result in him receiving a certain number of ring-no answer calls on a regular basis. He's more or less accepted these as the nature of the situation. What caught his attention on the collect calls was that they were from the same town he lived in, and were for in excess of $2.00 each! A call to the business office resulted in the discovery that the calls had originated at the '...payphone in front of the [local] Toys-R-Us..', which was (of course) a COCOT. The prevailing theory is that the COCOT attempted an automated collect call to his answering maching, and falsely assumed he accepted the charges. (He also gets a lot of null messages on the answering machine). As I'm keyboarding this, though, I can't help but wonder if the call was completed by a sleazy AOS that decided an answering machine was as good as someone saying 'Yes, I'll accept.' Do AOS operators work on commission?? Right now, he's trying to get a hold of TeleBlab International (or whatever) to have the call removed from the bill. Predictably, they either don't answer, or leave him on infinite hold. Interesting, though, isn't it? I thought I was safe from COCOTs because I never went near the fuzzy things, but it seems that they come and get you even in the comfort and privacy of your own home! Anyone out there with similar experiences?? Larry Rachman internet:74066.2004@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 90 13:29:00 EDT From: Henry Troup Subject: Bell Canada Charges for Local Directory Assitance On page 17 of my phone book it says: You are charged 60 cents when the number you request appears in this directory or directories automatically delivered to you. There is no Directory Assistance charge for: - calls from pay phones - calls from hospital rooms - calls from hotels or motels that have an agreement with Bell Canada Exemptions - certified disabled persons who cannot use the directory - certified functionally illiterate persons - people suffering from a temporary disability preventing them from using the directory Persons 65 years of age or older may apply for an exemption by calling their local Business Office and providing their Senior Citizen Privilege number. Exception - calls to the United States You are charged 80 cents for each call (after the 250th) to the United States Directory Assistance operator. The same exemption list appears for the U.S. part. Interestingly enough, there's no period for the 250 calls. ------------------------------ From: Per G|tterup Subject: Denmark Also Charges for Directory Enquiries Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 12:50:37 GMT dan@sics.se (Dan Sahlin) writes: => In Sweden you are charged SEK 6.90 (about 1USD) per minute when => calling 07975 for directory enquiries. This started about two years => ago, and there was a lot of opposition. The blind and handicapped get => their telephone subscription rate reduced, but they do not have a => special number. => The crazy thing is that you are charged per minute. That is, if the => operator is slow, you will have to pay more. They claim that they => usually handle an enquiry within a minute, and according to my => experience this seems true. => Directory enquiries for other countries is still free. => Are there any more countries where you have to pay for directory => enquiries? Almost the same in the neighbouring country of Sweden to the south-west, Denmark. For at least ten years now we've had to pay for that service (0033) here in Denmark, at a rate of dkr. 6.50 (about $1.20) per minute. There is however a special service for sight impaired people that funny enough was established for somewhat other reasons as well. It's simply that these sight impaired can get the service for free if they're unable to use the ordinary printed directory. The possibility of removing the charge on certain phones was introduced in order to avoid having to keep on replacing the printed directories at public pay phones on the streets which kept on being vandalized. Because the Danish telecom by law has to provide at least one free source of directory enquiries at every phone, they had to introduce this service and thereby solve two problems with one stroke. Directory enquiries for other countries (0037) is also charged by the minute here, at a rate (if I remember correctly) dkr. 2,50 (about $0.40) per minute, and it's free from the same phones as local enquiries are. Hope anybody can use this info! I'll be back... | Per Gotterup | Student, DIKU (Inst. of Comp. Sci.) | University of Copenhagen, Denmark | Internet: ballerup@freja.diku.dk ------------------------------ From: Dave Michaels cccc Subject: Answer Supervision on PBX Date: 18 Oct 90 08:35:42 GMT Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus. I recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30 seconds if they are answered or not. Any PBX's not have this problem? Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX? Also, is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business' with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on the system must pay for local calls? Do all schools with PBX's have these problems? Thanks, Dave Michaels INTERNET: dave@mars.njit.edu BITNET: dave@orion.BITNET [Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 08:47:32 -0500 From: George Goble Subject: Are Indiana White Pages Available on Electronic Media? I have heard (in telecom) that NYNEX and some others are now offering white pages on CDROM, tapes, etc, alone or with update services. Anybody know about such a service/product existing for Indiana? Thanks. ghg ------------------------------ Subject: Autoconnect From DA in PA Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 15:23:11 EDT From: Ken Jongsma There was an interesting article in a Penn. newspaper yesterday. I was only in the area for a few hours and did not get a chance to confirm it. The columnist was going on about how lazy people are getting and cited Bell of PA as an example. Apparently, when you ask for a directory number in PA, you get the usual computer generated answer, followed by the suggestion that for an additional 30 cents, you can be connected automatically. Presumably, these are for local calls, or perhaps in addition to the toll charges. I know we've talked about this in the Digest before, but I hadn't realized any telco had implemented it yet. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 16:41:01 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Two Islands in Washington, DC Columbia Island is a part of DC that is "across the Potomac". In telecom terms, that means (at least when I took a walk through this area in the late 1970s) that the pay phone in its park area just off the George Washington Memorial Parkway is on a DC, not Virginia, exchange. This is where you end up if you cross the Arlington Memorial Bridge (old U.S. 50) going from the Lincoln Memorial toward the Arlington National Cemetery. Even though the island is "across the Potomac", it's still DC, and you have to cross the Boundary Channel (I don't know if it's manmade) to enter Virginia as you continue toward the cemetery. Also in Washington DC: Theodore Roosevelt Island (between the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge and the Key Bridge) has no phones that I know of, and is reached by a foot bridge from Virginia but is, according to a map, in DC. ------------------------------ From: 5013 Subject: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely Date: 18 Oct 90 21:17:15 GMT Organization: AT&T(IMS-DPO), Aurora, Colorado A while back I saw a thread that descibed how I could turn off call waiting while I am using my modem. What I would like to know, if the person I am calling has call waiting also, can I turn his feature off also? Thanks in advance, Mike [Moderator's Note: No you cannot. It is up to the person who owns the line to decide what features he wants on or off. If he doesn't understand that modems and call-waiting are incompatible, that is his problem. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carlo Milono Subject: Information Needed On Intecom CBX Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 19:09:05 PDT I was wondering if anyone had information about Intecom CBX's support for ethernet; specifically, the administration, cross-connect, and throughput. ------------------------------ From: John McDermott Subject: Portable "Uplinks" Question Organization: University of New Mexico Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 14:36:42 GMT I have seen recent ads in boating magazines and other places for briefcase-sized satellite uplink-"telex terminal" pairs. These sets are advertised to work throughout the world by allowing the user to communicate via satellite/telex. My questions are: what does using this thing cost? How does one get access to the transponder? Can one do voice on such a beast? Can I build a cheaper land-based unit? etc. Thanks, john mcdermot@unmvax.cs.unm.edu John McDermott 505/828-2562-H Applied Technology Associates 505/247-8371-W MCDERMOTT@DDNVX1.AFWL.AF.MIL ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #749 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00616; 21 Oct 90 13:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20286; 21 Oct 90 11:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19881; 21 Oct 90 10:28 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 9:51:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #750 BCC: Message-ID: <9010210951.ab06306@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Oct 90 09:50:00 CDT Volume 10 : Issue 750 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Talking to People Instead of Machines (was Music on Hold) [David Tamkin] 'Digital' Cellular Hype? [Larry Rachman] Five UK Banks Blackmailed by Hackers [Wolf Paul] October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Dan Ross] FCC Address [Douglas Scott Reuben] Redirectable 800 Number [Bob Yasi] Telephone Connectivity in Japan [Victorino Macapagal] Sources for Info on Multiple Lines [Scott Loftesness] Ancient ANI [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Talking to People instead of Machines (was Music on Hold) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 16:13:33 CDT In volume 10, issue 718, Brian Kantor wrote: | A human-factors consideration: when I was making my living as a | computer consultant a few years ago, I became sensitive to the fact | that people often needed to call me most when they were having | problems with their computers, and that the last thing someone who is | already upset with his machine needs to hear is another machine | answering the phone when he calls for help. | It was clear to me that the $25 a month for a real person (i.e., an | answering service) more than paid for itself in the number of jobs I | got. Fooey on whizz-bang technology: people want to talk to people, | not machines. Speaking as a consumer rather than as an entrepreneur, and speaking as a non-technophobic consumer, I'd rather talk to the *person I'm trying to reach* than to a machine, but when the person I'm trying to reach is not available, 1. I'd rather talk to an answering machine or a voice mailbox than listen to unanswered ringing; 2. I'd rather talk to an answering machine or a voice mailbox than have to keep redialing and redialing into endless busy signals because there are only as many lines as humans to answer them; 3. I'd rather leave a message on an answering machine or in a voice mailbox than with a human receptionist, because 3a: I can tell the whole story rather than have to leave out essential information in order for it to be short enough to fit on a message form; 3b: I can tell the whole story rather than have to make it quick so that the receptionist can answer other calls or do other work; 3c: I can say things that are for the destination party's ears only and get them communicated instead of leaving it at "ask [him/her] please to call me back" and wastefully extending the telephone tag because I can't second-guess their policies about what office staff are or are not allowed to hear; 3d: The message will get through correctly: I don't have to worry that someone who listens to me spell my name still writes it down wrong or that someone who repeats my number to me to confirm it writes it so illegibly that the person I'm trying to reach can't call back; 3e: (This one really burns me.) The machine will never listen to my entire message, claim to be writing it down, and then deliver only "Mr. Tamkin called" (or nothing at all!) instead of the message it promised to transmit; 3f: When I place a personal call and the party I want is out, I don't have to worry whether the household member who took the message will actually deliver it; 3g: On a personal call, I can say what I want and how I feel to a machine just as I would to the person I'm calling, but if another human answers I have to leave a message asking for the person I was trying to reach to call me back (or saying that I'll call again); reaching a human *thwarts* communication in that case. No, a machine is not a full substitute for the person you're trying to reach, but it has no rivals for second place. Sorry, but a machine beats an answering service hands down in my book. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 90 09:52:27 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: 'Digital' Cellular Hype? I went shopping for a portable cellular phone the other day, and was greeted by one of the usual sales types touting the new 'Digital' models, explaining how they "cost a little more, but a 600 milliwatt digital can work nearly as well as a three watt analog transportable." He then produced two Motorola (a traditionally honorable brand) portables and, lo and behold, one said 'Digital' on the front, and one didn't. He claimed the new OKI portable was digital, but the NEC wasn't. The whole thing sounds like snake oil to me. Does anyone out there know differently?? Larry Rachman, WA2BUX internet:74066.2004@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Five UK Banks Blackmailed by Hackers Date: 20 Oct 90 14:23:25 GMT Reply-To: wolf paul Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe Vienna's DER STANDARD reports the following in its Oct. 19, 1990 issue (by Hans-Juergen Maurus, summarized in English w/o permission by Wolf Paul): Five UK banks are being blackmailed by a loosely-knit group of computer hackers, but have not paid any ransom so far. According to London's "Independent on Sunday" the hackers succeeded in penetrating the computer systems of the banks. Experts speak of the most serious breach of computer security in the "City" in years. The penetrations started this past May, and included both the theft of information as well as sabotage and the introduction of falsified information, and are one more indication of a rise in computer crime in London's financial center. One expert called the expertise of the unknown hackers (who seem to operate independently although they are aware of each other) "truly frightening". The banks affected have not called in the police, for fear of adverse publicity which could damage their reputation. Instead, they are relying on the services of Network Security Management, a subsidiary of Hambros Bank, to uncover the culprits. Experts are astonished at the ease with which highly complex systems like these can be penetrated. Since most banks no longer could function without these computer systems, the fear of a major hacker attack is great. Experts say that most bank employees hardly understand the systems they are working with, and are certainly incapable of detecting unauthorized access. Detective Superintendent Don Randell of Scotland Yard who specializes in computer crime says that many businesses are extremely careless in their approach to computer security. Losses due to computer crime in the UK alone are estimated at approximately 2,5 billion Pounds to date; since only about one third of cases are being reported by the victims, the real damage may well be considerably higher. Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 17:11:45 -0500 From: Dan Ross Subject: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Insert in Wisconsin Bell October 1990 bill (Oktoberbill?)] [sections in brackets are paraphrased/abbreviated] Information About Telephone Rate and Service Changes The Public Service Commision (PSC) of Wisconsin, in Docket 6720-TR-104, has approved changes to residential telephone service that will be effective, by bill date, beginning October 1, 1990. In addition, the PSC has approved other changes that will take place at later dates. Following is an explanation of the changes: Current Credit [a $0.53 per line credit eliminated] Touch-Tone Service Effective in October, 1990, Wisconsin Bell has eliminated the $1.50 per month charge for residential touch-tone service. Customers who _currently_have_ the service don't need to do anything. You will continue to have the service, but at no extra charge. For customers who _do_not_ have the service now, the company will be adding equipment to its offices over the coming months to convert all customer lines to touch-tone service. You will be notified when your line is converted. If you want the service sooner, please contact your business office. There will be no charge to add the service. Calls to Information Effective in October, 1990, the charge for calls to Information (1+411 and 1+555+1212) will increase from the current 25 cents per call to 35 cents per call. As before, customers may request two listing on each call. Also, customers who make at least one Wisconsin Bell intraLATA long distance call during a billing period will receive one free call to Information during that time. The current exemptions from the charge will remain, including: calls for numbers not in the current [printed] directory, calls from coin phones and hospital rooms, and calls from certified blind or other disabled customers who are not able to use the directory. Work Charges [increases in technicians' in-home work rates] Zero Allowance and 20 Call Service [Two local calling services not offered since August, 1987 are cancelled, and remaining customers switched to Basic Call Plan ($6/mo + $0.09/call)] Future Change in Local Usage Service [elimination of all residential local call plans; replacement with "Volume Discount Plan," with sliding scaled prices on calls, in addition to $9.50/mo charge. PSC requires Wisc Bell to implement this no later than July 1, 1992; no decision on when it will happen.] Number of Local Calls Made Price per Local Call 1 - 60 6 cents each 61- 150 5 " 151-300 4 " 301-400 3 " 401-1200 2 " 1201 and up 5 cents each [Example paraphrased: 70 calls cost 60*0.06 + 10*0.05 = $4.10] ====end of insert==== My comments: Do other phone companies keep track of whether numbers are "in the book," and charge accordingly, or do they just charge for all calls to Information? I'd had the impression it was the latter. (I'd like to see no charges for calls to Information when they don't have the number or can't give it out, since the information one has bought isn't useful ... of course, they have to pay people.) I ordered Touch-Tone on Thursday, and will have it Friday. I had not ordered it as a protest against charging extra for something which (according to what I'd read) was _cheaper_ to provide! Have other areas eliminated the charge? "Volume Discount" means no more unlimited call plans! And yes, for 1201 and up, that is FIVE cents per call. I guess they figure there's people who call a lot, and then there's people who call A LOT (40 calls a day seems kind of high for a "residence." :) When a PSC/PUC "orders" something like this, is it because they want customers to pay for usage "more fairly" (i.e., we modem users tote our load), or is it other reasons? Dan Ross dross@cs.wisc.edu ..!uwvax!dross ------------------------------ Date: 21-OCT-1990 05:14:47.63 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: FCC address Hi- In response to Steve Forrette's post about writing to the FCC about COCOTs which violate the guidelines specified in his article: The address I have for the Informal Complaints division is: Ms. Kathie A. Kneff, Chief (*) Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch Enforcement Division Commom Carrier Bureau (*) Federal Communications Commission 2025 M Street, N.W., Room 6202 Washington, D.C. 20554 (*)= not necessary, but helpful, one would guess.. Please note that the last letter I sent was in April, so Kathie Kneff may no longer be there ..."Informal Complaints" will do fine... I've done a few of these already, and you really have to prod the FCC staff to take some action; no doubt due to the volume of complaints that they get. After sending a letter (just a brief note explaining the difficulty, location, number of the phone, and operator service/firm owning the phone which gave you the trouble), you may want to call a few weeks later to see how things are going. I've noticed that they may not have taken action for months on a complaint, but after you call them to (politely) check up, they see you are really interested and take immediate action. (Things may be faster now, I dunno...) The number is: (202) 632-7553 FAX: (202) 653-8772 Switchboard: (202) 632-7000 I would really like to suggest that you contact the FCC about any complaints you may have. They may take a while (at times), but they do indeed get results! Good luck! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Bob Yasi Subject: Redirectable 800 Number Date: 21 Oct 90 06:04:57 GMT Organization: Locus Computing Corp, San Diego I want a residential 800 number that lets me redirect the normal phone # which it routes to. I want to be able to do this with minutes of notice, not days which implies a computer rather than a human will take my re-route requests. Essentially what I want is an 800 number that does call forwarding, where that call forwarding can be redirected at any time from any phone (presumably with a PIN). Caller Id would be very desirable too. I currently have an 800 number -- I'll mention what it spells after I change it. 95% of the calls are wrong numbers, mostly drunks on weekends. -- Bob Yazz -- [Moderator's Note: I think Cable & Wireless is the company you are looking for. A message in the Digest some time back said they offer this type of 800 number. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 00:42:29 hst From: Victorino Macapagal Subject: Telephone Connectivity in Japan I will be travelling to Japan next month, and will be bringing my laptop with me. My laptop has a standard 1200 baud modem (with CCITT v.22) and RJ11 jack. Will I be able to connect my modem without modification to a telephone jack in Japan? macapag@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 08:15 EST From: Scott Loftesness <0003801143@mcimail.com> Subject: Sources for Info on Multiple Lines I am interested in knowing if any of the new CD-ROM databases of white pages information can be used to solve the following problem: Find, by ZIP Code, all MERCHANTS who have more than one telephone line installed at the same address. Any suggestions? Scott Loftesness ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Ancient ANI Date: 21 Oct 90 00:06:22 PDT (Sun) From: John Higdon The confusion over ANI persists. So you asked for it--a story (oh NO!). Back in the telecom dark ages (the year was 1960 and I was in high school), an insert came with the phone bill. It was an invitation to attend an open house sponsored by Pacific Telephone at the Central Office on Foxworthy Avenue in San Jose. Never missing an opportunity to see things telephonic, I showed up when the doors opened at 6:00 PM. At the time, the office was a small #5 crossbar facility with one marker group. In one area of the building was a windowed enclosure that contained very large reels of wide (a couple of inches) paper tape. Periodically, there would be some ka-chunking and one reel or another would move slightly. Holes were being punched in the tape. This was the heart of AMA, Automatic Message Accounting which was, as the guide put it, "the cash register of the office". All toll and long distance was being recorded on these tapes for later translation by the business office for billing purposes. The key element of this system was, as explained by the guide, -- ah but first picture the surroundings, then I'll tell you. Eisenhower was president, vacuum tubes were still king, and many areas of the country, if not most, had yet to even have DDD available. The inside of the office was a din of mechanical noises as the evening's residential traffic was being processed. And the key element of AMA? ANI -- Automatic Number Identification. No digital technology here. The first 1ESS was still undergoing testing back east. And yet the term "ANI" was uttered and explained by a Pacific Telephone employee. ANI is NOT Caller-ID. OK? 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 #750 ******************************