Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00679; 1 Jan 91 7:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32392; 1 Jan 91 5:44 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05098; 1 Jan 91 4:39 CST Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 3:46:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1 BCC: Message-ID: <9101010346.ab19471@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jan 91 03:46:40 CST Volume 11 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Ed Hopper] Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements [Douglas Scott Reuben] Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [Dag Spicer] Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Tad Cook] Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Toby Nixon] Re: Another Year Finished [Richard Budd] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs From: Ed Hopper Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 23:49:03 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 (Note: I am sending this on behalf of Bruce Wilson.) From the FACTS BBS in Flint, Michigan, by way of the Vehicle City BBS in Davison, Michigan: On January 15, 1991, an administrative hearing will be held before the Michigan Public Service Commision to discuss a complaint filed against Michigan Bell Telephone Company. Early this year, a private bulletin board in Grosse Point, called the Variety and Spice BBS, was ordered to pay an increased charge for phone service because it was discovered he was accepting donations for use of his BBS. This BBS ran on an IBM, and supports sixteen separate lines. Although a portion of the BBS was open to the public, most of the BBS (including an "adult file" area, were restricted to those who sent a donation to the BBS. The money collected didn't even come close to the actual cost of running such a BBS. Michigan Bell claims that placing any condition on the use of a BBS constitutes a business, and that the sysop must pay a business rate for his phone line, plus pay a $100 deposit for EACH LINE in use. This means the Variety and Spice sysop would have to pay a $1600 deposit, plus about $50 additional each month if he wanted to continue his BBS. The sysop refused to pay this fee, so Michigan Bell disconnect his lines. The sysop filed a complaint with the MPSC. Until this case was heard, he decided to re-install the phone lines (at a considerable cost to himself). If Michigan Bell wins this case, they will require every BBS sysop to pay business rates for each of their lines, if it is determined that the BBS is accepting fees or donations. The Variety and Spice sysop claims that MBT considers requiring users to upload files or post messages (ie upload/download ratios) the same as a donation, and will require the sysop to upgrade his line to a business line whether money was exchanged or not. However, in an interview I did in March, I talked to the chief spokesman of MBT, who claimed that this was not the case. Only if money is accepted will MBT demand the sysop pay business rate. The important thing here is that AT THIS TIME, these are the rules that MBT believes is in the tariff. If Variety and Spice loses this case, it is conceivable that MBT can request further restrictions to be placed. At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their opinions and comments. This applies to both sysops and users. If MBT wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's, and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country to follow. Your help is urgently needed!! Please try to attend this hearing. It will be held at the Public Service Building, 6545 Merchant Way, Lansing, Michigan. The date is January 15. I do not have the exact time but I assume this hearing will last most of the day. You do not have to testify, but it would really be helpful if you can attend as a show of support. The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even cares about BBS's. But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can pack the room with sysops and users! For more information, please contact Jerry Cross at 313-736-4544 (voice) or 313-736-3920 (bbs). You can also contact the sysop of the Variety & Spice BBS at 313-885-8377. Please! We need your support. -------------- Notes from Ed Hopper: In our case against Southwestern Bell, the same cockeyed logic was applied. For a brief period, Southwestern Bell also maintained that the requirement of file uploads was, in and of itself, cause for them to declare a BBS to be a business because it required something "of value" for access. We were able to force Southwestern Bell to see things in a more moderate tone. Recently, I had the opportunity to testify before the Texas PUC regarding the Texas BBS case. In that testimony, I stated that the telcos draw all sorts of extreme scenarios in which the provision of residential service to BBS systems is against the public good. Their argument goes: "If we allow them to have residential service, it will upset the equations and raise the cost of telecommunications services to everyone." However, there is not a BBS on every block, or even one in every subdivision, and no rational observer would ever expect that to be the case. There is, however, cause for most rational observers to believe that the increased cost of business service, including it's increased burden in the area of deposits and installation charges, could cause the closing of many BBS outlets. This, truly, would not be in the public good. Ed Hopper President The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com [Moderator's Note: The problem of course is that the telephone company only has two basic rates: a rate for residence/personal communications and a rate for all else, which they term 'business phones'. Where Ed's counter-argument fails is that while there are not BBS's on every block, neither are there churches and charities on every block -- yet they pay full business rates, as do social service hotline, information and referral services. Are BBS information providers to be treated differently than dial-a-prayer lines which run on business phones, or the proverbial "Battered Women's Shelter outgoing phone line where the calls can't be traced" which also pays business rates? Here are some questions you may wish to give response to: Should there be a third rate category made available, covering charitable and religious organizations? Should this third rate category be available to all not-for-profit phone services such as BBS lines and social service referral numbers or hotlines? If BBS operators who charge money got such a rate, should Compuserve or GEnie also be allowed to use the same rate? Should telco be the one to audit the revenues and decide which computer sites should be treated as 'business' and which should be 'charitable organization'? Is it the fault of telco if the BBS operator does not charge enough money to make a profit? Where is the line to be drawn? Answers? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 30-DEC-1990 23:03:56.80 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements A while back I asked that anyone who has experienced unusually long delays with GTE's Follow Me Roaming to send some mail, so that I could find out if the problem was not specific to me. After receiving a lot of letters about such delays, especially at night during the "automatic deactivation" period, I wrote to GTE/FMR in Tampa to complain about the deficiencies in their service. The following is the response I received from them, on Dec 24,1990: Dear Mr. Reuben: Thank you for your interest in GTE's Follow Me Roaming Service and for taking the time to write to us about problems you have had with activations during the early morning hours. This letter is to explain the system's operation, and to let you know what GTE Telecommunication Services is doing to improve our service. The FMR service we provide to cellular carriers is a very complex, state-of- the-art system. It is comprised of a connection to each carrier's cellular switch, a control host computer, and a nationwide data network interconnecting the elements. The overall response of the system depends on the response of the cellular carriers' switches, which is impacted by volume and time of day. Therefore, longer activations can occur. The system's current design is for deactivations to occur at midnight, local time, for the system in which roaming is to take place. This enables FMR to complete a large number of deactivations during the local switch's least active time; unfortunately, this can create the situation described in your letter. Since assuming full responsibility for FMR operations and product engineering in August, 1990, we have significantly improved overall response time by taking the following actions: o The FMR system was moved from shared computer resources and placed on its own computer. This increased the capacity and allowed us greatly reduce activation times in some heavy markets. The FMR application was later migrated to a larger, more powerful computer. This move is expected to decrease activation times and provide the capacity for future growth. o Enhancements have been installed to improve priority of post- midnight activations and to allow simultaneous two-way communications between the FMR central processor and the processors at the switch sites. These enhancements are expected further reduce activation times in heavy markets. We are continuously developing additional enhancements to further improve FMR. We are proud of the advances we have made with our Follow Me Roaming service, and look forward to continued improvements in the future. This service is currently available in more than 200 U.S. metropolitan areas, and 46 Canadian cities, making it as convenient as possible for you to use you mobile telephone anywhere. All of us here at GTE Telecommunication Services are deeply committed to providing strong, reliable, and timely services to cellular carriers. We regret any difficulties you may have experienced, but please be assured we shall continue working to constantly improve FMR. Once again, thank you for your interest. We look forward to serving your needs in the future. Sincerely, Devora DeMarco Customer Services Manager GTE Telecommunication Services, Inc. P.O. Box 2924 Tampa, FL 33601-2924 --------------- A few things I noted: *The FMR deactivation is local to the switch you are ROAMING in, rather than at 12AM Eastern time (or Central time while GTE was in Houston), as had been my experience over the summer in California and Nevada. It is also not dependent upon your "home" switch's deactivation cycle. Thus, a customer from NYNEX in Mass, for example, who is roaming in GTE's San Francisco system, will not be deactivated any sooner than a Pac*Tel customer from Nevada roaming in the same GTE/SF system. *What is so special about two-way signalling between the host system at GTE/FMR in Tampa and the processors at the switch sites? Prior to August could communication only take place one way? IE, would all deactivations from a system be sent to GTE/FMR, and in the meantime while this was taking place no activations could take place since the FMR system could not communicate with the switch sites? I'm not sure I understand exactly how simultaneous two-way communications really helps out all that much. Overall, though, a rather thorough response. I was particularly impressed with speed of the response, as I had mailed my letter to them only two weeks before I received theirs. (Not to be petty, but compare this to Metro Mobile/Connecticut, my "A" carrier, whom I wrote to 2 MONTHS ago and have not received anything from as of yet! Which company appears to be more concerned with the satisfaction of their customers...? Hmmm... That's a hard one! :) ) I'd like to also thank everyone who responded to my initial posting. Your letters did indeed help me out a lot! One final thing: Although this doesn't have anything to do directly with FMR, California and Nevada "B" customers can get all of the Custom Calling features anywhere in CA or Nevada now. I heard on GTE's customer service recording (the one they play while you wait twenty minutes to talk to someone! :) ) that the new *28/*29 system will allow you to use your feature packages anyhwere. I wonder how they work out rates for Call- Forwarding and similar features...From your home site? Or from your local/ Roaming site? In any event, this system will hopefully lessen the amount of CA-based activations and activation times for those roaming outside of California and Nevada. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Subject: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry From: Dag Spicer Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 10:58:55 PST Organization: Questor: FREE Worldwide News & Mail Access => +1 604 681.0670 I suspect this has already been addressed, but could someone direct me to previous discussions on this subject? Have there been any studies dealing with this surcharge (or lack thereof) in the US and around the world? Any help on this issue would be much appreciated. ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 8:30:08 PST In article <15710@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mk@wroach.cactus.org (M. Khan) writes: > Where can I get a box that recognizes and directs to a separate > physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering. > Cost? Experiences? There is one in the current Hello Direct catalog. Their number is 1-800-HI-HELLO. I have used the AutoLine Plus made by ITS Communications. They are at 1-800-525-4596. It works fine. Be sure to get the AutoLine Plus, as the AutoLine is just a plain exclusion module. 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: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? Date: 30 Dec 90 23:13:24 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15710@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mk@wroach.cactus.org (M. Khan) writes: > Where can I get a box that recognizes and directs to a separate > physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering. > Cost? Experiences? > What I am NOT asking about are the boxes that answer the call and then > make FAX/voice/computer decisions based on what they hear. The December 11th PC magazine, in a review of various voice/fax/data switches, mentioned a fax/voice/data switch that is based on distinctive ringing (known as RingMaster in BellSouth land). The manufacturer is Lynx Automation, Inc., 2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood, WA 98036; +1 206 744 1582. The "RingDirector/2", for $89, supports two-number distinctive ringing, and the "RingDirector/4", for $149, supports four-number distinctive ringing. I have put in a purchase order for one of the four-number boxes, but it might take a few weeks for me to get it. If you get one, would you please let me know what you think of it? Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 16:10 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Another Year Finished Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY TELECOM Moderator (Pat Townson) writes in Telecom Digest #908 >Another year is finished ... and the decade of the eighties is ending. My solution to the dilemma of when decades and centuries is semantical. The 1980's obviously refer to the years 1980-1989 as the 1990's will be the years 1990-1999. However, as Pat and others point out, the Year of Our Lord began with the Year One, not the Year Zero; ergo the 21st Century begins on January 1, 2001 (Arthur B. Clarke had it right when he wrote 2001). The 199th Decade ends tonight, December 31, 1990 and the 200th Decade begins tomorrow, January 1, 1991. Wishing everyone a Happy New Year and Decade, Richard Budd klub@maristb.bitnet Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18713; 2 Jan 91 0:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21733; 1 Jan 91 22:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25399; 1 Jan 91 21:49 CST Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 21:02:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #2 BCC: Message-ID: <9101012102.ab03780@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jan 91 21:02:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: C/NA for 716 [David Leibold] Re: C/NA for 716 [Manwai Yip] Re: Apple-Cat Modem: Quite a Hacker's Toy [Gabe Wiener] Re: Apple-Cat Modem and TDD [Scott Coleman] Re: Speaking of Cheshire Catalyst [Robert Halloran] Re: Full Service Long Distance [Ken Abrams] Re: COCOT in GTE Land [David Tamkin] Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Jack Winslade] MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Billing Errors [Bill Huttig] The Purpose of BBN C-30's [Joel B. Levin] What Are Secure Lines? [Joe Broniszewski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: woody Subject: Re: C/NA Number for 716 Area Code? Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 06:08:52 GMT In article <15709@accuvax.nwu.edu> wlw2286@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Lance Ware) writes: >[Moderator's Note: I do not know of any telco specifically offering >CNA to the public except Illinois Bell (312-796-9600). Am I mistaken >on this? PAT] I have just found out that there is a public CNA number in Florida NPA 813. For one or two requests, the number is (813) 270.8711. For three to fifteen requests, the number is (813) 270.8211. I didn't catch what costs were involved, or whether or not this could be accessed outside of 813 (St Petersburg/Tampa). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 02:34:38 -1000 From: Manwai Yip Subject: Re: C/NA for 716 >[Moderator's Note: I do not know of any telco specifically offering CNA to >the public except Illinois Bell. Am I mistaken on this? PAT] Yes, you are. But nobody's perfect. :) In Hawaii, GTE Hawaiian Tel offers "Telephone Cross Checking" service by dialing 976-1212. The same as CNA. Each call costs 75 cents and you get two inquiries per call, whether successful or unsuccessful. Just like directory assistance. South Central Bell provides public CNA for area code 502 (West Kentucky ). You can call directory assistance at 1-502-555-1212 and they can help you with CNA inquiries in addition to regular directory assistance inquiries. I can't remember any others, but I've called 555-1212 operators in other area codes besides 502 that could handle CNA inquiries. The person asking for a CNA list was probably referring to the infamous CNA list that has spread throughout the hacker community. It contained a list of all the internal Bell C/NA numbers, numbers not available for use by the public of course... [Moderator's Note: If someone wants to compile a complete list of these numbers available for *public use* -- no internal telco numbers please! -- we'll make an exhibit of it in the Telecom Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Re: Apple-Cat Modem: Quite a Hacker's Toy Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 19:15:56 GMT In article <15707@accuvax.nwu.edu> lazlo%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes: > 45.5 baud -- "communications with the deaf network"; this last > required a "simple, no-charge hardware modification" from > the factory, probably a trace cut on the board. The later models didn't even need a hardware mod to run TDD. You just popped it out of the box, shoved it into slot 2, and ran the "Deaf Term" software that Novation included on the utilities disk. THe Apple-Cat II had only one real problem, and that is it had so much stuff packed onto one board that it used to overheat a lot. Many people (including myself) used to run their machines with the cover off in order to protect the modem from blowing. The modem in its fullest configuration had TWO cards, the second being for 212 mode. You could install the second card in a slot, or you could run it in Slot Saver position. Since the only thing the 212 card needed from the slot was electrical power, and since the slots on the II were a high commodity, novation developed a nifty little trick that let you mount the card on the flat surface of the power supply (with special clips and an adhesive board, and then get the power through a special Y-connector that'd intercept the power before it got to the motherboard. I'm only sorry no one makes something as good as the Apple Cat II in a standalone serial configuration. It really was a gem of a modem in every way. It had touchtone dialing (in those days, a very unique feature), touchtone decoding (with one $30 chip added), an X-10 controller, a voice handset that was fully programmable, and best of all, a D/A converter chip on board that could work wonders. I had software for mine that could synthesize eight-voice music, male and female voices with great text-to-speech, and of course, all the TSPS tones, 2600 Hz, payphone coin tones, etc. The phreaks loved it. I miss it, though, because of its great answering machine capabilities. Heck, people were writing automated telephone info services on those things back in 1983!. Oh well. I wish I still had mine, but since I don't have an Apple II anymore, it wouldn't do me much good! Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gabe@ctr.columbia.edu gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: Re: Apple-Cat Modem and TDD Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 2 Jan 1991 01:10:48 GMT In article <15706@accuvax.nwu.edu> rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: >The Apple-Cat was a neat modem, you could run a crude voice-mail >system on it and build an answering machine surpassing anything >available commercially at the time. I heard rumors (on Telecom, in >fact) that the manufacturer was sued by AT&T because of the fraud >potential. (And perhaps because they heard that John Draper, aka >Captain Crunch, designed it) The modem had an on-board D/A converter >for touch-tone generation and voice synthesis, and some folks wrote >programs to generate 2600hz and other signalling frequencies, TSPS >being the most infamous. It even had menu items for 'Quarter', >'Dime', and 'Nickel'. I'm confused about something here: In Steven Levy's excellent book "Hackers," on p. 271, there is mention of the modem (essentially a complete blue-box-on-a-card) that Draper designed for Apple (note that the Apple Cat II was a Novation product). It appears that Apple never actually marketed the board. Chris Espinosa is quoted in the book as saying "When Mike Scott [of Apple] discovered what [Draper's board] could do, he axed the project instantly. It was much too dangerous to put out in the world for anyone to have." Did Draper also design the Apple Cat II (after Apple axed his earlier project)? BTW, I saw a message from the Captain on the net (perhaps even c.d.t) several months back - perhaps we can get the answer to this question direct from the source ;-) Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: Mr. Draper has written notes to the Digest in the past. Perhaps he will see this and respond either to you or the entire readership. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Halloran Subject: Re: Speaking of Cheshire Catalyst Date: 31 Dec 90 01:40:06 GMT Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <15704@accuvax.nwu.edu> fec@whutt.att.com (F E Carey) writes: >I spotted the Cheshire Cat at one of the Computer Security Institute >Conferences in Chicago in the mid-eighties - either '84 or '85. He'd >gotten in with a press pass (whose - unknown), was fairly well groomed >(haircut), and seemed to be keeping a low profile. My recollection was that Cheshire applies for press credentials to these sorts of things using the name of the press bureau from the old Darrin McGavin KOLCHAK:THE NIGHT STALKER series (Independent World News?); the PR types weren't in the habit of checking up on this. Last I'd heard, he'd gotten out of bit-pushing and was doing something fairly mundane somewhere in Florida. He's been keeping a VERY low profile the last few years. Bob Halloran Internet: rkh@mtune.dptg.att.com UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Full Service Long Distance Date: 31 Dec 90 16:05:00 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois >The complicated part in having other IECs handle coin-paid calls is, I >think, as much an accounting problem as it is one of technology. If >[Moderator's Note: Why do you feel the accounting would be any more of >a problem than it is now? At present, the collecting agent (here, it >is of course IBT) still has to detirmine which coins were deposited >for local calls and which coins were deposited for long distance You are probably correct about the method used to divvy up the money. I don't really know because I have never been involved in that part of the business. It COULD become much more complicated, however, if there were, for instance, twenty players in the game instead of just one. I can't help but think of the "slamming" story. What do you do if the total "bill" from all the carriers adds up to more than what you collected from the money box? I sure wouldn't want to be the one who had to try to figure out why that happened! Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: COCOT in GTE Land Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 19:00:56 CST Stan Krieger wrote in volume 10 (yeah, back then), issue 908: | While trying to place a call from a COCOT in Fort Myers, FL last week, | after getting an "invalid number" synthesized message as I started | pushing 10288, I pushed "0". It took about 8 rings for the GTE | operator to answer. | So I wonder what exactly the interface between the COCOT and phone | company is. For example, in Bell Operating Company areas, the | operators know that the line is a COCOT. What amazes me is that you got a telco operator by dialing 0 at a COCOT. It amazes me that you could reach a telco operator by dialing *anything* from a COCOT. Stan seems not only to have reached a GTE operator from the COCOT in GTE's satrapy but also to have reached local BOC operators from COCOTs in Bell jurisdictions. 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@igloo.scum.com [Moderator's Note: The COCOTS in this area (I'm east of David T. by about five miles) get the IBT operator from dialing zero. But there is a class of service or treatment on the line which tells the operator you are at a private pay phone and you need to make arrangements for billing other than 'bill to this number', which the operator will refuse to do. IBT is very sophisticated about this sort of thing. They have numerous classes of service restricting incoming/outgoing calls; the type of billing permitted on the line, etc. COCOTS pose no hassle for them in this respect. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jan 91 14:51:57 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? Reply-to: jack.winslade%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In a message of <30 Dec 90 23:13:24>, Toby Nixon (200:30102/2) writes: >I have put in a purchase order for one of the four-number boxes, but >it might take a few weeks for me to get it. If you get one, would you >please let me know what you think of it? I have used the RingDirector four-line box for about three months and it works quite well. The Hello Direct catalog only shows the two-line box, but I got the four-line box by phoning Lynx Automation directly. Unlike the two-line box, the four-line model is powered by a plug-in adaptor and it also has an 'exclusion' switch which works quite well in preventing an accidentally pucked up voice phone on one line from fouling-up a data or fax transmission on another. There seems to be no delay in switching response, and no false ring on the other lines. In other words, the detection of ringing codes is quick and solid. Hope this gives you a better idea of what you will have when the box comes in. Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Billing Errors Date: 31 Dec 90 03:21:26 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Boy, I must have all the bad luck with phone companies. The latest is with my NEW 800/Prime Time account. I received my first bill sometime last week while away for the holidays (I still haven't received the info/welcome pack.) It is a disaster. I called today to get it taken care of and the computers were down (9am ET) so I called back at 12:30 and they were still down. I called about 8PM and talked with the supervisor. She said that she has to request the bill since she only shows four calls. There were 124 calls (20 days) totalling over $59! None of the calls were rated at the prime time rate (6.50/hr). I calculated a $10.99 difference (that's prorating the monthly fees) without tax. Subtract all the one minute busy/no answer calls and the credit due me is much higher. I asked what the current unbilled calls added up to (I got the info before) but she said she did not have the info. I called the SC office and found out that it was $5.17 based on sixteen calls covering 12/8-12/26 ... the bill ended the 18th so the calls on the 8th (from Walt Disney World to my answering machine) should have showed up. To make a long story short, I called the supervisor in IA back and told here that the SC folk gave me the info ... she said that it was illegal to provide details on unbilled calls ... that it is a federal law. I was wondering if this is true ... she is going to call Wednesday to discuss the billing errors. Bill wah@zach.fit.edu ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: The Purpose of BBN C-30's Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 09:11:54 EST rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) wrote in TELECOM Digest Volume 10 Issue 895: >On a completely unrelated subject -- in the mux room of our local CO >there are three BBN C-30s sitting in one corner. Any idea what they >might be doing? Did BBN have a clearance sale when the Arpanet went >out of business? Are my phone calls being routed by IMPs? No. It is well known that BBN packet switches are used for the Defense Data Network, which includes Milnet and what used to be Arpanet among other things. But BBN has also for a long time sold wide area networks to other government and commercial entities around the world. Michigan Bell's public X.25 packet switched network offering is built on BBN's C/30 and C/300 switches. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 18:02:35 -0500 From: Joe Broniszewski Subject: What are Secure Lines? I read a very interesting book over the holidays titled "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stol. The book detailed a true story about computer espionage. In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure lines. My questions: 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line and a non-secure line? 2. Are calls routed differently? 3. Who are the LDC's for such lines? 4. What role does the BOC play in such a set up? Joe Broniszewski Philadelphia Phillies Systems Department ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #2 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22044; 2 Jan 91 3:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11158; 2 Jan 91 1:57 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19182; 2 Jan 91 0:54 CST Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 0:02:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #3 BCC: Message-ID: <9101020002.ab28640@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 Jan 91 00:02:01 CST Volume 11 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Mail Merges With Western Union Easy Link [TELECOM Moderator] Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Brent Chapman] Programming/Parts Info for Mitsubishi 3000SPK and Audiovox BC-55 [L. Ware] Is This a New Record for Number Reassignment? [Michael P. Deignan] Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 23:02:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T Mail Merges With Western Union Easy Link Over the New Year's holiday, AT&T announced that AT&T Mail is being merged with Easy Link, the older email / message service offering from Western Union, which was recently bought by AT&T. I'll provide more details here as I get them, but it appears the two services may be operated as one in the near future. I think that will be great when they get the merger complete, because Easy Link has always offered many good services not presently available from AT&T Mail, such as interactive, real time conversation with telex / twx machines, and the FYI News Service. All of the Western Union sales staff is now being relocated into AT&T quarters, and the new phone number for inquiries is 1-800-321-MSGS. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Brent Chapman Subject: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 1 Jan 91 23:00:18 GMT Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service coverage. My phone was claiming there was at least intermittent service almost the whole time I was in California. The only place in California where service got spotty was in the desert East and West of Barstow, along California Highway 58 (between Bakersfield/Mojave coverage and Barstow coverage) and Interstate 40 (between Barstow coverage and Needles coverage); even there, though, I would estimate that the phone showed coverage at least 75% of the time, and "No Service" only 25% of the time. I don't have a signal strength display on my phone, so I'm not certain how good most of the coverage was, but I successfully placed a few calls from these rather desolate areas, and the quality didn't seem much worse than what I usually get in the Bay Area. What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the nearest cell? On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase the total capacity of the system. Is this true? Thanks! Brent Chapman Ascent Logic Corporation Computer Operations Manager 180 Rose Orchard Way, Suite 200 chapman@alc.com San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: 408/943-0630 ------------------------------ From: Lance Ware Subject: Programming/Parts Info for Mitsubishi 3000SPK and Audiovox BC-55 Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 20:54:11 GMT Does anyone have the programming info for the new Mitsubishi 3000 handheld? I just got one, and will be travelling to CA later this year where I will want to reprogram it for Cellular One, for a month or so. In addition, I am looking for programming info on the Audiovox BC-55 Car Phone, as well as a place to buy a new handset. If anyone has any info please reply to me. Any information will be appreciated. Lance Ware Mac and IBM Reseller wlw2286@ultb.isc.rit.edu wlw2286@ultb.UUCP ------------------------------ Subject: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment? Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 11:05:20 EST From: "Michael P. Deignan" Paul.Schleck@iugate.unomaha.edu (Paul Schleck) writes: >That brings up an interesting point. Just how long does the phone >company wait before reassigning numbers? According to my mother, >calls for the previous subscriber *never* happened in the past (my >mother is 58). In recent years, when she moves and/or switches phone >numbers, she complains about receiving a significant number of calls >for the previous owner of the number. "Stupid phone company doesn't >give its numbers a chance to cool off anymore!" she complains. Is >this just my mother's imagination or has Ma Bell, in her hunger for >numbers to assign in populated areas, shortened the "cooling off" time >to less than ideal? A few years ago, I called NET to get a second line installed in my parent's home as a modem line. After going thru the process, and being informed that the line would be activated in a week, I called the number they assigned me. Lo and behold, a human voice answered. We had a nice little chat. Apparently, he was moving and was scheduled to have the phone disconnected on Friday. I, in turn, was scheduled to have the phone connected the following Wednesday. I guess it really depends on the particular exchange. This was in the city, where no doubt numbers are at a premium. In the middle of Nebraska, you probably wouldn't have to worry too much. Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 00:00:00 CST [Moderator's Note: This article first appeared in TELECOM Digest on Thursday, June 22, 1989. (Volume 9, Issue 208). I thought newer readers would enjoy seeing it and older readers might enjoy a repeat as we end one year and start another. Since this was written, most of the problems have been corrected. PAT] Indiana Bell service in the northeast section of Hammond, IN has gone to hell, but the telco says its not their fault, and they are trying to work with the people involved to correct the problem. For instance, consider the case of Steve Gescheidler, a resident of north Hammond, living just a few blocks from the Illinois/Indiana state line: he shares a party line with Jesus. When he picks up his telephone, a voice will often be on the wire reading from Ephesians, or bellowing at him to repent before he Burns In Hell forever. Sometimes the voice is trying to sell him spiritually enlightening audio tapes -- Visa and MasterCard accepted, of course. His neighbor around the corner, Judy Maruszczak, has a heavenly instrument also: When she tries to make a phone call, it will often times be drowned out by hand-clapping gospel music. Her VCR also likes to preach to her. The Hammond legal firm of Efron and Efron owns a pious dictaphone machine. When the secretary is in the midst of transcribing legalese, threats of fire and brimstone suddenly are heard on the tape. In addition, their phone system is electronic, and when they put calls on hold, as often as not a few seconds later the hold is broken and the call is lost. Several times per day the phone will ring, and no one is on the line at all. Linda Reynolds, another resident in the area said her television, her VCR and her cordless phone all began urging her down the righteous path last fall. She said sometimes at night the cordless phone begins ringing by itself, and going off hook for no reason, tying up their wire-line. Nine year old Tommy Kotul learned how to find salvation while he was trying to play 'Sports Baseball', an Atari game cartridge. He also said that one day in school, a choir started singing hymns over the school's public address system, which is in the form of speakerphones connected to the intercom phone on each teacher's desk. Although the sanctified interference shows up in the damndedest ways, on all sorts of electronic gizmos, it invariably is on the phone lines of the good (and presumably by now, God-fearing) residents of North Hammond, an Indiana community which straddles the Illinois state line with the communities of Burnham and Calumet City, Illinois to the south and west, and Chicago at it's northwest tip on the state line. So people began asking Indiana Bell, "what the heck is this, anyway?"... WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. ... that's what it is ... this religious station, operating at 92.3 on the dial, licensed in Hammond, IN, with transmitter facilities in Burnham, IL is the culprit. Operating with an antenna height of 500 feet, and 50,000 watts of radiated power, the folks at WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. are literally *saturating* a two mile area around the northern end of the Indiana/Illinois state line, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Gescheidler lives about four blocks from WYCA's transmitter. He first began noticing the sanctified interference last fall, and it became louder and louder as the months went on, always on his end. "It seems like when I am in the middle of an important conversation, some preacher always comes on and tells me I'm going to Hell," he said, adding that the phone lines had already gone to hell, and no one seemed to give a damn about it. After complaining several times to Indiana Bell, Gescheidler and his neighbors complained to the Federal Communications Commission, the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission, and finally to the radio station itself. No one, he realized, least of all the radio station, was willing to take any responsibility for the problem. WYCA isn't breaking any broadcasting rules according to Paul Gomell, an FCC Chicago office technician whose duties include periodic examination of WYCA's equipment. "The home equipment is probably not adequately filtered," he said. "The problem has nothing to do with Indiana Bell's equipment," said Delores Steur-Wagner, Indiana Bell's community affairs manager for Hammond. "If there are complaints, they should go to the FCC." Chris Alexander, Dallas-based Vice President-Engineering for WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters' parent corporation said, "The signal is so strong, you expect this kind of interference in devices that are not well-shielded. We try to advise people as best we can, and we have worked closely with Indiana Bell and Illinois Bell to resolve complaints." In November, 1986, the station raised its antenna to 500 feet from 400 feet, and increased its power from 30,000 to 50,000 watts, Alexander said. "We made these changes only after receiving permission to do so from the Federal Communications Commission." Alexander said that this change in power and antenna height created a so-called 'blanketing area' -- an area of about 1.7 miles in any direction of the transmitter and antenna -- where the signal is so strong and so permeating, it is literally everywhere, in everything. "Indeed this is the case," said one neighbor five blocks from the site. "I have gone for early morning walks in the open field where the antenna is constructed. In the crisp, early morning air, you can almost feel the signal; smell that ozone; sense the corona." Alexander said, "We operate completely within the law. We observe all FCC regulations at all times." He noted that one condition for the change in antenna height and power output being granted by the Commission was that WYCA was ordered to assume responsibility for correcting certain types of radio interference in an area 1.7 miles in any direction of the station for a period of *one year* afterward. Alexander said during that time they worked closely with the telcos involved and "....anyone who complained about interference was given free of charge the filtering devices they needed ... some of our people helped install them ... just what the FCC said we had to do, we did it, in the geographic area required, for the length of time required...." Alexander noted one of the first complaints about the increased power came when prosecutors in a federal drug trial in Hammond tried to play wiretap evidence for the jury: instead, the tape recorder offered up hymns and homilies. Paul Gomell of the FCC noted that they have received complaints about the station relating to answering machines, speed-dialing equipment, cordless phones, cheapie phones, hold buttons, Touch-Tone service, and VCR's. These appurtenances and others -- like the preaching Atari game -- lend to the appearance that God is everywhere, at least in Hammond. One Indiana Bell service representative spoke, on the condition that she could remain nameless, saying that the telco had handled over 130 WYCA-related problems in the past year, but Bell spokeswoman Steur-Wagner said the company does not keep track of such things and she had no way of confirming this report. The next step to reduce the interference -- with no guarentees that it will completely end -- is to have all the interior phone wire shielded in steel casings, said Tim Timmons, Indiana Bell's regional maintainence manager for northern Indiana, "...plus of course have good filtering where the phone lines come into the building..." "What a deal!", said Gescheidler. He recently priced the job at $300 per phone from an independent contractor. "Indiana Bell said *maybe* they could do it a little cheaper for us ... but they say it is not their obligation to resolve the problem any further." He mentioned that, "...one day some guy from WYCA came here with a phone man; they had some cheapie looking filter they plugged in ... it didn't seem to do any good." Although the parent corporation of WYCA in Dallas may have good public relations, the neighborhood says local staff at WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. isn't at all concerned any longer. "They have heard so many complaints I guess they quit listening to them any longer," said a neighbor. "When I called one day -- one day when it seemed like they were much louder than usual -- and asked them in a nice way couldn't they modulate their signal a little better, a lady there told me I was being blasphemous. She told me it was anti-religious to complain. She said I should be thankful that I was able to hear the Word of God, and she hoped I would someday realize I would Burn In Hell without accepting Jesus as my Savior. That's the last time I bothered calling *them* to complain. Now the FCC and Indiana Bell say *they* can't do any more either?" No madame, they cannot. As Chris Alexander, VP-Engineering has explained time and again when asked, the Corporation follows all FCC rules at all times. "We ALWAYS do exactly what the government tells us to do," he said. And Indiana Bell brings the wire to the drop by your house. They say the line is as clean as it can be at that point. You do the rest. An old folk-prayer says, "My Lord ... nothing is going to happen that You and I can't handle together. Amen." But one can have too much togetherness, as the residents of North Hammond will attest. Said Steve Gescheidler, "On the radio, they are praying for me. Meanwhile, I am praying for a phone line I can talk on without being disrupted by the choir and the organist." Radio Station WYCA-FM Studios and Executive Offices 6336 Calumet Avenue Hammond, IN 46301 92.3 on FM dial throughout northern Illinois and northern Indiana. [Moderator's Note, appended 1/1/91: Shortly after this article appeared, tbe FCC instructed WYCA to intensify their efforts to resolve the problems of the Hammond residents. 'Better' RF filters were devised and technical help was given in their installation. For about a month, WYCA was required to announce over the air at intervals that assistance would be provided freely on request to anyone within a 1.7 mile radius of the transmitter experiencing problems. There have been no recent complaints, so I assume things are better now. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #3 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18998; 3 Jan 91 5:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07907; 3 Jan 91 3:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15199; 3 Jan 91 2:48 CST Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 2:20:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #4 BCC: Message-ID: <9101030220.ab16209@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jan 91 02:20:42 CST Volume 11 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Business vs Residence (was: Michigan Bell vs BBSs) [David E. Bernholdt] Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [John Higdon] Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Robert Trebor Woodhead] Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Peter Marshall] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Bill Berbenich] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Lars Poulsen] Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [John David Galt] Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling [Julian Macassey] Re: SLIP Wanted [David E. Martin] Re: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment? [Bill Berbenich] Re: CNA Bureau Phone Numbers [Randy Borow] Re: Prodigy Must Refund Fees to Unhappy Subscribers [Brian Gordon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) Date: 2 Jan 91 00:57:02 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project I have a few questions relating to the business/residence distinction: 1) Historically, what is the argument for charging businesses and residences differently? Do the businesses get better quality lines? :-) Is it more expensive (to the telco) for someone at a business location to pick up the phone and make a call? To receive one? In the latter case, isn't the person _calling_ the business picking up the tab? 2) Do these arguments still apply in the present day? (For example, most people say that tone dialing is now cheaper to the telco than pulse dialing -- thus negating a major argument for the tone dialing tariff.) 3) In the past, what has the criteria been for the telco to force someone to pay business rates? Are they looking at licenses which might be required by the local authorities or registered charitable/non-profit groups? Is the installer looking for some sign that I'm running a business when (s)he comes to hook me up? 4) Where will it end? Will I have to pay business rates if I have a terminal/modem at home which I use to dial up the computer at work occasionally? Will I have to pay business rates if I put an add in the paper trying to sell my car? How about if I casually start buying and selling used cars, using newspaper adds giving my home phone number in order to fund my hobby of collecting and restoring old Yugos? David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Date: 2 Jan 91 00:01:53 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Ed Hopper writes: > At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their > opinions and comments. This applies to both sysops and users. If MBT > wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's, > and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country > to follow. Well, maybe. In many cases, including California, major changes would have to be made to the tariff structure. In CA, the opening assumption concerning whether business or residence service is appropriate is "where is the line to be installed?" If the line is installed in someone's residence, residential service is assumed UNLESS certain conditions apply. A line installed anywhere else is assumed to be for business service. This would include churches, shelters, charities, etc. Pac*Bell would be hard pressed to charge business service for any BBS installed in someone's home, regardless of "upload requirements" or any other nebulous manifestations of "consideration". On the other hand, if someone logged in and was presented with a rate card, that could easily be construed as a business venture and the service would be subject to regrading accordingly. > The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even > cares about BBS's. But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can > pack the room with sysops and users! This may be the key. It has often been said that Pac*Bell would never screw around with BBSes, or people who use modems in general because of the high concentration of users and because of the high interest in such matters particularly in the Silly Valley. The MPSC is banking on public disinterest and only a demonstration by the people to the contrary will carry any weight. It is a political fact of life that the minorities and obscure factions take the brunt of laws and regulations. Computer users must make it clear to those in power that as a group, such users are neither passive nor silent. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Robert Woodhead Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Date: 2 Jan 91 16:47:06 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in order. It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for local outgoing calls only, most likely). At the same time, modem lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable. | Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 08:32:46 -0800 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1: As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example, posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs. In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited. On the other hand, as is frequently the case with such posts, claims are nonetheless made about the significance of the case, etc. Pat's comments do well in providing some other kinds of "corrective" information here re: bus. rates for NPOs, but do not reach the broader question of whether there's valid justification for some of the alleged cost-based distinctions for bus-res rate differentials. Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself. To put it a little differently, if you have decided to play on the PUC field, then play effectively; otherwise, it may be preferable not to play at all. Peter Marshall ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 1:01:55 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Joe Broniszewski queries: > I read a very interesting book over the holidays titled "The Cookoo's > Egg" by Cliff Stol. The book detailed a true story about computer > espionage. In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure > line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business > (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure > lines. My questions: > 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line > and a non-secure line? There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they use special telephones, not special telephone lines. There is a modern version of the "scrambler" phone around and it uses regular POTS, although a point-to-point setup is possible. > 2. Are calls routed differently? They may be routed on FTS, which is essential just a bulk WATS-type system that all the Federal agencies have access to. FTS can be used to call POTS or other FTS phones. If it is a military agency, they may use a network called AUTOVON. They could also be routed in the usual way that we civilians have our calls routed. Basically all they'd need is an RJ-11 connection, if that. Secure cellular phones are also used by the feds - remember Bush talking on a cellular from his golf cart up in Maine? That photo seemed to make quite a few papers. > 3. Who are the LDC's for such lines? > 4. What role does the BOC play in such a set up? Answer to 3: AT&T is the major contractor for FTS, US Sprint is the minority contractor (60/40% share split, respectively). Answer to 4: they may or may not provide the POTS line and dial tone, depending on the individual setup. Some military installations have their own switching equipment, as I understand it. I may not be 100% on this answer. FTS is a non-secure, general use, long-distance network which the federal government uses for the bulk of its long distance telephone and data traffic. It is not some secretive, spooky set-up - just a way for the feds to try to control their telephone costs and yet maintain some versatility. Cliff was inaccurate in his assessment of why the spooks wanted to call him back, they may have just been in the middle of something else at the time. Cliff, do you read TELECOM digest? :-) Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:09:33 GMT In article <15743@accuvax.nwu.edu> astph!joe@cs.psu.edu (Joe Broniszewski) writes: >I read ... "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll. ... In the book, Cliff >mentioned what he called a *secure line*. When ever he called a government >agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on >one of these secure lines. I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. >1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line >and a non-secure line? >2. Are calls routed differently? >3. Who are the LDC's for such lines? >4. What role does the BOC play in such a set up? STU-III is an encryption protocol; essentially, the telephones switch to "data mode" like modems. Any IEC may be used to carry such calls. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@ Subject: Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 15:43:02 PST Here in California, Pac Bell proposed to the PUC (notice in our 8/90 bills) to remove the surcharge for touch tone service. However, I'm still paying it. Does anyone know if this proposal is still "in the mill" or was abandoned? If telco charges are supposed to be based on what it actually costs them to provide service, then it seems to me that they should offer tone-only service, and it should be cheaper than normal service (which supports both pulse and tone dialing) because the CO equipment can be simpler. Right? ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling Date: 3 Jan 91 05:51:01 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <15648@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 902, Message 3 of 10 >jack. (By the way: all the four RJ11 wires are mandatory in Sweden >and are supported by the phone network: there are TWO >twisted-pairlines (for a total of four wires) in the local loop to >each line. Maybe that has something to do with it. This must be something new. When I was in Sweden (1970s), there were only two wires needed. Phones given to me by Ericsson and Televerket in the 80s also only need Tip and Ring. The telephone ICs made by RIFA (Ericsson) are also two wire devices. So what is the second pair of wires used for? Any Ericsson or Tele people care to comment? Silly trivia: Swedish phones have the world's lowest minimum current spec - 12 mA. The U.S. is 20 mA although a 2500 set will usually work fine at 14 mA. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 12:19:50 EST From: David E Martin Subject: Re: SLIP Wanted Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL I posted an article some time ago looking for SLIP. Thanks to eric@mammoth.Berkeley.EDU and lej@quintus.com I found the source several places. Namely: ucdavis.ucdavis.edu, cs.toronto.edu and ucbarpa.berkeley.edu I haven't had much chance to experiment with it yet, but I will post my experiences when I do. David Martin, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL dem@iexist.att.com ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Re: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment? Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 13:25:00 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I just recently got a new unlisted phone number. The order-taker gave me the "new" number while I waited. After we hung up, I tried the number (even though it would be a week before it was to be connected). I was surprised to be greeted by a real, live female voice when I called. I asked the female voice if she had just gotten new phone service and she replied that no, she'd had that number for a few years. I told her that I had just ordered a "new" number and asked her if her number was NXX-ABCD. She said it yes it is. So I called Ma Bell right back and asked "What the hey?" They looked up my "new" number again and told me that it was really NXX-ACBD. A simple matter of transposed numbers made by a harried order-taker. As yet, I have gotten one wrong number in about two weeks of service. I don't know how long the number cooled off first, but it was not in the phone database on Compuserve so maybe it was out of commission for a while. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Wed Jan 2 14:49:46 CST 1991 Subject: Re: CNA Bureau Phone Numbers Lance Ware had asked for the new # for the 716 CNA Bureau. I'd be glad to give it to him; however, because of proprietary restrcitions on the company for whom I work, and because a security code (recently changed) is necessary to use the CNA, I cannot pass on the information. I can, however, let our Moderator Pat know that each area code in the contiguous 48 states (as well as Canada, 809,and 808) has a CNA bureau. A few, though, utilize LD directory assistance (1-NPA-555-1212) as its CNA Bureau. Most CNA's are great. All but a couple (Illinois Bell's 312/708 one, for example) require use of security codes/billing ID numbers. One CNA, in fact (Michigan Bell's), is even completely automated. Randy Borow attmail.com!bcm1a09!rborow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 15:53:57 PST From: Brian Gordon Subject: Re: Prodigy Must Refund Fees to Unhappy Subsribers The original article referenced only $P$ customers in TX. I'm in CA but, a refund was offered for my dropping off (in favor of GEnie for the kids) as of their start date for "excess message" charges. Except for the fact that I had to send several (six or seven) messages telling them to pull my plug as of the date they started their new charges, quitting seems to be a reasonable process. The first n-1 messages received responses asking that I reconsider, try it for a while and see if the new charges really affected me, etc. I'll be sure when I see their check. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #4 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20284; 3 Jan 91 6:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24413; 3 Jan 91 5:03 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07907; 3 Jan 91 3:56 CST Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 2:53:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #5 BCC: Message-ID: <9101030253.ab14858@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jan 91 02:53:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Donn Pedro] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [David Lemson] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propogation Characteristics? [Jim Rees] Re: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements [John Higdon] New California Telecom Laws [Marshall Clow] What to do About a Deceptive 900 Offer? [John R. Levine] What do You Pay for 64kb X.25? [Hank Nussbacher] Weatherman COCOTed Live on Radio! [Kevin Mitchell] Mysteries of Reach Out World [John R. Levine] Cheery New Year Thought [David Ptasnik] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 2 Jan 91 01:10:45 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Brent Chapman writes: > What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I was > under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range > (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range > characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because > shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by > reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). How, then, > was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the > nearest cell? And what makes you think you were sixty miles from the nearest cell? I have watched, over the past several years, as the PacTel Cellular has been adding site after site to service the high desert area. There are a couple of sites near Barstow, as well as a couple near Victorville. Lately, the coverage has been improved on the Mojave to Barstow route via 58 by the addition of more sites. The main thrust has been the coverage of I15. It is now possible (unlike in the past) to carry on a continuous conversation from Newport Beach to some miles past Barstow on the way to Las Vegas. But take my word for it, there are cell sites involved. It isn't magic propagation. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Donn Pedro Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 2 Jan 91 17:08:37 GMT Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, Wash. In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: : On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and : back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service : coverage. My phone was claiming there was at least intermittent : service almost the whole time I was in California. With the advent, and installation of Cellular RSA (Rural Service Areas), I would not be surprised. : coverage and Needles coverage); even there, though, I would estimate : that the phone showed coverage at least 75% of the time, and "No : Service" only 25% of the time. Remember that the coverage could have been for carriers other than your own if your mobile was set to scan both systems. : I don't have a signal strength display : on my phone, so I'm not certain how good most of the coverage was, but : I successfully placed a few calls from these rather desolate areas, : and the quality didn't seem much worse than what I usually get in the : Bay Area. You were most likely working off of one of the new RSAs. : What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? Depends on the site. A cell can be tuned to serve almost any area. This can exceed ten miles, especially if it is a repeater site. Transmit power can be as high as 500 watts in some instances. The pattern of service can also be shaped to meet the needs of terrain and traffic considerations. : I was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a : short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this : short-range characteristic is fundamental to making the system work : (because shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total : callers by reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). This is especially true in a densly packed metropolitan area. In a rural area, where it is not ecnomical to have a site every few miles, power is stepped up to conpensate. :How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 :miles from the nearest cell? Sounds far away, but could have been if you were working off of a high power repeater site. : On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and : that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown : San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order : to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase : the total capacity of the system. Is this true? It is. Cells can also be "tiered". That is: a single cell can actually act like two cells. An inner cell and an outer cell. Cells can also have "sides". These can be tuned seperatly to deal with traffic and terrain found in highly congested cities. May I suggest a book. Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Author: William C. Y. Lee Publisher: McGraw Hill ISBN: 0-07-037030-3 It is pretty deep in places but should tell you almost anything you would want to know about cellular, as of 1989. Jenner dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP *Disclaimer? You bet! I speak for myself only.* ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 3 Jan 1991 06:45:00 GMT chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: >On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and >that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown >San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order >to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase >the total capacity of the system. Is this true? That is exactly right. Cellular phones are directed to increase or decrease power according to their distance (and thus, signal strength) from the cell tower. This allows more cell sites in a certain area, and thus, more potential users in that same area. This is the principle behind the "Microcells" that will soon adorn the halls of airports and office buildings. A cell every few hundred yards. David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 18:53:25 GMT In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: >... What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I >was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a >short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system... At cellular frequencies (800 MHz) it's pretty much line-of-sight. If you are on one mountain top and the cell antenna is on another, you could have a range of over a hundred miles even running very low power. I always get a kick out of the business droids on the subway in Hong Kong, impatiently punching their cellphone buttons while the no-service light is on in the tunnels. They've been talking of putting slotline (leaky coax) in the tunnels to extend the coverage. Two questions: If I buy a cellphone in HK or Singapore, will it work in North America? And if I have no "home" cell service provider, or my provider is in HK, can I get roaming service here in the US? ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements Date: 2 Jan 91 00:17:54 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Douglas Scott Reuben writes: > A while back I asked that anyone who has experienced unusually long > delays with GTE's Follow Me Roaming to send some mail, so that I could > find out if the problem was not specific to me. I had a problem with FMR after my last trip to LA. While in southern California, I daily set FMR on my handheld except on the day that I drove home. Since I was going to be on the road, it didn't seem like the thing to do. Since FMR cancels automatically at midnight each day, I gave it no further thought. I got back to the Bay Area and after a few days had gone by had a situation where I needed to page someone and have them return the call to my handheld. I waited and waited for the return call. Finally, my pager went off and the number was that of the person I paged. He told me that he had tried to call, but got the "away from the vehicle" recording. I passed it off. The next day, the same thing happened with someone else. I asked, "Was the recorded voice male or female?" "Male", was the response. Well, the GTE Mobilnet (San Francisco) recordings all feature a female voice. You guessed it--FMR was still in effect nearly a week after I had left LA. The fix was simple: dial '*720' which cancels forwarding. For all I know, it's still up in the LA system. It might be a good idea for cellular providers to append their system names to any recordings. It might reveal a stuck FMR or other unintended situation more readily. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 22:14:42 -0800 From: Marshall Clow Subject: New California Telecom Laws >From the {San Diego Union}, 1/1/91, in an article titled "New Laws in '91 Protect Consumers", in a section titled Telephones: Phone solicitors who use recorded messages must begin each call with a live voice announcing the caller or organization represented and get your consent before playing the message. Telephone solicitors must maintain a $50,00 bond for the benefit of anyone who was cheated by the phone solicitor, in the event someone sues the phone solicitor and gets a court judgment. In-state "900" and "976" information providers must present callers with a price disclosure message at the beginning of each call, after which callers can hang up without incurring a charge. ( Not implemented intil July 1). Information provided on the state government toll-free telephone lines must be accessable to the public by both touch-tone and rotary telephones. Local telephone carriers are prohibited from making any change in a telephone subscriber's long distance carrier unless so requested by the subscriber in writing. ------ Does anyone have any more infomation about these new laws? Marshall Clow marshall@sdd.hp.com ------------------------------ Subject: What to do About a Deceptive 900 Offer? Date: Thu, 27 Dec 90 15:12:50 EST From: "John R. Levine" I just got a particularly deceptive automatic solicitation for a 900 number. First it said that if the number that the computer read back was my phone number and I could answer a trivia question I could be a finalist in their fabulous Hawaiian sweepstakes. Then it read out a phone number which, astonishingly enough, was the one they'd just dialed, and in the event that I didn't know who was the co-host of Wheel of Fortune, gave me three possible answers, the most intriguing of which was Barbara Walters. Then "to make sure we have a clear connection, call me back within the next nine minutes at 900-990-xxxx" and repeated the 900 number a zillion times. Then, obviously hoping I'd hang up, they started some twangy Hawaiian music while blathering about what a swell time I'd have in Hawaii. Suspecting what was to come next, I got my pencil handy, in time for them to say, as quickly as possible, that the call costs $9.95, no call is needed to enter, I can write to: Hawaiian Sweepstakes 316 California Avenue, Suite 987 Reno NV 89509 which is obviously a mail drop. This seems to me grossly deceptive, its sole goal being to get people to spend ten bucks making a phone call for which they receive essentially no value, even assuming that the sweepstakes is real. (As likely as not, it is hotel only, you have to get there yourself.) To whom do I complain? The FCC? The LD carrier (who handles 900-990?) Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jan 91 11:13:51 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25? Reply-To: Hank Nussbacher Our PTT is charging us $.435 per kilosegment (64Kbytes) for transmission of data over a 64kb X.25 circuit. There is no time charge. I'd be interested in hearing what other countries pay for 64kb X.25 usage. Thanks, Hank ------------------------------ From: kam@dlogics.COM (Kevin Mitchell) Subject: Weatherman COCOTed Live on Radio! Date: 2 Jan 91 04:31:59 GMT Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago Wow! Last week (Thursday?), I was listening to WGN radio here in Chicago (AM 720), and this unusual female voice was reading the weather. After a bit of flap about the host handing the wrong weather report to the substitute weather person ("first weatherman we've had in a long time with a full head of hair "), Roger Triemstra, the usual weatherman, called in. He usually calls in from wherever he is around dinnertime. Problem was, as he said, "I've never used a phone like this before. It looks just like a normal pay phone, but it kept saying my credit card is invalid." Kevin A. Mitchell (312) 266-4485 Datalogics, Inc Internet: kam@dlogics.UUCP 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ Subject: Mysteries of Reach Out World Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 0:15:51 EST From: "John R. Levine" I was perusing a flyer for AT&T's Reach Out World program, and some aspects of it are extremely peculiar. The general plan is that for $3 per month, you get reduced off-peak rates on many international calls as well as 5% off all domestic calls. Most of the rates and times make sense, but some don't. For example, the rate to Panama is slightly higher than that to continental Europe. What's more the peak time for calls to Panama, Peru, and Uruguay is 2PM - 10PM (caller's local time.) Panama keeps the same time as Chicago, Peru keeps the same time as New York, and Uruguay is two hours later than New York, give or take different daylight savings schedules. Does AT&T think that they all sleep late? Peak hours of 2PM-10PM in California translate to 8PM-4AM in Uruguay since it's summer there now. The peak time to Brazil is 8-5, which makes more sense, the same peak time as calls to Canada and the Bahamas. Calls to Mexico are extremly expensive. Calls cost 15 cents/min plus a termination charge that depends on where you call. Calling Mexico City off-peak costs $1.26/minute, more than Pakistan or Ghana. Is that normal? But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to Canada. Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends. But the footnote says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada." Where is that? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Cheery New Year Thought Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 17:06:30 PDT Does anyone know if the new price cap legislation takes new services into account? I can see it now. New voice mail and Caller*ID services are introduced at deliberately inflated prices. The are placed into one of the price cap baskets. The artificially overpriced products are reduced, allowing the scoundrels to inflate existing service prices, or at least not lower them as fast as they should. Just a thought. davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #5 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19018; 4 Jan 91 6:12 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20237; 4 Jan 91 4:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27863; 4 Jan 91 3:38 CST Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 3:04:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #6 BCC: Message-ID: <9101040304.ab25471@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 Jan 91 03:04:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What are Secure Lines? [Brian McMahon] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Larry Chesal] Re: What are Secure Lines? [David Lesher] Random-Dialling Chilren [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert] Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Ed Greenberg] Who Wants an Obsolete ITT Key System? [Heath Roberts] ClassMate: A Review [Dave Levenson] Re: Another Year Finished [Bob Yazz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 8:57:22 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? In response to a question from Joe Broniszewski about "secure lines" referred to in Cliff Stoll's book, bill says: >There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they >use special telephones, not special telephone lines. But Lars Poulsen says: >I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for >the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. Aha! That sounds plausible. I grew up an "overseas brat" on U.S. Army bases in Germany. AFN, the Armed Forces Network, was constantly running radio spots about OPSEC (OPerations SECurity), which among other things exhorted everyone to answer the phone with "this line is not secure" whenever appropriate. Since we were in Munich, home of the 66th Military Intelligence Group HQ and assorted other spook shops, some people actually took security seriously there. :-) Hardly everyone, though. There was a wonderful cartoon in the _Stars and Stripes_ newspaper for a while, called "Lt. Kadish." This was one of several "local" cartoon strips which appeared in the 'Stripes from time to time. In one cartoon, the left panel showed the Lieutenant in a phone booth asking, "Hello, S-2? Is this a secure line?" [Note: S-2 is the intelligence officer in a unit's staff] The middle panel showed a Soviet officer with headphones, and the right panel showed the S-2 saying, "It sure is." MI gets very little respect *within* the Army, too... :-) This could lead into several other telcom-related stories ... you may not want to get me started. :-) Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 16:11:44 EST From: Larry Chesal Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15743@accuvax.nwu.edu>, astph!joe@cs.psu.edu (Joe Broniszewski) writes about "The Cuckoo's Egg". While I haven't gotten around to the book yet, I did see a TV version of the story on the PBS "Nova" program. VERY entertaining and educational. Folks that read this group would probably enjoy the scenes where the hacker's calls are traced through the AT&T network (we've got him to the [Sacramento?] 4E; this is C&P, we've traced him to [Reston?] 4E) until they finally track the call back to Germany where a technician has to check an old mechanical switch circuit by circuit. Cliff Stol does a great job of acting himself. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 19:36:56 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers |In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure |line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business |(ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure |lines. There is no such thing as a "secure line" for a phone call. Once it's out on lines in areas not totally controlled by your own trusted people, it's public. There did exist a class of service called "Special Service Protection" that BSP 460-110-100 discusses. It consisted of special caps on the test points, held on with exotic tie-wrap gadgets. You had to cut the tie to get across the pair -- at least it said that in the book. I figure it would take about thirty seconds to find another place to tap the line. If you need to discuss classified subjects on the phone, use a secure phone. These encrypt your voice with an algorithm that is approved by the appropriate federal agency. Possible sets include the old KY-3, the KY-71/STU-11 and the current favorite: the STU-III (Secure Telephone Unit). Before you ask, no - one model cannot call another. The phone on the far end, when equipped with correct key, decrypts the incoming data into (somewhat ;-} ) understandable voice. So what WAS Cliff talking about? I can hazard several outright guesses as to why the folks in the Intelligence Community would want to call him back each time, but they are guesses -- I have no inside data. 1) If you call back, you have a number. If nothing else, that lets you know where the Yo-Yo owner calling you is located. That's a good start to finding out more about him. It never hurts to know a little about the guy telling you your database is under attack;-} 2) It would take a LOT of manpower for the Bad Guys to collect and transcribe all the traffic on EVERY trunk to one of those building in Virginia or Maryland with the 10 ft barbed wire hedge. So I'd target some offices by extracting and looking at the incoming PBX TT data until I found a call to an extension of interest. This can be defeated to some extent by having lots of OUTGOING trunks, maybe from many locations interconnected by encrypted T1 trunks. When Mr. Trenchcoat wants an outgoing line, he randomly gets one from another site. 3) It sound more mysterious. 4) Some other reason. I'd take 1,4,3,2 as the order on the finish line, but you readers can make your own guess. I'll close with a line a retired Community member told me years ago: Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you don't want to read about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM 570-335 33257-0335 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:21:59 PST From: "John R. Covert" Subject: Random-Dialling Children From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio, Washington, D.C. Here's another story on children dialling telephones. This one (heavily edited) is from the {Washington POST} for 17 November, 1990: When the ringing telephone jolted Audrey Outzs out of a sound sleep early one Sunday morning, she initially thought the crying voice on the other end was a prankster. Within minutes, though, she found herself reaching out to four-year-old Marquita Davis, whose mother had just suffered a stroke, keeping the little girl on the line while Prince George's County [MD] police traced the call and rescued the woman. Brendolyn Davis, 31, spent nearly two months ... recovering from her stroke and now walks with a cane. ... On the morning of Sept. 2, Marquita found her mother unconscious on the bedroom floor of their...apartment with blood running from her nose. The girl began dialing random numbers looking for help. After the first person she reached hung up on her, she got Outzs. Marquita "kept saying, 'My mommy won't wake up, my mommy won't wake up,'" Outzs recalled yesterday. "I told her not to hang up the phone, that help was on the way." Outzs woke her son and told him to keep Marquita on the line while she used another phone line to call police. For the next half-hour, he tried to coax a phone number or an address while police dispatcher [Rita] McClain-Farrow traced the call. Leon Outzs said he kept the girl on the line by talking about cartoons and coloring books. When he heard police knocking on the door, he told Marquita it was all right to let them in. ... "I just did what the county hired me to do," McClain-Farrow said. A police dispatcher for three years, she added, "If Mrs. Outzs hadn't believed her and had just dismissed her as another prankster, I shudder to think what would have happened." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:53 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service I tried out CompuServe's directory service, and, after a few false starts, I got into it (It's NOT GO DIRECTORY, as you might think, and I don't really remember what it is.) When you access this service, CompuServe switches you off to another host computer, operated by the information provider. In other words, only the help files appear on CompuServe, the rest is just a pass through. I tried about ten different listed numbers, and they had them all. I tried two unlisted numbers, mine, and they had neither, nor did they know me by name at my current or previous addresses. What's interesting is that I give out ONE of my unlisted numbers to anyone who asks. Most people who do business with me have it on file. This includes utilities, charge cards and other creditors. Even on recent court papers, and therefore in the public record. Nonetheless, it didn't make it into this service. [Moderator's Note: The command is 'GO PHONEFILE'. And yes, the service is great to have around although I think the surcharge is a bit steep. I did not find any business numbers listed however; did you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Who Wants an Obsolete ITT Key System? Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 20:32:42 GMT I have an ITT key system (1A maybe? before my time ... give me digital any day) that's taking up space. I'd like to know if it has any value, and if so, to whom. It uses rotary five-line phones, and can handle three CO lines and one intercom channel. It's wired for four phones (I have three) and was in good working order when it was removed from service (April 1989). Does anyone know of an organization that buys old equipment like this? I realize that it's not worth much, but I hate the idea of throwing it away. The whole thing's still wired, and mounted along with several 66-blocks on a piece of plywood. I want to get rid of the phones too. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: ClassMate: A Review Date: 3 Jan 91 04:45:29 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA ClassMate is a device which allows your computer to read the caller's phone number on inbound calls, when this information is supplied by your telephone company if you have subscribed to Caller*ID service. I ordered ClassMate(tm) from Bell Atlantic Business Supplies at 800-523-0552. The price is $49.95. The unit is manufactured by MHE Systems Corporation of Tustin, CA. Catalog number TCCM10. It consists of a plastic minibox with two 6-pin modular connectors (RJ-11) on one end (labeled LINE and PHONE) and a 25-pin RS-232 connector on the other end. The two modular connectors are apparently wired together, allowing you to use this box with your single-line telephone set without an external T connector. The RS-232 connector outputs the data to your computer. The device also obtains its operating power from your computer's RS-232 serial port. It draws power from the RTS or DTR leads (+12 volts) and from the TXD lead (-12 volts). It outputs data on the RXD lead. The other pins on the RS-232 connector, apparently, are not connected. It looks like a modem to your computer, which means that a standard modem cable is all that's needed to attach it to a serial port on your computer. Velcro(tm) fasteners are provided to attach the minibox to the side or your PC. Data from the device is output asynchronously at 1200 bps in ASCII, one stop-bit, 8 data bits, no parity. When the device is powered up (when the computer asserts RTS or DTR and leaves its TXD signal in its normal idle (marking) state) it outputs a power-up message, giving its firmware version number and copyright information. On each inbound call, the device outputs a call message of 31 bytes. The message includes the date, time, complete phone number, a single-character message validity indicator, and an ascii CR and LF. A typical message looks like: 01/02 21:15 (908)647-0900 G followed by \r\n. If the message checksum does not match, the G is replaced by B. If an individual character is received with a parity error, it is replaced by E. Other messages which may be received from the unit are: MM/DD HH:MM OUTSIDE call G MM/DD HH:MM PRIVATE call G *message WAITING* *message CLEARED* (The capitalization is as shown.) These messages indicate that a call from outside your Caller*ID service area was received, that a call has arrived from a caller who used per-call or per-line ID-blocking, or that your telephone company-provided voice mail service has set or cleared the message-waiting status for your line. There is no indication from the device that the call was answered, or how many rings were received. The device contains no buffering, and appears not to recognize any hardware or software flow control. The application must be ready to accept a line of up to 31 bytes at any time that the phone may ring. Bell Atlantic's catalog indicates that the device can store the last ten calls. This appears not to be the case, but the demo software (see next paragraph) does provide this capability. A demo program for the device came with it on a 5.25" MS-DOS-formatted diskette. The demo program is a DOS 'terminate and stay-resident' background program that occupies 6K of RAM. It emulates the Call Identifier devices by displaying a 'pop-up window' on your PC each time a call arrives. In this window, you will see that last ten calling numbers displayed. The window will stay on the screen for a user-administerable amount of time, or until you press the ESC key. A user-defined 'hotkey' (by default, ALT-D) recalls the display on demand. The program makes no use of the PC disk, so the history is only maintained while RAM is valid. Obviously, any computer with an RS-232 serial port capable of asynchronous operation at 1200 bps can interface with this device, though Bell Atlantic's catalog indicates that it requires an IBM PC-compatible. (The demo software does require this environment.) The device may also be plugged directly into a printer's serial port, if one merely wants a printed log of inbound calls. The printer must be capable of accepting 31-character lines to be printed without requiring flow-control. The documentation consists of a thirteen-page instruction manual. The manual gives the complete format of every message output by the device, and also describes how to plug it in. The description of the RS-232 interface incorrectly labels PIN 4 as CTS (but they meant RTS -- CTS is pin 5) and indicates which leads contain data, and which are used to supply power to the device. I have not opened the device, because I want to preserve my rights under the manufacturer's one-year guarantee. (It appears that it can be opened by removing the phillips-head screw located under the serial number label.) I guess that it contains a microcomputer, two uarts, and a modem chip. 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: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: Another Year Finished Date: 3 Jan 91 02:03:42 GMT In a few more years when the millenium turns over (watch out for "Millenium Madness" as the fateful date approaches), I venture to predict that there will be two camps: The Arthur C. Clarke camp (_2001: A Space Odessy_) The Prince camp (_1999_). Who is right? The Arthur C. Clarke people. Who will have the biggest parties? The Prince people. The thought of the the 2001 people telling the 1999 people that the "big event" won't happen for another year brings to mind Pee Wee Herman scolding the bikers in the biker bar "Could you puh-LEAZE keep it down, I'm TRY-ing to use the phone!" Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #6 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15314; 5 Jan 91 5:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09133; 5 Jan 91 4:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32059; 5 Jan 91 3:05 CST Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 2:54:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #7 BCC: Message-ID: <9101050254.ab15554@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Jan 91 02:54:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cable Cut Between NY and NJ [Nicholas J. Simicich] AT&T Reports Major Cable Cut [Curtis Sanford] Cellular Roaming [Mark Jensen] Cellular Telephone Antenna Considerations [Phil Weinberg] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Tad Cook] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Paul Schleck] Cellular Compatibility Between Hong Kong and the U.S. [John R. Covert] Cordless Phone Info Wanted [Matt Simpson] Wireless Phone Jacks [Jeff Sicherman] Caller ID and Call Waiting [Michael H. Riddle] Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware [Sean Williams] Data Cost Comparison [Jeff Crowder] History of Telephony in Sweden [Robert Lindh] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 11:23:45 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Reply-To: Nick Simicich Subject: Cable Cut Between NY and NJ I just heard that there was a major fiber cut in Newark, New Jersey. 24 T3's were cut, according to the phone company. The circuits affected terminated in or passed through New York City. My wife's company lost two circuits (they had just switched all of the rest of their circuits to another supplier, otherwise they would have been totally off the air). I have no other details. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@ibm.com) ---SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ From: Curtis Sanford Subject: AT&T Reports Major Cable Cut Date: 4 Jan 91 17:00:28 GMT Organization: Ascend Communications -- San Francisco I was just unable to complete a direct dialed call from San Francisco to London. When I contacted the AT&T operator, she also initially failed ("Unable to complete your call as dialed. Please check the number or call your AT&T operator for assistance."), and told me that they had a major cable cut near York, PA that was causing difficulties. With some additional effort, she was able to reach a UK operator and complete the call. This was at 9:40am PST. ------------------------------ From: Mark Jensen Subject: Cellular Roaming Date: 3 Jan 91 16:21:07 GMT Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760} I recently signed on with GTE Mobilnet for cellular service. I have heard that there are several different ways to obtain cellular service while roaming in California, including " Follow Me Roaming". I would appreciate any thoughts or information that newsgroup readers could provide on the diffrent types of roaming arrangements. Thank you, Mark Jensen [Moderator's Note: Perhaps readers will correspond direct with Mark and explain the different methods. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Weinberg SPS Subject: Cellular Telephone Antenna Considerations Date: 3 Jan 91 21:34:33 GMT Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303 I have just received a mail notice that public hearings will be held concerning the application and awarding of a cellular telephone antenna site about a block from my home. I am curious if anyone has ever attended these types of hearings and what kinds of questions have been raised, or should have been. Should I be concerned about rfi from this site? Will it cause "interference" on my TV and/or FM receivers, even though I'm sure the cellular company will guarantee that their transmissions will be within the allowable FCC limits? What about pickup on my telephone lines, which I think pass pretty close to the antenna site? I would appreciate any information available, with suggested questions to ask at the hearing. << Usual Disclaimer >> Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395 UUCP: {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil Telephone: +1 408-991-7385 ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 15:49:59 PST In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: > On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and > back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service > coverage. (stuff deleted) > What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service? I was > under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range > (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range > characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because > shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by > reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells). How, then, > was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the > nearest cell? The size of the cell depends on the elevation of the cell site. In urban areas it makes sense to have a lot of little cells to handle a large number of callers. Out in the desert you could be served by just a few cells at high elevation, or directional cells that cover a whole lot of highway. You also can't be too sure (if you are an average user without special knowledge of the system) just how far you were from the nearest cells. Over the route you travelled, there is probably plenty of incentive for the cellular providers to have coverage at least along the main highways. > On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and > that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown > San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order > to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase > the total capacity of the system. Is this true? Yes. 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, 04 Jan 91 21:35:40 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu Cellular phone operates at about 900-950 Mhz. This may be properly termed microwave. Propogation of waves at this frequency are essentially line of sight. They are so energetic that they (usually) cannot be bent by the atmosphere, so hence no significant multi-hop, over the horizon propogation. Under conditions of tropospheric inversion, i.e. higher layers of the atmosphere warmer than lower ones, a phenomenon known as "ducting" may occurr, under which the waves are made to conform to the curve of the earth. Propogation under ducting conditions may be up to several hundred miles. It is true that usually microwave RF does not travel very far for a number of reasons. For one, it does not follow the curve of the earth under normal circumstances. For another, its short wavelenth means that it is rapidly attenuated by foliage, walls, humid air, etc. What is the height difference between where you were and the cell sites back in CA? If there was enough of a height difference to cause an obstruction-free straight line path, that may be another explanation. One of the reasons that cellular technology works is "capture effect." What that means is that only the strongest signal being received is actually demodulated in an FM signal. The reasons are beyond the scope of this discussion group. Also, cellular systems use a voting system to insure that only the cell with the strongest signal is used for the phone conversation. In short, it is the combined reasons of line-of-sight paths, capture effect, and cell voting that cellular systems work. For another propogation anecdote, a friend of mine accessed the Washington DC cell system from the middle of New Jersy under conditions of tropospheric ducting, so it certainly can be done. I wonder what the phone company or the FCC thinks of these "long distance" calls? Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 22:06:06 -0500 From: "John R. Covert 03-Jan-1991 2151" Subject: Cellular Compatibility Between Hong Kong and the U.S. Jim Rees asks if he could buy a cellular phone in Hong Kong and use it in North America. Since he seems to be at U.Mich., I'm not sure why he would want to. Cellular phone equipment prices in Hong Kong were much, much higher (about US$1000 higher) than in the U.S. when I was there in November 1989. Service, however, is very cheap. Hong Kong has both TACS (compatible with England) and AMPS (compatible with the U.S.) systems. Three companies run TACS (or ETACS) sytems, one of those runs the world's only combined TACS/AMPS system. A U.S. or Canadian subscriber may sign up with Hutchison Telephone to obtain service while in Hong Kong; a Hutchison Telephone subscriber with AMPS equipment may sign up to roam while visiting the U.S. or Canada. Credit card signup is required, and, of course, when coming to the U.S. from Hong Kong, signup is required with each separate system you plan to visit. TACS roaming between the U.K. and Hong Kong is provided only between Racal Vodafone (in the U.K.) and Hong Kong Telephone/CSL. U.K. Cellnet subscribers cannot roam in Hong Kong, and Hutchison and Pacific Link subscribers cannot roam in the U.K. (At least as of last summer.) The only information I have on Singapore is that they have an AMPS system there, which would be compatible with the U.S. Whether roaming is possible or not, I can't say. I'm also not familiar with equipment prices. john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 08:01:58 EST From: Matt Simpson Subject: Cordless Phone Info Wanted Sometime last year, I saw a magazine article entitled "Hot New Electronics Items", listing products recently, or soon to be, available. One which seemed intresting was the following description: Super cordless phone. Provides a clear signal up to four miles from its base unit ... although you can use it ( with some distortion) for up to eight miles. Pac Tel/Great Technologies. Model SST. Expected availability, 1991. $149. Does anybody have any info on this, or a phone number/address for Pac Tel or Great Technologies? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 10:58:31 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Wireless Phone Jacks The latest issue of the DaMark catalog has a pair of "wireless phone jacks" by PHONEX. Actually they use household wiring. Does anyone know anything about the reliability of these things, their safety when used with faxes, modems, and other electronic phone equipment, and how much noise they can be expected to introduce into the call ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 13:18:23 cst From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting >From comp.modems, with obvious applicability to comp.dcom.telecom: QUOTED TEXT FOLLOWS: There's been a lot of talk about Caller ID in [comp.modems] lately, so I thought I would add a Caller ID question, only indirectly related to modems. What happens if you have Call Waiting and Caller ID, and a call comes in while your connected elsewhere? I presume what happens is you just don't get any caller id info on the waiting call, whether or not you accept it. My understanding is that the caller id info is part of the ring signal, and if it doesn't ring you don't get the info. The reason this is partly related to modems is my pet peeve with TB modems in PEP mode. PEP mode generally retrains around the call waiting beep, without ever letting you know about it. This is what many people want, but not what I want. I would rather drop the data call and get the incoming call. If Caller ID worked with Call Waiting, I could rig something up. Originally posted in comp.modems by: Ken Mandelberg | km@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED Emory University | {rutgers,gatech}!emory!km UUCP Dept of Math and CS | km@emory.bitnet NON-DOMAIN BITNET Atlanta, GA 30322 | Phone: (404) 727-7963 [Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in, does the information pass at that time, or not? Likewise, when your phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on those calls, or not? PAT] ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 3 22:52:38 EST 1991 Subject: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware mk@wroach.cactus.ork (M. Khan) writes: > Where can I get a box the recognizes and directs to a separate > physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering? Bell Atlantic Business Supplies has such a device in their catalog. The article in the catalog reads as follows: | Ring Leader interprets the ringing pattern set for each phone | number on your single line (normal ring, 2 short rings, 2 | long rings, etc.) and sends the incoming call to the correct | phone or accessory. Privacy switch prevents interruption of | important faxes or conversations. The Ring Leader is listed as being produced by Tel Control, Inc. The list price in the catalog is $54.95, part #TC1081. Bell's order line is 1-800-523-0552, fax (215) 534-5738. Their address is: Bell Atlantic Business Supplies 456 Creamery Way Exton, PA 19341-9988 USA Sean E. Williams ------------------------------ From: Jeff Crowder Subject: Data Cost Comparison Date: 4 Jan 91 14:34:10 GMT Organization: Va Tech Communications Resources Hello, I'm making a cost comparison for which I need a commercial alternative rate for a campus CBX switched data connection. To clarify, we currently have a Rolm CBX with data switching installed to about 10,000 sets on campus. Current data rate tops at 19.2 kbps for users (the number is supposed to increase shortly). Users attach terminals or PC's with emulation to connect to mainframe and other hosts. We charge a monthly fee for each data connection. I would like to compare our price to commercial alternatives which I presume would be provided by a local telco. Perhaps a CO lan arrangement or tariffed ISDN service. Can anyone suggest a reasonable comparison and provide some idea of the current rates charged by the telco for the service identified? Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated. I can send a synopsis to anyone interested or will post summary to net if swamped with requests. Jeff Crowder jcrowder@GroupW.cns.vt.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 16:19:17 +0100 From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Subject: History of Telephony in Sweden Source: 'Televerkets faktabok 1991' (Swedish Telecom book of facts 1991), published by Swedish Telecom (the telephone operating company in Sweden). Translation from Swedish made by me. History of telephony in Sweden: ------------------------------- 1853 First telegraph line in use 1877 First telephone line in use 1880 First telephone directory 1881 First local telephone network 1924 First automatic telephone exchange in operation (500-selector switch) 1930 500.000 telephones in service 1942 1.000.000 telephones in service 1946 Automatic telex network operational 1949 First possibility to make long-distance call without operator assistance 1963 First modem is sold 1972 All telephone exchanges automatic 1980 First AXE-exchanges in service (stored program controlled switches) 1981 First automatic cellular network (cover Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) 1982 7.000.000 telephones in service 1987 Country wide digital long-distance network is opened ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #7 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16451; 5 Jan 91 6:51 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17461; 5 Jan 91 5:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09133; 5 Jan 91 4:10 CST Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 3:17:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #8 BCC: Message-ID: <9101050317.ab07060@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Jan 91 03:17:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Calling Between the Eastern and Western Parts of Germany [John R. Covert] Conference Report: The Future of the Internet [Jane M. Fraser] Touch-Tone Specifications [Kari Hardarson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 22:06:00 -0500 From: "John R. Covert" Subject: Calling Between the Eastern and Western Parts of Germany The information on the left is directly from the German Post Office; translation (limited due to space) on the right is provided by me. Abbreviations: ONKz: Ortsnetzkennzahl: City code (without "0") Rufnr: Rufnummer: Telephone number (without prefix) Informationen zur Vorwahl Prefix information Fuer Telefongespraeche in die neuen Bun- For telephone calls to the new deslaender gilt die Laendervorwahl 0037. states use country code 0037. Achtung: Von Berlin (West) aus nur 037. Note: Just 037 from W. Berlin. Bei Orten, die im Selbstwaehlferndienst For towns which can be reached vom ehemaligen Bundesgebiet aus zu er- by direct-dialing from the reichen sind, wird im ETB beim Teilneh- western part of Germany, the mereintrag die dafuer gueltige Vorwaahl valid prefix is shown in the angezeigt. electronic phone book. Ist keine Vorwahl angegeben, ist dieser If no prefix is shown, then Ort noch nicht im Selbstwaehlferndienst this town is not yet directly zu erreichen. dialable. Fuer Telefongespraeche aus den neuen Bun- The following prefixes are deslaendern in das ehemalige Bundesgebiet valid for calls from the new gelten folgende Laendervorwahlen: states into western Germany: Nach Berlin (West): To West Berlin: Berlin (Ost) East Berlin nach Berlin (West) 8+49+Rufnr. to West Berlin Potsdam, Stadt und Landkreis Potsdam, City and County nach Berlin (West) 0+49+Rufnr. to West Berlin Kreise Koenigswusterhausen, Koenigswusterhausen, Nauen Nauen und Oranienburg and Oranienburg counties nach Berlin (West) 07+Rufnr. to West Berlin Kreis Zossen Zossen County nach Berlin (West) 04+Rufnr. to West Berlin Frankfurt (Oder), Stadt und Frankfurt on the Oder, City Landkreis nach Berlin (West) 092+Rufnr. and County, to West Berlin In das ehemalige Bundesgebiet: To western Germany, from: Berlin (Ost) 06+49+ONKz+Rufnr. East Berlin Rostock, Bezirk 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Rostock District Schwerin, Bezirk 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Schwerin District Neubrandenburg, Bezirk 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Neubrandenburg District Erfurt, Bezirk 07+ONKz+Rufnr. Erfurt District Suhl, Stadt und Landkreis 04+ONKz+Rufnr. Suhl, City and County uebrige Orte des Bezirks Remaining places in the Suhl 0004+ONKz+Rufnr. Suhl District Gera, Stadt und Land- Gera, City and County kreis *) 07+ONKz+Rufnr. uebrige Orte des Bezirks Remaining places in the Gera *) 0015+ONKz+Rufnr. Gera District Saalfeld, Kreis Saalfeld Saalfeld, Saalfeld County und Kreis Rudolstadt *) 015+ONKz+Rufnr. and Rudolstadt County *) Selbstwaehlferndienst ist taeglich von Direct dial service is allowed 23.00 bis 06.00 Uhr zugelassen from 11PM to 6AM daily. Magdeburg, Stadt und Magdeburg, City and County Landkreis 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Halle, Stadt und Halle, City and County Landkreis 03+ONKz+Rufnr. Leipzig, Stadt und Leipzig, City and County Landkreis sowie Kreis as well as Delitzsch County. Delitzsch (nicht nach (not to West Berlin) Berlin (West)) 06+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Dresden, Stadt und Dresden, City and County Landkreis 07+ONKz+Rufnr. Cottbus, Stadt und Cottbus, City and County Landkreis (nicht nach (not to West Berlin) Berlin (West)) 04+ONKz+Rufnr. Chemnitz, Stadt und Chemnitz, City and County Landkreis 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr. Bemerkungen: Notes: Aus allen anderen Bereichen sind die Ge- From all other areas, calls spraeche ueber das zustaendige Fernamt must be booked through the anzumelden. operator. Vom Bezirk Frankfurt/Oder ist z.Z. noch From Frankfurt/Oder, no direct kein Selbstwaehlferndienst in das ehema- dial service to western Germany lige Bundesgebiet moeglich. is currently available. Die Ortsnetzkennzahl (ONKz) ist grund- Always dial the city code saetzlich ohne die Null zu waehlen. without the zero. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 09:33:21 est From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Conference Report: The Future of the Internet [Moderator's Note: Jane M. Fraser wrote this article which will appear in print later this month; she has kindly provided an advance copy to TELECOM Digest for your consideration. PAT] [The following article will appear in the January CAST Calendar. To be added to the hard-copy mailing list for this newsletter reply to this message or write: Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210] The Internet is network of computer networks used primarily by educational and research establishments. The parts of the Internet that have been funded by federal resources (for example, NSFNET) may be used only for activities that support education and research. Other parts have not been so funded, and usage is not restricted. Various proposals have been made to extend the Internet to more institutions, to allow commercial use on all parts of the Internet, and to increase the bandwidth of the federally supported part of the network. On November 29 through December 1, I was one of approximately 150 attendees at a conference addressing various issues about the future of the Internet. I have always felt very confused about what is the Internet, what are the restrictions on usage, what different parts of the network are doing, and what options are open for the future. I learned one fact for certain at this conference: almost everyone else is confused also. I will report on some of the specifics of what happened at the conference, putting emphasis on aspects I think will be of most interest to the readers of the Calendar, but I am also confident that, no matter how careful I am, this report will contain errors. The conference, Information Infrastructure for the 1990s, was sponsored by two programs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University: Science, Technology and Public Policy and Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in the Public Sector. The two primary organizers were Lewis Branscomb and Jerry Mechling. The two-and-a-half days were heavily packed with presentations of commissioned papers, comments by panels of discussants, and open discussion from the floor. The main points the conference reinforced for me are, first, the growing importance of computer networks for fast communication and, second, the growing importance, for many users, of interconnectivity of networks. The first needs little comment. The second may be of importance more to some sectors, especially academics, than to others. Academics and researchers often want to communicate with a wide range of people and, thus, want to be able to send electronic mail to people on many different networks. Some companies may want their employees to communicate only within the company, not with those outside it, but others find interorganizational communication to be very important. Some networks already interconnect (although not completely), for example, AT&T Mail, CompuServe, and the Internet. Others are isolated, for example, Prodigy. Many barriers, institutional and technical, make it difficult to interconnect networks, but, I believe, there will be increasing demand from users to do so. At the federal level, a proposal has been put forth for federal funding of NREN, the National Research and Education Network, which would, roughly, be an extremely high bandwidth version of the Internet. (The latter sentence is undoubtedly not error free.) Most uses of supercomputers, almost by definition, require and generate huge amounts of data. For example, at the conference, we viewed a short tape of a simulation of the formation of a thundercloud. Remote access to supercomputers has always been cited as a justification for investing federal money in the Internet, and this again is one of the major reasons cited for the need for NREN. Indeed, the ability to create and manage a network at the data speeds being contemplated is itself viewed as a research issue. However, other participants argued that "low-end" use, that is, use not requiring high bandwidth, is also an appropriate topic for research. As the network expands and usage grows (which is happening at an amazing rate), questions arise about the ability of existing mechanisms to handle traffic. These participants argued that the networking of the large numbers of computers on the Internet (and its affiliates) is also worthy of attention, even without the addition of more bandwidth. This discussion of the importance of low-end use was naturally related to issues of allowing more general access to the Internet, for example, for K through 12 educational institutions. Currently, most academic users of the Internet receive access through their institution's connection. While the institution itself bears considerable cost, most academic end users do not receive a bill for usage. Internet connectivity to researchers is viewed by many academic institutions as being analogous to the library (for which usage fees are generally not charged to the end user or to the end user's academic unit), rather than analogous to the phone (for which such usage fees are charged). The user (or the academic unit) usually must provide a terminal or personal computer. Here at OSU, the computer magnus provides Internet access for anyone who requests it. (Actually, this is not quite accurate; magnus accounts will shortly be available to all OSU users.) One paper, "Pricing the NREN: The Efficient Subsidy," by Gerald Faulhaber, presented an economist's arguments against current pricing and subsidization schemes. Several commercial enterprises have been created (for example, PSI) to provide Internet access for commercial enterprises. Recall that commercial use is allowed as long as the use is in support of research and education. For example, a researcher at a commercial enterprise can communicate with researchers at academic institutions on research topics. A company can also communicate with researchers about its products. Two commercial users on different commercial networks must be very careful, however, since their communication with each other might traverse parts of the network on which commercial traffic is forbidden. However, it is often difficult for the user to predict what route a message will take. If all this seems arcane and unclear, it is. Many people (including Alison Brown of the Ohio Supercomputer Center) are working to make these aspects less arcane and more clear. One paper, "The Strategic Future of the Mid-Level Networks," by Paulette Mandelbaum and Richard Mandelbaum, explored various possible models for relationships between commercial and educational enterprises on the Internet. A portion of the conference had an Ohio focus. Jerry Mechling visited Ohio this summer and interviewed many people in order to write a case paper, which was presented and discussed at the conference, An Information Infrastructure Strategy for Ohio. Partly because of this, we had a fairly sizeable Ohio contingent at the conference: Gerald Anglin (Litel), Alison Brown (Ohio Supercomputer Center), Sally Cousino (Ohio Bell), Nick Farmer (Chemical Abstracts), myself (CAST), Jerry Hammett (State of Ohio), Don Olvey (OCLC), Tim Steiner (State of Ohio), and Ron Vidmar (State of Ohio). I found one of the most successful parts of the conference to be our caucuses, both before and after the conference. Other papers presented at the conference included "Information Infrastructure for the 1990s: A Public Policy Perspective," by Lewis Branscomb; "Technology Issues in the Design of the NREN," by Leonard Kleinrock; "Life after Internet: Making Room for New Applications," by Larry Smarr and Charles Catlett; "A Coming of Age: Design Issues in the Low-end Internet," by Ken Klingenstein; and "The NREN as Information Market: Dynamics of Public, Private, and Voluntary Publishing," by Brian Kahin. Copies of all the papers are available for loan from the CAST office. There were also smaller sessions involving presentations on current uses of the Internet. One presentation was by Allan Weis, from Advanced Network and Services, Inc., ANS, a "nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of education and research." ANS is funded by IBM and MCI to help build computer networks. As with all conferences, some of the most important discussions went on in the hallways and at meals and some of the most important results were the contacts made. Despite my dismay at finding myself at a conference with presenters who were all white males (including one who addressed the group as "gentlemen"), I think the conference was excellently organized and run. I applaud the organizers for focussing us on such an important issue: information infrastructure for the 1990s. ------------------------------ From: Kari Hardarson Subject: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 4 Jan 91 19:19:18 GMT Reply-To: Kari Hardarson Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill I realize this must be a very elementary question, but I've gone through the last 400+ messages and found no reference to it so here goes: I need a list that highlights the differences between telephonic equipment in the U.S. and Europe (Scandinavia, actually). I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a Panasonic phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether the phone will work at all for that matter. Will be waiting anxiously for answers since I bought the phone already... Many thanks in advance, Kari Hardarson 217 Jackson Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27514 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #8 ****************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24787; 5 Jan 91 15:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11918; 5 Jan 91 13:22 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23810; 5 Jan 91 12:17 CST Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:06:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #9 BCC: Message-ID: <9101051206.ab08924@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:06:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People [TELECOM Moderator] Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Jack Winslade] More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Aimee Tweedie] Not For Profit Phone Service in the Netherlands [Ralph Noonen] Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Ralph Noonen] Incoming Calls Only ... Why? [Sean Williams] Answer*Call in Atlanta Area [Bill Berbenich] 10-NJB in New Jersey [Jay Vassos-Libove] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 10:49:43 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People Beginning February 1, phone companies in Illinois will reduce phone bills by $6.72 per month for poor people, but raise bills 15 cents for everyone else. According to the brochure now being circulated to the estimated 620,000 low-income residents in our state, this will appear each month on phone bills as a 'reduction for low-income customers'. To qualify for the program, called Link-Up II, a phone subscriber must participate in a low-income program such as food stamps, the Illinois general assistance program, or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Half the funding for the monthly reduction will come from federal funds, and half from a fifteen cent monthly charge imposed on the other customers of the telcos. The program is designed to ensure that everyone can afford basic phone service. Illinois Bell estimates tbat about 95 percent of all households in its territory have phones. The amount of the subsidy and offsetting customer charge is detirmined by a forumula set by the federal government. Illinois Bell states they had nothing to do with setting the amount or the method in which the subsidy would be collected. Currently, the minimum monthly phone bill in Chicago and densely populated suburbs is about $10 for a customer who does not have Touch-Tone or custom calling services. The minimum charge is about $12.50 in most other suburbs of northern Illinois. The $6.72 per subscriber reduction will come off these amounts. A second phone subsidy for low-income residents which is already in effect pays for half ($27.50) of the $55.00 service installation charge. This subsidy is funded by the federal government. It seems like the more things change in the telecom industry, the more they stay the same: Here we are coming back to the concept laid out by Ted Vail at the start of the twentieth century, that universal telephone service is a desirable goal. But Vail and his associates said *all* residence service should be subsidized by business service. The main reason that business service has always been more expensive than residential service in the USA is because of the belief of early telephone people that universal service was desirable for all, and especially desirable from the point of view of business subscribers. Business places would find phone service particularly useful if they could call residences. So let the businesses pay the subsidy to insure phone service for all, argued Vail, and that thinking has prevailed since. What happens when *I* can no longer afford my phone service? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jan 91 19:25:16 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business Reply-to: jack.winslade%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 >The following cross-posted information is extracted from alt.cosuard. I'm not gonna say that the ENTIRE article was bovine doo-doo, but ... >area there are now at BUSINESS RATES. Which means $50 per month base >rates, plus MUCH higher long distance charges. The last clause of the last sentence definitely reeks, and this should be obvious to readers of this conference. Businesses often pay LESS than residence users for some services, and long distance charges are one area in which they can save, if they are large enough to negotiate rates or if they get a few points off through an aggregator. (Yes, I know, most business calls are during the day. So what. ;-) Another area where businesses pay less than 'civilians' is cellular services. Corporate accounts (directly) with the carrier are often substantially less than the extortive rates given with that FREE cellular phone with four new tires from Midnight Auto Supply. But again, back to my point. {mounting high horse} I am getting sick of this endless-loop 'the sky is falling' {modem tax | business rate | BBS law} rumor that keeps playing ad nauseam. In 1985 there was supposed to be this New Federal Law coming Real Soon Now that would put all kinds of clamps on BBS systems. When the text of the bill surfaced, it was nothing more than a well-intentioned kiddie-porn law that included digitized video among the media with movie film, videotape, and mimeograph on paper towels. Since then, the same story, altered slightly each iteration, keeps coming back regularly. This (Indiana) affair may be a REAL concern of the BBS community, but they (the ubiquitous 'they') have cried 'wolf' so many times that people are thinking that all stories along the line are caca, especially when they include a genuine road-apple like the 'higher long-distance rates'. {dismounting from high horse} Any ideas ?? Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 12:31:42 EST From: USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu Subject: More on BBSs and Phone Rates It is riduculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a non-profit organization. A non-profit is allowed to have a substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do not make a profit. Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization? Most of the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra phone line and a second computer. Occasionally sysops will ask for a donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are cheap :)], but most don't bother. For most sysops, it is an expensive HOBBY, like radio-controlled airplanes or model railroading. Wouldn't it make more sense for the phone company to WELCOME a sysop, because of the extra line that is normally installed? For the extra income? And for the increased long-distance charges incurred when the sysop has to call the support BBS for his/her particular software, which is usually on the opposite coast from his/her location? I received some good advice a year ago when COSUARD was still slugging it out with SWB. If the phone company calls you, the sysop, asking about your BBS, tell them you are a HOBBYIST BBS, and not a NON-PROFIT. Non-profit means to them that you do have a large budget to pay inflated business rates. Another thing, GTE Michigan decided to go after Variety-N-Spice for two reasons: it's the biggest BBS in the state, and it is an ADULT BBS. Set the legal guns on the biggest adult board in the state. When it falls, so will all the rest. Enough on the soapbox. The precedent set by Michigan will no doubt be taken up by NYTel; they tried it before; they'll try it again. The precident will have a very bad effect on hobbyist BBSs, that serve a vital purpose to telecomputerists that are not fortunate enough to have an account to Internet or Bitnet, or are too broke to call Compu$erve. Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows how many phone company-types read this Digest? Maybe they'll think about what they do to modemers. Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY [Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define what is a 'business' and what is not. If someone attaches a computer to a phone line and charges money to access it and gain informtion from it, why is he different than Compuserve, which attaches computers to phone lines and charges money to access their system and gain information from them? The one has a 'staff and a budget' you say? Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and what is not? There are many, many one-person businesses in the USA. Lots of people work from home with no staff and litle budget. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 11:37 MET Subject: Not For Profit Phone Service in the Netherlands Regarding BBS's in the United States being charged a business tariff for their phone lines, and the subsequent remark that perhaps charitable and religious institutions should get a lower tariff: In the Netherlands, all religious institutions that are officially registered get a reduced tariff. I'm not sure on this, but I even think they get all service for FREE! Ralph Moonen voice: +31.2155.24356 rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com ------------------------------ From: rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 11:37 MET Subject: Notes on the Phone System in Holland The Dutch phone system is a monopoly of the Dutch PTT. They do not allow reselling of lines, except on toll-free numbers. Regular Dutch numbers consist of an area code, and a three to seven digit number. Large cities have a three digit code, small places a five digit code. All codes start with a '0' which is to be omitted when being called from abroad. Further we have special tariff numbers, that all start with 06. 06 followed by a 3 are mostly chat-lines, and/or dial-a-porn kinda lines. (When in Holland try 06-320.320.69) This service costs $0.29 per minute. 06 followed by a 0 are toll free numbers, and generally these numbers start with 06-022 followed by four digits. 06 followed by anything else can get you paging equipment, cellular phones, special service operators, directory assistance etc, and can cost anything between $0.00 and $0.29 per minute. 06-0410 is the Teleplus operator, the PTT service for collect calls, card calls and other operator assisted calls. You can reach this operator from the States by calling 1-800-432-0031. Beware: it can take as long as ten minutes on hold before you are helped. This outrageous long waiting time has caused me to write a letter of complaint to the Dutch PTT, to which I have not yet received any response. I'll keep you informed on this. 06-0418 is directory assistance for international calls. Normal services include: 002 - speaking clock 003 - weather forecast 004 - has been moved to 06-0410, see above. 006x- maintainance and service personnel numbers 007 - Help-desk & reporting of malfunctions 008 - normal directory assistance. 001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the 06-041x range. I'll be glad to answer any other questions you have on the Dutch telephone system including technical questions on routing and switching equipment. Ralph Moonen voice: +31.2155.24356 rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 4 15:59:39 EST 1991 Subject: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why? I recently acquired a job at a local pizza shop in Enola, PA. They have two phones which customers call to place orders. The number is 732-4000. When a customer calls, the first phone rings in a "2-short-ring" pattern, similar to Bell Atlantic's "Identa*Ring" service, I would assume. When another customer calls, but the first customer is still on the line, the call rings on the second phone, with the same ring-pattern. A few days ago, I needed to use one of the phones to make an outgoing local call to a customer to verify something on an order. I was not permitted to do so (another employee stopped me). He said that the phones could not be used to make outgoing calls. This seemed odd to me, so I asked another employee. The other employee told me that the two phones were somehow linked with the payphone in the lobby (on the same line), and that's why the two phones can't be used to initiate calls. I picked up the receiver on one of the phones, and there was a dial tone. I did not try to make a call, however. The two phones are each typical AT&T wall-mount model type phone. The local telco is Bell of Pennsylvania (Bell Atlantic Company). Does anyone have any information about this? Or can prove why the other employees are incorrect? Thanks! Sean E. Williams AT&T mail: seanwilliams@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Semi-public (that is a billing distinction only) coin phones can legitimatly have extensions on them for answering purposes only. If what your co-worker said is true -- although it seems to be an odd configuration -- then although you get dial tone when the extension goes off hook, when a number is dialed money would be demanded, and where would you insert it? I say it is an odd configuration because I've never heard of two payphones being arranged to hunt each other when busy. Some incoming only lines do provide dial tone when taken off hook (others -- most? -- simply have battery on the line) but dialing anything but maybe 911/611 returns an intercept message. Maybe your co-worker meant you should *use* the payphones to make calls out. Try some calls and let us know what happens. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Answer*Call in Atlanta Area Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 20:03:39 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu According to my latest phone bill, SouthernBell is now offering Answer*Call service for the Atlanta area. The cost according to the enclosure is $3.95 per month, but when I called the business office I was quoted $6.95. I'm not really interested in the service since I already have an answering machine - and isn't that all Answer*Call really is? It's an answering machine that you pay Ma Bell for in perpetuity. So anyway, I can't account for the difference in the quoted rates - I'd call the business office back to pin them down for a rate if I was really interested. In order to have the service, you must also subscribe to Call Forwarding, No-Answer Transfer, and/or Busy Transfer. You would simply forward your phone to the Answer*Call voice mailbox (or is it voicemail box? :-). Seeing as how one can get an answering machine fairly cheap and with the "message transfer" whereby the machine will call you at a specific number to tell you that there is a message waiting, why would anyone want to get this Answer*Call? The only reason I can see for getting it is to take your calls while you are on the phone and don't want Call*Waiting to beep you or you don't have Call*Waiting in the first place. Oh yeah, supposedly many people can leave messages at once to you with this service - in essence it is acting as a multi-line answering machine. That might be another reason to get it, so that if a hundred people call you all at the same time none will get a busy and all can leave a message right then and there. I don't fault Southern Bell for offering the service, I just think that an educated consumer would avoid the service. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: It is a matter of individual taste and application. I have voicemail from Centel here, and much prefer it over conventional answering machines. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 01:16:46 -0500 From: Jay Vassos-Libove Subject: 10-NJB in New Jersey I was visiting my parents over the holidays and found that for certain long distance _out of state_ calls they had found that using 10-NJB was less expensive than using either AT&T or their default carrier (ITT). What I wonder is this: since New Jersey Bell offers the 10-NJB service, but New Jersey Bell is a Bell Operating Company, how can they offer an interstate service at all? I thought that a company was either a local operating service or a long distance one, but not both? Probably, I don't understand. Could someone in the know post a clarification of exactly what the rules are (uh oh, BIG request there!!) governing phone companies (what major types of services can they offer, and what prohibitions come with offerings of particular services)? Thanks! Jay ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #9 ****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10007; 6 Jan 91 6:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13811; 6 Jan 91 4:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31571; 6 Jan 91 3:24 CST Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 3:15:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #10 BCC: Message-ID: <9101060315.ab29551@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 Jan 91 03:15:12 CST Volume 11 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Service Interruption [Sean Williams] Cellular Systems Around the World [John R. Covert] Misleading AT&T Advertisement? [Paul Coen] Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert W. Lucky, via TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Sat Jan 5 14:24:21 EST 1991 Subject: AT&T Service Interruption The following is a summary of several newswire stories about the interruption in AT&T's long distance service which occurred yesterday: American Telephone & Telegraph Co. accidentally ripped apart one of its own fiber optic cables, disabling major commodity exchanges and disrupting service throughout New York City. The company revealed earlier this afternoon that its own contruction crews had inadvertently severed an active cable under a Newark avenue yesterday, while attempting to remove an inoperative one. AT&T began investigating technical problems at 0930 EST creating hours of havoc in long-distance calling to and from New York. About 60 percent of the calls into and out of the metropolitan area were met with a recorded message saying that all circuits were busy, said Jim Messenger, a spokesman for the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. The problem also disrupted some overseas calls, the company said. Hundreds of flights to and from Newark, Kennedy and LaGuardia airports were delayed, and some incoming planes were diverted elsewhere because air traffic controllers were unable to communicate. The loss of the cable, which could transmit more than 100,000 calls at once, underlined how society's rising reliance on new technology carries a risk because it concentrates so much information in one potentially vulnerable place. A few years ago, that volume of calls would have been spread over numerous, less efficient cables. "These failures don't occur very often, but when they do occur, there's the potential to have an impact across a broad part of the population," said Casimir Skrzypczak, vice president of science and technology at the New York regional phone company Nynex Corp. Local service and long-distance service provided by other companies, such as MCI Communications Corp. and US Sprint Communications Co. (a unit of United Telecommunications Inc.) were not affected. In fact, An AT&T spokesman said that the company instructed operators in the New York area to provide customers with access codes to its long-distance competitors at about 1000 EST/1500 GMT. AT&T was criticized last year when it waited more than three hours to distribute the special codes required for AT&T customers to places calls on MCI or Sprint networks. Disruption was widespread, however, because American Telephone & Telegraph Co. is the United States's largest long-distance carrier, handling about 70 percent of all toll calls. AT&T began directing calls away from the affected area at midmorning, and the company said that service had been restored almost to normal by 5:30 p.m. The incident was a severe embarrassment for AT&T, which cultivates an image of reliability but which a year ago suffered a virtual shutdown of its network due to errant computer software. It depicted yesterday's failure as a freak accident. "Despite the commitment that (AT&T) people make day in and day out," said AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen, "the dice roll against us." The disruption focused on lower Manhattan, where the U.S. financial industry is headquartered. "The phones went down and you could not make telephone calls out of New York City to just about anywhere," said Richard Berner, director of bond market research at the securities firm Salomon Brothers Inc. Not everyone was upset. "We've got almost no phone calls all day," said one secretary at a Manhattan company, who asked not to be identified, "which was wonderful." In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a higher threat of disruption. Jeff Held, a telecommunications specialist at the Ernst & Young accounting and consulting firm, said many long-distance companies, because of cost, have not yet put in enough alternate cable routes to handle potential problems. But he said that in view of the Newark line's importance, "It's really pretty amazing to me that that route would not be totally backed up" already. Jim Carroll, AT&T's vice president for network operations, said the disruption dragged on in part because workers had to reprogram computers and physically rearrange cables - tasks that soon will be done using new software. "If this had happened this time next year," said Carroll, "the length of this outage would have been in the range of 15 minutes." ________ This article was compiled from various sources. Credits are as follows: Joanne Kelley, "AT&T Phone Outage Paralyzes Certain Markets" Reuter, 01/04/91 Bart Ziegler, "AT&T Problem" AP Business Newswire, 01/04/91 John Burgess, "Severed Cable Disables N.Y. Markets, Airports; AT&T Accident Creates Telephone Havoc" {Washington Post}, 01/05/91 Sean E. Williams -- seanwilliams@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Sean is a new subscriber/contributor to the Digest, and I want to thank him for an excellent report. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:43:49 PST From: "John R. Covert 05-Jan-1991 1536" Subject: Cellular Systems Around the World The following chart lists the types of systems in use in each country around the world and the carriers in each country (except where there are too many to list). The system in the U.S. is the "Advanced Mobile Phone System (AMPS)" and is compatible with all other AMPS systems. However, compatibility does not mean that roaming is permitted. The systems in Algeria, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Gabon, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia are not yet operational. Algeria NMT-900 PTT American Samoa AMPS American Samoa Government (PTT) Andorra NMT-450 Telefonica of Spain Antigua AMPS Boatphone of Antigua Argentina AMPS Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM) Australia AMPS Australia Telecom (PTT) Austria NMT-450 & TACS PTV Bahamas AMPS Bahamas Telecomms Corp. Bahrain TACS Bahrain Telecoms Co. Bangladesh AMPS Hutchison Bangladesh Telecom Pvt Belgium NMT-450 PTT Bermuda AMPS Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd. Brazil AMPS Telebras (in Rio & Brasilia) British Virgin Islands AMPS CCT Boatphone Brunei AMPS Jabatan Telecoms Brunei Canada AMPS Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B) Cayman Islands AMPS Cable & Wireless Chile AMPS CTC,CIDCOM,VTR/Millicom, Telecom Chile China (PRC) TACS PTT Costa Rica AMPS Millicom and Comvik Cyprus NMT-900 Cyprus Telecom Authority Czechoslovakia NMT-450 Bell Atlantic and U.S. West Denmark NMT-450/900 PTT Dominican Republic AMPS Codetel Finland NMT-450/900 PTT France Radiocom 2000 PTT NMT-France (NMT-900 protocol on NMT-450 freqs) Gabon AMPS OPT Germany C-Netz Deutsche Bundespost Telekom Grenada AMPS Grentel Boatphone Guatemala AMPS Millicom Hong Kong AMPS & TACS Hutchison Radio TACS Hong Kong Telephone (CSL) ETACS Pacific Link Hungary NMT-450 US West with PTT TACS Contel Cellular Iceland NMT-450 PTT India TACS selection in progress Indonesia AMPS Perumtel NMT-450 Perumtel Ireland TACS-900 PTT Israel AMPS Motorola Tadiran Italy RTMS & TACS SIP Jamica AMPS JTC Japan NTT/JTACS/NTACS NTT, DDI, IDO Kenya TACS Kenya PTC Kuwait TACS/ETACS PTT Luxembourg NMT-450 PTT Malaysia NMT-450 STM TACS Celcom Malta TACS Telemalta/Racal Mexico AMPS various Morocco NMT-450 PTT Netherlands NMT-450/900 PTT Netherlands Antilles AMPS St. Maarten Boatphone New Zealand AMPS PTT Norway NMT-450/900 PTT Oman NMT-450 PTT Pakistan AMPS Paktel and Pakcom Paraguay AMPS selection in progress Peru AMPS Lima Parker Co. Philippines AMPS 1) PLDT 2) Express Portugal C-Netz PTT St. Kitts & Nevis AMPS CCT Boatphone St. Lucia AMPS St. Lucia Boatphone Saudi Arabia NMT-450 PTT Singapore AMPS & TACS The Telecommunications Authority South Africa C-Netz SAPO South Korea AMPS Korea Mobile Telecom Spain NMT-450 & TACS La Co. Telefonica Nacional de Espana Sweden NMT-450/900 PTT Switzerland NMT-900 PTT Taiwan AMPS PTT Thailand AMPS CAT NMT-450 TOT NMT-900 Advanced Info Service Co. Tunisia NMT-450 PTT Turkey NMT-450 PTT United Arab Emirates TACS PTT United Kingdom TACS 1) Cellnet 2) Vodaphone United States AMPS various Uruguay AMPS Abiatar Venezuela AMPS CANTV Yugoslavia NMT-450 Zagreb PTT Zaire AMPS Telecel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 21:03 EDT From: Paul Coen Subject: Misleading AT&T Advertisement? I saw one of the newer AT&T commercials the other night, and something about it bothered me. I listened very carefully the next few times, and came to the same conclusion -- the spot is misleading. The basic premise is that one of "those other" phone companies calls just as the career woman is going out for a business trip. She tells them to bug off, because she wants to make sure that when she calls home to say "hi" to the kids she wants them to sound just like they're "next door." I could be mistaken, but this seems to be implying that the default carrier on your home phone is the carrier that INCOMING calls to your home are carried on -- which is wrong. It would be much more useful to have the commercial say that you should dial 10-ATT/10288 from any payphone (she's shown calling from one) to guarantee "good AT&T service." Now, the question is that is this a deliberate attempt to make people feel that if they switch, incoming calls will automatically be of poor sound quality, or is it just the failure of someone in the ad agency (or whoever else writes these things) to grasp that incoming calls aren't normally determined by the default long distance service of the party being called? I'd be inclined to believe the latter. Any thoughts on this? I could have misunderstood the commercial, but I don't think that I did. Disclaimer -- I like AT&T for the most part :-). The preceeding may not even be my opinions, never mind Drew U.'s Paul Coen Academic Computer Center Drew University ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 2:41:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Moderator's Note: Robert W. Lucky is executive director of the research communication science division at AT&T / Bell Labs and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He recently gave a speech before the academy, and I thought you would enjoy sharing some excerpts from that speech in this issue of the Digest. PAT] ------------------- Feeling overloaded? Many of us are, and not only from eating too much at holiday parties. Fax machines, cellular telephones, electronic mail, voice mail, telephone answering machines, phones in airplanes, pagers and other devices have us drowning in messages and phone calls. Computers bombard our lives with more information than we can absorb. Listen to the groan of people as they program their VCRs or read best-sellers like "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten," and one sees this anxiety about the stress of modern life. Complexity is a fundamental residue of the Information Age, and it is rising steadily -- in technology, business, social systems and the daily rituals of life. It is a trend that deserves more serious attention. The telephone network was easily understandable and manageable only a decade ago. Now it has slipped beyond the comprehension of any single person. The collapse of a significant portion of the AT&T network a year ago underlined the vulnerability mired in this complexity. Other large interconnected systems are found in transportation, the air traffic control system, and the military. Computers that contribute to these systems also provide tools to control them, but one of the most important problems of our time is whether we as human beings can manage such extraordinary complexity successfully. As an engineer who has helped develop the technologies of the Information Age, I believe that our species is up to the task of managing even a bewildering level of complexity. That is an optimistic view, and an experience I had recently made me painfully aware of how out of touch it may be with that of other Americans. I appeared as a guest on a television talk show about the future. After speaking glibly about a world made more pleasant by robots, high-definition television and the like, I was roundly criticized by the other guests, who insisted that the world's prospects are bleak. The environmentalist on the show was strident in his recitation of statistics on pollution. The educator spoke of the decline of literacy. The economist talked about global starvation, and the former police officer sitting beside me on the sofa warned of the inevitability of drugs and crime. When I held to my viewpoint that technology would make the world better, the others looked at me with scorn. What does a technologist know about such things? That's a reasonable question for Americans to ask of people like me, since we produced this technology and have a dubious record of predicting its impact. Few of the engineers who developed the videocassette recorder imagined that every town today would have a video retail store. The inventors of optical disks concentrated on video applications, never guessing that compact audio discs would displace vinyl records. So techology produces complexity and is unpredictable, yet engineers like myself remain optimistic about its application. As a consequence, we make progress where none is expected. Unaware that cities are a hopeless cause, we design successful urban transportation systems like BART in San Fransisco or the Washington Metro. Oblivious to the hopelessness of the educational crisis, we pursue technological aids to education. This single-minded pursuit of solutions may be hopelessly naive for the world of the future, and there's no question technology can produce bad outcomes as well as good ones. But I think most Americans would be better off if they shared our approach of viewing technology as an ally in a world of creeping complexity rather than as the enemy. Technology and simplicity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe technology increasingly will free us to focus on matters more worthy of our human intellect, producing a world in which art, religion, music and philosophy coexist with amazing technical advances. Technological products are only tools, and they can be used to make life less, as well as more stressful. The real solution to our frazzled lives lies not with rejecting technology but with harnessing it in new ways to manage information overload, quiet the beepers and calm our nerves. We need to retain faith -- not so much in technology as in our own power as human beings to make it work for ourselves. -------------- [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Lucky for sharing his thoughts with the National Academy of Engineering, and for permitting excerpts to be presented in this forum. There is very little I can add except to stress his final words: Keep having faith, keeping looking forward to the future. Telecom is not what it used to be, even a decade ago when this Digest first began publication. Who among you who are long time readers here anticipated what we see around us today? Who among you can tell us accurately about the year 2000? As Moderator of the Digest, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all the changes in telecom -- and I should be keeping up. But it is hard. Keep the faith, keep looking forward to the solutions and understanding -- or would you say wisdom? -- we'll need in this new decade. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #10 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29523; 7 Jan 91 4:03 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05814; 7 Jan 91 2:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11246; 7 Jan 91 1:33 CST Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 0:35:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #11 BCC: Message-ID: <9101070035.ab12927@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jan 91 00:35:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Brett Jacobson] Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) [Bob Kusumoto] Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert Jacobson] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting [Dave Levenson] Re: Wireless Phone Jacks [Dave Levenson] Re: 10-NJB in New Jersey [John Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brett Jacobson Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs Date: 6 Jan 91 07:44:44 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin (This message forwarded from petrilli@dogface.UUCP) In article <15756@accuvax.nwu.edu> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert Woodhead) writes: >Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in >order. It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the >traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for >local outgoing calls only, most likely). At the same time, modem >lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than >the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen >lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable. I believe you miss the point that has been raised countless times in the past, which is: Do the RBOCs have the right to charge you for your use of the lines other than for voice? They are obligated to provide service, and unless the service is measured, they have no right to complain about how much goes through. Here in Texas the problem has occured several times between SWBT, and the BBS operators of the state. Basically the conclusion became: SWBT is obligated to provide X quality service, whether you need it or not, and they may NOT degrade the line below a set minimum. They also have no legal right, as common carriers, to listen to what is on the line, other than to tell if there is a signal or not. By saying that "$50 is not unreasonable," you open the door for rate increases based on the excuse "we underestimated the burdon," (which BTW, they have been bearing quite easily in the past). Once you allow the tarriff, you have opened yourself up to many rate increases at the whim of the RBOC. We are at-least semi-fortunate here in Texas that SWBT doesn't gourge us too much (except on installation charges), and the PUC doesn't let them raise rates much. Chris Petrilli petrilli@dogface.UUCP petrilli@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ------------------------------ From: Bob Kusumoto Subject: Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) Organization: University of Chicago Date: 6 Jan 91 19:45:04 GMT You'll have to forgive me since my experience with a business phone line that my parent's switched to when they started a landscaping business out in the burbs. Our local Bell is Illinois Bell. bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) writes: >1) Historically, what is the argument for charging businesses and >residences differently? Do the businesses get better quality lines? :-) >Is it more expensive (to the telco) for someone at a business >location to pick up the phone and make a call? To receive one? In >the latter case, isn't the person _calling_ the business picking up >the tab? The only differences tend to be that business get one small free listing in the Yellow Pages. Apart from this small fact and the different rates that (small) businesses pay for service, there is none. (I mention small businesses since larger ones tend to buy or lease their own PBX or cut some deal for the larger number of phones lines they use, a la IN/OUT WATS.) Businesses do have a larger variety of services that are readily available to them though, although I stress that these services tend to be for small businesses and can be pretty useless to the typical BBS. >3) In the past, what has the criteria been for the telco to force >someone to pay business rates? Are they looking at licenses which >might be required by the local authorities or registered >charitable/non-profit groups? Is the installer looking for some sign >that I'm running a business when (s)he comes to hook me up? I'm not sure what the typical requirements are, basically anything that is done for an extended period of time, running an actual business, paying taxes or filing forms as a business, etc. Hobby type activities as far as I know are not charged business rates. (I do know that local chat lines a la Diversi-Dials, were under the gun to pay business rates for all their phone lines because they were hitting subscribers for monthly fees, like $10/month.) >4) Where will it end? Will I have to pay business rates if I have a >terminal/modem at home which I use to dial up the computer at work >occasionally? Will I have to pay business rates if I put an add in >the paper trying to sell my car? How about if I casually start buying >and selling used cars, using newspaper adds giving my home phone >number in order to fund my hobby of collecting and restoring old >Yugos? The phone company usually lets modem lines go under residental rates given that it's not being used to as a BBS to collect money (something on the order of portal or maybe chinet might have to pay business rates, prodigy probably has to pay business rates). I think the point is that you shouldn't have to be charged to access a particular phone number or service charged by that number to qualify under residental rates for BBSes. Buying and selling used and/or reconditioned cars probably doesn't fall under this catagory. A final note: IBT charges a much higher rate than normal residental/business rate for DATA QUALITY lines. Supposedly, getting DATA QUALITY lines guarentees a minimum level of quality between your connection from your place to the central office (IBT does not guarentee the wiring from the point where the wiring enters the building box to your jack any more, although they do have services where they will take care of the inside wiring for you for a small monthly charge :-). No one I know has actually gone out to do this (although there have been times where I've been tempted to do this myself). I suspect this is mostly for businesses that use dedicated lines, but then again, ISDN is also offered by IBT, which is a hell of a lot cheaper. Bob Kusumoto Internet: kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.edu Bitnet: kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.bitnet UUCP: ...!{oddjob,gargoyle}!chsun1!kusumoto ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology Date: 7 Jan 91 02:53:24 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Technology is easier to keep faith in when one has a hand in its design and development. When, as is most often the case in Western societies, technology is invented by large, seemingly faceless corporations or government agencies and foisted on the general public for better or worse, "faith" is an understandably rare commodity. I appreciate Mr. Lucky's optimism and self-confidence, but his examples of technology that "works" -- BART as a remedy for transportation congestion, and educational technology as a remedy for poor scholastic performance among students -- are insupportable. BART has complicated the Bay Area transportation situation, not fixed it. And educational technology -- well, just visit any school (in a "good" part of town) and see all the machinery strewn around, for purposes unknown. Technology is not without its politics, and these are anything but democratic. I am surprised that the general public is as tolerant as it is of we technologists' experiments with its world. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 01:28:06 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article <15768@accuvax.nwu.edu> lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: >That is exactly right. Cellular phones are directed to increase or >decrease power according to their distance (and thus, signal strength) >from the cell tower. This allows more cell sites in a certain area, >and thus, more potential users in that same area. This is the >principle behind the "Microcells" that will soon adorn the halls of >airports and office buildings. A cell every few hundred yards. When we all carry personal phones around, will their be enough bandwidth capacity in the cellular system to handle all the phone traffic. How will the assumptions that underly capacity estimates hold up when more/most calls are made from/to callers static in a cell instead of moving from cell to cell ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 02:01:55 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article <15805@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >It seems like the more things change in the telecom industry, the more >they stay the same: Here we are coming back to the concept laid out by >Ted Vail at the start of the twentieth century, that universal >telephone service is a desirable goal. >But Vail and his associates said *all* residence service should be >subsidized by business service. The main reason that business service >has always been more expensive than residential service in the USA is >because of the belief of early telephone people that universal service >was desirable for all, and especially desirable from the point of view >of business subscribers. Business places would find phone service >particularly useful if they could call residences. So let the >businesses pay the subsidy to insure phone service for all, argued >Vail, and that thinking has prevailed since. It seems to me that the *real* problem is that phone service is really a commodity that ought to be strictly priced based upon level and time of usage but at a much lower unit cost. Then poor people could easily afford to pay for low usage rates, BBS's could be free but the callers would *all* pay for the time consumed (NOte I am proposing that there be *no* free-calling areas, just very cheap per minute charges) and the big users would pay their fair share for heavy usage. I am obviously not an economist on phone system matters (or any other for that matter) but it seems we are paying phone companies for a lot more things than the real cost of providing phone service and maintaining the system. I am with those who say that the wires ought to be like sewers, water, etc. and be municipally owned and maintained and the supplying of dialtone be deregulated and/or auctioned to the lowest *qualified* bidder within an area. >What happens when *I* can no longer afford my phone service? I guess you'll have to cut down on some of the curiosity-satisfying calls that you make and report here, cancel some of the fancy features you have opted for, and live with less lines. Living outside of means does not entitle you to a subsidy, but a minimum level of service of a utility which is essential for health and safety in our society at a price affordable to those who would suffer either without it or at the regular rates is a desireable and even cost-effective social goal. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting Date: 6 Jan 91 18:46:07 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15797@accuvax.nwu.edu>, riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > What happens if you have Call Waiting and Caller ID, and a call comes > in while your connected elsewhere? > [Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the > Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via > call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in, > does the information pass at that time, or not? Likewise, when your > phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you > of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter > how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on > those calls, or not? PAT] I can answer two of the three questions raised here: 1. No Caller*Id information is presented on a non-ringing call, such as one that arrives via call waiting. 2. No Caller*ID information is presented with the 'single-spurt' ring that announces a forwarded call. I don't yet know the answer to the remaining question, about the call-waiting call that is subsequently allowed to ring after the previous call in progress is disconnected. 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: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Jacks Date: 6 Jan 91 20:46:49 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15796@accuvax.nwu.edu>, JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet writes: > The latest issue of the DaMark catalog has a pair of "wireless phone > jacks" by PHONEX. Actually they use household wiring. Does anyone know > anything about the reliability of these things, their safety when used > with faxes, modems, and other electronic phone equipment, and how much > noise they can be expected to introduce into the call ? Jeff identifies some valid concerns about these devices. I would like to add another: security. For some years, there has been home intercom and lighting-control equipment on the market that uses low-level RF to send audio or signaling information over your power lines. The RF signal used by these devices is conducted primarily by the power wire. There is also some radiation of this signal into the air. A nearby receiver, even if not connected directly to the power line, can probably intercept the information. A nearby transmitter, perhaps part of another, similar, system can radiate into the power line, and thereby interfere with the system. The RF is mostly blocked by the step-down transformer that feeds your house. If there are several houses fed from the same transformer (as is usually the case) these systems can easily communicate between these nearby houses. For this reason, there are a dozen or so channels available. Neighbors must reach an agreement on who uses which channels. In a large appartment building, there is typically a large transformer feeding the entire building. There are probably more appartments on each phase of the local power than there are available channels. The likelyhood of interference, or of deliberate eaves-dropping, is very high. I would recommend against using RF unless it is truly necessary, and then I would recommend caution in what you transmit! 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 10-NJB in New Jersey Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 6 Jan 91 18:40:41 EST (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article <15812@accuvax.nwu.edu> appears: >I was visiting my parents over the holidays and found that for certain >long distance _out of state_ calls they had found that using 10-NJB >was less expensive than using either AT&T or their default carrier (ITT). NJ Bell has a waiver to offer long distance service between northeastern NJ and New York city, and between the Camden area and Philadelphia. NY Tel and Bell of PA have matching waivers the other way. I gather this is because at the time of the divestiture the phone networks in those area were too heavily intertwined to allow separation of local BOC and LD AT&T lines in time for LD service to be handled the normal way. Since then NJ Bell has realized that they can make money from those two busy traffic corridors and has heavily promoted the service, particularly to businesses where an appropriately programmed PBX can insert the 10NJB automatically on the calls that NJB can handle. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #11 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29729; 7 Jan 91 4:15 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05814; 7 Jan 91 2:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11246; 7 Jan 91 1:33 CST Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 1:24:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #12 BCC: Message-ID: <9101070124.ab14937@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jan 91 01:24:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What are Secure Lines? [Floyd Davidson] Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Roy Smith] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Floyd Davidson] Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? [Carl Wright] Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting [Michael Perka] Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World [Charles Hawkins Mingo] Interoffice Signalling [Bill Cerny] Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Eric Tholome] Telecom-Related BBSs - Request for Info [David Leibold] Singapore Goes Pay per Call [David Leibold] Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Dan Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Sun, 6 Jan 1991 09:04:49 GMT In article <15758@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: >Joe Broniszewski queries: >> In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure >> line*. When ever he called a government agency that meant business >> (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure >> lines. My questions: >> 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line >> and a non-secure line? >There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they >use special telephones, not special telephone lines. End-to-end encryption makes a "secure" line. Such beasties are available to the military and other defense agencies. The book gave no indication that such was available to Cliff or that he was using one. He may or may not have been. >> 2. Are calls routed differently? >They may be routed on FTS, which is essential just a bulk WATS-type >system that all the Federal agencies have access to. FTS can be used >to call POTS or other FTS phones. If it is a military agency, they >may use a network called AUTOVON. They could also be routed in the >usual way that we civilians have our calls routed. Basically all >they'd need is an RJ-11 connection, if that. Secure cellular phones >are also used by the feds - remember Bush talking on a cellular from >his golf cart up in Maine? My bet is that one is definitely encrypted. >Answer to 4: >FTS is a non-secure, general use, long-distance network which the >federal government uses for the bulk of its long distance telephone >and data traffic. It is likely that the spooks have encryption equipment on T streams between them and whatever toll switch they connect to. From that point on it definitely is not a "secure" line, but... Any FTS-2000 satellite link is encrypted. Most autovon satellite links are encrypted. Chances are fairly good that a normal connection that you make calling them could be monitored, chances are fairly poor that a call they make to you could be monitored. At least by accident. The lines are not "secure", just a bit safer. They keep the amatuer spooks out of it, but not the pro's. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 16:36:29 GMT In article <15817@accuvax.nwu.edu> seanwilliams@attmail.com writes: > An AT&T spokesman said that the company instructed operators in the New > York area to provide customers with access codes to its long-distance > competitors at about 1000 EST/1500 GMT. Ignoring for the moment the political problems involved, how difficult would it be to implement automatic load-shedding without having to have customers manually dial a different 10xxx code? It seems that all that would be needed is for the AT&T computers to tell the local telcos' computers "OK, until further notice, take all [or half, or whatever fraction is appropriate] of the calls you would normally route to us because we're the default dial-1 long distance carrier, and send them to Sprint or MCI instead". There would be some details to work out with the billing, but that's not really a technical issue. Callers might get billed directly by the alternate carriers, or the carriers might bill AT&T under some sort of treaty; AT&T could then bill the customer normally, and they might never known what had happened (or, presumably, care). Assuming this could all be made to work (at worst, it's probably a Simple Matter Of Programming), would it be a good idea? Would the overall integretity of the long distance network be improved by this, or would the greater coupling between the various pieces generate the possibility of having a inter-carrier meltdown, making things worse? Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Sun, 6 Jan 1991 09:52:14 GMT In article <15807@accuvax.nwu.edu> USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu writes: >It is ridiculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a >non-profit organization. A non-profit is allowed to have a >substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do >not make a profit. >Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization? Most of >the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid >staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra >phone line and a second computer. Occasionally sysops will ask for a >donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are >[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' >phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define >what is a 'business' and what is not. >Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and 1) is a big subject that I'll not debate... 2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license is a business. The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or require more resources than "normal" residential phones. That just is not so. Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any network that I know of. If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch reports were off-normal. Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on a given day! BBS's on the other hand generate revenue. Long distance calls. Just the same as teenagers and calls to mom. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. [Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. Then what would you do? Their thinking was people with these instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a business-related activity. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 04:42:23 GMT Re: prefix changes, the BellSouth Open Network Architecture Outlook newsletter says the following: "Estimates were that all available NPA codes would be in use by 1995. However, the economic cruch of the 1980's and the current seven to nine percent growth in telephone number usage moved that date up. As a result, Bellcore requires any area code running short of numbers to convert to Interchangeable Central Office Codes (ICOC). Under this plan, converted NPAs may use "0" and "1" as the middle digit of central office codes (the first three numbers of the seven digit phone number). This conversion creates 152 new central office codes, just over a million phone numbers per area code, and extends the life of the existing area codes." They went on to say that Georgia converted to ICOC in October 1989, North Carolina in March 1990, and Alabama should be converted by January 1991. Interested parties should also see the article in {Telephony} dated 12/24/90, page 11 titled "North America Faces Number Crunch". It also discusses how Mexico is losing its NPAs. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 21:45:25 PST From: Michael_Perka@next.com Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting Organization: NeXT Computer, Inc. In article <15797@accuvax.nwu.edu> the Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the >Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via >call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in, >does the information pass at that time, or not? Likewise, when your >phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you >of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter >how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on >those calls, or not? PAT] The interactions of the Calling Number Delivery (CND) CLASS service with other services such as Custom Calling are noted in the Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000031, "CLASS Feature: Calling Number Delivery". Under section 3.8, Interactions: "A. Call Waiting CND data should not be transmitted duing of after a Call Waiting (CW) tone. Similarly, CND data should not be transmitted during or after any switchhook flashes that may occur in response to the CW tone. Also, CND should not occur during ringback that results from the customer going on-hook in response to a CW tone." Subsections B through J describe interactions with Multiparty Lines, Three-Way Calling, various types of call forwarding, Distinctive Ringing, Auto Callback/Recall, and Calling Number Delivery Blocking. Ordering info for this TR has already appeared in TELECOM Digest. Mike ------------------------------ From: Charles Hawkins Mingo Subject: Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World Date: 7 Jan 91 05:09:09 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article <15775@> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to >Canada. Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak >being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends. But the footnote >says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada." Where >is that? Rest assured that very few Canadians would know where "Atlin, Canada" is (especially since a place-name is usually given with the province, not the country). A quick check reveals that Atlin is a small mining town in the extreme NW corner of British Columbia, near the Yukon border. It's over a hundred miles NNE of Juneau, Alaska, so you can imagine what the climate is like. I'm not sure why Atlin is singled out thus; however, I do know that facilities to remote company towns (which Atlin appears to be) are often provided by the company running the operation, and not the usual LD provider (which is Telecom Canada). Thus, even if AT&T has a deal with Telecom Canada, it may have to pay extra to whomever owns the lines to Atlin. (I've also heard that that section of BC (behind the Alaskan panhandle) sometimes gets phone service from Alaska, as opposed to southern BC.) I'll bet that very few US residents have ever called Atlin, and that there's some obscure legal reason why AT&T felt compelled to use the footnote (after all, why not just tell us what the rate to Atlin is, instead of suggesting it might be different?) Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 02:22:36 GMT In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: Eric THOLOME Subject: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 19:07:57 GMT Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when dialing? Thanks! Eric THOLOME tholome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University [Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones generated any frequencies or tones. PAT] ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Telecom-Related BBSs - Request for Info Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 1:08:16 EST With the talk about TAP, there was mention of a BBS they had; could someone please e-mail the BBS number to djcl@contact.uucp? In fact, it would be interesting to compile a list of BBS numbers that have telecom-related sections. There is a BBS operated by Jim Deputy for telecom folks, plus MCI's Telecom Consultant BBS, Ed Hopper's BBS (with Digest access at least). Mail all numbers to djcl@contact.uucp and I'll send a summary along to the Digest in due time. ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Singapore Goes Pay per Call Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 1:10:42 EST A Singapore member of the NEWLIFE BBS network recently mentioned that Singapore has just switched from flat rate local calling to a pay per call basis. This will undoubtedly have a big impact on BBSes there. I will try to get some more details on this, unless TELECOM Digest readers have some more info on this themselves. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 13:17:00 CST From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available Reply-to: danj1@ihlpa.att.com Here is something I posted in chi.general. Being ever so helpful, and to make sure my golden keystrokes get maximum bong-for-the-buck, I am posting it to TELECOM Digest, even though this might have been blabbed about very recently. "Why am I pestering you New Jersey people, etc. with this?" Because you might be able to do something similar with your local phone company to prevent one day perhaps getting "slammed" from e.g., AT&T to some other leading brand [---not that it ever happened to me much.] > On Thu, 3 Jan 91 12:34:08 CST, motcid!void!bond@uunet.UU.NET (Allan > Bond) said via e-mail: >I got a "Request for account restriction of long distance company >form" (form 681-3) to protect from getting my favourite telephone >company switched. "Call your service representative for yours." Allan> What is this? Is Illinois Bell switching people's long Allan> distance carriers at random? Please provide a brief background Allan> why I might want such a form. Well, there's the practice of "slamming" (often mentioned in newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom) where, say, Sprint might out of the blue tell Illinois Bell that you want Sprint for your long distance carrier, and next month you start getting bills from Sprint instead of say, AT&T, which you had previously selected. These forms are a way to protect yourself from this shady practice. Further questions on slamming in general you probably want to direct to newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. By the way, I tried to get a whole ream of these forms for my pals at work (we all chose AT&T, and getting an employee discount probably being a significant factor, we don't want to be "slammed"), but I was informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell service representative individually. By the way 1-700-555-4141 is the number to dial to see who's your current long distance carrier. Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM Naperville IL USA +1 708-979-6364 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #12 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25080; 8 Jan 91 4:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12197; 8 Jan 91 2:48 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08244; 8 Jan 91 1:44 CST Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 1:30:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #13 BCC: Message-ID: <9101080130.ab07585@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jan 91 01:30:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Interoffice Signalling [John Higdon] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Dave Levenson] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Tom Gray] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Floyd Davidson] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Tom Gray] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Rolf Meier] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Dave Levenson] Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Eric Tholome] Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [Steve Warner] Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Bob Sherman] Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 0:36:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago This seems to be the season for telecom disasters. Maybe it was the Blue Moon last week or something. Following the AT&T cable cut in New Jersey last week, all was quiet for a few days ... but Monday morning, Sprint managed to chew up a fiber optic cable in northern Indiana which served as a major gateway for traffic in and out of Chicago. The cable went out about 9:00 AM CST, and service stayed out all morning. Apparently crews were close at hand (I think it was a Sprint crew which caused the problem, but they aren't saying), and restoration got underway almost immediatly. By about 12:30 PM CST service had been mostly restored. AT&T seemed to handle much of the overflow without difficulty. For over three hours, Sprint was totally silent here: calls to double zero got fast re-order tone, and one plus calls were intercepted after the 1-NPA-XXX had been dialed and met with dead silence. Illinois Bell and Centel service representatives and operators /repair clerks were instructed to advise complainers of the problem and to use 10xxx routing instead through 'some other' carrier. If anyone gets more specifics, please send them along. Can you imagine the irony of someone who at the end of last week, angry with AT&T about their trouble decided to switch to Sprint because they were 'more reliable' :). As AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen said last week, "we all roll the dice and have bad days from time to time." The Digest reader who suggested there ought to be a 'treaty' between LD carriers and automatic, transparent re-routing in times of emergencies spoke wisely. The sooner something like that is implemented, the better off we will be. Another reader, in a letter to be published soon points out that not all offices are equipped to do that sort of thing easily, but it should be SOP (standard operating practice) in offices thus equipped. Let's not wait until all of the USA is on ESS before we implement it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 03:00:42 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: > In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected > by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when > completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, > inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) It varies, but usually works out like this: KP + Prefix code (one digit) + Number (four digits) + ST for a total of seven tones. Omission of the prefix code would be interpreted to mean the "0" prefix; possibly the first CG0 or MG0 prefix in the office. Since the stream is bracketed by KP/ST, variable length is easy. > Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Absolutely. I remember many DID installations long before ESS had any significant penetration. The "CHUNK-KA-TUNK" when connected into the end office was unmistakable. Decades ago, the San Jose city offices used DID on a very crossbar switch. The first digital pagers were served via DID on crossbar here. There were some large Silly Valley firms who also made use of DID long before their COs were equipped with stored program equipment. Mind you, virtually all DID in those days was rotary signaling from the CO to the premise switch. In fact, when I put in an ITT 3100 for a customer that had DID service, Pac*Bell tried to talk me out of using DTMF. "Everyone uses rotary signaling." That was in 1984. Now DTMF is quite common. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 13:02:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: > In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected > by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when > completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, > inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) Anywhere from four to ten digits are sent between central offices as described. In most cases, five digits are sent. Because most central offices serve more than one prefix, but seldom more than ten, it is customary to send a single-digit prefix-index followed by the last four-digits of the called number. > Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Some #5 crossbar switches were, and indeed still are, capable of providing DID service. They generate dial-pulse signaling toward the customer equipment, unlike some of the more recent switch designs which can send DTMF over such trunks. 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: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 7 Jan 91 17:09:45 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: >In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, >inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) The answer is that as many digits are tranmitted as are requred to do the routing in the distant office. The number of digits would or could be different on different trunks between the same offices or for different calls on the same trunk. Normal subscriber calls could transmit different numbers digits than maintenance connections on the same trunks. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Mon, 7 Jan 1991 10:12:36 GMT In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: >In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, >inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) >Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? I can't answer the xbar question. Because you specified the same NPA they would most likely pass only the last four digits. But also it is unlikely that there would be two switches and only one NPA. With digital switching it can be arranged in almost any manner that will uniquely identify the correct routing. Usually the minimum number of digits are sent (but not less than four). There are times when for some oddball reason more than the minimum required are sent. Usually that is either future planning, or bad planning. The same is true of toll trunks to end offices. Inter-toll trunking almost always requires all digits to be passed. With mechanical switches there were other considerations because the switch may not have been configured to handle some given set of numbers. Strange things could happen. Before digital switches made it impossible there was such a quirk here in the Fairbanks area. The Fairbanks telco (45x), the North Pole (488), and the Eielson AFB telco all had EAS (Extended Area Service) trunks between each other. But there was a grand total of only six from Eielson to North Pole (one way trunks, six went the other direction too). From Eielson AFB if you dialed 488-nnnn you most likely got an all trunks are busy signal. But for those who knew about it (almost everyone), you dialed 458-nnnn instead. It went 26 miles up the road to Fairbanks, grabbed a trunk to 488 land, and went ten miles back down the same road to North Pole. It worked because the Eielson switch stripped the first digit, selected N.P. or FBK for a second digit of 8 or 5, and sent the last five digits down the line. The Fairbanks switch looked at the first of those five digits and selected either itself (a 6), the other Fairbanks switch (a 2), or an 8 would send it to North Pole. For some reason they did absorb a 7, so it could never be routed back to Eielson (372 and 377). Digital switching came in '82 and it became almost impossible to call between North Pole and Eielson until more trunks were in place. And now the Fairbanks telco is using 458 for one of their remotes. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 7 Jan 91 17:17:06 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <15841@accuvax.nwu.edu> tholome@portia.stanford.edu (Eric THOLOME) writes: >Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when >dialing? The pulse frequency is nominally 10pps (in North America). Most switches will accomodate frequencies from 7 to 12pps. The nominal make/break ration is 60/40. Most swtches will accomodate make breaks from 80/20 to 20/80. Outside of North America the nominal pulse rates vary from country to country but is most commonly 10pps with a 66/34 make/break. ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 7 Jan 91 17:46:11 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <15841@accuvax.nwu.edu> tholome@portia.stanford.edu (Eric THOLOME) writes: >Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when >dialing? Dial pulses can be anywhere from 8 to 12 pulses per second and still be recognized. Some fast operators are specified to work up to 20 pps. Who cares about dial pulsing any more anyway? Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 7 Jan 91 12:58:38 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15841@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tholome@portia.stanford.edu (Eric THOLOME) writes: > Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when > dialing? ... > [Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones > generated any frequencies or tones. PAT] The last time I checked, pulse-dial phones generate a 'frequency' of approximately 10 Hz. (Ten dial-pulses per second.) Probably a bit low to be called a 'tone' but definitely a repetitive event, and that means that it has a frequency! 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: Eric THOLOME Subject: Tone-Mode Frequencies? Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 21:36:06 GMT Thanks to those who answered my last question. Unfortunately, I confused the two modes !!! I am looking for the frequencies used in tone mode phones. I know each key generates two frequencies more or less based on C D and E music notes, but I would like something a little bit more precise. Thanks again !!! Eric THOLOME holome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 21:02:59 PST From: Steve Warner Subject: Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry >Here in California, Pac Bell proposed to the PUC (notice in our 8/90 >bills) to remove the surcharge for touch tone service. However, I'm >still paying it. Does anyone know if this proposal is still "in the >mill" or was abandoned? My January, 1991 bill for two of my lines has an insert which says that the TT charge will be dropped as of sometime in Feb, 1991. They will also drop the installation charge for such service. They siad that recovery of part of the lost revenue will come in the form of a decrease in one of the credits now being received on the bill. Steve Warner - Fremont, CA, USA etc... replies to: sun!indetech!stables!sw (forget what the header says) ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service Date: Mon, 07 Jan 91 08:25:52 GMT >[Moderator's Note: The command is 'GO PHONEFILE'. And yes, the service >is great to have around although I think the surcharge is a bit steep. >I did not find any business numbers listed however; did you? PAT] The service being offered on CIS as PHONEFILE is a much watered down version of the Metromail service to which it is gatewayed.. If you think the surcharge is a bit steep, try it with a direct account :-).. they demand a $1,000 per month minimum billing for the full service and each search costs between .45 & somewhere around $2.. When you figure how many searches you could do in an hour on CIS, you could come out way ahead even though most of the power on the real system is not available on the CIS front end.. I know of other systems that also gateway to the Metromail system, and one of them charges between $25-45 PER search hit.. You will NOT find any business addresses or phone numbers in the file as it consists only of residential information. There are a couple of exceptions to this rule, but once again, the watered down front end at CI$ does not allow you to access them. So while the $15 per hour surcharge may seem a bit high to you, it is a real bargin compared to the cost if you were to subscribe directly.. The cheapest way to use the service is designed for mass mailers, who can supply tape reels with their mailing lists on them, and for something like .30 per hit, they get address corrections, nine digit zip codes etc. At last claim the database contained about 64 million residential phone numbers, 80 million addresses, and around 114 million names. They make no claims about having unlisted phone numbers, even though they may well still have your name and address along with a phone # of 000-000-0000. However once in a while, an unlisted phone can sneak it's way into the file without them knowing it is unlisted. They use many sources to collect the information, and try to keep it current. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 21:15:50 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls This recent talk about sent-paid coin calls got me thinking about rates. I did a little investigation, and here's what I found. For a call from 415-841 to 206-324, the initial rate for direct dial from home was $.14 (over AT&T, evening rate). AT&T Calling Card was $.94, but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first minute! Doesn't that seem a bit high? I would imagine it would be higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling card rate? I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not? No credit risk. I'm sure that Pacific Bell charges a certain amount for the coin collection services, but this seems outlandish. Anyone know why it's like this? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #13 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20023; 9 Jan 91 2:56 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04659; 9 Jan 91 0:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07871; 8 Jan 91 23:54 CST Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 23:32:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #14 BCC: Message-ID: <9101082332.ab31883@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jan 91 23:32:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Charles Buckley] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [David Ptasnik] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Aimee Tweedie] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [David Cornutt] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [William R. Pearson] Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Ed Hopper] Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Mike Riddle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 01:53:25 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: More on BBSs and Phone Rates > Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows > how many phone company-types read this Digest? Maybe they'll think > about what they do to modemers. > Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY > [Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' > phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define > what is a 'business' and what is not. . . . No it's even simpler: Michigan Bell is trying to collect marginal costs for high usage using a rate structrure which is blind to it. This has nothing to do with the BBS line, but instead the lines which call it. These are also often flat-rate residential lines in the local calling area whose subscribers derive enormous economic benefit, since they make heavy use of a line tarriffed for only intermittent calling. I think Michigan Bell probably has a case, but they only look like bullies when they try to solve their money problems by shaking down the lonely sysop. They should try instead for the introduction of universal measured rate service. This has been extremely unpopular in the past, because the rates proposed each time it's been tried have been quite high. The concept itself is a good one. I wouldn't mind paying, $.30-$.40/hour for a non-stop local call, especially if my subscription were only $3.00/month. I don't believe this will work - unmeasured service is a sacred cow in too many places. Failing that, making special class of 976 number available to the BBS sysops, perhaps on a pro bono basis, which charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing this hole in the rate structure without substantially revising it, give the LEC their due, and not unduly burden callers (it's certainly cheaper than Compu$urcharge). It would also take the phone company and BBS sysops out of their current adversarial relationship, and make them "partners in fostering computer literacy" (the final selection of the warm fuzzy corp-speak phrase I leave to the minions). In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed) charge, which means that if no-one calls the BBS some month, the sysop has to pay lots (the price of unpopularity!). Anyone who deals in `sin numbers' want to comment if and under what conditions a subscriber can break even at such rates? For sure, there are going to be sysops who rightly fear for the damage to their reputation when *hundreds* jump to the typical conclusion that it's just *got* to be a porno BBS (and be usuriously expensive to call) since it has a 976 number ;'>. And, maybe the sysops only wanted to raise hell anyway ... [Moderator's Note: Well I can tell you that when unlimited local service was eliminated here in Chicago a few years ago, it was in part because of the tremendous hogs modem users were making of themselves. We had a variety of umlimited calling plans here for set monthly rates. Understandably telco wanted to make some money on the deal. Some modem users were going through more than ten thousand 'message units' per month on unlimited calling residential service plans, paying $20-30 per month! The local Diversi-dial boards were linking up with each other all over northern Illinois and staying connected for the entire weekend, etc. Telco finally said enough already ... the abusers ruined unlimited local calling for everyone. When the local area 'free calling plans' were eliminated here and people started paying only for they actually used, almost everyone priased the new plan. And who raised the biggest stink about the new plan? Why, the modem users and BBS sysops, of course! They'd have to actually start paying for those several hours at a time on line to the chat systems where they had previously stayed logged in while they went out to eat, etc. What previously cost $20-30 per month started costing $150 per month! PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 9:37:02 PDT floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. >The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, >or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. I don't think it's quite that simple. We have a licensed and incorporated day care in our home. We have two hunting lines. We do not pay business rates, nor do I think we should. The two lines are more a convenience for our evening modem use. We do not want to advertise in the business section of the white pages, or in the yellow pages. The volume of calls generated by the business is trivial. The standard I have most often heard is the standard of zoning. Commercial zoning, business rates. Residential zoning, res rates. If you have a business in your home, and want to advertise in the phone books, business rates. Even this last is becoming more muddy with the advent of non-telco yellow pages. They will generally accept an ad from anyone old enought to write a check, and don't really care what kind of lines you have. >One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or >require more resources than "normal" residential phones. That just is >not so. Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather >dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects >network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single >digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any >network that I know of. In an residential neighborhood, usage patterns are quite a bit different. I agree that most board usage is probably evening/night usage. A cluster of boards in a residential neighborhood could well have an impact on the way a CO switch is designed, and the hardware it requires. It is certainly a usage intensive service, using much more of the CO's availability than a standard res customer. When I asked telqi representatives why they charge business more, and why they used to charge PBX users more than Key System users, they always said it was a question of system usage. The more you use a line, the more you pay for it. A 16 line BBS probably does more traffic in an evening than 150 residential customers. Don't get me wrong, I like BBS's and hope that they continue to get low rates. Most CO's are mixed commercial and residential, and the occasional BBS probably doesn't have an impact. I just think that the telqi have a justifiable position. davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 15:49:34 EST From: USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates In my post made 1/4/91, Pat replies: > If someone attaches a computer to a phone line and charges money to > access it and gain information from it, why is he different than > Compuserve, which attaches computers to phone lines and charges money > to access their system and gain information from them? People who run a BBS as a hobby don't charge a fee for the service. As I stated before, some sysops ask for small donations. These donations are not mandatory, but you get some extra goodie if you do [like access to the game room, or extended prime-time access]. But I fail to see how this would indicate a business. However, a BBS that charges a mandatory fee for access in another creature entirely, and should be treated as such [and I won't discuss that particular can of worms here :) ] I think that hobbyist BBSs are special. They're a place to talk about different subjects, participate in friendly chats, argue about contro- versial issues, down/upload files, and meet people in an atmosphere where what you say, not who you are, is important. It doesn't matter who you are, if you are handicapped, a minority, or whatever. Most people do not have access to the Internet/Bitnet/Usenet, and Compu$erve and GEnie are only good for some things, therefore many people rely on the local BBS. To quote Mike Riddle's paper, BBSs are now the local equivalent of the political pamphlet of the 1700s and are just as important. A BBS is not a business; it is a hobby that involves a great deal of dedication, both financial and personal. So why should sysops have to take it on the chin for providing a free forum for other people to communicate with each other and express their own opinions at the sysop's expense? If a BBS had to be classified as a business, who would run one? We'd end up with the lowest common denominator, just like television and even more boring. Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York [Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory (312-731-1100) and similar? These are most often one or two person operations, run by people who enjoy what they are doing and who are trying to serve the community out of goodwill. They pay business rates for their service, and it comes from their own pocket and/or whatever trivial donations people send them. What rates would you have them pay? Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill? What about the TTY-to-voice translators serving deaf people? PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Cornutt Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: MSFC Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 19:27:04 GMT floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: [about whether a BBS qualifies as a business, and who makes the determination...] >2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. >The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, >or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. There is a government agency who is: the IRS. If you wanted to deduct the costs of your BBS as a business expense, you would have to meet some pretty stringent tests. You would need, for example, a computer, modem, phone line, and room in your house devoted *exclusively* to the BBS, and you would need extensive documentation of your expenses and labor. Further, there is a nasty thing called the "three years out of five" test that home businesses are subjected to. Just charging for access isn't enough; you have to demonstrate that you have turned a profit at least three out of the last five years, or the IRS will declare your business to be a hobby, and disallow all deductions resulting from it. What's the point? The point is that there is no way that any home- operated BBS would ever meet the IRS tests for a legitimate businees (for-profit or not). So, in a rational world, there is no way that a BBS could ever be charged business rates. Whether such an argument would cut any ice with a PUC or not, I don't know. Has anyone ever tried such an argument? >[Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have >been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to >make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. >Then what would you do? Their thinking was people with these >instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a >business-related activity. PAT] Having an office at home is not the same thing as running a business, according to the IRS. It is damn near impossible to deduct a home office, no matter how legitimately it may be related to your job. Again, whether this would mean anything to a PUC, I can't say. David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." [Moderator's Note: But again, neither would the dial-prayer / phone counselors / recorded annnouncement givers of the world qualify under the 'three out of five' rule. They pay business rates. Either there should be a not-for-profit rate with telco *or* the BBS operators should bite the bullet and pay the same as others of their kind. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Virginia Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 14:38:39 GMT Re: Business licenses for modems I do programming and program distribution from my home, as well as have a full-time job. Every year I get a form letter from my local government, suggesting that since I have taken a business expense deduction on my state taxes, I should get a business license. Every year I explain that I do no business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and, in any case, do almost no business with non-tax exempt institutions. I am then told that I don't really need a business license, since I will not be generating sales tax revenue. Here in Charlottesville, at least, a business license is something you need to collect sales tax. I wonder if the BBS might be well served by getting something in writing from the local government stating that they do not need a business license, because they are not conducting a business. On the other hand, perhaps they do need one, because they are. Bill Pearson ------------------------------ Subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs From: Ed Hopper Date: Sun, 06 Jan 91 21:53:49 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) writes: > Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1: > As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the > lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the > purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example, > posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs. > In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues > presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the > relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited. ... > Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and > fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room > with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself. Please note that I was forwarding a message from Bruce Wilson. *I* did *NOT* compose the message (with the exception of my personal comments at the end). I agree that there is a fairly common chicken-little phenomenom in these cases. Amateur lawyering abounds and lapses in logic are common. The docket in Texas is 8387. We expect a final hearing and settlement in a few days at which time I will post a summary of the activity. That post will also more clearly discuss the issues that I briefly touched upon in the testimony I gave in the PUC hearing. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jan 91 19:35:14 PDT From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business Reply-to: mike.riddle%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu In a previous post, Mr. Winslade discusses the allegations recently that reclassification of BBSes as "businesses" for ratemaking purposes would result in higher long distance charges as "bovine doo-doo." Perhaps, but what exactly are the differences in the "FCC mandated line access charges" between residences and businesses? I may be wrong, but thought that I heard, way back when this good-intentioned but poorly-thought-out access charge business started, that businesses got hit harder. Anyone know? Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #14 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21015; 9 Jan 91 3:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29004; 9 Jan 91 2:02 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04659; 9 Jan 91 0:58 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 0:44:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #15 BCC: Message-ID: <9101090044.ab06629@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 00:44:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Russ Kepler] Credit Limit on Cellular Phone Account [Alan Laird] Cellular Phone and Service Advice Needed [Scott R. Myers] Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Steve Forrette] Roaming in the High Desert [Steve Forrette] New Roaming System for A Carriers [Steve Forrette] Year of the Free Cellular Phone? [Gary D. Archer] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Joe Francis] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Peter Hayward] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Kepler Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 7 Jan 91 17:11:16 GMT Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM In article <15767@accuvax.nwu.edu> uswnvg!dfpedro@uunet.uu.net (Donn Pedro) writes: >In article <15746@accuvax.nwu.edu>, chapman@alc.com (Brent Chapman) writes: >:How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 >:miles from the nearest cell? OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest? I wouldn't propose it unless I thought I had a good chance at winning. In Albuquerque we have a cellular service and a mountain. Said mountain is about 5000' above the city, a in view of a lot of the surrounding area. I can hit the Albuquerque cell from as far west as Grants (90 mi), north to Los Alamos (70 mi), south to almost Socorro (about 80 mi), and east for Santa Rosa (70 mi, but not good coverage). This is with good signal quality. I'm waiting to see what happens when the new service in Santa Fe goes in this year - will my system decide to roam or will it stay in a home cell? I'll check it out when the new system is up. Russ Kepler - Basis Int'l SNAIL: 5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ PHONE: 505-345-5232 ------------------------------ From: Alan Laird Subject: Credit Limit on Cellular Phone Account Date: 7 Jan 91 17:22:33 GMT Reply-To: Alan Laird Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland. With my most recent cellular phone bill from Nationwide Cellular Telephones I received an extra form saying that from January they would be introducing a credit limit of 100 pounds per phone line. The form was very brief and was so badly worded that it was possible to interpret it that they were giving a 100 pound credit limit like a credit card but I would imagine the correct interpretation is that they'll let you run your bill up to no more than 100 pounds and then deny you any further service until you give them some money. I don't use my phone terribly much but I have been over 100 pounds in one month and I certainly wouldn't want to be in the position of not being able to use it just because it was near the end of the month and my outstanding bill was too high. NCT already get paid by direct debit from my bank account and they threaten that they will disconnect you immediately on non-payment without so much as a reminder, so I don't imagine they have much of a problem collecting their revenue at the moment. What I want to know is if there are any other UK (or elsewhere for that matter) airtime providers who also operate credit limits ? Are NCT likely to be in violation of my airtime contract by doing this ? I'll dig it out myself tonight and have a look. The form did offer to let you increase your credit limit if you thought that 100 pounds was not sufficient. I'm going to return it asking for a rediculous limit of say 5000 per month and see what they say. Alan I M Laird, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. aiml@uk.ac.strath.cs, 041 552 4400 x3081, 0836 320786 ------------------------------ From: "Scott R. Myers" Subject: Celluar Phone and Service Advice Needed Date: 8 Jan 91 04:25:17 GMT Organization: Rutgers University I have a mission to find a good inexpensive mobile cellular phone and a transportable cellular phone for my company. Along with that I also would appreciate any comments about the local cellular services (NJ-NY-PA areas). Features I would like are outlined below: Hands Free (Very Important) Dual NAM (Not so important but nice) Phone number storage Backlit display Signal Strength meter (Like something more than just "Weak Signal") Lock out with 911 exception (Not so important but nice) Call Timer (per call and total would be nice) DTMF (Very Important) I may have missed a few but the key things above are the hands free and the DTMF. On the transportable I would like a full three watts with switchable power selection. Also a hands free option would be great. I'd also like comments specifically on the phones that Radio-Shack offers. CT-102 Mobile Cellular CT-1033 Transportable Cellular I have no real good reason for being interested in them and I have looked at many others but they are cheap the do come with the Radio-Shack Extended Service Plan Option but who knows. Let me know what you think out there in Netland. Thanx in advance. BTW -- My budget is $300 for the Mobil and $500 for the Transportable. Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(201)352-4162 Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07208 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:33:38 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports This is something that has always bothered me. Let's say that I'm roaming into a far away cellular system where my calls don't automatically find me. Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point the secondary dialtone is provided. Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered? US Sprint manages to do precisely this with their FONcard system, overcoming any technical or legal hurdles. You enter the called number and your FONcard number, all without supervision taking place. I guess part of the answer is that the people affected by this problem are not the cellular carrier's home customers, but only associates of roamers from other systems. But whatever happened to just wanting to do it right for the sake of it? It seems that especially cellular carriers are not apt to do anything that doesn't increase airtime revenues. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:34:23 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Roaming in the High Desert Over New Year's, I had the opportunity to take a road trip from the Bay Area to Tucson to see the Copper Bowl (Go bears!), and thus got a lot of first-hand experience in roaming. The coverage of Cellular One of Los Angeles is amazing. Going south, tt starts at the first hill of the Grapevine coming down I-5, and was present all the way along I-10 to the Arizona boarder. There was a brief area of "no service" just east of Indio, but it didn't last long. For those of you not familiar with the area, I-10 going towards AZ is very much a desert and sparsely populated. Yet, service worked like a champ. Coming back through Las Vegas down I-15, LA service started just into CA along I-15, and continued along SR 58 until I we hit the Bakersfield system. I, being a telecom nerd, was on the lookout for cell sites, and sure enough, every few miles or so, especially on top of the passes near the highway, you could see the cell sites. I believe that these are NOT part of the new Rural Service Area plan. These are to be separate systems in rural areas, right? Whereas these cells along I-10 and I-15 are part of the very-urban Los Angeles system. I guess it's just lucrative enough to install these to serivce LA people on the way to somewhere. There's now continuous service on I-5 from Redding to the Mexican border (passing through several systems), the better part of which is quite rural indeed. Based on my travels through Arizona, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana, the California coverage is quite amazing. There must be an awful number of people just on the way to somewhere but in the middle of nowhere here to justify the cost. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:35:42 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: New Roaming System for A Carriers There seems to be a new roaming system that some of the A carriers are using (is this perhaps "Roam Across America" or something similar?). When you are outside of your local area and registered in another, your callers will get a recording telling them what city you are in, the roamer port number there, and instructions on how to use it. This is a vast improvement over what we had before (nothing), but still not as neat as the call just going through by itself. Based on my experience and a call to Cellular One, here are some details: - Registration is automatic - all you have to do is place or receive a call in a foreign system in order to activate it. - The foreign system doesn't need any special equipment. All they need is to be part of the Positive Roamer Verification (PRV) network. When your home system gets a MIN/ESN verification request from another system (which happens upon your first call), it knows where you are. - The referral resets at midnight, when you roam into another system, or when you return home. - In California or Nevada, if you are roaming into another city hooked into the Super Cellular System, your calls find you automatically anyway, so this new system doesn't apply. - There's currently a bug in the system (at least in San Francisco), in that the referral will take precedence over any call forwarding or no-answer transfer you have enabled. Cellular One admitted that this was indeed a bug (and not a "feature" as I had expected them to say!), and is working to fix it. - Some systems (speficially Cellular One of Seattle) appear to only do the MIN/ESN verification every other day. So, the second day in a row that you're roaming there, it figures that it doesn't need to verify, since after all you were valid just yesterday. But, the home system has reset at midnight, so the referrals stop. Note that I've not been able to confirm this, but my own experience would imply this "every other day" configuration. - Before someone else brings this up, here's something that came to mind that I don't think is a big deal, but I just know some will: "privacy." Now, someone always knows what city I'm in if I bring my cellphone along. Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B" carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off (except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( ) Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 14:26:36 PST From: "Gary D. Archer" Subject: Year of the Free Cellular Phone? Several months ago our esteemed Moderator mentioned getting a transportable for $99. Here is my story of getting one today for $0.00. As many of you know, CA has a law that forbids manditory cellular service activation being packaged with phones, and the entire package being sold at "low" prices. This has resulted in CA phones either being a bargain (ie some Radio Shack phones will sell for the same price in CA as outside, but outside CA you must sign up for cellular service) or for the same phone being "overpriced". I am a first time cellular buyer. My brother has a Techno-phone MC915A three watt transportable that I really liked ... imagine my shock when I found that in CA it would cost me between $300-$499 depending on stores... then I'd have to pay $25 to have the phone activated, plus monthly, plus airtime ... all for the privilege to not be locked into a six month contract. Talking to my brother it turned out he bought the phone (w/ six month contract) for $25.00 plus a $25 programming in Houston. So I had him buy me one when he returned. This time it was FREE (but I had to pay a $25 charge). Also, GTE will automatically give me a 408 a/c number if I wish, but I'd have to have the phone reprogrammed out here. I'd still remain under their 6month contract, but would be paying the local peak/off-peak rates and wouldn't have to auto-roam every night. Now, It's a lot to ask for but is it possible for me to program this phone myself, and if so, what information do I need from GTE to accomplish this? The form I got with my phone lists something called ESN (equipment serial no?) and CSA. Is this the stuff that is changed when the phone is re-programmed? Thanks, Gary [Moderator's Note: The Technophone MC915A is easy to program. It has a dual NAM, meaning you can have two different numbers (carriers) assigned for 'home' if desired. Here is the programming sequence to use: 1) Press CLR three times in rapid succession. 2) Press # 000000 # # 953739 # STO 29 STO STO 3) Press on/off to power down the phone. 4) Press on/off to power up the phone. 5) Display will ask "Which NAM?" (Press 1 or 2 followed by STO) 6) Display will ask "System ID?" (Example 00022 for NY Nynex, then *) 7) Display will read 888-888-8888. (Enter 10 digit phone number, then *) 8) Display will ask "O/Load Class?" (Enter two digit code, then *) 9) Display will ask "Grp ID?" (Enter two digit code, then *) 10) Display will ask "EXp?" (Enter Extended Address Bit 0/1, *) 11) Display will ask "IPCH?" (Enter Paging Channel 333/334, then *) 12) Display will ask "System ID?" (Enter three letters for city name) Example: To store "NYC" press 6 key two times, and display will show 'N'. Press # to step to next letter. Press 9 key three times to get 'Y'. Press # to step to the final letter. Press 2 key three times to get 'C'. Press the # key to end. Then, press the * key once again. 13) Display will ask "Save NAM?" (SEND = save ; END = disgard) To exit NAM programming, press the END key. This will save the changes and power down the unit. I hope this helps you out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Francis Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 00:40:21 GMT I find slamming annoying and deceitful. How often does this happen? This happened to me in Boston under New England Tel. I was using AT&T and suddenly received an MCI bill. I refused to pay it and told them to switch back to AT&T. Does anyone know more about the frequency of this practice (or anything else about it, for that matter)? [Moderator's Note: Do we? DO WE ??? My goodness, wake up and read the Digest with your coffee each morning! PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Peter B. Hayward" Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:12:00 GMT In article <15844@accuvax.nwu.edu> danj1@ihlpa.att.com writes: >> On Thu, 3 Jan 91 12:34:08 CST, motcid!void!bond@uunet.UU.NET (Allan >> Bond) said via e-mail: >>I got a "Request for account restriction of long distance company >>form" (form 681-3) to protect from getting my favourite telephone >>company switched. "Call your service representative for yours." >I was informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell >service representative individually. Strange. I just called my Illinois Bell service rep and neither he nor his supervisor had heard of such. The alternative he offered me was to have a password placed on my account so only people knowing the password could initiate changes. Peter B. Hayward WX9T University of Chicago Computing Organizations [Moderator's Note: All business office reps are created equal, but some are more equal than others. That's why your's had not heard of the form yet, I imagine. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #15 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13020; 10 Jan 91 0:47 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04586; 9 Jan 91 23:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29610; 9 Jan 91 22:10 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:20:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #16 BCC: Message-ID: <9101092120.ab03436@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:20:38 CST Volume 11 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Illinois Bill Reduces Rates For Poor People [John Higdon] Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) [Adam Gorman] Gaijin Gets Phone in Tokyo ... and Lives! [Robert Trebor Woodhead] Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Hans Mulder] Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Marvin Sirbu] Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) [Ed Hopper] Re: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25? [Jim Breen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Illinois Bill Reduces Rates For Poor People Date: 7 Jan 91 02:41:29 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Jeff Sicherman writes: > I guess you'll have to cut down on some of the curiosity-satisfying > calls that you make and report here, cancel some of the fancy features > you have opted for, and live with less lines. Living outside of means > does not entitle you to a subsidy, but a minimum level of service of a > utility which is essential for health and safety in our society at a > price affordable to those who would suffer either without it or at the > regular rates is a desireable and even cost-effective social goal. So only the "poor" are entitled to live outside of means? This sounds an awful lot like taxation and pricing to effect social change. Whenever you start messing around with market pricing, you open a complex can of worms that requires rules upon regulations to correct the previous "injustice". So how would you have telephone pricing? The same phone line might cost anywhere from "free" to $100 per month based upon the person's ability to pay? Why is this fair? Yes, a telephone is a current-day necessity. But one measured phone line is $4.45 per month in CA (plus tax). This is hardly a crippling amount to anyone with a roof over his head. (The "homeless" don't have telephones that I'm aware of.) Why must we create a whole new rate structure to shave a couple of bucks off of an already insignificant amount? I may be misreading your intent, but what I hear is that everyone is entitled to basic phone service. Anyone wanting more had better be willing to pay through the nose, since wanting more is not in harmony with the common good. Those that have trouble affording basic service are entitled to be subsidized by those wanting something over and above what has been declared "adequate". But telephone service is hardly food, shelter, or clothing. If "standard" telephone service costs $X, then ten times the standard service should cost $10X, not $20X or $40X. If the ordinary necessities of life carry a fixed cost, then what gives anyone the right to use utility pricing as a vehicle for social influence? For instance, I pay about twenty times as much for electricity than someone in a small, one-room apartment. Do I use twenty times as much? No, of course not. But our state regulators have decreed that the price of electricity will increase with demand. The intent is to allow low-income people to be able to afford electicity and to encourage conservation. Very laudable, you say. But the real effect is to penalize people who are sharing a house such as families, college students, and yes, even poor people who are all living under one roof (and one electric meter). The end rate that a residential customer pays is considerably higher than the business rate. I find it disconcerting that someone posting from an institution of higher learning would dismiss the "curiosity satisfying" calls of the Moderator so quickly. Is life to consist of subsistance? The tone reminds me of the spiders in a box. The moment one tries to get out, the others pull him back in. Thank heaven there are people who have the curiousity and ambition to explore and experiment (activities that I thought were supposed to take place in schools). Because I am a heavy telephone user, there are many coffers that are being enriched: 911 Lifeline (poor subsidy) City, State, Federal governments The one thing I DO get is a healthy discount on long distance due to my volume and WATS lines. Do you call that a subsidy? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 05:31:24 CST From: adg%ukfca1.uk.ate.slb.com@sj.ate.slb.com Subject: Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) In the UK you pay about ten pounds more per quarter per line for business lines from British Telecom. Current rates are 27.75 Uk Stg business and 17.13 domestic, excluding VAT at 15% which most businesses may reclaim. Basically this puts you one peg above the 'public' in terms of service - this means quicker installations and repairs. They run a compensation scheme which provides a five pound a day rebate for lines which are down for more than four days. For business lines you may claim for loss of business - if you can prove it was due to the loss of 'phone service. Also as a business you get a BT account manager assigned to you and a free entry in the Yellow Pages classified directories. Some areas divide business and domestic customers in the directories, so if you want potential customers to be able to find you you'd better be in the right section! BT's philosophy seems to be that if you want business class service pay for it. Although I don't think they'd allow a cheap skate company to have 70 trunk lines as a domestic subscriber. Mercury's 2300 indirect service make no distinction between business and personal usage, though their application form asks you to tick what you'll be using the service for. Racal Vodaphone ( cellular ) assume everyone paying the 25 Uk Stg per MONTH is a business user. Adam Gorman, Solstice Systems Ltd on contract to Schlumberger Technologies ATE Division Ferndown Dorset UK ------------------------------ From: Robert Trebor Woodhead Subject: Gaijin Gets Phone in Tokyo ... and Lives! Date: 7 Jan 91 04:42:25 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Today I had the most pleasant dealing with the phone company experience ever. Too bad I had to travel 14 time zones to get it. Along with my new Tokyo apaato (just big enough, barely, to swing a dead cat in) I of course needed a phone. So off I went, with a friend, to the local NTT office to order phone service. We expected a big crowd, because today is the first real day of business after the New Year's Holiday, during which the entire country screetches to a halt for about 10 days. Apparently, everyone else figured there would be a crush too, and decided to go this afternoon, because the place was deserted. A half dozen dedicated NTT employees looked plaintively at us, hoping against hope that we would give them something to do. Clearly, they were fed up with forced inactivity of the holidays. Of course, we couldn't just walk up to a service representative. No, that wouldn't do at all. In a great imitation of David Brenner's infamous "Getting a burger after midnight in LA" routine, we first had to go to a special ticket machine and get a number. I pressed the button, and in a second or two the machine printed a shiny ticket bearing the number "1." The NTT employees leaped for the buttons that would indicate that their service station was available. Ms. Yoshida, obviously a devotee of game shows, hit her button first. A synthesized announcement invited us, in the most deferential language, to visit her. We were almost sorry we didn't have to wait, as there was a comfortable lounge, stocked with magazines, not to mention a coffee shop around the corner. Having explained that we wanted a telephone, and given my address, Ms. Yoshida attacked a stack of paperwork with same fervor that the average salaryman reserves for his lunchtime noodles. A flurry of other employees held quick, impromptu meetings. A consensus was reached. Yes, indeed, the foreigner could have a telephone. It would even be possible to get a second line for a fax at any time desired. A large digital signboard displayed the possible times when the lineman could come to connect the telephone. Further checking indicated that this would not be needed. Next, a conference was held to determine which, of the myriad of numbers available, would be best for me. They could not decide, so they presented me with four possible alternatives. Which did I want? I gave them careful consideration; to do any less would be insulting. Although Japanese phones don't have the ABC DEF... on the numbers that US phones do, I checked them for meaningul four letter combinations. No such luck. However, being a strange gaijin who didn't know any better, I decided to ask if *I* could choose my phone number. More conferences. The computer was consulted. This was indeed a strange request, but then, everyone knew that foreigners had wierd customs. Ms. Yoshida came back and told me that, yes, I could choose my own phone number, and if it was available, they would be glad to let me have it. She further told me that due to the recent expansion of Tokyo exchanges to four digits, and the fact that my house was located in an area that was using one of the new four digit exchanges that start with five, almost all the numbers in my exchange were available, including all numbers starting with 3,4,6 and 9. A wonderful discovery, I thought, as I decided which four letter word I would use. I resisted the temptation to use an anglo- saxonism. That would be abusing their hospitality. I was strongly tempted by SEXY, GAME, and ROBT, but ended up going with the more pedestrian WOOD. All choices made, Ms. Yoshida gravely ushered me to the cashier, where I paid my deposit. My phone service would be started that very night. Amid a veritable hail of thank yous, we took our leave of NTT. Yes, they extracted 75,000 yen from me, but as god is my witness, it was worth it! Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 14:52:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Reply-To: hansm@cs.kun.nl Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands In article <15809@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ralph Moonen writes: [about he Dutch phone system] >002 - speaking clock >003 - weather forecast Not anymore. They moved to 06-8002 and 06-8003 on December 1st, 1990. They still cost 1 unit, i.e. Dfl 0.15 (about US$ 0.08) per call. When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an ``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international calls. Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant? Is this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what? >001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the > 06-041x range. Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. Like a regular non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. Have a nice day, Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl (machine currently down for OS upgrade) hm@fwi.uva.nl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 10:57:10 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption Instructing the local exchange carriers to reroute calls away from AT&T would be easier if the local exchange carriers had an intelligent network in place in which call routing decisions were made in centrallized Service Control Points (SCP), as with AT&T's 800 translation database. At the present time, however, there are still many electro-mechanical offices, where programs cannot be easily changed, or stored program control offices where the change would have to be made at each CO rather than centrally. Perhaps in five or ten years the solution you propose will be feasible. It should take AT&T much less time to increase the redundancy and automatic rerouting capabilities of its own network. Marvin Sirbu [Moderator's Note: The thing is Marvin, throughout the history of phones, we've nearly always been in a state of flux. Manual service mixed with automation; crossbar with step; ESS with older offices, etc. If we always waited until *everyone* was equally equipped, we'd never get anywhere. Some subscribers could do things others could not do. An example was equal access / 10xxx dialing. Is everyone finally cut over on this? Why not go with this suggestion *where it is technically feasable at present* and add offices as they are otherwise converted or brought up to date? If only half the telephone subscribers at present could be automatically and transparently re-routed in the event of a major problem, think of the confusion and congestion which would be eliminated. And frankly, I think the idea of having all of our eggs in one basket -- as a manner of speaking -- where fiber optic is concerned is going to cause even more incidents as time goes on. Trivia: The latest AT&T fiasco comes just before the first anniversary of the January 15 software failure last year. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) From: Ed Hopper Date: Mon, 07 Jan 91 06:19:24 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > Calls to Mexico are extremly expensive. Calls cost 15 cents/min plus > a termination charge that depends on where you call. Calling Mexico > City off-peak costs $1.26/minute, more than Pakistan or Ghana. Is > that normal? I grew up in El Paso, Texas, along the Mexican border. One of the more unfortunate aspects of the MFJ is the removal of the LEC from special international toll agreements. Before the MFJ, calls to Juarez, Mexico (a city that is virtually contiguous to El Paso on the south side of the Rio Grande) were dialable via a "42" prefix to the five digit Juarez telephone number. Costs were minimal. They were handled via a cable that ran from El Paso main CO across a bridge over the Rio Grande to Juarez main. Then came the MFJ. "Special deals" like this went away and the 905 NPA applied. Rates went higher. Now, Juarez calls are fully integrated in the international LD system. 011+Country Code+ etc. Is this progress? Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com [Moderator's Note: Is this progress, you ask? Well, Judge Green must think so. There were numerous arrangements like you describe along the Canadian border also in the past, allowing local calling between small towns on the US side and the Canadian side. Friends communicating with friends, without making an 'international issue' out of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25? Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 01:49:32 GMT [NB: I tried to reply to Hank by email but the address was inadequate.] In article <15773@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HANK@taunivm (Hank Nussbacher) writes: > Our PTT is charging us $.435 per kilosegment (64Kbytes) for > transmission of data over a 64kb X.25 circuit. There is no time > charge. I'd be interested in hearing what other countries pay for > 64kb X.25 usage. Telecom Australia's Austpac service charges $A1.20 ($US0.93) per kilosegment. There is a time charge also (low for permanent connections and $A4.20/hr for dial). Permanent X.25 connections range from $A3700 pa for 2400bps to $18500 pa for 48000bps (64K coming soon). Note that these are nation-wide, distance independent prices, and Australia is nearly as big as the US or Europe. Jim Breen AARNet:jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #16 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13918; 10 Jan 91 1:52 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31210; 10 Jan 91 0:20 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04586; 9 Jan 91 23:16 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 22:17:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #17 BCC: Message-ID: <9101092217.ab00581@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 22:16:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ClassMate: A Review [Eric J. Johnson] Re: Sent-Paid Calls From Coin Phones [Steve Forrette] Programming Code Needed for OKI Products Cellular Phone [Monte Freeman] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Peter Anvin] Help Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Peter Anvin] Re: Misleading AT&T Advertisement? [Ed Greenberg] New Breed of COCOT [Steve Forrette] ANI Again [Rich Szabo] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Floyd Davidson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric J. Johnson" Subject: Re: ClassMate: A Review Organization: U S WEST Communications Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:39:15 GMT In <15786@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >ClassMate is a device which allows your computer to read the caller's >phone number on inbound calls, when this information is supplied by >your telephone company if you have subscribed to Caller*ID service. [ an accurate review deleted ] I just got mine in the mail last week after enduring a three month back order. I immediately tossed the software that came with the device (not particularly useful for my application), and spent this weekend writing my own TSR to monitor the serial port continuously and log all the calls to a file on the PC's disk. This was accomplished using pieces of the UUPC communications package and a TSR development library called TESS which is available on Compu$erve. Send me e-mail if you have any detailed questions. Using the calling information stored by the TSR, my Natural MicroSystems 'Watson' card answers the phone like a normal answering machine, but delivers an individualized personal greeting to any calling number it recognizes. It also records the calling number plus the caller's name, if known, on the Rolodex-style message cards indicating messages. This makes it simple to review 'interesting' messages first. Also, any caller blocking Caller*ID receives a terse message and is disconnected without being given an opportunity to leave a message! Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@null.uucp The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and in no way reflect the will of Landru. (or U S WEST Communications) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 15:22:54 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Sent-Paid Calls From Coin Phones Regarding long distance sent-paid calls from payphones (prepaid with coins): I had a talk with my Pacific Bell friend a few weeks ago, and just this subject came up. Apparently, the issue is somewhat a technical one. For the past few years, each carrier has been given equal access to the technology to service sent-paid calls. However, it requires that the IXC have a point-of-presence at the payphone's CO - no tandems allowed here. So, for example, to service sent-paid calls in California, a point-of-presence would be required at every CO in the state that has payphones attached to it. As we all know, there's only one carrier that has gone to that trouble (they shall remain nameless, but their initials are AT&T). But the fact remains, that there is indeed "equal access" to the technology for each carrier. One of the reasons that the "other guys" aren't jumping to get into this segment of the market is that it is a declining one. However, this may change soon. My friend was involved in a trial in Reno of some new technology that would allow control of the payphone's coin mechanism through a tandem. It would possibly require some extra equipment on the IXC's end, but not a POP in each exchange. So, in the future, we may actually have a choice for sent-paid calls. As for what the Moderator said about having competition in this area in Chicago, has he actually tried this? In Northern California at least, there is a variety of carriers on Bell payphones, but only for operator-assisted or calling card calls. Sent-paid calls go over AT&T always, regardless of the equal access default for that phone. Another problem with sent-paid, particularly with international calls, is that the totalizer in the payphones can only handle $3 or so. For some international calls, the initial rate may be more than this. So, what do you do? If collect into the coin box after $3, then keep counting until the initial rate is deposited, what do you do if the call doesn't complete? You can't return the first three dollars! But, the only other option is to allow the call to complete with less than the initial rate deposited. Then, if the caller doesn't deposit the rest, what can the carrier do? I tried to call a number in Europe somewhere, and apparently sent-paid international calls are always handled by the operator - no automated coin collection here. I was told that I had to deposit $3, then they would dial the call. If it wasn't answered, my $3 would be returned. If it completed, the other party would be asked to hold while I deposited the remainder of the initial rate, at which time the operator would let the call complete. [Moderator's Note: With a couple of cell phones, calling cards from Illinois Bell/AT&T and Sprint, and an 800 number attached to my home line, I've had no need to deposit coins in the slot for years. I have to admit to only reading instruction cards -- not actually following the instructions. When the initial rate is more than the table will hold then the operators here place the call, and on successful connection they tell the called party to stand by; split the connection, collect their money and reconnect the caller. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:04:39 -0500 From: Monte Freeman Subject: Programming Code Needed for OKI Products Cell Phone Pat, Some time ago there was quite a bit of discussion here about cellular telephones. One of the things that was mentioned was special codes that the cellular phone retailer/installer could enter on the phone to find out various pieces of information about it and/or change that information. At the time, I didn't follow the discussion too closely since I didn't own a cellular phone. Well, that has changed now. I am now the proud(?) owner of an OKI Products hand-held cellular phone. What I need to know is if you or one of the Telecom readers can provide me with the code(s) for this particular telephone. I know that one exists, because earlier today I took the phone to a repair shop. I accidentally LOCKED the phone, and didn't remember the UNLOCK code. I told the technician my problem. He turned the phone on, held down the RCL and MENU keys at the same time, and then keyed in a nine or ten digit sequence of numbers on the keypad. This string of numbers started with about six zero's, but he was going so fast that I couldn't keep up with him. Naturally, he refused to give me the code he used, mumbling something about copyright laws and professional ethics. Personally, as long as the phone belongs to me, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to look at any portion of it I want to. If that includes the configuration information, so be it. If I screw it up, then I should have to pay to have it put back in working order again. But I digress here. We could debate this subject for quite some time I expect. Anyway, if you or anyone else could help me out with this it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Monte Freeman Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccoprfm Internet: ccoprfm@prism.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Here's your message. Maybe someone will send us the details on this specific phone. As you may know, I fully favor the right of cell phone owners to program their own instruments in a lawful manner to cut expenses when roaming or changing numbers, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 8 Jan 91 04:04:37 GMT Organization: Northwestern University In article <15804@accuvax.nwu.edu> Kari Hardarson writes: >I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a >phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether >the phone will work at all for that matter. Yes, the phone will work. I have tried myself to use U.S.-bought phones in Sweden. However, a few things to keep in mind (this applies to Sweden, and may or may not apply to the rest of Scandinavia): 1. Get a touch-tone phone. If you have to use pulse dial, Sweden had their "0" where the U.S. "1" was, so you have to change all phone numbers around according to this cipher: for "0" dial "1", for "1" dial "2", etc, for "8" dial "9", for "9" dial "0". This does not apply to touch-tone. 2. (This applies to all Europe): Do not bring a cordless phone! Europe is in a different ITU region (1) than the U.S. (2), and have different frequency allocation. It is illegal to bring in a cordless phone, being an unauthorized radio transmitter. 3. Swedish touch-tone phones have 13 buttons, "0".."9", "*", "#", "R". I don't know what the "R" button does, but its functions are similar to the ones U.S. phone companies flash the hook for, so it might be exactly what it does. 4. The Swedish phone net provides a lower current level than any other phone system in the world. Thus, a current-hungry foreign phone may not work properly. It shouldn't matter for modern electronic ones. 5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. 6. Get a Swedish phone cord when you get there; Televerket has recently picked up on the rest of the world and started using RJ-11 modular plugs, so you can easily get a phone cord with a modular plug in one end and a Swedish phone plug in the other in any local Telebutik (Televerket shop). Happy travelling! H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed Date: 8 Jan 91 04:10:56 GMT Organization: Northwestern University Here is a problem that it takes the expertise of comp.dcom.telecom to solve: I live with a roommate in a room with only one phone outlet, in a building only wired for one phone line per room. I use my modem frequently, and it has become a problem with the incompatibility of the modem and a regular telephone; in other words it is easy to pick up the headset when the phone looks free, just to ruin a modem connect, and vice versa I don't want autodialing programs, such as my FidoNet mailer, to try to call out while my roommate uses the phone (it generates significant amounts of noise if it tries to pick up the line). Therefore, I would like to get a "first come, first serve" phone switch to plug into the single phone outlet, and once *either* of the two output lines goes off-hook, the other one should be automatically disconnected from the main line. ALSO, if possible I would like the device to capture distinctive ringing and depending on type of first ring ring either the phone (with answering machine) or the modem (with autoanswer). This is not as important, though. If there is such a device on the market, or if someone knows how I could build a device like this myself, I would like to know. I wrote this article offline earlier; I saw something in the last 50-or-so messages about a device to capture Distinctive Ringing. Could that device handle the first part of this problem as well? H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 09:45 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertisement? Paul Coen writes about a possibly misleading AT&T advert, in which is is implied that changing carriers will affect incoming call quality. I immediately associated the premise that changing LD carriers would affect quality of calls home with the use of a calling card. The problem here is that it isn't clear that one can have one LD service and originate calls on any service, both at home and away. The most important thing to remember though is that these ads are not designed to educate and inform, but to create an emotional response. By training us to have an emotionally positive response to AT&T, and a negative response to the concept of any other LD carriers, AT&T hopes to have us suspend our skepticism with respeect to their claims, while rejecting out of hand the claims and offers of others. edg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:32:49 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: New Breed of COCOT I've not seen this one before. It looks very much like the blue AT&T coinless phones that they often have at airports or highway rest stops in the middle of nowhere. No screen or card reader, just the dialing pad and receiver. This one looked very much like the AT&T one, in fact, I wasn't sure until I tried to dial 10288, which after about the 2, resulted in "This is not a valid number." Looking closer, the logo on the upper left corner looks much like the Pacific Bell asterisk, except there are only five points instead of six. I didn't fiddle with it any further. It was at the Taco Bell (I didn't realize the humor in this until just now! :-)) in Mt. Verde, Arizona, which really is in the middle of nowhere. [Moderator's Note: There are some COCOTS here which require a careful examination to detirmine that they are not 'genuine Bell'. So how come if their 'alternate service' is so good they have to try so hard to decieve the public to make them think it is a Bell phone? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 01:50:58 -0500 From: Rich Szabo Subject: ANI Again Reply-To: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu I understand from the definition in GLOSSARY.TXT that ANI info is passed from the LEC to the IEC. I can see how a 800- or 900- service customer could get the ANI info, since his incoming calls are all routed thru the particular IEC. What I do not understand is, could a small business could get the ANI info without buying an 800 or (heaven forbid) a 900 number? Sorry to re-hash this topic, but the subject has come up locally. Rich Szabo [Moderator's Note: At the present time, I do not think you can get ANI without an 800/900 number. They of course can get Caller ID in many places with regular lines, and the end result may be much the same, but many here will hasten to tell you ANI is not Caller ID. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 08:52:10 GMT In article <15850@accuvax.nwu.edu> floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) >writes: >>In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >>by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >>completing an interoffice call? (assumptions: electronic offices, >>inband signalling, same NPA, same telco) >Because you specified the same NPA they would most likely pass only >the last four digits. But also it is unlikely that there would be two >switches and only one NPA. My statement above is a bit brain damaged. I was thinking of office codes, not area codes when I wrote that. Guess I gotta stop posting at 3 AM. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #17 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14936; 10 Jan 91 2:53 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18938; 10 Jan 91 1:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31210; 10 Jan 91 0:20 CST Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:48:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #18 BCC: Message-ID: <9101092348.ab29108@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:48:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [David Brightbill] Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [David Gast] Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [Lou Judice] Emergency Re-Routing [Jack Dominey] Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss [Casey Leedom] How to Get a 900#'s Address [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 09:13:36 -0500 From: David Brightbill Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service Bob Sherman writes: > So while the $15 per hour surcharge may seem a bit high to you, it is >a real bargin compared to the cost if you were to subscribe directly. >The cheapest way to use the service is designed for mass mailers, who >can supply tape reels with their mailing lists on them, and for >something like .30 per hit, they get address corrections, nine digit >zip codes etc. A little known FREE service of your US Postal Service is that they will do the same thing. You have to provide the data in a fixed format on certain media (5 1/4 msdos format disks are one), fill out a form, and send it in. Several weeks later, you get back corrected data, +4 zip codes, standard address codes, etc. They will even supply suite/apartment numbers for individuals or businesses in large buildings. Check with the commercial mailing rep at your local large post office. Davie Brightbill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:16:25 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? One of the recurring questions asked in this forum is "What number do I dial to determine what number I am calling from?" The answer, of course, is that it varies from location to location. The Moderator has noted that the number changes all the time and that it should change frequently. Presumably, he is concerned about fraud. If I can call some number to find out what number I am dialing from, it makes it easy to plant a bug or to call collect to that number, for example. The contradiction, it seems, comes from the Moderator's frequent and outspoken support for Caller-ID. With CID, the bad guy/gal just calls his/her home phone with a CID box and records the information. Thus, the same information for the same illicit behavior will be available. PAT will surely be mad if someone else accepts a collect phone call from an AOS on his line in the basement of his building. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast [Moderator's Note: Moderators do not contradict themselves, but I thank you for sharing your concern. I noted that the 'numbers to call' are different from location to location, and that they change frequently. I am not aware of saying I thought they *should* be changed frequently. And yes, while I could go in the basement and use someone else's pair to get a readback or call my own number and get a CID reading, both of these actions are illegal on their face by virtue of me burglarizing the basement phone box to begin with (if it is not within my specific authority to wire, modify or examine the box). On the other hand, it is not and should not be illegal for me to ascertain my own phone number if I have forgotten it or gotten confused by the wires in my possession. Neither should it be illegal for me to ascertain the identity -- or at the very least the phone number -- of the anonymous person calling me. Don't blame good and useful technology just because some people abuse it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 06:59:06 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 08-Jan-1991 0951 Subject: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. We seem to be really plagued by telecom service outages recently. Since I'm sure there's not a large increase in the number of cables being accidentally cut, my suspicion is that more and more traffic is being handled by fewer and fewer high capacity fiber routes. Now of course building and maintaining a small number of very high capacity trunks must make a lot of good economic sense (fewer repeaters, less cable to maintain, etc.) But, the service outages say that something is missing in terms of redundancy - which I always thought was a major part of telephone system design. Am I just naive to think that the system used to be more reliable???? A joke I've heard recently in telecom circles is "wouldn't it be funny if fiber optic cable loses it's light transmission characteristics after being buried for say, 25 years..." The line of reasoning is that perhaps putting so many eggs in one basket may not be such a great idea? ljj [Moderator's Note: Yes, the system used to be much more reliable. There was a spirit of cooperation and a desire for excellence which has been gradually fading away since divestiture. Now, if a large segment of the network goes out -- something that was unthinkable ten or fifteen years ago -- they just say 'use someone else for the time being', as though that settled the matter. Sad, isn't it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Jan 8 09:47:11 EST 1991 Subject: Emergency Re-Routing Someone suggested recently (and our Moderator concurred) that in cases of cable cuts and similar disasters, LD carriers should provide automatic re-routing of calls to other networks. While the idea sounds more reasonable as I consider it longer, one issue does stick out. If such a program were implemented, the people affected would be placing calls, expecting service from their default carrier, but actually receiving service from someone else. Sound familiar? It's awfully similar to the discussions of slamming that have rolled around in here for some time. For that reason, the idea of transparent re-routing bothers me somewhat. The effect would be mitigated by announcing the policy well before any emergency, with a bill insert or some such, and by making arrangements so that I would be billed through my default carrier. The latter, however, would be incredibly difficult to arrange and execute. In fact, the carriers will probably decide that it's easier to identify critical points in the network (such as the AT&T Newark cable) and provide redundant and/or better-protected facilities. (It's hard to protect against your own engineers and line people, though!) Jack Dominey | AT&T Commercial Markets | 800 241-4285 | attmail !dominey My own opinions except as noted. [Moderator's Note: They would not be receiving service from 'someone else'. They would be receiving service from their own carrier on lines their carrier temporarily leased *from someone else*. That makes a big difference. Remember, for years prior to Sprint and MCI having their own complete network they both leased circuits from AT&T and from each other. The OCC's may in fact still parcel out a lot of their international traffic to AT&T in a way transparent to their users. An intercompany emergency re-routing system would say to the public, "Don't worry about *how* we handle your call; it is our obligation to see that it gets handled, period." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Casey Leedom Subject: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Frequency Loss Date: 8 Jan 91 19:05:42 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory I just moved into a house in the Berkeley hills. I plan on tele-commuting to work several days a week using an X terminal and V.32 over Telebit T2500s (GE7.00 PROMs.) Unfortunately, my V.32 connections keep on dropping after anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half. When I examine the line quality register, S78, it's 100 both before and after the connection drops. It appears that the T2500s can maintain a PEP connection forever, but the ``instantaneous'' transmit and receive bit rates, S70 and S72, are very low, in the 12K-15K range. When I look at the bit assignments per PEP sub-carrier, I see a curve that looks like the following: 6 | ------ - ----- 4 | - ------------------------- 2 | --------- 0 |-- - - ----- whereas the typical PEP bit assignment curve I've observed looks more like: 6 | ------ - ------------------------------- 4 | - ------- 2 | -- 0 |-- - - ---- (Sorry I can't give you exact figures -- I need to hook up a PC of some kind to capture the data from the modem but I haven't had to time to borrow one yet.) I've been told that the two zero drop outs are for the PEP retraining signals. The big issue is that the mid and high frequency sub-carriers don't seem to be up to snuff. I asked PacBell to come out and test the frequency response of the line outside and inside the house to determine whether it was ``their problem'' or my house wiring, but they don't seem to be able to do that. Amazing. Apparently there used to be a PREFIX-00XX number that the service technicians could call that would provide a 0DB frequency sweep, but all they've got available now is PREFIX-0020 which provides a 1004Hz tone at 0DB. I can't tell whether the central office was jiving the technician who came out (he made a real and very valiant effort to help me -- this is my second great experience with PacBell service technicians by the way) or whether they really don't have any method of doing a frequency response test. I suppose their attitude could be that there's really nothing simple (read "cheap") that can be done if there is a frequency line impairment, so why bother test -- besides, it would give the customers something solid to bitch about (corresponding computer programming maxim: ``Don't test for bugs you either can't fix or don't want to deal with.'') The service technician who came out also mentioned that my house is just about as far from the central office as I could get without being assigned to a different CO. However, he thought that all the street wiring was fairly new. By the way, the drop to my house is twisted six-pair. The other possible source of these problems is the house wiring. The wiring in the house is very old, untwisted aluminum three-pair. Yes, I said aluminum! Don't ask me -- everyone I've told of and showed the wiring to says they've never heard of aluminum being used for telephone wiring ... and some of them have been in the telephone business for over twenty years! I'm running a voice circuit on line one (green/red -- tied to the white-blue/blue-white pair in the three-pair) and the modem on line two (black/yellow -- tied to the white-orange/orange-white pair of the three-pair.) The white-green/green-white pair of the three-pair is unattached and unterminated. There's about forty feet of the wire strung between the drop box and the telephone jack I'm trying to use. It's also wired serially through a jack about ten feet from the drop box. That earlier jack has a telephone set on line one, but nothing on line two. The far jack also has a telephone set on line one in addition to the modem on line two. While in PEP mode, I can hear a very small amount of cross talk when both the modem and voice lines are idling (very low level regular clicking.) As soon as the modems start up it becomes nearly impossibly to hear the cross talk. I don't think I can hear any cross talk when using V.32. In any case, because I wasn't able to get anywhere with PacBell, I'm left to simply replace the wiring in my house an hope that that clears up the problems. So, the point of this article: 1. I welcome any comments about frequency response testing and getting PacBell to fix their wiring if it's the problem. And just what are the nominal levels of service that they do promise to provide? 2. I welcome any comments about the potential problems that very old, untwisted aluminum wiring might generate and in particular, does anyone think it could be responsible for my frequency response loss? 3. I think I remember hearing, perhaps in this group, that twisted pair wiring can actually *degrade* frequency response because of capacitance coupling. Am I dreaming that up? Will I be doing more harm than good by running copper twisted pair? 4. We're thinking of running twisted copper six-pair throughout the house to accommodate future expansion with an Ethernet, AppleTalk net, and up to three phone lines. Does anyone see any problem with cross talk doing this? Thanks for any help you may be able to offer. Since this is such a broad question, may spark a lot of discussion, and be of interest to a lot of people, I think that posting followups would be best rather than sending me mail. P.S. I just learned about the ATJ6J0 command. Here's the output of that command after one of my line drops. Unfortunately I have no idea what the output means ... Is the interpretation of this output part of the ``Undocumented Features'' document by Telebit? ATJ6J0 R000000 R000 N003 EC000 T000000 F000000 R000000 M000000 E000000 F000000 000000 000 000 000 001 000 000 000 000 L L T000 M000 L001 C000 OK Thanks, Casey ------------------------------ Date: 6-JAN-1991 16:04:39.87 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: How to Get a 900#'s Address Hi- John Levine recently posted a message about being called by an automatic/ recorded solicitation for a 900 number, which gave a mail-drop address but no other address to reach them at. I've had this problem myself for a few months now. It seems that someone in my local area keeps calling all the numbers in my exchange (and the other nearby local exchanges) every few weeks with a silly 900 number solicitation. One of my numbers has Call-forwarding, and they have always managed to call when my forwarding is set to some toll number! So I typed up a general letter, which more or less says that the recorded solicitations are harassing and annoying, and that I am giving them written notice to stop, and a reasonable period of time to reprogram their equipment so that I no longer receive any calls at any of my numbers. (I also mail it out registered, so I get confirmation that someone actually received the letter.) The problem was getting their actual addresses. After numerous futile efforts, I called New York Telephone's Call Annoyance Bureau. At first they told me it was something the "FCC had to investigate", and told me to call a special office at the FCC about it. When I asked for the number, the rep. said "Oh, it is a private number, we can't give it out." After pointing out how ridiculous this was, I told the rep. a number at the FCC, she said she was surprised that the FCC gave out their numbers, and said that I should thus call them. I told the rep. that this was unacceptable, and that as NY Tel was the billing agency for this 900 company (for NY Tel customers), and that NY Tel MUST be sending them a bill somewhere, and that I wanted the address that NY Tel used. She refused to give this out, so I said, "Ok, let me start over. I am getting calls that I consider harassing and annoying. Your phone book states that you can take care of these calls. So take care of them. YOU tell whoever is calling me to stop - I'll even give you a pre-typed letter that you can send them with all the details." She paused for a while, and no doubt realizing that this will mean a lot of extra work for her, said, "Ok, what are the services you wanted again?" and I read off the list of all the different 900 companies, and she just read off the billing address from the computer. All the addresses were in Nevada, but I did get the return forms in the mail from four of the five companies that I mailed to, so perhaps this will take care of the calls once they tell whoever it is around my area with the solicitation machine to try some other set of numbers (or just de-program my numbers from the machine, if such a thing is possible.) I would suggest that anyone having similar problems contact the call annoyance bureau of their local telco and approach the situation as a "call annoyance" problem, which got the right response in my case. This has also worked with SNET (who were a bit more reluctant at first), and NE Tel/Mass (who were actually very helpful and gave me the addresses right away without an argument. ) Good luck! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Maybe you could share with us the names and addresses of the ones you have located. Please? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #18 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16238; 10 Jan 91 4:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26855; 10 Jan 91 2:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18938; 10 Jan 91 1:24 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 1:00:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #19 BCC: Message-ID: <9101100100.ab00219@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 00:59:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Jersey Bell and 10-NJB [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Toby Nixon] Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [John Higdon] Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Roger Fulton] Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Michael Dorrian] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Sean Williams] Catalog and Magazines Wanted [blumbergkm@ea.usl.edu] Bogus AT&T Charges on my Local Phone Company Bill [Ronald Greenberg] Caller ID Online in Atlanta [Bill Berbenich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7-JAN-1991 03:34:43.81 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: re: New Jersey Bell and 10-NJB Hi- I've heard numerous reasons as to why New Jersey Bell has the 10NJB system for calling to New York City from North Jersey, and I'm not sure any/all are correct, but here goes: 1. NY Tel and NJ Bell "historically" had a high degree of interconnectivity between New York City and northern New Jersey, and could not have AT&T take over all calls between these two areas for technical reasons back in 1984. Callers on older exchanges in NY City (mainly XBars that can't do "Equal Access" 10xxx dialing, although many have been modified to do this) are automatically handled by NY Tel to Northen Jersey, and are itemized as NY Tel toll calls. NY Tel's "Hello" Magazine mentioned that the situation between NY Tel and NJ Bell was analogous to having older equipment which couldn't be quickly converted, which is why there is this special "transport corridor" (as they called it) between NY and NJ. (How does this account for the Trenton and PA 10NJB/10BPA(?) connection, though?) 2. NY Tel and NJ Bell got a special waiver from (his Lordship) Judge Green, who allowed each other to handle calls between the two regions. (Again, did he do the same thing for the South Jersey/PA system as well?) 3. NJ Bell and NY Tel have always provided service between these two areas, so AT&T shouldn't get to serve it now. This is a bit like the "historical" argument (#1), yet under this rationale NJ Bell and NY Tel get to keep the service in perpetuity. I tend myself to think #2 is correct, although #1 may have been another reason back around 1984/1985. In any event, the system as it is now allows callers calling between NY City and sections of the North Jersey Counties (how many are there? three?) to use the facilities of NY Tel or NJ Bell to make calls across the state line at (usually) lower rates than AT&T. Calling Card calls will also cost less, as NY Tel charges something like 40 cents per call + toll, while AT&T starts off at 80 cents. (Note this does not apply to Reach Out America Card Option customers during the plan's hours, as there is NO surcharge for inter-state calls.) NJ Bell even forces you to use 10NJB from some payphones. At Newark International Airport, about ten miles from NYC, if you dial 0-212-xxx-xxxx, which is, of course, out of state, you will NOT be routed over AT&T. Instead, you can hear the payphone outpulse "10NJB" and then the number, sort of like a COCOT would, but it is a real Western Electric/NJ Bell payphone. It will only do this for calls to NYC which would be applicable under 10NJB. You can, of course, dial 10288+0-212-xxx-xxxx to get to NYC via AT&T, which ROA-Card Option callers may want to do DURING the plan's hours. NJB advertises "10-NJB" as a cost-saving feature quite often on local radio, and has special business plans to NYC as well. Also, any caller in North Jersey who is on a local calling card call can "sequence call" (press the "#"/octothorpe to make a new call(s)) to NYC, even though this is in another state. However, if you try sequence calling to an area outside of NYC, you will get the message "You may ONLY dial another New Jersey Bell handled call, now." (Hmmm ... looks like NJBel gave up on its pathetic calling card system and is using AT&T's now ... at least in North Jersey. ) NY Tel is much less aggressive in marketing its 10NYT service, although it works the same way. They do mail out letters to business customers about special deals to North Jersey, but overall don't seem to care about this as much as NJ Bell does. You can also make "sequence"/# calls on NY Tel's pathetic Calling Card/automated operator system to North Jersey. One interesting note: You can use 10NYT to call Directory Assistance in 201. How are you billed for this? At NY Tel's rates? Or the standard 60 cents that AT&T charges? I wonder if this counts in a person's DA charge allowance, which in NYC is a big whole *three* requests! :( Guess that's it for now... Please mail me any corrections/questions to alert me of them faster, NEWS has been slow here lately. -Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet P.S. Mike Jensen- I've been trying to mail you a reply that I typed up to your question about GTE Mobilnet and the different types of roaming that are available to you. All my attempts bounced. Do you have another address that I may try? Thanks... ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? Date: 8 Jan 91 16:07:27 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA DTMF tones are defined in CCITT Recommendation Q.23. The matrix looks like this: Hz 1209 1336 1477 1633 697 1 2 3 A 770 4 5 6 B 852 7 8 9 C 941 * 0 # D The A/B/C/D tones are used in some feature phones on PBXes, and are also available in some modems (including most from Hayes). The transmitted frequency must be within +/- 1.8% of the nominal frequency. Total distortion products (harmonics, intermodulation) must be at least 20dB below the fundamental frequencies. The transmitted level of the tones is not specified by the CCITT, and left up to national requirements (I believe FCC Part 68 includes restrictions, and EIA-496-A also has specs in this area). See Recommendations Q.23 and Q.24 for more details. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls Date: 8 Jan 91 11:59:09 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Steve Forrette writes: > but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first > minute! Doesn't that seem a bit high? I would imagine it would be > higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling > card rate? I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not? No credit If you check that again, you will probably find that the initial coin rate is for three minutes, not one minute. For a while, coin-paid calls had an initial one minute rate and it was changed back to three minutes "for your convenience". The explanation was that most calls lasted at least that long and they wanted to minimize the additional deposit requests. Actually, it undoubtedly enhanced revenues in that larger amounts could be collected for short calls. In any event, I also have always questioned the higher rates for coin-collected calls. The stock explanation is that you are paying for the instant convenience of making a call without prior arrangement. (Someone has to pay to maintain the phone.) So apparently, you are paying for convenience, and the lack of credit risk is irrelavent. Not that I buy any of that, but that is the reasoning. Tomorrow I leave for Japan. It will be interesting to observe first-hand how they handle coin phones there. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Roger Fulton Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising Date: 8 Jan 91 21:43:44 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article <15367@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Someone please tell me that readers of the Digest base purchasing >decisions on price, service, quality, suitability for intended use, >and value and not on what some ad agency produces to brainwash the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >public. Someone please tell me that. Do you really mean to say that AT&T is not responsible for what "some ad agency" produces for them? Roger Fulton roger@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 23:46 GMT From: Michael Dorrian <0003493915@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising Paul Coen writes concerning yet another telecom advertisement targeted at the insecurity of your average caller. A recent {Los Angeles Times} tells of another radio spot... It's a typical weekday morning and you're driving to work, distractedly switching from one radio station to the next. First stop: A commercial seems to be playing. You're about to turn to another station but something sounds a bit strange... A man with an ordinary voice is saying: "So,it's three in the morning, the phone rings. It's some guy from MCI tellin' me how AT&T charges too much for long-distance, and how he can save me all kinds of money. So I tell him put it in writing. Silence. I go back to bed and then the phone rings again! Hello. This time it's a guy from AT&T. He says that when an MCI operator is talkin' to me real friendly and all, she's flippin' me the bird at the same time! She is? So by now it's 3:30, and just as I'm dozing off, the phone rings. Now I'm getting steamed. What! It's the guy from MCI again. He says, 'Sure AT&T gives instant credit, but they're getting the money from widows and orphans!" They are? So just as I'm about to slam the phone down on him, somebody knocks on my door. It's a guy from Sprint! He says AT&T is secretly shipping A-Bombs to Iraq, MCI is burning down rain forests when they're not too busy killing dolphins ... and that all the Sprint operators work in the nude. Why can't they leave me alone?" The whole inanity associated with the Big 3's attempts to differienate a commodity product caught the eye of some writers at DB Communications, who produce parodies of commercials for radio jocks. Faithful TELECOM Digest readers wouldn't have been fooled, since we all know that Sprint operators dont't really work in the nude. Unfortunately, it appears that we will continue to be subjected to these ads as the LD marketing forces-that-be have decided that since there is no advantage to continued price decreases (to build and retain market share), funding will now be applied to marketing and promotions. So buckle yourself in for the next year or so. I just got a mailer from Sprint offering me a "FREE SOLAR CALCULATOR" if I sign up for their service. It's a duplicate of a promotion I received about a year ago. Two days ago I would have viewed these mailers as a subsidy for the postal service. In light of the planned postal increase, maybe Sprint is flogging the "FREE SOLAR CALCULATOR" as part of their recycling campaign of tired old promotions. Has any reader succumbed to this tempting offer? Michael Dorrian The RTP Group, Mid-Atlantic 703-243-6000 MCI Mail 349-3915 ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Tue Jan 8 18:46:15 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Eric Tholome writes: >> ...I am looking for the frequencies used in tone mode phones. I know each >> key generates two frequencies more or less based on C D and E music notes, >> but I would like something a little bit more precise. 1209 1336 1477 1633 <- Hertz ___ ___ ___ ___ | | | | | | | | | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | A | 0697 When a key is pressed |___| |___| |___| |___| a single frequency ___ ___ ___ ___ from the low group | | | | | | | | and a single frequency | 4 | | 5 | | 6 | | B | 0770 from the high group |___| |___| |___| |___| are generated simul- ___ ___ ___ ___ taneously. Both | | | | | | | | frequencies must exist | 7 | | 8 | | 9 | | C | 0852 for the carrier equip- |___| |___| |___| |___| ment to recognize the ___ ___ ___ ___ signal. | | | | | | | | | * | | 0 | | # | | D | 0941 |___| |___| |___| |___| The frequency pairs shown above are used throughout the world where tone signalling is utilized. The tones have been carefully selected so that the processing circuits in the central office will not confuse them with other tones which may occur on the line. The time required for the central office to recognize any digit tone is 50 milliseconds with an interdigit interval of another 50 milliseconds. The term "Touch-Tone(tm)" is a trademark of AT&T. Sources: "Understanding Telephone Electronics" Texas Instruments Inc., 1983. "Data Communications: A User's Guide" Ken Sherman, Simon & Schuster, 1990. Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: blumbergkm@ea.usl.edu Subject: Catalogs and Magazines Wanted Date: 9 Jan 91 04:01:29 GMT Reply-To: blumbergkm@ea.usl.edu Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana Could some one please email me the name and how to get a copy of a good telcom type magazine ... or is there one? Help! blumbergkm@eb.usl.edu [Moderator's Note: One that comes to mind is Teleconnect Magazine, and the numerous other books and resources available from the publisher of Telecom Library in New York City. They're listed with 800 and 212 directory assistance. They even run an interesting BBS. An interesting catalog is the one put out by "Hello Direct", a telecom equipment mail order house in California. Call 1-800-HI-HELLO. There are many others: readers here who publish newsletters or newsletters and/or produce seminars will no doubt send you direct mail advising you of their things. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 00:21:02 -0500 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Bogus AT&T Charges on my Local Phone Company Bill Two months ago I got a charge from AT&T on my local bill (C&P Telephone) for a call from Newark, NJ to Oxon Hill, MD. I live in DC, was not in NJ at the time, use ITT as my LD carrier, and have nothing to do with AT&T. I called the phone number for billing inquiries on the AT&T page, and they said they would credit me; they haven't. I accidentally, ended up writing my check to C&P for the full amount, so I probably would have never remembered that I wasn't credited, but today I got another bogus charge. This time, it is from S ORG (South Orange, I suppose), NJ to a different number in Oxon Hill, MD. Does anybody have any advice on actually getting AT&T to credit me? Is there a way to get C&P Telephone to stop acting as a billing agent for AT&T? I would like to be able to just pay the C&P portion of my bill without having to write any explanations to C&P and without having them complain about anything unpaid. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Caller ID Online in Atlanta Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:19:08 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I had occasion to speak with a friend today who works for Southern Bell, concerning the implementation date for Caller ID in the Atlanta area. As you may recall from my previous postings, the Georgia PSC approved Southern Bell's tariff request for Caller ID for a one-year trial period. The ordering information will be "in the system" on January 26 (a Saturday, as it turns out), meaning that the service order people will be able to take orders for it beginning that date. I am guessing now that since the 26th is on a Saturday, they won't actually be taking any orders (practically speaking) until the following Monday. We'll see. The Southern Bell people have promised to have the service available in the Atlanta metropolitan are no later than Feb. 14. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #19 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17154; 10 Jan 91 5:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03702; 10 Jan 91 3:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26855; 10 Jan 91 2:28 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 2:17:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #20 BCC: Message-ID: <9101100217.ab31173@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 02:17:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 20 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Chris Klausmeier] Re: Secure Lines [Mike Tighe] Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [Bud Bach] Re: Interoffice Signalling [Ken Abrams] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Colin Plumb] Questions About Caller ID [Jerry Bemis] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Higdon] N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Carl Moore] Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers [David G. Cantor] Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [Peter G. Capek] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Klausmeier Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 16:43:40 CST Subject: Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? Organization: MIX Communications, Milwaukee, WI (Public access Usenet, Email) In article <15854@accuvax.nwu.edu> Eric Tholome writes: > I know each key generates two frequencies more or less based on C > D and E music notes, but I would like something a little bit more > precise. Here are the DTMF frequencies, according to _Understanding Telephone Electronics_, published by Radio Shack. HIGH GROUP FREQUENCIES (Hz) | 1209 1336 1477 1633 ----+-------------------------- 697 | 1 2 3 A | LOW GROUP 770 | 4 5 6 B FREQUENCIES | (Hz) 852 | 7 8 9 C | 941 | * 0 # D The A, B, C, and D are part of the extended keypad. The percentage error allowed in the frequency varies from country to country. In North America, +- 1.5% is acceptable for the DTMF generator, and +- 2% is acceptable for a DTMF receiver. Chris Klausmeier -- cyaa01@mixcom.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 18:11:58 -0600 From: Mike Tighe Subject: Re: Secure Lines (Joe Broniszewski) asks: > 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line and a > non-secure line? (bill) responds: > There is no such beast. When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they use > special telephones, not special telephone lines. Not true on both counts. There is a secure telephone network that is used throughout the intelligence community. Secure telephone units such as the STU-III are only rated up to a level of top secret, and that is not high enough. In fact, government regulations require that the STU-III not be used when the secure telephone system is available. However, this secure telephone network is not what was meant in the book, since these phones are not connected to the public phone system, and Stoll would not be allowed to use it anyway, nor would it be installed at LBL. I think that was just an excuse they gave Stoll so that they could call him back on their terms. (Lars Poulsen) writes: > I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for the > STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. I doubt it. First, in order to have a STU-III, one would need a security clearance, and a security clearance is usually only given to those who have a need to access classified data. In his book, Stoll admits that LBL has no classified data (page 11, paragraph 6, hardcover). Second, from the manner in which Stoll writes about the intelligence community, I doubt he has one, and his work in astronomy is not likely to require one. Third, if he did have one, he would have used the STU-III in the first place. Fourth, he would have known who to call about the problem in the first place, instead of the bozos that gave him the run-around. ------------------------------ From: Bud Bach Subject: Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago Date: 9 Jan 91 01:00:45 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >This seems to be the season for telecom disasters. Maybe it was the >Blue Moon last week or something. Following the AT&T cable cut in New >Jersey last week, all was quiet for a few days ... but Monday morning, >Sprint managed to chew up a fiber optic cable in northern Indiana >which served as a major gateway for traffic in and out of Chicago. Not all was quiet; I believe there was a fairly significant outage in East Central Florida on Thursday last week. Seems a contractor hit a line. On Saturday, the Florida Today was reporting that Lottery Machines and Bank Tellers were affected by the outage. They also stated that the emergency 911 services backup worked correctly. I don't remember the details of how big a service area was affected but I believe it included all of Brevard County which about 250,000 people in the 407 area. I know I couldn't call my wife for at least an hour (fast busy). Bud Bach c/o Motorola 708 632-6611 Cellular Infrastructure Group ...!uunet!motcid!bachww or 1501 W. Shure Drive bachww%motcid@uunet.uu.net Arlington Heights, IL 60004 ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling Date: 8 Jan 91 22:38:35 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <15840@accuvax.nwu.edu> bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) writes: >In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected >by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when >completing an interoffice call? It varies. The least I have ever seen is four. Most common arrangements are five and seven. I think most companies are probably migrating to seven since the difference in signalling time between five and seven digits is minor and being equipped for seven digits gives you more flexibility in unusual situations. >Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID? Yes, if properly equipped. I think the required feature is Line Link Pulsing. In my area, few were ever equipped this way. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:00:50 GMT In article <15552@accuvax.nwu.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: > Back in the old step-by-step telephone days, most installations only had > line-finders for 10-15% of the phones in service. My guess is that for > airfones, something less than that would be adequate. Ever had to wait > for dialtone on your regular phone? It /does/ happen occasionally. But that's because customers demand conveniently placed instruments. All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, so it makes more sense for there not to be an instrument n+1 than for it to be where someone can pick it up and not get a dial tone. If nothing else, the physical "no more available" is more readily comprehensible to passengers than bandwidth. Two possible reasons for paying the weight penalty for more instruments than channels: 1: Multiple banks (first class/economy) *if* the total number of phones in use (A+B) is a more uniform number than A or B separately. For three banks or so, with a dozen instruments each, it's hard to see this being a significant issue. 2: People picking up an airphone and keeping it with them to make occasional calls. This may be an issue, but I expect the utilisation is higher than my home telephone. (P.S. Do airphones check that you've put back the right phone before releasing the credit card? It sounds like a great way to exchange a stolen credit card for a good one. Insert piece of junk, remove handset, replace in cradle holding gold card dext door. The getaway offers problems, though.) Colin ------------------------------ From: Jerry Bemis Subject: Questions About Caller ID Organization: Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, CA Date: Wed, 9 Jan 1991 20:19:25 GMT I want detailed info on how to decode the phone number of the person calling when my phone rings. I understand this is an old subject here but I just heard you exist. Are there old articles I should read? Are there any messages which explain the system? Has the FCC written an OST on the subject? [Moderator's Note: First, you have to buy the service from telco if/when they make it available in your community. Until you get to that point there is nothing to decode because they don't send it. Once it is coming in, you can buy a decoder for less than a hundred dollars unless you really want to do the work yourself. Have there been any articles here in the past? YES. So many in fact that most questions and comments about Caller ID are now handled in our companion and supplementary mailing list, 'telecom-priv'. To be added to that list and participate in the discussion, write to the Moderator of the list: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. I do not know about the FCC, but *everyone else* has written on the topic. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 9 Jan 91 02:06:16 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Charles Buckley writes: > No it's even simpler: Michigan Bell is trying to collect marginal > costs for high usage using a rate structrure which is blind to it. > This has nothing to do with the BBS line, but instead the lines which > call it. These are also often flat-rate residential lines in the > local calling area whose subscribers derive enormous economic benefit, > since they make heavy use of a line tarriffed for only intermittent > calling. Does Michigan have language in the tariff that specifies how much a flat rate residential line can be used? Is it specified in percentage of a day, a week, or a year? Why isn't it published? California has no such specification so it would be pretty difficult to question proper use of a residential line based on usage patterns alone. Or (as I suspect) is this "intermittent calling" thing something that you made up for the purpose of this argument? Since the whole business/residential structure is totally arbitrary in the first place, what we don't need is a lot of extraneous reasoning thrown into the pot. The fact of the matter is, telcos don't need any extra revenue from local service. The RBOCs are making so much money they can't throw it away fast enough trying to fund an ever-increasing number of side businesses. Telephone calls are not a limited commodity that the telco has to stock and replenish same. Try this on for size: Residential service is for residences, and business service is for everything else. All the jawboning about who you call, what you say (or modem), how long you talk, and how many calls you make is irrelavant. Assigning significance to it in view of the overall arbitrary nature of the principle is truly the spinning of tires. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 9:42:32 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? Of the areas I have listed as having (now or later) N0X/N1X prefixes, 215, as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by removing the 1+ from toll calls within it (i.e., change from 1+7D to just 7D). I do understand (relying for now on the Digest) that 412 area, elsewhere in Pennsylvania, already has calling instructions like those in store for 215 (why?), although 412 doesn't have N0X/N1X that I know of. I am assuming that area 213 (now 213/818, with area code 310 coming later) in California used the following for toll calls before July 1973 (when it got N0X/N1X): 7D within that area area code + 7D elsewhere I had received apparently-erroneous information that 313 in Michigan was changing 1+7D to 7D; later, I corrected this to read 1 + area code + 7D for toll calls within it (and then there was a recent note in this Digest asking why use 1+313 within 313). ------------------------------ Subject: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 07:51:04 -0800 From: "David G. Cantor" The "billing insert" that I just received from GTE states: "We can block [976 numbers in California and 900 numbers within and outside the state] ... That means no one will be able to call any 900 numbers or 976 numbers from your telephone. Blocking won't stop calls made to 976 numbers outside of California." -------- Because of call-forwarding, tie-lines, private networks, foreign exchanges, etc., you can't possibly be sure where the "other end" (whatever that means when talking to a machine) of a telephone connection is. For example, a call placed through a long-distance service to an area code within California could easily "terminate" in Nevada or Oregon (or New York, for that matter) depending upon how the long-distance service sets these things up (and perhaps private parties with tie-lines, etc). So, how does GTE know that a 976 number is "outside of California"? and why can't GTE simply block ALL 976 numbers (I believe that the following are all of the valid possiblities from this area: Numbers of the form 976-XXXX, 1XXX-976-XXX, and 10XXX1XXX-976-XXX)? David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu [Moderator's Note: It probably does not matter where the physical termination is. All that matters is where they drop it (and someone else picks it up), or where they bill it out to. IBT now blocks all calls to anything-976 not within 312, whether you want them to or not. They do blocking to 312-976 and 900-xxx on request, and *no* variations in dialing, i.e. 10xxx-1-312-976-xxxx, etc get past the 976 or 900 blockade, period. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 12:29:47 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service What are the legal restrictions, if any, on an Inter-Exchange Carrier providing service within a LATA, normally the province of a Local Exchange Carrier? When I try to force a call via AT&T, for example to a number which is near where I'm calling from, I get a message about the call not being able to be completed. (I tried this by dialing 10288-0-914-762-xxxx). I ask because if there is in fact some legal restriction, what effect does it have on completing 800 calls which happen to originate in the same LATA as the 800 number terminates? (Same question could be asked for 900 numbers..) Part of what got me thinking about this was musing about the possibility of a "call by name" service, which would work similarly to 800/900 in that the dialed number would be translated by the IEC to a local "called" number. Since (at least) AT&T already provides the ability to vary the translation of dialed number to called number based on things like time of day, loading, and the calling number, it seems like it would be only a small matter of programming to provide the ability to let a person vary the translation dynamically. Thus, if I subscribed to such a service, I could publish my number as, say, 600-456-1234, for incoming calls. (I'll sidestep the billing issue for the moment.) Then, by dialing 500-456-1234-password, I could change the translation of the 600 number to be the phone I was calling from. Or with a slightly more complicated protocol, provide a "null" translation for use when I was not reachable. I've described this above using two new area codes (500 and 600) for the purpose, but other implementations are of course possible and may be easier. I wonder if there's a value for such a service, and whether anyone sees any technical feasibility problems with it. It seems like something which any of the IECs could easily offer (and might be more generally useful than personal 800 numbers. Peter Capek [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA uses 'area code' 700 for this purpose. Dial 700 + number in your own area code to make a local call billed via Telecom*USA instead of Illinois Bell. Don't ask me how they legally get away with it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #20 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06744; 11 Jan 91 0:20 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27709; 10 Jan 91 22:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31164; 10 Jan 91 21:40 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:12:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #21 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102112.ab25887@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:12:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Parsons] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Carl Wright] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Andy Jacobson] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Mike Godwin] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Scott Coleman] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:20:06 mst From: John Parsons Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes... > >Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and > ...... > 2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. > [Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have > been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to > make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. > Then what would you do?.... Throw out the small-minded city council, that's what! (I'll resist flaming about the morality of forcing licenses *at all* upon people who are engaged in entirely voluntary association.) [Our Moderator continues... > Their thinking was people with these instruments at home were apparently > working out of their home in a business-related activity. PAT] And what other instruments would make it "apparent" that a person is running a business in their home? A fax? Photocopier? Typewriter? All these were once "business-only" items. What irks me is how willing we are in this "free" country to hand over our lives to two-bit politicians. Harrumph! John Parsons [Moderator's Note: To some writers today, I'll have plenty to say. To your post, which I specifically moved to the head of the queue, I can add only one word: Amen! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 04:45:06 GMT If the BOCs charged forty cents per hour it would be a good deal. The following is an excerpted table from , Decmber 31, 1990, comparing the cost per minute of different utility services. Utility service Cost per minute of use Residential phone service $0.03152 Residential electric service $0.001163 TV with cable service and VCR $0.0037 (includes power) It sounds like there is still alot of opportunity to lower the cost of communications. The use of IRS rules to determine whether a BBS is a business may be helpful, but the point should be whether the carrier is being compensated for its services fairly. Re: the "three years of five" rule from the IRS, I believe your accountant will tell you that it is only one of more than twelve alternative guidelines used to determining when a business is treated as a hobby, not when a hobby becomes a business. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 23:16 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates >Moderator's Note: Well I can tell you that when unlimited local >service was eliminated here in Chicago a few years ago, it was in part >because of the tremendous hogs modem users were making of themselves. >We had a variety of umlimited calling plans here for set monthly >rates. Understandably telco wanted to make some money on the deal. >Some modem users were going through more than ten thousand 'message >units' per month on unlimited calling residential service plans, >paying $20-30 per month! Well Pat, in 1981, I had call-pak unlimited, which I believe was the least of the unmeasured rate service classes available from Ill Bell Telco. In Evanston, it cost $42 and some change for that and POTS. I never used a modem or anything else on the phone except my voice, and yes, I had one month where I ran up over 10,000 message units. I made prodigous use of the phone, and I had a lot of friends in Waucaunda, Addison and Harvey (and a few calls to Sherman Skulnick :-D). That was the whole point of unlimited service. The phone company priced it so high that you really needed to ring up a couple thousand units before it paid for itself. A. Jacobson or [Moderator's Note: It is hard for me to remember the exact rates I was paying in 1981, but as I recall I had what was known as 'extended unlimited', meaning I got parts of 815 and *all* of 312. 'Unlimited service' -- as opposed to 'extended unlimited' -- got parts of 815 and most of 312, but there were a couple of coin-rated places in the far western area. There was another unlimited service which extended 28 miles in any direction from downtown Chicago. All the unlimited plans used downtown Chicago as their starting point, and they extended outward in circles. Suburban people living near the circle's edge got shafted. I was on the modem * a lot * in those days, running my two BBSs and calling others, etc. The break-even point between measured and the least comprehensive 'umlimited' plan was at 450 'units' per month. Over 450 units, you saved money and telco kept making money. Where telco started losing out was somewhere around 2000-3000 units. But assuredly not at 10,000 + units per month! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 17:17:55 GMT The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of >not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, >suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory >(312-731-1100) and similar? These are most often one or two person >operations, run by people who enjoy what they are doing and who are >trying to serve the community out of goodwill. They pay business rates >for their service, and it comes from their own pocket and/or whatever >trivial donations people send them. What rates would you have them >pay? Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to >trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill? >What about the TTY-to-voice translators serving deaf people? PAT] One difference between BBSs and the other kinds of public-spirited operations you mention is that BBSs are a means of association as well as of communication. This implicates an additional Constitutional interest. The other services you mention do not -- for the most part -- create or constitute virtual communities. I have no trouble with Dial-A-Foobar services or counseling services paying business rates. Some kinds of services may, by virtue of government approval or subsidy, qualify for special exemptions to the business rate. The fact is that business rates for BBSs have the potential to drastically limit the formation of online virtual communities. In contrast, business rates don't have a corresponding effect on rape crisis centers, et al. The extra cost of paying business rates is far more often the threshold consideration when one decides to establish or maintain a BBS than it is when qone is deciding to establish a rape-crisis center. I think virtual communities should be encouraged, and I despair at contemplating a world in which such communities are operated only by rich individuals, corporations, or RBOCs. In answer to your last question, Pat: No, I don't think business rates should be charged for TTY-voice translators for deaf people. Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 mnemonic@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation [Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual community is what you find important, it should be okay, and encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. And since the Compuserve 'CB Simulator' has hangers-on who I suspect do not logoff once in an entire weekend, and there have been entire wedding ceremonies on-line, and the users even come together for parties now and then, we'd have to say they have a virtual community also. So, Compuserve now gets residential rates, at least for the CB/Compusex mainframes, okay? Why not? Because they charge $12 per hour and the local sysop charges $10 per year if users can afford it? Should the 'encouragement of virtual communities' be the key? *Whose* community? Again I ask, why are BBS sysops different? PAT] ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 18:51:38 GMT Aimee Tweedie writes: >A BBS is not a business; it is a hobby that involves a great deal of >dedication, both financial and personal. So why should sysops have to >take it on the chin for providing a free forum for other people to >communicate with each other and express their own opinions at the >sysop's expense? Pat responds: >[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of >not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, >suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory >(312-731-1100) and similar? Those other kinds of services you mention are *not* hobbies. Practically all BBSs *are*. >Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to >trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill? Why do you think BBS sysops are so special that they should be singled out among all other hobbyists for higher phone rates? Why can't we pay the same phone rates as everyone else who has a hobby? Tell me, do you feel that people who dial out using modems should be charged business rates? What about point system(*) operators? After all, they're doing the exact same thing the sysop is doing: using a modem and computer to engage in electronic communication using the phone lines. Each uses precisely the same amount of phone company resources, so why should they not pay the same rates? In case anyone was wondering, yes, I am a BBS sysop. No, I do not charge any access fees, nor do I accept donations. If Illinois Bell decided to start charging me business rates, I would be forced to shut it down. For those who didn't know: (*) A point system is a sort of mini-BBS which has only one user, the sysop. A regular BBS (the "point boss") will bundle up new messages. Then the point system's software calls the BBS, downloads the new messages, and uploads any messages which the point operator has entered since the last exchange. A point system does everything (WRT the phone lines) as a full BBS does, with the sole exception of having dial-in users. Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: I do not think that *any* telephone user should be charged business rates based on the media used. Voice, fax or computer should all be treated alike *for casual, non-committed* use of the phone. If 'business' rates are to be charged, they should be charged to users who indicate the service is for business use, i.e. directory listings using a 'business-like' name or phrase ** and to users who specifically solicit the public to call them **. Maybe telco should make new subscribers answer this question: "Will you solicit the public to call this telephone number through other than ordinary residential directory listings or occassional advertising of a personal nature?" If the answer is yes, then a 'non-personal-use' rate would apply; a rate we now call 'business service'. To answer your question 'why should BBS sysops be singled out for higher rates instead of paying what other people pay for their hobbies', the answer is that your hobby by definition involves heavy use of the telephone, and the solicitation of the public to call your telephone. Stamp collectors, basket weavers and gourmet cooks are also hobbyists. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 22:53:31 GMT Pat, I run a BBS from my bedroom. It's a Usenet node, and I'm dialled into it right now posting this article. It's not a 16-line chat system, or a for pay BBS, or anything. It's just a system I've set up to let my friends get access to Usenet. That phone line is in use a small fraction of the day ... mostly for my comp.dcom.telecom feed. Why should I pay business rates? If BBSes are such a heavy load on the system why was Southwestern Bell running the biggest BBS in Houston, SourceLine, until they decided that you couldn't run a BBS for profit? (and, I might add, it's apparent to most observors that SWBell decided to crack down on BBSes to get rid of competition in advance before putting SourceLine up ... I wonder what these other phone campanies have waiting in the wings?) As for measured rates, the marginal cost of a phone call is tiny. Why should that marginal cost become the dominant part of cost recovery? Particularly when SWBell's own advertisements and actions encourage more calls? What do you get in the envelope with *your* bill? I got a note saying they'd been overcharging and a credit on my bill. (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: I don't think you should pay business rates, and unless you go to telco on your knees and beg, it is doubtful you ever will pay business rates, provided your operation is what you say it is. I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised. You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other strangers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 91 17:07:25 GMT From: John Cowan Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [much stuff about measured vs. unmeasured service deleted] Here in New York City, we have universal measured service. There are no flat-rate lines available at any price. However, modem users don't seem to suffer that much. Why? There are two main classes of service available. One is called "timed service" and is the classic type of measured service. This one costs a few bucks a month in overhead, and you then pay for all intra-LATA calls in a time- and distance-sensitive way. You are charged more for the first minute of each call. However, this option is used only by people who don't make many calls and don't have many $$$. The far more common option is "untimed service". With this service, calls within one's local calling area (there are seven such within the LATA) are counted but not timed. You pay a per-call charge of about $0.10 (less the usual kinds of evening and night discounts), no matter how long the call lasts. For New York City, the local calling area is the whole city; the other calling areas in the LATA are eastern and western Long Island and various upstate counties. Untimed service is available only to residential customers. BBSes are (implicitly) treated as residential by New York Telephone; at least, I have not heard of any problems for NYC sysops. The difference in the base monthly rate between timed and untimed service is only a few dollars; both include a calling allowance of $4. Is this compromise in use elsewhere? Should it be? [Moderator's Note: Good question. Is there any single method of charging for phone service and use which everyone would be happy with? I'd personally like to see an intermediate category of rates applied to lines used in a non-residence/not-really-business environment. The really poor (financially) public services could use a break also. When you note that The Catholic Charities of Chicago has a phone bill of several *thousand* dollars per month, and that having that trimmed by even a couple thousand dollars per month through a special rate would mean a dozen more homeless people could stay off the street at night ... It seems obvious that we need new definitions for the types of service used these days. Maybe 'residence' and 'business' are no longer adequate rate categories. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #21 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07740; 11 Jan 91 1:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20065; 10 Jan 91 23:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27709; 10 Jan 91 22:46 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:22:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #22 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102222.ab00322@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:21:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Toby Nixon] Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [John R. Levine] Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea [Nigel Allen] Where Can I Sell My Old Dimension? [Hugh D. Meier] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" [Sean Williams] Source of Dial-less Phones [Paul Schleck] D4 Channel Banks [William Yurcik] Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [Bill Cerny] Eight-Digit Phone Numbers [Lee Bertagnolli] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Date: 10 Jan 91 16:33:12 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA I just got back from a one-day trip to Washington DC. Both the trip up and the return were on one of Eastern's newly-upgraded 757s, with the huge first class cabin. Every seat in First Class has an Airfone imbedded right in the back of the seat immediately in front (the front row seats have the phone mounted on the bulkhead in front of them). As it turned out, we were required by an ATC computer outage to hold on the taxiway at National Airport for about 45 minutes. Being the nice husband that I am, I decided to call my wife and tell her that I'd be late for dinner. Quite a few other folks decided to place calls, too. Unlike the older Airfones with sort of a curved handset and little stubby antenna (cordless), these built-into-the-seat phones are rectanglar, and attach to the seatback by a cord that is obviously on a reel of some kind inside the seat. To release the phone from the seat, you press a credit card into a little vertical slot. All this does is depress a little mechanical hook, and the phone pops out. Several folks were initially confused by this, assuming that the slot in the seat was supposed to read their card, and got frustrated that the card wouldn't go all the way in. The flight attendants had clearly had to explain this to folks before, since they handled it nicely. The magnetic stripe reader is built into the side of the handset. Simply swipe the card through it. It DTMFs your card number to the control unit, apparently, since you can hear the tones in the background; you can go ahead and put the card back in your pocket (it doesn't retain the card like the older systems). I notice some folks having problems getting their cards to read, apparently because they were swiping them through too slowly. It doesn't say on the phone to do it FAST, but you need to. After reading your card and sending the info to the central controller, an awful digitized voice says "Thank you for using Airfone. Please wait for the dial tone." The first time I tried the call, I got the dial tone almost immediately; the second time (when a few other people were using phones), I had to wait a couple of minutes. When you get the dial tone, you punch in the number you're calling. The voice then says "Now processing your call; please wait." After a period of time (which also varied from a few seconds to a minute), the voice comes back on and reads you the number you dialed; I assume this happens while it is delivering the number to the PSTN, because almost immediately thereafter you start hearing ringbacks. On my first call, I got our answering machine. I used the telephone keypad to command the machine to play messages and a couple of other things, and it seemed to work fine (good news, since this means I could also use it to check voicemail at the office). I left a brief message, and hung up. This call was from the ground at National Airport. My second call was from the air, about 10 minutes outside of Atlanta airport. This time I got my wife on the phone. I had to TELL her that I was still on the plane; she told me that, except for a slight bit of background noise (wind noise, she said), the line was as clear as any payphone in the Atlanta airport. Anyway, that's my experience with the new Airfone system. It was very nice to be able to use my corporate AT&T Card instead of my American Express (as I'd had to do with Airfone before), because that way _I_ don't see the bill and _I_ don't have to account for it on an expense report! Nevertheless, it was also nice to read (on the instruction card) that they'd reduced the rates to $2 setup plus $2 per minute; really not bad at all. In article <15918@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) writes: > All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, so it makes more > sense for there not to be an instrument n+1 than for it to be where > someone can pick it up and not get a dial tone. If nothing else, the > physical "no more available" is more readily comprehensible to > passengers than bandwidth. This doesn't happen with the new system! You really do end up sitting there with the instrument on your ear, listening to dead silence. It would have been nice if there had been some repeated message to let you know that it hadn't gone dead. I did notice a couple of people give up in frustration; my guess was that they didn't realize they were having to condend with other passengers for circuits. It would be nice if the message explained the situation ( "all circuits now in use; please hold until a circuit is available" ). > (P.S. Do airphones check that you've put back the right phone before > releasing the credit card? It sounds like a great way to exchange a > stolen credit card for a good one. Insert piece of junk, remove > handset, replace in cradle holding gold card dext door. The getaway > offers problems, though.) The older Airfones would not release the card if you tried to put the wrong phone back in a cradle. Your card was locked in place to make sure you didn't walk off with the phone, but at the same time your card was protected because nobody else could get to it unless they returned the right handset. Of course, this isn't an issue with the new system. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 10 Jan 91 13:59:38 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <15918@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >But that's because customers demand conveniently placed instruments. >All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, ... I've been on planes with one or two phones in the front and another in the back, but the real telephonic traffic jams occur on the BOS - LGA - DCA shuttles. On those planes, there is a phone in the back of every middle seat in every row (except presumably the last.) These phones are lightweight plastic handsets with a retracting cord. You release the phone from the seat by sticking your card into a slot that flips a simple mechanical latch, then run your card through a slot that runs the length of the handset. The reception is a little better than on the cordless model, but the handset is so light and crummy that it's hard to press the earpiece to your ear firmly enough to block out all of the background noise. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 2:23:43 EST I saw the following ad in a Toronto newspaper, and I thought it might interest anyone who is tired of shovelling snow. Engineering Challenges in Papua New Guinea The Post and Telecommunication Corporation of Papua New Guinea needs qualified engineers to work on the National Five Year Plan to rebuild the Analogue Network into a Modern Digital Network. We need qualified engineers who can work on the following * Digital Transmission Radio - (VHF, UHF, and BHF) * Digital Switching - Particularly with regard to Bell System 12. [Note from NDA: I think this really means Alcatel's (formerly ITT's) System 12.] * Power Electronics - (UPS) * Data Transmission Customers Equipment and network design The skills you need are: Project Management, Systems Design and Specification, Advanced Maintenance Skills (Installation and Commissioning). In particular, we are looking for engineers who possess management experience and can demonstrate a proven rack record in this area. Age is no barrier - we are looking for high achievers with relevant experience. For further information contact Mrs. Doreen Brew on + (675) 274 172 or fax + (675) 274 628. Please send resume to: Mrs. D. Brew, C/Knightway House, 20 Soho Square, London W1A 1DS, United Kingdom. [Note from NDA: It's interesting that the PNG Post and Telecommunication Corp. is hiring people itself, rather than relying on the international consulting arm of a telephone company, such as Bell Canada International.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 15:41:28 EST From: "Hugh D. Meier" Subject: Where Can I Sell My Old Dimension? I have a Dimension 2000 (FP8) that I want to get rid of. (I also have a System 75). I am interested in selling the whole thing, or just the cards, or just the cabinets, etc. Has anyone any experience doing this? I think Farmstead and the likes would be interested, but do they come and dismantle and take away? Are there any other companies that you know of? I will forward a summary of replies that come directly to me: HUGH@BROWNVM.brown.edu Thanks! Hugh Meier ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Wed Jan 9 15:51:14 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Joe Francis writes: | I find slamming annoying and deceitful. How often does this happen? | This happened to me in Boston under New England Tel. I was using | AT&T and suddenly received an MCI bill. I refused to pay it and | told them to switch [me] back to AT&T. I had just the opposite happen to me. When my mother and I moved into our new house we were assigned to AT&T as our primary carrier. We received a ballot sent to us by our local phone company, United Telephone of Pennsylvania. We selected MCI from the ballot and returned it to the phone company. Several weeks passed, and we began receiving mail from MCI thanking us for choosing them as our new carrier. However, we still received bills from AT&T, and when we called the 1-700-555-4141 verification number we heard an AT&T recording. We contacted MCI, and their records showed us as being MCI subscribers. The MCI representative told me that she would contact United Telephone the next day about the problem. I received a message on my voicemail the next afternoon from my MCI representative. She told me that United Telephone was very rude to her, and that United told her that *I* would have to call them. (This was obviously United's attempt to make sure I really had selected MCI.) I called United immediately, and asked them why they were rude to my MCI representative. The man on the phone apologized to me, and said that their records showed that I *had* been connected to MCI for several weeks. He said that there must have been a programming error and he contacted repair service about the problem. I was on MCI the next day. There were contradictions in what each company told me, but everything worked out as planned in the end. But this raises a few questions: 1) When I chose MCI on the ballot, was I actually connected? 2) If I was, did AT&T then tell United I changed my mind and I should be reconnected to AT&T? 3) Was there really a programming error, or was United just trying to protect me? Interestingly enough, a few days after we were connected to MCI, AT&T began calling my house. They were trying to get us back, and they asked why we left. According to my mother, they were quite forceful at times, but I guess that's just how salespeople can be sometimes. I have nothing at all against AT&T. As you can see, I use AT&T Mail as my primary connection to the electronic information world, and I happily use AT&T's new Voicemark(sm) Messaging service, although MCI has a comparable messaging system now available. Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 18:25:59 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Source of Dial-less Phones Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu Saw some made-for-TV movie the other night about a husband and wife CIA team. The most noticable prop at the "headquarters" were red and blue phones without dials. These would be nice to have as extension phones (no dials for kiddies to mess with) as well as interesting props (fool your neighbors into thinking you are a spook!). Anyone know a good source? I assume they are a dime a dozen? Please reply to this group or E-mail. Thanks. Paul W. Schleck pschleck@alf.unomaha.edu Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 8 Jan 1991 16:32:47 EST From: William Yurcik Subject: D4 Channel Banks I am looking for help with the following questions: (1) I am looking for any documents that give specifications for D4 Channel Banks. (2) What vendors sell D4 channel banks? Thank you in advance for your help. You can post to the list or respond to me directly using byurcik@mitre.org. [Any opinions are my own and not representative of my employer.] William ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA Date: 9 Jan 91 20:26:43 PST (Wed) From: Bill Cerny This fiber cut affected a private line at a client's site. The IEC is Williams Telecom; but I don't know which company owns this particular fiber cable: Sprint or WilTel. The "treaty" between IEC's that you alluded to is called a protection agreement, and has become commonplace in the long distance industry. When two IEC's networks pass through a common point, they arrange some type of interconnection to provide capacity (multiples of DS-3) to the other in the event of an outage on the other carrier's network. It's "I'll scratch your back..." kind of business, and is being invoked on an increasing frequency as carriers rely more heavily on fiber, and backhoes continue to proliferate. ;-) I'm not sure how "automatic" these protection agreements are though. I inferred from Monday's outage that even in extremis, there's a bit of bureaucracy involved in activating the protection route(s). Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: Lee Bertagnolli Subject: Eight-Digit Phone Numbers Date: 10 Jan 91 05:06:26 GMT Reply-To: Lee Bertagnolli Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois I work for a company that handles payments for some of the various Ameritech companies. One of my recent charges has been to develop a mechanized agent collection system on PC's. The object is to put a PC at the agent's office devoted to the task of collecting phone bills. Said PC will be equipped with an OCR scanner, capable of reading the scan line at the top of the payment stub. In setting up the scanners and software, I have noticed that on the newer Illinois and Indiana Bell payment stubs that there are *four* digits for the prefix rather than three. Although on the samples I have seen (including my own Illinois Bell phone bill) the lead digit has been a zero, I do not believe that this is a filler digit, but has been put there for expansion purposes. Would anyone care to comment on this? Lee Bertagnolli Voice: (217) 529-0359 West Lake Computers Data: (217) 529-0261 34 Hazel Lane UCP: {uunet}!pallas!lbert359 Springfield, Illinois 62703 Internet: lbert359@athenanet.com [Moderator's Note: I think the intention is to use that as an area code indication for billing purposes, i.e. 2=312, 5=815, 7=217, 8=708, 9=309, 1=618, etc. I'm not positive. There was some discussion awhile back about how (once 708 kicked in) 'they now have more than one ending in 8 ... and what adjustments had to be made in the software.' Ameritech would not make such a drastic change (four digit prefixes) without *lots* of consultation with other telcos, etc. I'm sure it would be common news if it were planned. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #22 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09278; 11 Jan 91 2:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16279; 11 Jan 91 0:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20065; 10 Jan 91 23:51 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:55:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #23 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102255.ab19505@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:55:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 23 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Michael C Nelson] Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Colum Mylod] Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Steve Forrette] Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Jeff Wasilko] ISDN to DDN, How? [battle@umbc3.umbc.edu] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Jon Sreekanth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 07:13:22 EST From: Michael C Nelson Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I am posting this for soemone who has no posting capabilities, so please reply to him, not to me. M. Nelson In article <15886@accuvax.nwu.eokdu>, hm@fwi.uva.nl writes: > In article <15809@accuvax.nwu.edu> Ralph Moonen writes: > [about he Dutch phone system] 002 - speaking clock 003 - weather forecast > Not anymore. They moved to 06-8002 and 06-8003 on December 1st, 1990. > They still cost 1 unit, i.e. Dfl 0.15 (about US$ 0.08) per call. > When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an > ``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international > calls. Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant? Is > this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what? Well, you are right of course, but the old numbers still work. They have not yet been disconnected. BTW, the alternative routing to these services still work for some old 00x services. This works as follows: Dial for 00x: 0yz01-1xx where yz = the two digits identifying the Telecom District. So, to call 008 in the place Leeuwarden, you would call 05101-188. This works for all Telecom districts, except Utrecht. (ID: 34) > >001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the > > 06-041x range. > Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. Like a regular > non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. True, but it will become toll-free in the near future. (Also from a payphone.) (Replies should go to:) Ralph Moonen rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com (+31) 2155-24356 ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Date: 10 Jan 91 13:55:14 GMT Reply-To: Colum Mylod Organization: Oracle Europe In article <15886@accuvax.nwu.edu> hansm@cs.kun.nl writes in response to the article from <15809@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an >``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international >calls. Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant? Is >this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what? It's an EC-recommendation. The idea is to try to standardize some codes across Europe. The European PTTs are not obliged to standardize on 00 for IDD, but as most countries use 00 already, some of the others are changing. The Dutch PTT will eventually, once current 00 users are moved. Telecom Eireann use 16 for IDD but 00 now also works in the Dublin area, though they haven't announced it. >>001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the >> 06-041x range. >Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. 0011 was the emergency number only in the Brabant and Gelderland provinces. This was a test to see if the one uniform number would be an improvement on the myriad collection of numbers that were in use and which few people knew in their own area, and no-one knew outside their own area. It was considered a success, so they opted for a national simple number, and 0611 was it. However the EC has decided on 112 for a standard emergency number, which would be inconvient in Holland as local numbers begin with "1". > Like a regular non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. And what a shame this is. Profit made from misery. It's free in most countries, so saving someone rummaging in pockets for a coin to call from public phones. The PTT's excuse is charging reduces false calls. And can I just say that all Amsterdam numbers (+31-20 code) will be seven-digit from 1 March 1991. Prepend 6 to six-digit numbers beginning with "2". Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO [Moderator's Note: Emergency calls (911 in the USA) are *not* free. Usually the charge is automatically reversed to the receiver of the call, i.e. the emergency agency, much like an 800 call, but without the additional digits dialed. *Someone* always pays for 911 calls: telco does not handle them for free. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 01:36:24 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers Thanks a lot for the information in RoamingAmerica. I look forward to trying out some of the codes the next time I'm out-of-state. The odd thing is, there hasn't been a peep from Cellular One that this new service exists or is available. I ran into it completely by accident. But they did know about it when I called. You'd think that there would have been some mention in the newsletter, wouldn't you? ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 00:49:40 EST Subject: RE: New Roaming System for A Carriers RoamingAmerica isn't new by any means. The network was fairly large when I still worked at Cellular One here in Rochester. In April of last year, I wrote a fairly in-depth of the workings of RoamingAmerica. It follows a few answers: Steve Forrette wrote: > - There's currently a bug in the system (at least in San Francisco), >in that the referral will take precedence over any call forwarding or >no-answer transfer you have enabled. Cellular One admitted that this It really isn't a bug. It stems from the switches different classes of service. When RoamingAmerica fowards your number to the trunk that will play the announcement describing how to reach you, it will change your call forwarding to forward to the correct trunk. If you had call forwarding set, it's current state is saved, and then restored after RoamingAmerica is cancelled. If the switch has multiple call-forwarding options, (such as forward on busy/no-answer and immediate forward), RomaingAmerica makes the change to the class that has higher precedence. >cellphone along. Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B" >carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you >place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off >(except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it >working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No >Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( ) Check out the *300 *310 *320 star codes in my article. As long as your cellular company has chose to implement them, they should work. If they haven't, call 'em up and scream at em (-;. If all else fails, you can be removed from the Roaming America database by calling either: 1. Your home cellular company (they should have a 800-number for Roaming America trouble calls). 2. The foreign cellular company. Either company should be able to remove you from the RoamingAmerica database temporarily or permanently if the *3x0 codes don't work. Jeff | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |INTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| |'claimer: I speak only for myself. Opinions expressed are NOT those of RIT.| Here is a description of RoamingAmerica, the nationwide roaming system that is used by the majority of the non-wireline carriers. ................ APPEX Corporation's RoamingAmerica System has been operating successfully in over ten cities for several months. The carriers operating in these markets have been offering RoamingAmerica to their entire subscriber base. More than a dozen markets are scheduled to receive RoamingAmerica service in the next couple of months. {The number of participating cites is much higher now.} RoamingAmerica provides both Transparent Call Forwarding (TCF) and Caller Notification services. Transparent Call Forwarding enables a subscriber to receive incoming calls while roaming in a foreign area by conditionally transferring these calls from the subscriber's home switch to the serving Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA). Caller Notification allows a roamer to have the incoming call conditionally transferred to a voice announcement on the home switch. The announcement tells the calling party what city the roamer is in and provides instructions (including long distance phone number for the foreign switch's roamer access port) for calling the roamer on the foreign system. RoamingAmerica provides several methods by which subscribers can activate RoamingAmerica services. Carriers can elect to have their subscribers activate the system by placing a call from a foreign market. Alternatively, carriers can elect to have subscribers explicitly activate and deactivate the system by dialing 'star' codes. It is even possible to combine these methods so that a subscriber is activated by placing a call, and yet can explicitly deactivate or change service by dialing a star code. RoamingAmerica is very flexible in this respect, and can be easily customized to fit a carrier's specific needs. The start codes that RoamingAmerica uses are: *31: Activate TCF *310: Deactivate TCF *32: Activate CN *320: Deactivate CN *300: Deactivate All RoamingAmerica Service To implement the above features, RoamingAmerica uses the stream of call set-up data from the PRV port {PRV stands for Positive Roamer Verification, the system that the majority of the non-wireline carriers use for subscriber validation.} on the serving cellular switch to initiate the automatic roamer registration and activate the roamer's call transfer. On switches that provide the dialed digits as part of this information, the star codes can be detected in this manner. For switches that do not provide the dialed digits to the PRV system, APPEX has developed the APPEX Voice Response System (AVRS), which enables explicit activation and deactivation of RoamingAmerica services. The AVRS also provides the voice storage and retrieval system for caller notification. When RoamingAmerica detects that a subscriber is requesting activation of RoamingAmerica service, the system checks the NPA/NXX of the roamer's phone to identify the roamer's home switch. It determines if the home system is a RoamingAmerica participant, and if the home system's subscribers are to receive RoamingAmerica service in this particular foreign market. Last of all, it determines what type of service the subscriber has chosen to receive. In parallel with the above activity, APPEX's PRV system performs a check of the APPEX National Negative file and performs a positive validation check on the subscriber. If the subscriber has not been validated on the switch within 24 hours, an inquiry is performed on the home switch to verify that he is active and has good credit. In addition, PRV performs a MIN/ESN mismatch check to detect fraudulent cellular phones. If any of these validation procedures fail, the subscriber's RoamingAmerica service is immediately aborted and deactivated. Meanwhile, if the subscriber has chosen to activate transparent call forwarding, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the serving switch directing it to assign a temporary number to the roamer and insert this number into the the serving switch's database. The temporary number is assigned from a block of temporary numbers that have been reserved on the switch to serve roamers. When RoamingAmerica receives confirmation that the serving switch has assigned the temporary number to the roamer, it sends a command to the roamer's home switch directing it to deactivate any existing call forwarding and to establish a conditional call forwarding {forward on no-answer/busy} to the temporary number assigned by the foreign switch. If the subscriber has chosen to activate caller notification, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the home switch directing it to conditionally transfer the subscriber to a contrived phone number that consists of two parts: the routing prefix and the switch code identifier. The routing code is common to all numbers used in caller notification, whereas the switch code varies depending on the foreign market in which the subscriber is currently located. When an incoming call is received, it is transferred to this number. The routing prefix directs the switch to route this call to the trunk group that connects the switch to the AVRS, and outpulse the switch code identifier portion of the number. The switch code identifier tells the AVRS which message to play back to the calling party. If a subscriber does not explicitly deactivate the system as described above, RoamingAmerica will deactivate his service X hours after his most recent call was placed form the foreign market. This time span is referred to as the cancellation time, and can be set on a per carrier basis. When a roamer registers successfully on RoamingAmerica in a particular serving system, he stays registered and continues to receive incoming calls that are forwarded to his temporary number until one of the following events occur: 1. The roamer fails to place a call at least once during the cancellation time interval. 2. The RoamingAmerica operations staff manually deactivates the roamer. 3. The roamer dials one of the deactivation codes in any system. Deactivation will only occur from his home system if the home system provides an AVRS system. 4. The roamer goes to another foreign system and places a call, thereby registering in the new foreign system (and terminating his registration in the previous foreign system), or 5. The roamer fails any PRV validation check on any roamer call he places while active on RoamingAmerica. Whenever RoamingAmerica is deactivated, the subscriber's originally call forwarding and call transfer settings are retrieved from the system's internal database, and restored on the home switch. RoamingAmerica consists of application software that runs in a VAX/VMS environment and uses the existing APPEX national network {packet-switched} for communicating to switches across the country. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 16:24:57 EST From: Rick Subject: ISDN to DDN, How? Does any one know of any equipment which will allow an ISDN connection to the DDN (Defense Data Network) either X.25 or TCP/IP? Thanks much, Rick ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 10 Jan 91 08:55:37 In article <15852@accuvax.nwu.edu> mitel!Software!meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: Some fast operators are specified to work up to 20 pps. I have a Uniden phone that I bought around 1986, and it has a three position switch : DTMF, 10pps pulse, 20pps pulse. I've not had any problems using 20pps in CA and MA (but in well populated suburban areas). Who cares about dial pulsing any more anyway? I understand it's still widely used outside North America. On this topic, why do many voice mail and other phone operated services insist on users having DTMF phones ? Is it really hard to detect pulse mode digits? I can see that the low numbers might be a problem, (can't distinguish it from a noise pulse), but if one saw five to ten regularly spaced pulses, isn't that adequate for recognition? I've seen AT&T answering machines which say on the box that they work with pulse phones (at the remote end, for checking one's messages). I haven't played with them. Does anyone know how they work, or how reliable the detection is ? Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com [Moderator's Note: The old Unitel (United Airlines) internal phone network was able to recognize pulse dialing on the in-dial to their call-extender here several years ago. Don't ask me how they did it. I did note at the time that tone signals were more reliable. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #23 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09323; 11 Jan 91 2:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16279; 11 Jan 91 0:59 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae20065; 10 Jan 91 23:51 CST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 23:46:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #24 BCC: Message-ID: <9101102346.ab17500@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jan 91 23:46:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Louis Linneweh] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John R. Levine] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Jim Rees] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Lars Poulsen] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Todd Inch] Re: What are Secure Lines? [dag@cup.portal.com] Calls To and From Japan [David Gast] TEHO in UK [Benny Lebovits] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10-JAN-1991 05:19:09.86 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports Hi- In article <15877@accuvax.nwu.edu>, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: When roaming in a foreign system: > ...[S]omeone has to dial into the roamer port, then > enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are > calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, > whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point > the secondary dialtone is provided. > Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby > the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the > supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered? I'm by no means an expert on DID, but I can tell you that there WERE many ports that did NOT return supervision, although few, if any, remain. For example, Cell One/San Francisco, until maybe mid-July this summer (1990) did NOT return supervision until the called mobile party answered. When they changed this, I called them to find out why, and they told me: "Oh, so customers can press the "#" button down if they make a mistake when dialing in the number. Otherwise, when you call with a Calling Card, you will be disconnected." Quite true, but I don't think this is the reason. I recall discussion on the Digest about this in perhaps late-1987 to early-1988. From what I gathered, AT&T used to allow this sort of signalling to go through. IE, the talk path would be open BOTH ways, even before supervision was returned. Thus, a caller calling a roam port (or anything else, like an automated PBX attendant which accepted Touch Tones), would hear the dial tone, AND be able to Touch Tone in the desired mobile number. When the mobile answered, supervision was returned, a billing for the call commenced. If the mobile was unavailable, then no supervision would be returned, and the caller would not be billed for the call to the roam port. However, according to the postings (and this is quite hazy, so please DO correct me here), AT&T installed a new system in their 4ESS(?) toll-switches, which didn't allow for the CALLED party (ie, the roam port) to hear the calling party (ie, the person entering the touch tones) UNTIL supervision was returned. That is so say, TWO-way conversations commenced AFTER supervision, not before, as had been the case. You could still hear the party you were calling, but they couldn't hear you until their end sent out a supervision "wink" (or whatever). I don't recall any stated outstanding reason for this, although a few were presented. Some mobile systems didn't seem to realize this. For example, Cell One/South Jersey (New Jersey) used to have non-supervising ports at 201-715-7626 and I think the other was 609-575-7626. In the Spring on 1990, they changed the numbers (why I don't know), to 908-610-7626. This new 908 port worked the same way the old ones did, ie, did not return supervision UNTIL the called party actually answered. Yet for some reason, the new port worked under the "new" AT&T "rules" (no callING to callED party conversation until supervision), so if you called via AT&T, you COULD NOT ENTER *ANY* TONES! Callers in New Jersey for the most part were fine, as NJ Bell doesn't seem to care about supervision. Also, callers over MCI and Sprint didn't notice this, either, as they appear to work differently than AT&T. It was VERY difficult to convince Cell One/South Jersey that *I* was correct that their port was "not working", since each time they called in locally (via NJ Bell, not AT&T) it worked just fine! And they even had MCI (their LD co, it seems) call them to try it out, and MCI reported no trouble. I finally had to three-way them to let them hear what was going on. Eventually, they changed the port to automatically return supervision. This sort of spoiled it for non-AT&T customers, ie, those coming in over NJ Bell or some non-AT&T LD Co. Previously, they could access the port for free, unless, of course, the mobile was active and answered the phone. Now, all calls are billed, regardless of an answer. The Cell One/South Jersey port covers a wide area (DMX), from New York City's Metro One system, to North Jersey (Metro One), to South Jersey/Trenton (Cell One), to Atlantic City/Vinland (Cell One), to Phil (Metrophone) and Wilmington, DE, (again, Cell One.) Thus, the port was quite useful to me, as I could tell people to call me at ONE roam port, and I could be reached from all of lower New York all the way down to about 20 miles north of Baltimore, where the DC system takes over. Now, since I may very well not be available, I don't want people to keep trying to and paying for each call, which they wouldn't have had to do otherwise. In any event, it seems that such systems are fading quickly as they are replaced by newer ports that appear to be subjected to the "new" AT&T supervision rules. I'd like to hear about any ports that still work the "old" way, and of course, any corrections on my rather sketchy description of AT&T's switching system. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Louis Linneweh Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports Date: 10 Jan 91 23:47:46 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >automatically find me. Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then >enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are >calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, >whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point >the secondary dialtone is provided. Some suppliers of cellular switches do allow the system operator to configure the ROAM trunk group to delay answer supervision until the called party (or the voice message system or the party to which the call was transfered) answers. However, if the call is delivered by an Inter-Lata carrier, the carrier may not cut through the forward audio path (from caller to called) until answer supervision is received as a method of fraud prevention. This would prevent the End-to-End DTMF from being received by the cellular system. Therefore, the cellular operator must configure most incoming trunk groups for immediate answer supervision since the source of the call is normally not known. When the cellular system operator has a sufficiently sophisticated (read "large") operation, they may be able to separate the incoming traffic on unique trunk groups (such as with direct connections to the offending IC) so that only those networks that require immediate answer supervision get it. From the carrier's point of view the caller reached the destination that was requested (the ROAM port) and they feel justified in getting paid. Certainly, business arrangements could be reached between a cellular operator and the carriers to avoid this problem if it was of sufficient importance. >Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby >the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the >supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered? US >Sprint manages to do precisely this with their FONcard system, >overcoming any technical or legal hurdles. You enter the called >number and your FONcard number, all without supervision taking place. Cellular service providers are at the wrong end of the connection, i.e. after the IC has done its thing, in the situation that causes concern. In the case of a FONcard, the cost of the call to the carrier will be paid for by the carrier as soon as the carrier connects. >I guess part of the answer is that the people affected by this problem >are not the cellular carrier's home customers, but only associates of >roamers from other systems. But whatever happened to just wanting to >do it right for the sake of it? It seems that especially cellular >carriers are not apt to do anything that doesn't increase airtime >revenues. I'm sure something would be worked out if the cellular operator's customers thought it was important enough to take their business elsewhere. The real "right thing" will only happen when the carrier enters the process of finding the mobile (instead of being done when the ROAM port is reached). ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 10 Jan 91 13:53:50 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <15874@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest? Why not? My entry is the cell on Tortola in the British Virgin Islands. Apparently boats 100 miles away can use it due to the excellent ground provided by salt water that the fact that Tortola has a fairly high hill on which the antenna is placed. Perhaps some cell with an antenna on a higher hill on another island is even bigger. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: When I was visiting in Independence, KS this past summer I had my Radio Shack CT-301 with me. In most areas of town there was no cellular service, yet when I went to the second floor of the home where I was visiting, the phone went out of NO SVC mode into ROAM mode. Curious, I tried the 0 operator, and ask who she was: Tulsa, OK -- sixty plus miles to the south! Returning home on I-55, Ameritech only guarentees service when you get 'close to' Morris, IL, the southwestern-most point for Chicago area service. When HOME kicked in on my unit, a nearby highway sign said we were 70 miles from Morris. All that on a .6 watt handheld ... see why I don't concern myself with the exact specifics of the antenna I use? Admittedly, I had the 'standard' antenna for a handheld, not the little 1/8 wave loaded stub I installed a month or so ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 18:49:35 GMT In article <15893@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: > this applies to Sweden, and may or may not apply to the rest of > Scandinavia ... >5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). > Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may > not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. I know of at least the following uses of the "second pair" (yellow/black): - 10 vac for the dial light in older Princess(tm) and Trimline(tm) phones. - Off-hook indication for key sets. - Ring voltage for party lines. - Ground on the yellow wire for shielded twisted pair. - Second line for two-line phones. Which of these does the Swedish system expect/use? ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 20:37:41 GMT In article <15893@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: >[Telephones built for US] will work [in Sweden]. ... >However, a few things to keep in mind: >5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). > Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may > not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. What do they put ON the second pair? A reference ground for ground-start lines? A signalling hookswitch closure? Most *consumer* units that have the second pair connected these days would expect to find a second line there!! Surely that is not what Televerket expects? Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Organization: Global Tech International Inc. Date: Sat, 05 Jan 91 09:56:07 GMT In article <15649@accuvax.nwu.edu> PAT writes that the # button is often the telephone equivalent of a "return key", and: >There is no >reason people couldn't be trained to stick it on the end of all >dialing as a signal they are finished. Then, *any combination* could >be a local number, no? PAT] Sounds good, but this couldn't happen until tone dialing becomes mandatory and networks are no longer compelled to support pulse dialing. Anybody heard when that might happen? I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? (Remember: Do your kids know how to dial a rotary phone for emergencies?) Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: dag@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 18:41:32 PST lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: >In article <15743@accuvax.nwu.edu> astph!joe@cs.psu.edu (Joe >Broniszewski) writes: >>I read ... "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll. ... In the book, Cliff >>mentioned what he called a *secure line*. When ever he called a government >>agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on >>one of these secure lines. >I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for >the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant. >STU-III is an encryption protocol; essentially, the telephones switch >to "data mode" like modems. Any IEC may be used to carry such calls. Cliff worked at Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL) at the time. LBL is frequently confused with Lawrence Livermore Labs (LLNL), and although they work closly on many projects they are definately two different beasts. I worked in the office next to Cliff for a couple of years and I can assure you that neither of us had or wanted any special phone lines other than the standard unsecured, government issue FTS lines. I do recall hearing of a special phone line at one point but I believe there was only one of 'em at the whole lab. I have no idea where it is, and I doubt if Cliff would know about it. LLNL on the other hand is crawling with spooks and special phone lines. Cheers, dag ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:18:59 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Calls To and From Japan Whenever I call Japan, I cannot help but notice the poor quality on the line. It does not seem to matter if I am calling via AT&T, MCI, or Sprint except that Sprint cut me off. (Past tense on purpose). Whenever I recieve a call from Japan, I cannot help but notice how clear everything sounds. I just received a call and it sounded as if the person was in the same room. Truely remarkable as many of my local calls do not sound this clear. Do you think GTE has special processing for calls from Japan? :-) David Gast ------------------------------ From: Benny Lebovits Subject: TEHO in UK Date: 10 Jan 1990 Organization: Intel Electronics, Ltd I am working on a network design that is considering hubbing out of the UK. Can anyone tell me whether TEHO (tail end hop off) or off-net dialling is legal in the UK. I have received conflicting reports. Through hearsay, Mercury has told one curtomer that it is legal. I have read a magazine article that indicates lots of people are doing it. Yet Intel's man on the spot claims it's illegal and that he needs a permit to hook up any new equipment to the network. Any ideas as to how I can get a definitive ruling? Benny ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #24 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11529; 11 Jan 91 4:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17838; 11 Jan 91 3:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22118; 11 Jan 91 2:00 CST Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 1:25:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #25 BCC: Message-ID: <9101110125.ab28675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jan 91 01:24:42 CST Volume 11 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Addresses for Recorded 900 Solicitors [Douglas Scott Reuben] Information Needed on 900 Regulations [Emmanuel Goldstein] Alabama PSC Planning to Eliminate 900 Access? [Floyd Vest] Re: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers [Carl Wright] Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Dave Burke] Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Toby Nixon] Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [John Stanley] Emergency Re-Routing [J. Philip Miller] Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Chris Johnson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Scott Reuben Date: 10-JAN-1991 03:56:00.47 Subject: Addresses for Recorded 900 Solictors Pat asked that I post the addresses that I got from NY Tel, so here they are. [In case - (Heaven forbid! :) ) - you missed my initial posting, these are the addresses that the Telco actually sends the bills to for those 900/976/local prefix for special features firms. Typically, they try to induce people to call them with recorded solicitations, such as: "Hi, I'm Jeff, and I've got a prize for you! So call me back at 900-555-1111 within the next 10 minutes, and see what I've got for you. 717EJerichoTpkeHuntingtonStaNY11746,fitftydollarsperminute . So call me now and see what you've won!" ] "The New 9999 Line" - 540-9999 in NY Tel's NY Metro area. The address they give (locally) is: 717 E. Jericho Turnpike Huntington Sta, NY 11746 Their billing address: The New 9999 Line 3702 South Virginia Ave Reno, NV 89503. (The person who signed my certified mail card signed "C.T." ... couldn't write the full name out, eh? ) 900-999-0100 (?) and locally 540-0100. (They called my machine, and mentioned both. The 900 number was poorly recorded, so maybe it is 900-909? I dunno. The 540 number is definitely correct.) The Eagleton Group 561 Keystone Ave, Box 305 Reno, NV, 89503 These are the addresses that I got a response from, so I KNOW they are valid. Additionally, I got a call from some Hawaiian vacation 900 number, but since I am quite careless at times, I didn't write the address or # down as an additional note to myself for reference purposes. When the certified mail (green) card comes back, I'll post it if anyone cares. For those of you who wish to call NY Tel to get addressess for firms who are bothering you, call NY Tel's call annoyance # at: 800-522-1122. I think this will work from out of NY state; it did from CT. You may also call the NY Tel Executive offices (1095 6th Ave, NYC) at (212) 395-2121. They were the actual people who told me the number, after I spoke to the Annoyance number. The rep. I spoke with was Mrs. Gordon, and her supervisor is Mrs. O'Mally. I don't know how many of these calls NYTel gets, so they may not be too familiar with the process (as demonstrated by their telling me to call the FCC!). But if you keep at it, they will give you the addresses. Maybe mention me, I'm sure they (a) couldn't care less, or (b) will hang up on you. :) It took a while for me to make my case to them, but it did ultimately work. If you don't want to spend time yelling at these people over the phone, send me the number that is bothering you, IF you get these calls on a NY Tel line. I have to call them soon anyhow for more annoying numbers, and may as well get a few more addresses (if I can) while I am at it. I'd also be interested to know what similar experiences (if any) people have had with their telcos in their attempts to do the same thing. Good luck! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: A check with 702-555-1212 showed no listing in Reno for either the 'Eagleton Group' or the 'New 9999 Line'. But my trusty criss-cross for Reno shows 561 Keystone Avenue to be simply a remail service -- a mail drop -- where Mr. Eagleton picks up his mail, probably in the middle of the night with no one around to spot him. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:41:16 pst From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Information Needed on 900 Regulations Can someone post a rough translation of the FCC laws regarding 900 service? What I'm interested in primarily are regulations concerning announcement of charges, ANY rules for billing, and other items to protect the public from fraud. Thanks. [Moderator's Commandments: 1) Thou shalt read thy charge-per-call rapidly in a slurred voice. 2) Thou shalt operate behind mail drop services in far-away places. 3) Thou shalt refuse to respond to telco billing complaints/chargebacks. 4) If a customer refuses payment to telco, and telco charges it back to thee, then thou shalt forward it to a sleazy collection agency. 5) Thou shalt keep moving thy boiler-room from one location to another, a step ahead of the Postal Inspector; but preferably keep it in the midwest USA where WATS rates are the least expensive. 6) Thou shalt honor thy father and mother by trying to program your computer to not call their phone; but if you can't, that's okay, don't worry about it. They'll have to live with it. 7) Thou shalt not take the name of thy guardian angel, Harold Greene in vain. Thou art welcome. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Vest Subject: Alabama PSC Planning to Eliminate 900 Access? Date: 10 Jan 91 02:20:45 CST I have a friend that is a service provider for a third-party "900" service. This not a sleeze operation. He is editor of a sports magazine and offers a "hotline" for sports news updates. The service has been very well received. He recently learned (and I not sure of the reliability of his information) that the Alabama Public Service Commission is proposing to remove 900-service access from all phones in the state unless explicitly requested. Since the major appeal of his service is in-state this would probably force him to drop the service. My question is this: since the number terminates out-of-state, does the APSC have the authority to restrict interstate calling? If not, what can my friend do? He does not have the resources (and the service is not profitable enough) to engage any legal action or protracted appeals. ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 05:22:59 GMT In article <15922@accuvax.nwu.edu> The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: It probably does not matter where the physical >termination is. All that matters is where they drop it (and someone >else picks it up), or where they bill it out to. IBT now blocks all >calls to anything-976 not within 312, whether you want them to or not. >They do blocking to 312-976 and 900-xxx on request, and *no* >variations in dialing, i.e. 10xxx-1-312-976-xxxx, etc get past the 976 >or 900 blockade, period. PAT] Might you be able to reach a 976 number with 950-1022 to get into MCI or by dialling "10222#" and then dialing the 976 number in another area code? I guess that IBT can't be expected to block these since they never hear the tones. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 [Moderator's Note: IBT doesn't hear the tones, but MCI sure does! Calls via 10222 or 950-1022 here to an anywhere-976 number return an intercept saying 'at the present time, MCI does not connect with 976 numbers.' Sprint is the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 91 08:29:00 GMT+109:13 From: "VAXA::DBURKE" Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed Responding to "hpa" : Your local Radio Shack has a box called Teleprotector (registered trademark) R.S. P/N 43-107 for $7.95. Just put one on the modem, and a second one on the telephone. It will then be first-come, first-serve. AutoLine+ from ITS communications in N.Y. will do lockout and distinctive ringing. The box works well. If you need the phone # for ITS, respond directly and I'll dig it out. Dave ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed Date: 10 Jan 91 15:33:48 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <15894@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) asks about a distinctive ringing-based call director that can also keep the attached devices from interrupt each others' calls. My understanding is that the "RingDirector/4" box supports not only distinctive ringing direction of incoming calls to specific ports on the device (up to four numbers), but also handles exclusion (keeps a device, once off-hook, from having its calls interrupted by another). It wouldn't hurt to call the company and find out. The manufacturer is Lynx Automation, 2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood WA 98036; +1 206 744 1582. The device costs $149. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. From: John Stanley Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:41:40 EST judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Peripheral Visionary 08-Jan-1991 0951) writes: > We seem to be really plagued by telecom service outages recently. > Since I'm sure there's not a large increase in the number of cables > being accidentally cut, my suspicion is that more and more traffic is > being handled by fewer and fewer high capacity fiber routes. Tuesday evening, about 4:10, the local PBS station lost the feed for a program called "Fresh Air". After a few minutes, they came back, using a poor quality phone feed. At the end of the show, we were told that the problem was caused by a break in a fiber cable between New York and Philly. I don't know if they get the feed in real time, but would guess that they must if they put up with the poor feed just to carry the show. YACC (Yet Another Cable Cut)? ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Emergency Re-Routing Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 20:20:18 CST > [Moderator's Note: >.... Remember, for years prior to Sprint and MCI having > their own complete network they both leased circuits from AT&T and > from each other. This reminds me of a question that I have had for some time. Does AT&T now do the reverse? One of the reasons that I ask, is that near my house (in the 1900 block of Chouteau) is a bunker type building which was (at least since the divesture) labeled as an AT&T facility. A couple of years ago there was the laying of a major fiber cable under major streets in St. Louis and leading to this facility. Several months ago, I noticed that now the bunker is labeled as belonging to Sprint. What is going on here? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 16:23:03 GMT In article <15827@accuvax.nwu.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >Technology is easier to keep faith in when one has a hand in its >design and development. When, as is most often the case in Western >societies, technology is invented by large, seemingly faceless >corporations or government agencies and foisted on the general public >for better or worse, "faith" is an understandably rare commodity. I >appreciate Mr. Lucky's optimism and self-confidence, but his examples >of technology that "works" -- BART as a remedy for transportation >congestion, and educational technology as a remedy for poor scholastic >performance among students -- are insupportable. BART has complicated >the Bay Area transportation situation, not fixed it. And educational ... >democratic. I am surprised that the general public is as tolerant as >it is of we technologists' experiments with its world. While this is straying from the topic of telecommunications, and into the politics of technology and more, I can't sit by and let Mr. Jacobson remain unanswered in his indictment of technologists. First and foremost, it might be that techonology is invented by seemingly faceless corporations and technologists within, but it is the business end of such organizations that "foist" those products upon the public. In other words, the fact that every community has a video-rental store as a "result" of the invention of the VCR, or that Compact Disks have virtually eliminated the vinyl LP, has a lot less to do with the invention of the technology and a lot more to do with marketing, advertising, and business ideas for making money in general. If record companies did not see a great potential profit to be made, and did not push the Compact Disk in the market place, you can bet it would be relegated to the rare ranks of the high-end audio affecionado. For example, just where is Digital Audio Tape (DAT) these days? It's invented. It works. You can even buy it! But the record companies are all opposed to it because they are greedy and can't see a way to make a good profit from it. As a result, it's a pretty rare thing. I have two compact disk players. I have zero DAT decks. This only reinforces the idea that technological innovations are only tools, and it's the use to which they are put which makes all the difference. I also take issue with Mr. Jacobson's remarks about such things as BART. He claims it complicates the Bay Area transportation situation. Perhaps. But if BART disappeared tomorrow, the transportation situation would be a whole hell of a lot more complicated. It has a huge daily ridership. And from my experience, the Bay Area has one of the better mass-transit systems in the country, precisely because of the integration and variety of types: busses, trains, and BART. I'm not as aware of the circumstances in Washington D.C. (having left that area just before the Metro opened), but everything I've ever heard about the system there was praise of the highest sort, even from people who were regular riders of other subway systems in the U.S. and even abroad. It's also my opinion that Mr. Jacobson's remarks about educational uses of technology are taking problems out of their context. The educational institutions of this country have a lot problems, and most of them are sociological in nature and very interrelated. Whether or not technology will be able to help solve those problems in a dramatic way, versus in a minor way (which I am sure they will) is yet to be seen. Lack of use of available technology in schools hardly points to a fault in the technology itself, however. I'd say a pretty strong case could be made that we have one of the best telephone systems in the world, also because of the technology that built it. Perhaps Mr. Jacobson is not as much a luddite as my response is making him sound. But I want to bring the focus on technology issues to where the decisions should be and are presently being made as to whether the new inventions bring the society good. Those places are political (public policies, eg. do we want to encourage nationwide networks?) and business (marketing and selling, eg. how can we use this new invention to make money, versus how will selling this new invention affect society?). Technologists frequently have ideas in mind for uses of their inventions that are nothing like how the general public ends up seeing them. Should technologists stop creating new things unless they have that control? Or just stop in general, for fear they may be misused or have adverse affects (particulary since the societal affects are impossible to predict)? I don't think so. ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #25 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12736; 11 Jan 91 5:52 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24868; 11 Jan 91 4:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17838; 11 Jan 91 3:04 CST Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 2:27:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #26 BCC: Message-ID: <9101110227.ab29250@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jan 91 02:27:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 26 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Freqency Loss [Ken Dykes] Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [F. Davidson] International Packet Network Info Wanted [Dean Riddlebarger] Re: New Breed of COCOT [John Cowan] Ronald Greenberg's Bogus AT&T Charges [Randy Borow] Pac*Bell Delivers Touch-Tone [Steve L. Rhoades] Re: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [D. Levenson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Frequency Loss Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:57:36 GMT In article <15903@accuvax.nwu.edu> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > The other possible source of these problems is the house wiring. >The wiring in the house is very old, untwisted aluminum three-pair. >Yes, I said aluminum! Don't ask me -- everyone I've told of and I wouldn't worry so much about Aluminum, but UNtwisted? eeeeeek! > There's about forty feet of the wire strung between the drop box and >the telephone jack I'm trying to use. It's also wired serially >through a jack about ten feet from the drop box. That earlier jack >has a telephone set on line one, but nothing on line two. The far Does your wiring-run pass any furnace/air-cond/water heater/etc which may have a relay/starter going about every 45 minutes? perhaps when it "starts" you get some sort of induction pickup on your wires. Also, do your mid->high frequency response problems occur at harmonics of 60hz (ie: your phone wires pass hydro wires, the 60hz induction provides a possible dampening effect?) [caveat: I really dont know what I'm talking about.] > While in PEP mode, I can hear a very small amount of cross talk when >both the modem and voice lines are idling (very low level regular Cross-talk will disappear with twisted pair (or at least "very small" levels will :-) > 2. I welcome any comments about the potential problems that very > old, untwisted aluminum wiring might generate and in particular, > does anyone think it could be responsible for my frequency > response loss? I think UNtwisted is unwise at best of times, heck, bite the bullet install lots of twisted pairs and run Ethernet all over your house :-) > 3. I think I remember hearing, perhaps in this group, that twisted > pair wiring can actually *degrade* frequency response because of You got it backward in my belief. > 4. We're thinking of running twisted copper six-pair throughout the > house to accommodate future expansion with an Ethernet, AppleTalk > net, and up to three phone lines. Does anyone see any problem Yes, yes, capacity planning! wire is cheap, the "running it" is a pain, do it once, but run a lot of pairs. Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] watmath!kgdykes postmaster@watbun.waterloo.edu B8 P6/6 s+ f+ m t w e r p ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 13:55:37 GMT In article <15923@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter G. Capek) writes: >What are the legal restrictions, if any, on an Inter-Exchange Carrier >providing service within a LATA, normally the province of a Local >Exchange Carrier? When I try to force a call via AT&T, for example to >a number which is near where I'm calling from, I get a message about >the call not being able to be completed. (I tried this by dialing >10288-0-914-762-xxxx). I ask because if there is in fact some legal >restriction, what effect does it have on completing 800 calls which >happen to originate in the same LATA as the 800 number terminates? >(Same question could be asked for 900 numbers..) Unless there are local (state) restrictions there really are none. However... Listen to the intercept recording you get when you try that until the end where it should give a number, like "9075". If you get some number starting with your area code (or for that matter, any area code) then you are being blocked by the toll switch. Local exchange switches may not have any identification on the recording or may send you to a "fast busy" signal. I suspect you will find that the local switch is intercepting the call. Normally toll switches don't block anything that can be completed, including toll calls right back to your own local exchange! That particular feature may in fact be blocked, however. (People with fat fingers actually dial it that way and then complain about it.) I know of a number of cases where local calls between different switches can be completed by dialing long distance, and yet in the same area there are others that are blocked by the local line switches. The Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System blocks toll calls to ALL other local switches. Most of the other line switchers in the area do not. The calls cost something like 11 cents for the first minute at evening rates. And if you do get a "9075", as I mentioned above, at the end of the intercept ... its Fairbanks. Floyd L. Davidson 98 Salcha, AK 99714 bpaycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. ------------------------------ From: Dean Riddlebarger Subject: International Packet Network Info Wanted Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 14:57:17 GMT It's been a while since I've had to check into this... Is anyone out there familiar with international [public] packet network links between Germany and the U.S.? I have some seriously vague third-party information that indicates such abeast exists, and I'd like to dig up as much additional information as possible. I have a coworker based in Germany, and he is checking with the authorities on that end, but he says that since getting a simple phone line is as complex a process as building a Trident missile, he expects a fair delay in getting more detailed information on this particular subject. What we're looking for is a setup in which he can hop onto such a network in Germany [all we know right now is that it is apparently called datex-p], pop through a gateway to a similar network in the U.S. [tymnet], and hop off here in town to access our server. We don't have the cost justification for a dedicated international private line. We are already routing non-sensitive email to his Compuserve account [local access to that in Germany is, oddly, quite easy]. But we would still like to let him come directly into the home machines from time to time. Straight IDDD with a modem is possible, but the connections are not great [forget 9600, if our initial tests are any indication]. I also suspect that a packet service gateway might be cheaper for moderate amounts of usage. Email if you've seen anything like this, and I'll summarize in a week or two for the rest of the group. Thanks! Dean Riddlebarger Truevision, Inc. [317] 841-0332 dean@truevision.com uunet!epicb!dean ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 91 16:41:40 GMT From: John Cowan Subject: Re: New Breed of COCOT In <15896@accuvax.nwu.edu> our esteemed Moderator wrote: >There are some COCOTS here which require a careful >examination to determine that they are not 'genuine Bell'. Here in New York City, there exist COCOTs that are >identical< to New York Telephone payphones, except that they don't say "New York Telephone" on the rate card or elsewhere on the phone. I suspect they are reconditioned models that NYT sold as scrap. What's worse, not every NYT payphone (especially those inside in odd locations, some of which actually still have rotary dials!) is marked "New York Telephone", although most are. So there is truly no way to be safe except to search every payphone and refuse to use any that aren't marked NYT. That excludes some usable ones, but is the only method guaranteed to reject all zero-armed bandits. ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 10 14:44:29 CST 1991 Subject: Ronald Greenberg's Bogus AT&T Charges Correct me if I'm wrong, but it SOUNDS like you are the victim of 3rd # fraud, Ron. While I do not have your bill in front of me (if you'd give me its account #, I can pull it up here at work and check it out) to check the call codes, it at least sounds like some one placed a call from one locale to another and billed it randomly to your acct. Granted, this is illegal and agrravating; however, as an employee of AT&T, I ask you to be calm and simply call the Account Inquiry Center at the phone number listed on your bill. That # should be (800) 222-0300 if it's your home phone you're talking about. Because I have worked on both 3rd # and calling card fraud in the past, I have been witness to hundreds of very upset AT&T customers. The rep. to whom you talk should be able to arrange the easy credit, and possibly recharge the call to the originating party (providing it's a business or residence #). As long as your LEC, however, does the billing, they are the ones technically responsible for making sure an adjustment appears on your account. And believe me, most LEC's fail miserably to post the proper credits: witness the instant credits issued by AT&T's LD operators. More than half the time, the LEC fails to recognize the adjustment codes and process them -- even though AT&T reps recognize the adj. codes on the bills when they are in the system. Judge Greene, you should be shot. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Admonition: Now, now, now! I think that is a very imprudent thing to say. I don't like him, and after the (still ongoing) telephone case I find it hard to trust his judgment in most matters presented to him for litigation. I am not at all convinced he entered into the telephone case without some personal bias. But I do not recommend violence as a way to solve disputes with few exceptions. I admit to sometimes wishing that impeachment was not such a long, cumbersome process. My commitment to 'free speech' -- given my own blind spots -- is strong enough that it outweighs my general aversion to violence, so I left your message intact. I do wish however you had not said that. We still live in a nation governed by laws, not by guns. Yes, I know, the government has plenty of guns, and some people obey the LAW because of the implied threat from the omnipresence of the government GUNS, but that is a different issue. Let's work toward legislative changes to undo the damage as best we can. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Pac*Bell Delivers Touch-Tone Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:33:36 GMT After many months of promises, Pac*Bell is finally starting to convert it's dial-pulse only customers to Touch-Tone. It all started back when Pac*Bell promised the Calif. Public Utilities Commission that it would provide free touch-tone and an expanded local calling area (from eight to twelve miles) in exchange for being granted their (you guessed it...) rate increase. I have a line that used soley for incoming calls, no touch-tone, no custom-calling; Sort of the epitome of POTS. Today it had touch-tone and a call to the business office confirmed that they were indeed starting to convert custmers to TT. She further stated that the local calling area would be expanded sometime in February. It really interesting how the rate increases can be put into effect so much faster than Pac*Bell's other promises. I have yet to find a COCOT that complies with their mandate of free 950, 800, and have the phone's responsible party clearly posted. Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 19:05:45 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <15888@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: > I grew up in El Paso, Texas, along the Mexican border. One of the > more unfortunate aspects of the MFJ is the removal of the LEC from > special international toll agreements. > Before the MFJ, calls to Juarez, Mexico (a city that is virtually > contiguous to El Paso on the south side of the Rio Grande) were > dialable via a "42" prefix to the five digit Juarez telephone number. > Costs were minimal. They were handled via a cable that ran from El > Paso main CO across a bridge over the Rio Grande to Juarez main. > Then came the MFJ. "Special deals" like this went away and the 905 > NPA applied. Rates went higher. > Now, Juarez calls are fully integrated in the international LD system. > 011+Country Code+ etc. > > Is this progress? > > [Moderator's Note: Is this progress, you ask? Well, Judge Green must > think so. There were numerous arrangements like you describe along the > Canadian border also in the past, allowing local calling between small > towns on the US side and the Canadian side. Friends communicating with > friends, without making an 'international issue' out of it. PAT] In several instances local telcos have been allowed to keep inter-LATA calling capabilities. For example, you can call between northern New Jersey and New York City by meens of NJ Bell or NY Tel, dpending on which side of the Hudson River your phone is. I don't know if the reason that this international capability was discontinued was due to the MFJ, or because the local telco decided not to ask for it to be continued. By the way, this cross international border local service is common around the world. for example, from Geneva (that's in Switzerland for you US geography buffs, you can reach the towns just over the border in France by using a code that looks like a Swiss city code (area code) rather tha dialing the French country code. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service Date: 11 Jan 91 00:20:37 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15923@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: [ an article about using inter-LATA carriers for intra-LATA calls ] > [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA uses 'area code' 700 for this purpose. > Dial 700 + number in your own area code to make a local call billed > via Telecom*USA instead of Illinois Bell. Don't ask me how they > legally get away with it. PAT] In NJ, all of the inter-LATA carriers except AT&T provide intra-LATA service. We can use 10xxx plus the home area code and local number, unless xxx happens to be 288 (AT&T). I'm not sure why AT&T choses not to do this, or is prevented from doing it. The MCI rates for calls within NJ are often less than those of NJ Bell, for calls just beyond one's local calling area. They are almost always less than the sent-paid rate from public coin phones. Their 'around town' service allows credit-card calls from phones in the local area without the card surcharge, which definitely beats the price of the NJ Bell IQ-Card! 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #26 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07288; 12 Jan 91 5:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05715; 12 Jan 91 3:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07643; 12 Jan 91 2:26 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 1:30:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #27 BCC: Message-ID: <9101120130.ab12574@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:29:33 CST Volume 11 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson My Apologies, If You Were Bombed [TELECOM Moderator] Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell [Jack Winslade] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications (Swedish Phones) [Julian Macassey] Information Needed on Moderate Range RF LAN [Joe Stong] Looking for DID Solutions - Nicollet Digitrap 1015 or Equiv [Allen Jensen] Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Carl Wright] Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World [Nigel Allen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 0:22:09 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed A large number of readers -- primarily those who had posted here in recent weeks -- were subjected to a 'bombing run' on Friday. The person simply collected up all the names and sites he could find, by copying the address information in messages here, and sent out a mass mailing. I've received numerous complaints, and although I am really helpless to stop this sort of action I do extend my apologies to those of you who have complained. I knew nothing about it before I began getting copies from several people. I can only suggest that if you do not wish to receive the mailings, you write to the address where they originated and ask to have them stopped. From time to time, the network is misused in this way, with anonymous postings and mass-mailings sent through other than the normal mailing list channels. Thankfully it does not happen all that often. If you were one of the many who wrote me to express your disapproval of the unsolicited mail, please accept this note in place of a personal response. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:18:13 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell Reply-to: jsw@iugate.unomaha.edu Hmmmmmmm ... something just hit me -- something that is so obvious that we cannot see it for the trees. If we figure that the metro Omaha area gives Ma Bell about 500,000 customers, and we figure the number of BBS systems that have been around for more than one month and will be here one month into the future is about 50 (comma) that means that the BBS lines make up about 50/500000 of the active lines, or about 1/100 of one percent. I think we can then assume that the ratio of BBS systems to dialable numbers is more or less the same, +/- one order of magnitude, throughout the USA. Why is it, then, that some phone companies, including the one in Texas (S. Bell or SW Bell, I can never keep them straight) and GTE in Indiana (or was it Ohio, I can never keep them straight ;-) are so concerned with such a small fraction of their customers?? Heck, if .01% of the telephone subscribers kept their phones off hook all day long, it shouldn't generate any blip at all in any accounting records and it certainly is so insignificant that it would be buried in the margin of error of any traffic measuring study. Why is it then, that they are paying >>THAT<< much attention to such a miniscule group of their subscribers ?? Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications (Swedish Phones) Date: 11 Jan 91 15:16:00 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: Tired Insomniacs Assn Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <15893@accuvax.nwu.edu> hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 17, Message 4 of 9 >In article <15804@accuvax.nwu.edu> Kari Hardarson unc.edu> writes: >>I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a >>phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether >>the phone will work at all for that matter. >3. Swedish touch-tone phones have 13 buttons, "0".."9", "*", "#", "R". I > don't know what the "R" button does, but its functions are similar to > the ones U.S. phone companies flash the hook for, so it might be exactly > what it does. The "R" is the "Recall" button and is usually a ground button used to signal a PBX or CO. It is used only for feature control and is not needed for POTS service. >4. The Swedish phone net provides a lower current level than any other > phone system in the world. Thus, a current-hungry foreign phone may not > work properly. It shouldn't matter for modern electronic ones. The Swedish minimum line current is 12 mA, The U.S. (Bell) spec is 20 mA. But your standard 2500 (AT&T Desk Phone) set will work pretty well down to 14 mA. Cheap and nasty imported phones may not work on Swedish line current, they don't do too well on U.S. line current either. >5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). > Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may > not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. See 3 above re the R button. But the kicker here is, phones sold in the U.S. neither connect nor use the second pair (Black/Yellow). So this is difficult or impossible to do. U.S. Phones using both pairs are either two line phones or have A1 lead control. Some old phones also used the yellow wire as a ground wire for grounded ringing. But none of those U.S. scenarios will fit the CCITT R button. More correctly, a U.S. phone will work fine, but not have the recall button unless you wire it in yourself. I do not see how that can affect the call hanging up. Hanging up the phone disconnects Tip and Ring and stops current flow. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 03:30:16 PST From: Joe Stong Subject: Information Needed on Moderate Range RF LAN As usual, I want to do some reasonably inexpensive computer to computer data connection between two sites that are diagonally across a street from each other (building to building is about 500 feet). If any of you gadget freaks out there can refer me to some sort of short to moderate range RF LAN, send me mail. Or any interesting solution involving those short range TV transmit/receive systems for your VCR, and some inexpensive serial or ethernet to TV channel modulator/demodulators. I've only seen one, reasonably low speed solution, an RF modem device called a "LAWN" ($600 gets you 19,200Baud and 500feet, maybe). I'd love to climb into the underground utility tunnels and string some coax, and do ethernet between the buildings, but I haven't a clue as to who to ask, and what bureaucracy I'd have to go through to do it. It is a city street. How do companies like the cable TV folks get the rights to cut slots in the pavement and insert coax, or string wires on the poles, or run wire through whoever's underground tunnels? Who owns the tunnels and or the poles? The last time I dealt with a leased line, it was between a couple of buildings that were about two blocks from each other. The leased line was something like 6.5 miles long, because the phone company required that the line go across town to the phone company and back to the other building. This was in order that they could leave a butt set parked across the line in the phoneco office so that it would short out the feeble pulse carrier stuff that the short haul modems were putting out. It also appears that leased T1 is ordinary pairs, but you get shielded twisted pair in to your building. You mean that MOST pairs in the cable on the street will carry 1.544 MBaud? ISDN at 128Kbaud must be trivial on those pairs, then. Given that MOST of the expense of phone service is probably generated by the equipment and personnel required to do itemized billing of calls, and not for the service itself, is there any technical reason that we couldn't have >128Kbps Internet jacks installed on our home and office walls for $30 a month, flat rate, by the phone company? (Instead, we may, after much struggling, get ISDN, which would be charged packet by packet for point-to-point connections, from which they can milk more money). (The rationale for the above rate and cost is that an existing voice line costs maybe $15 a month for 56Kbaud plus A/D and D/A conversion and the equipment to log call source and destination. I'd expect the cost to be similar for a router that ran at similar baud rates.) My short term interest is to find a cheap solution for me. However, I'll be delighted if I generate some discussion about the general philosophy and economics of data connections through the phone companies. Send me mail and post, I can't keep up with the volume of comp.dcom.telecom. Joe Stong jst@cca.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: allen@audiofax.com From: Allen Jensen Subject: Looking for DID solutions - Nicollet Digitrap 1015 or equiv Date: 11 Jan 91 16:08:22 GMT Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta Since Nicollet went out of business, I am trying to find an alternative to the Digitrap 1015 card. My basic need is to take incomming DID lines from the CO and map them in to some set of available phone lines. Once the DID connection through to the regular phone is made and the phone is taken off-hook, the switch (the 1015 or equivilent) sends down the DTMF of the DID number dialed. +-----------+ +-----------+ POTS +--------------+ | | DID Trunks | Digitrap |-------| XYZ | | CO |==================| 1015 |-------| Voicemail | | | |Replacement|-------| System | +-----------+ +-----------+ +--------------+ (Not completely sure of my terminology - my use of POTS refers to your standard, just like your home phone, telephone line.) In addition, I would also be interested in any loop-start/DID converters anyone knows about. In addition, I need to find a low cost switch that will take some set of incomming 800 lines and map them to a smaller set of lines. After the connection is established, the switch sends DTMF of the last seven digits of the 800 number down to the voicemail system. By low cost, I mean anything under $30,000 than can handle several hundred incomming 800 lines and 30-40 outgoing lines. +-----------+ +-----------+ POTS +--------------+ | | 800 Lines | |-------| XYZ | | CO |==================| Switch |-------| Voicemail | | | | |-------| System | +-----------+ +-----------+ +--------------+ Any information at all will be helpful. I need this really fast. If anyone out there has a used Digitrap 1015 from Nicollet they want to sell, please let me know. Phone: (404) 933-7600 FAX: (404) 618-4582 (fax mailbox) When leaving a fax, please leave a voice annotation. P. Allen Jensen AudioFAX, Inc. / Suite 200 allen@audiofax.com 2000 Powers Ferry Rd. emory!audfax!allen Marietta, GA. 30067 Up to 24 FAX lines in a 80386 based system runing System V UNIX ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 05:09:41 GMT In article <15879@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >There seems to be a new roaming system that some of the A carriers are >using (is this perhaps "Roam Across America" or something similar?). >When you are outside of your local area and registered in another, >your callers will get a recording telling them what city you are in, >the roamer port number there, and instructions on how to use it. This >is a vast improvement over what we had before (nothing), but still not >as neat as the call just going through by itself. Based on my >experience and a call to Cellular One, here are some details: > - Registration is automatic - all you have to do is place or receive >a call in a foreign system in order to activate it. For many users, the "Registration" process for the phone occurs when the phone is turned on. By "Registration" I don't intend to say that your home switch knows your location when you turn the phone on in another carrier's service area. That probably only happens when your home switch is requested to verify your credit worthiness by the switch you are visiting via the roamer validation service company. In Los Angeles, with Cellular One, you are using one of Ericsson's most sophisticated installations. They have four AXE-10 switches networked together so that whenever you turn on your phone, your home switch (the one you were activated in by Cellular One) knows where you are at. They need the information to seamlessly route calls coming in to you. The call traffic in Los Angeles has become so intense in some neghborhoods that PacTel has raised the rates for using your phone in that area. If you travel through, part of the call is at normal (high) rates and the part in this neighborhood is charged at still hgher rates. I forget the neighborhood. Is it Rodeo Drive? > - The foreign system doesn't need any special equipment. All they >need is to be part of the Positive Roamer Verification (PRV) network. >When your home system gets a MIN/ESN verification request from another >system (which happens upon your first call), it knows where you are. This validation actually occurs after the first call is completed. This is primarily a system to limit roamer fraud. This is provided by GTETS and APPEX/EDS for almost all cellular carriers. They have even set up a gateway between them to pass information so that they serve each others customer base. The information passed between carrier switches is being increased to permit the visited switch to know your characteristics as a user and to treat you like your home system does. It is part of the goal of providing seamless service. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 17:34:47 EST Organization: 52 Manchester In article <15775@> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to >Canada. Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak >being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends. But the footnote >says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada." Where >is that? The additional charges are known in some circles as "other-line" charges. At a guess, Atlin is served by Northwestel Inc., which serves the Yukon, the western half of the Northwest Territories, and parts of northern British Columbia. Northwestel was formerly part of Canadian National Telecommunications, but was sold a few years back to BCE Inc. (formerly Bell Canada Enterprises), the parent company of Bell Canada. "Other-line" charges may also apply for calls to points served by Quebec- Telephone (51% owned by GTE Corp.) and Telebec Ltee (another BCE subsidiary). Northwestel, Quebec-Telephone and Telebec all serve some fairly remote points, and don't have the same economies of scale as more urban carriers. Presumably this at least partly justifies their higher rates and "other-line" charges. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #27 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08283; 12 Jan 91 6:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30115; 12 Jan 91 4:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05715; 12 Jan 91 3:33 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 3:03:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #28 BCC: Message-ID: <9101120303.ab29548@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 03:03:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Secure Lines [Joe Francis] Re: Singapore Goes Pay per Call [Hui Lin Lim] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Piet van Oostrum] Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [Steve Forrette] Re: Source of Dial-less Phones [Dave Johnston] They (Can) Know Where You Are (was: Roaming) [Laird P. Broadfield] RS484 Data Link Protocol [Dave Price] AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Johnny Zweig] Shortened Codes For Nearby Areas [Carl Moore] I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot [Randy Borow] 7400 Series "Voice Terminals" [Ken Thompson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Francis Subject: Re: Secure Lines Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1991 05:01:19 GMT Straying from comp.dcom.telecom somewhat, but it's short: In article <15915@accuvax.nwu.edu> tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) writes: > Third, if he did have one [a security clearance], he would have >used the STU-III in the first place. Fourth, he would have known who >to call about the problem in the first place, instead of the bozos >that gave him the run-around. Neither of these is generally true. Although I imagine there are plenty of people holding clearances who do know these things, the majority of people holding clearances (including those I have worked with) have never heard of a STU-III and would have little idea who to call. Most people who hold clearances have them because of the information they deal with in their work, not because of their knowledge of the intelligence community and it's practices. ------------------------------ From: Hui Lin Lim Subject: Re: Singapore Goes Pay per Call Date: 10 Jan 91 23:58:17 GMT Organization: HP Singapore In comp.dcom.telecom, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > A Singapore member of the NEWLIFE BBS network recently mentioned that > Singapore has just switched from flat rate local calling to a pay per > call basis. This will undoubtedly have a big impact on BBSes there. I > will try to get some more details on this, unless TELECOM Digest > readers have some more info on this themselves. I'd just like to clarify that Singapore has not yet gone to time based charging yet. This is scheduled to begin next year. Apparently the new rates will allow the equivalent of 17 minutes of "free" calls (compared to the present rates). The stated reason for changing the charging scheme is supposed to be the large number of fax/data calls now becoming more frequent. I doubt that it will significantly change BBS usage as the new rates are still quite low but it will probably result in large increases in revenue for the Telecom authority. One expected benefit of this is that junk faxes should be reduced (since these are essentially free to the caller right now). HuiLin ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 11 Jan 91 04:41:09 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article <15867@accuvax.nwu.edu> ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) writes: >charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing >this hole in the rate structure >In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call >rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart >from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed) >charge, No. Unfortunately, a 976 number with that type of rate structure is not currently possible. I wish it were. It would make a whole range of 976 data numbers possible. But under the current rate structure, using 900 or 976 results in charges much higher than the existing services that provide their services over the packet networks. The charge to the owner of a (900) number is in the range of thirty to forty cents a minute. So even if the owner provided the service at cost (as UUNET does), the charge to the consumer is still about $24 an hour and this is much too high. The charge for telco 900 and 976 numbers is usually less, but again the telco's cut means that the rate to the consumer can not be in the afforable range and compete with the likes of Compu$erve. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan E-Mail: or Fax: +81 3 3237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 3222 8429 ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland Date: 11 Jan 91 13:59:09 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands In message <15886@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hm@fwi.uva.nl (HM) writes: HM> Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11. Like a regular HM> non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds. The 06-11 number is temporary. In the future it will be 112 - the emergency number will be the same in all western Europe. PTT Telecom doesn't issue any new subscriber numbers starting with 1, and existing numbers starting with 1 will be phased out. (I don't know why all numbers starting with 1, rather than 112). When the new number is available, there will be a transition period where both numbers will be valid. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 10:57:13 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <15907@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Steve Forrette writes: >> but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first >> minute! Doesn't that seem a bit high? I would imagine it would be >> higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling >> card rate? I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not? No credit >If you check that again, you will probably find that the initial coin >rate is for three minutes, not one minute. For a while, coin-paid >calls had an initial one minute rate and it was changed back to three >minutes "for your convenience". The explanation was that most calls >lasted at least that long and they wanted to minimize the additional >deposit requests. Actually, it undoubtedly enhanced revenues in that >larger amounts could be collected for short calls. I just tried it again, and it is definately for one minute. >In any event, I also have always questioned the higher rates for >coin-collected calls. The stock explanation is that you are paying for >the instant convenience of making a call without prior arrangement. >(Someone has to pay to maintain the phone.) So apparently, you are >paying for convenience, and the lack of credit risk is irrelavent. >Not that I buy any of that, but that is the reasoning. The operator tried to give me the line that the charge helped maintain the phone. I challenged her with the fact that this was a semi-public phone and that my living group paid Pacific Bell $30 a month to have it there. Her answers quickly dried up. Also, if the phone was so costly to maintain, why don't calling card calls have such a high surcharge as well? Another possible answer that has been offerred is that it is very costly to send people out to collect the coins. But, Pacific Bell is already sending people out each month to collect all of the $.20 deposits for local calls, so AT&T has no reason to charge for this. I imagine that Pacific Bell charges AT&T something for the coin collection services, but I don't think it is as outlandish as $1.50 per call or anything like that. >Tomorrow I leave for Japan. It will be interesting to observe >first-hand how they handle coin phones there. Probably better than in the US! :-( ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 91 08:21 +0000 From: Dave_JOHNSTON%01%SRJC@odie.santarosa.edu Subject: Source of Dial-less Phones In are recent issue Paul W. Schleck [pschleck@unomaha.edu] asked for sources for Dial-less red "hotline" phones. In my past life in the interconnect business I had a couple customers ask for those. The best source I found was a telephone refurbisher. They had the old wall and desk rotary phones available without the dial. The folks I used were ATRS in Sandpoint, Idaho, but a recent review of Telecom Gear didn't have their ad and I can't seem to locate their address or phone number. I would suggest you try a couple of the following: Eltas, Inc. +1 412 343 2500 Lippincott Industries +1 509 922 1783 R&R Refurbishing +1 800 323 8989 Telephone Outlet +1 800 782 9701 Shasta Refurbishers +1 916 244 4708 I haven't used any of them, but I would suspect that any of them could come up with what you need. Dave Johnston +1 707 527 4853 Santa Rosa Junior College Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom 1501 Mendocino Ave. johnston@odie.SantaRosa.EDU Santa Rosa, CA 95401 ------------------------------ From: "Laird P. Broadfield" Subject: They (Can) Know Where You Are (was New Roaming System...) Date: 11 Jan 91 05:50:54 GMT In <15879@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > - Before someone else brings this up, here's something that came to >mind that I don't think is a big deal, but I just know some will: >"privacy." Now, someone always knows what city I'm in if I bring my >cellphone along. Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B" >carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you >place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off >(except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it >working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No >Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( ) Actually, I had a thought a while back, when I was chatting with an out- of-town friend who works for (a B carrier.) We were chatting about all of the smarts that's going on behind the scenes vis-a-vis signal strength, cell handoff, software based "hysteriesis" to avoid back-and-forth of calls at nearly equal strength, and so forth, when I realized that it should be fairly trivial to derive location information from all this. Not only that, you don't have to even go off-hook, the switch can bang your phone with an interrogate packet without you ever noticing. Seemed to us that this made perfect sense, and his intuition said that a 100-yard radius of uncertainty was a reasonable guess, assuming some foreknowlege of signal propagation characteristics in the particular area. "Ha ha, forget what _city_ you're in, we know what _room_ you're in!!" Does this theory fall apart anywhere? (P.S. Can somebody mail me with the mfr. and model of the handheld that has a _vibrate_ ringer? None of the local outlets seem to have heard about it.) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Price Subject: RS484 Data Link Protocol Date: 11 Jan 91 12:58:49 GMT Reply-To: Dave Price Organization: UCW,Aberystwyth,WALES,UK A research group here has come up against a possible (likely?) requirement to implement RS484 data Link protocol. Has anyone got experience of this protocol, what it entails and how long (man days etc) it might take to implement. I have checked several text books in my possession and I cant yet find any references to it. In our circumstance it will need to be implemented over a point to point link. Thanks folks, Dave Price UUCP : { ENGLAND or WALES }!ukc!aber-cs!dap JANET: dap@uk.ac.aber.cs PHONE: +44 970 622428 From_the_world: dap@cs.aber.ac.uk Post: University College of Wales, Penglais, Aberystwyth, UK, SY23 3BZ. ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 17:51:27 GMT I have had my AT&T Universal card for six months now (if memory serves; I ordered it the same day I read about it in comp.dcom.telecom) and have continually had trouble getting the number to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and Canada. My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T Universal VISA cards aren't distributed? It seems kind of like a you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:15:28 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Shortened Codes For Nearby Areas In a note dated December 5 (1990), John Slater writes regarding the UK: >The dialling code (STD code) was the same for the >whole country except in the area local to the number (where no >dialling code was required) and immediately adjacent areas (where a >short one or two-digit code was used). These short codes served two >purposes: they saved time and finger-ache when dialling, and they >bypassed the trunk network. >Today most local codes have been abandoned, and STD codes work to >anywhere from anywhere, including within the local dialling area. Much >simpler. If I read correctly several years ago, a similar concept was proposed (and rejected) for calls within New York City when it became necessary to split 212 to form 718. That was a "borough code". I take it one reason to reject it is the confusion it would cause to people from out of town? [Moderator's Note: But Carl, we still use many abbreviated codes without worrying about confusion for out of town people. We use 411 for directory here. Other places use 113? or 555-1212. 611 is a quick way to reach repair, but many places have to dial a seven or ten digit number to reach repair. 911 causes confusion with people in one town who hear about it being available elsewhere and think that they have it also, when they don't and are still dialing 7-D for police. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 11 12:54:29 CST 1991 Subject: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot Pat, lighten up a bit. I am one not to ever advocate violence unless it's a last resort (self-defense, etc.). My comment should not have been construed the way it was. I merely continue to express my indignation toward that black-robed monarch. By the way, I agree with you on the suggestion that the Not-so-Honorable Judge may indeed have been prejudiced in some way. Just how the h*** did he get to be so much of a legislator anyway? I thought Congress and the state legislatures were those empowered to MAKE laws, and judges INTERPRETED them. Obviously, I'm wrong. Oh well, it's not like it hasn't been happening for years anyway. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: 7400 Series "Voice Terminals" Date: 11 Jan 91 20:55:23 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS A technical question for the net: My current phoneset(2500) will soon be replaced by a digital unit (7401). There is curiousity about the 7400 series receivers. Is the speaker low impedance just as in the 2500? The transmiter cannot be carbon type. It is too small. Is it a simple mike or an electret (sp?) that requires a small, current limited bias voltage to operate properly? Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316) 636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #28 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16190; 12 Jan 91 15:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22731; 12 Jan 91 13:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05612; 12 Jan 91 12:49 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:06:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #29 BCC: Message-ID: <9101121206.ab12157@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:06:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Business Rates vs COCOTS [J. Philip Miller] Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Charles McGuinness] Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Mike Miller] Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Jim Redelfs] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Peter Anvin] Re: 900 Number Addresses [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Craig Harris] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Amanda Walker] AT&T Universal Card; Travel Calling [Jim Celoni] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Business Rates vs COCOT Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 7:53:46 CST The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} reported in this morning's issue that they had decided that public FAX machines were no longer entitled to be connected with a regular business line (which is flat rated in St. Louis) but rather would have to pay time and distance sensitive rates since they were reselling telephone service [I presume that the rates which will now be required would be the same as a COCOT operator would have to play]. This raises all sorts of other interesting ideas in our consideration of the rules for who should be paying business rates. Many university computer centers offer outdial modem services. If you are being charged for this (e.g. connect time to the computer controlling it) does it mean that this line should be a COCOT line rather than a business rate? Are COCOT lines which are not blocked for incoming calls charged for the incoming calls? If so that raises another issue for our BBS operator who charges for use of the board. Does anyone know what type of rates folks like Tymnet pay for their phone lines? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Charles McGuinness Subject: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:04:51 EST In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch says: > I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer rotary dial phones! A while back, my grandmother (who is 88 years old) asked if I could install a phone for her in the kitchen. Of course, I went out and bought one of those nice new phones with extra large buttons to make things easy for her (certainly easier than dialing her pre-500 series phone!). But after I installed it she started complaining: "Honey, that new phone, it's no good! It keeps dialing the wrong number!". She seemed to be getting an 8 whenever she pushed 5. Of course, whenever I tested the phone, it worked flawlessly. It could only be one thing -- pilot error. I tried to suggest, as gently as possible, that she must have pressed the wrong keys. But, that didn't fly. So, what could I do? I went to my local AT&T phone center and asked for a wall mount rotary dial phone. After spending a few minutes convincing them that I really knew what I wanted, they led me to a closet full of these things, and let me pick my choice. Grandma has been happily rotary dialing ever since. Charles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 22:01 GMT From: Mike Miller <0004330819@mcimail.com> Subject: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? I want to monitor the activity of my switchboard operators. I plan to notify them that I plan to randomly monitor the operator consoles to assures quality assurance along with prompt and courteous service. What I need to know is ... is this legal? or is it considered eavesdropping? There is a jack at each operator console for monitoring purposes, but I plan to monitor them from the switch room. Any suggestions? I want to add that I will NOT be doing this if it is considered illegal. But I would like a true answer, not an opinion. [Moderator's Note: Apparently it is legal. All telcos monitor their oeprators on duty. I do not believe it is illegal to monitor the performance of employees whose duties include the use of the telephone to serve customers by listening unannounced on the phone as they speak. It may be essential however that you place a conspicuous notice in the telephone room stating that "conversations between switchboard operators and our customers may be subject to unannounced monitoring for the purpose of training our operators and improving our service." I think it would also be important that your wiring be installed so that you were *only* able to monitor the operator's talk path -- that is, the common circuit between the operator's headset and the line terminations on each switchboard position. *Do not* monitor the building house pairs or God forbid, telco's pairs coming into the premises, etc. Once the operator opened a key on her position, you could hear her and the caller she was working with. When she closed the key and dropped out of the circuit, the connection would be private between the calling and called parties once again, meaning you should pick it up from the auxiliary jack on each position. Quite obviously if the operator makes a personal phone call from her position you will overhear it, but I assume that is what you want to do while protecting the privacy of your users. But I'd not do it without advising the operators that you had the ability to do so and were so inclined. Of course, that might end your problems right there. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:57:45 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of > high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in > enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised > concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a > higher threat of disruption. US WEST Communications (NE) is offering special, "self-healing" (whatever THAT means) fiber service to major business. I have forgotten the two options, but one includes installing TWO cables to the business, fed from opposite directions. One is (presumably) idle (spare?) while the other one operates. In the event of an outage, the system automatically (again, presumably) switches to the back-up cable. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:58:39 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > There is no such thing as a "secure line" for a phone call. Once it's > out on lines in areas not totally controlled by your own trusted > people, it's public. > Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you don't want to read > about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}. Although your was an EXCELLENT discussion of the "how to" and "why use a" secure (a) line, but it sure makes ordinary loops sound virtually non-private! Virtually everything I have heard in the course of my years has not been memorable, yet ordinary subscribers are increasing concerned about the security of their ordinary transmissions! I had a new-home installation recently where the subscriber insisted that the Network Interface be placed INSIDE the home, and that the dropwire enter the foundation BELOW grade! The customer's primary concern was the integrity of his home security system. After two hours and a dozen calls, we (US WEST Communications/NE) acquiesed and accomodated the customer. I explained that all a reasonably skilled burglar would have to do was to simply walk out to the wirepost in front and cut the line. He was not swayed. Another customer had their security system installer build a wooden box around the protector housing and (drop) riser tube, complete with magnetic switch! Explaining to the customer that two minutes (or less) with a tile spade would circumvent THAT safeguard (dig up and cut the shallow drop). In my (not yet) vast experience, I have encountered only ONE "tap" and it was merely a (convicted) case of "Theft of Services"!! Has there been much (any) traffic here regarding unauthorized entry into residential SNIs (Standard (telephone) Network Interfaces - complete with working, RJllC jack) on the backs of homes? I recall seeing a short bit about it on CNN Headline News a couple of years ago. Our SNI vendor (Seicor) finally replaced the "can wrench" bolt with the Allen/Torx-like-headed bolt. GREAT! Just another tool to carry to the back of each house! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 12 Jan 91 08:37:01 GMT Organization: Northwestern University In article <15966@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >>5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow). >> Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may >> not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up. >I know of at least the following uses of the "second pair" (yellow/black): > - Off-hook indication for key sets. [List of other uses deleted] >Which of these does the Swedish system expect/use? I would presume the off-hook indication, since what Televerket complains about is that non-"T"-certified (remember, Televerket is like FCC and pre-1984 AT&T combined) phones may not hang up correctly. In Sweden, a phone call is not necessarily disconnected unless *both* parties hang up, thus you can: 1. Ask your party to wait, hang up, and grab another phone somewhere else (there is a timeout in most areas). 2. Trace a harassing call even if the harasser hangs up. Also, in Sweden the indoor wiring is serial, not parallel, meaning that if you lift the handset on one phone, you disconnect all phones with lower priority, i.e. further away from the incoming line. This looks to me like it almost has to be some form of on/off relay here? (Maybe someone at ericsson.se knows...) H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ Date: 12-JAN-1991 04:15:15.78 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: 900 Number Addresses > [Moderator's Note: A check with 702-555-1212 showed no listing in Reno > for either the 'Eagleton Group' or the 'New 9999 Line'. But my trusty > criss-cross for Reno shows 561 Keystone Avenue to be simply a remail > service -- a mail drop -- where Mr. Eagleton picks up his mail, > probably in the middle of the night with no one around to spot him. PAT] Indeed! :) I too called DA and they found no listing for either firm. Ultimately, if these people keep calling, I expect what I will do is present NY Tel with a copy of the certified receipt, and show that I have made more than reasonable efforts to notify them (the 900/540 people) that they are annoying me. Then (I hope!), NY Tel will be more helpful in finding out the local guy with the recorded solicitation machine, who is the actual source of my problem. However, it has been three weeks now, and I haven't received a call on ANY of my lines, so maybe Mr. Eagleton actually picked up his mail ... and is finding a new mailbox so he can start calling again! :) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Craig Harris Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports Date: 12 Jan 91 09:59:30 GMT Reply-To: Craig Harris Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <15877@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 15, Message 4 of 9 >This is something that has always bothered me. Let's say that I'm >roaming into a far away cellular system where my calls don't >automatically find me. Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then >enter my 10 digit number to reach me. The problem is that if they are >calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt, >whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point >the secondary dialtone is provided. The reason for the answer supervision on roamer access numbers is that some of the time AT&T will not pass audio from the calling party to the terminating party until there is answer supervision. If the Cellular switch did not return supervision, the calling party would not be able to DTMF overdial your mobile number to the roamer access port. This was not always the case. A few years ago, some of the long distant companies that were buying time from AT&T would not send supervision, but would actually complete the call and they could not bill for those calls. So, this was their fix to always make sure that supervision was returned before connecting the audio path from the calling party to the terminating party until answer supervision was returned. Craig Harris, Motorola Inc 1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2237 ...!uunet!motcid!charris Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497 ------------------------------ From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 09:40:02 GMT The last time I did a road trip back to DC from Ohio, I was amused to find that I could hit one of DC/Balt Cell One's cells from I-70 as it crossed a ridge near Hancock, MD. Thinking quickly, I pulled over onto the shoulder and called in to my answering machine. I couldn't hit a DC cell again for almost another 45 minutes worth of driving time ... you can also see DC cells from Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park, as long as you are on the east side of the ridge :) Amanda Walker anda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda ------------------------------ From: Jim Celoni Subject: AT&T Universal Card; Travel Calling Organization: Columbia University Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 17:12:28 GMT In article <16006@accuvax.nwu.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >My AT&T Universal card ... [doesn't] >work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T.... >My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for >distributing calling card numbers... It's a feature :). My AT&T Universal calling card number works fine with the local operating companies (e.g. Pac*Bell) for intra-LATA calls, but only with AT&T for inter-LATA. So my number is in the shared database, but the IXCs have more restricted access to it?? I do think it's a feature because it alerts one who doesn't notice the lack of the sparkling "AT&T" or the "Thank you for using AT&T" voices that another carrier is trying to handle the call. I use Metromedia <> ITT's Preferred Calling Card (NO surcharge, 950 access, competitive per-minute rates; info 800/ 275-0100) for most domestic calls, even intra-LATA, but if I know a call will be long enough for the difference in per-minute rates to exceed the surcharge (e.g. 0.72+(ATT less 10%) < Metro, or 0.40+PacBell < Metro -- several minutes to > 1/2 hr depending on time of day and called number), then I'll use the Universal Card. A caveat about the Universal Card: the magnetic stripe has the credit card number, not calling card number, so if you swipe it into a public phone, your credit card will be billed *by whatever carrier the phone wants to use*, and even if it's AT&T you won't get the 10% off. I punch my number in. Another competitive option for travel calling (not touted as often as the MCI Card and Sprint FONcard) is MCI's VisaPhone/MasterPhone (0.70 surcharge+0.10-0.18/min; info 800/ 866-0099/333-3252). Standard disclaimer applies; I'm just a happy user. +j ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #29 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22338; 12 Jan 91 22:31 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25648; 12 Jan 91 21:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10198; 12 Jan 91 19:59 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 19:26:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #30 BCC: Message-ID: <9101121926.ab28572@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 19:26:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Mike Godwin] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Scott Coleman] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Brian Crawford] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jim Redelfs] Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Jim Redelfs] Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Frederick Roeber] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Kari Hardarson] Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? [randall@thor.sandiego.ncr.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 15:30:20 GMT The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual >community is what you find important, it should be okay, and >encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling >fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, >they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual >chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. This is an untenable reach on your part, Pat. BBSs are not like 900/976 chatlines. If you think they are, then you must have been calling a very different sort of BBS from the ones I've experienced over the last decade. Apparently, I need to explain the word "community." It does not denote two people talking out each other's fantasies. Nor does it denote rape-crisis hotlines, which are also, generally, two-person interactions. Virtual communities give rise to colloquies, not merely dialogs, Pat. More than two people can talk with each other at once, and the relationship is not structured the way 976 lines and rape-crisis lines are, with one person invariably seeking some particular kind of service or information from the other, and often paying for it. If 976 lines are what come to your mind when I use the word "community," then I've learned quite a bit more about how you think than I knew before, Pat. :-) Our Moderator asks why Compuserve shouldn't get residential rates since Compuserve is a virtual community. The answer, of course , is that Compuserve is a commercial service, Pat. Most BBSs are not. I'm not advocating residential rates for all virtual communities. I'd just like to see them for the very small-scale virtual communities that arise on hobbyist BBSs. Your passion for seeing that these BBSs pay residential rates will wipe a great number of them out, Pat. This is a loss that should be avoided. John Higdon's elegant solution has yet to be fully addressed here, by the way. Higdon suggests that residential rates be the rates that are charged to *residences*. What a concept. Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 mnemonic@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation [Moderator's Note: I'll have a colloquy of my own in response to all this in the next issue of the Digest or the one following. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sat, 12 Jan 1991 15:26:31 GMT In article <15944@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator, in responding to Mike Godwin writes: > fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, > they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual > chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. I suspect that the chat lines qualify as "virtual communities", but not the dial-a-porn. How can you call it a community if none of the "members" know each other? I think this is a specious argument, but you are going a bit overboard here. In article <15946@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator responds to peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > [Moderator's Note: I don't think you should pay business rates... > I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised. > You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines > and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other > strangers. Good, we've established a base at which a BBS is not a business. Now, let's go on from there ... a friend of mine is running an eight-line system, but he doesn't advertise. Five of the lines have modems that are compatible with Teletext services, so U.S. Videotel customers (and old Sourceline customers) can call. Most of the users are people he knows from U.S.Videotel, or from other BBSes, but he doesn't validate. This system is not to my knowledge (or his) advertised anywhere, but it does have chat and games and the lines are in use a considerable portion of the time. Very few (if any) of the users are total strangers to him, though we don't all know each other. This person is by nature fairly solitary, so the BBS is a large part of his social life. Is it a business? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: Probably it should not be treated as a business since there is at least some connection between himself and the callers. As you pointed out, 'few if any are total strangers'. He does not really solicit the public, or invite electronic strangers to call and make use of his facilities. I never said some of these situations would not be close calls, and this one is certainly such a case. My feeling would be that in cases where things are *so gray* that no real decision can be made, the benefit of the doubt should go to the subscriber. PAT] ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sat, 12 Jan 1991 15:58:49 GMT I wrote: >Why do you think BBS sysops are so special that they should be singled >out among all other hobbyists for higher phone rates? Why can't we pay >the same phone rates as everyone else who has a hobby? >Tell me, do you feel that people who dial out using modems should be >charged business rates? After all, they're doing the exact same thing the >sysop is doing Pat responds: >[Moderator's Note: I do not think that *any* telephone user should be >charged business rates based on the media used. Voice, fax or computer >should all be treated alike *for casual, non-committed* use of the >phone. If 'business' rates are to be charged, they should be charged >to users who indicate the service is for business use, i.e. directory >listings using a 'business-like' name or phrase ** and to users who >specifically solicit the public to call them **. Ah, so your entire argument comes down to this: phone rates should not be proportional to actual use of telco resources, but rather to some arbitrary definition of what a "business" is. Specifically, your definition includes an explicit "solicitation for the public to call [the BBS] telephone." Thus, a BBS-addict who installs a second line for use specifically to make outgoing calls to BBSi should not pay business rates, despite the fact that a) it makes heavy use of telco resources and b) is a *non-casual, committed* use of that phone line. You believe this to be fair? >To answer your question 'why should BBS sysops be singled out for >higher rates instead of paying what other people pay for their >hobbies', the answer is that your hobby by definition involves heavy >use of the telephone, and the solicitation of the public to call your >telephone. There are other hobbies which make heavy use of the telephone (BBSing and running a point system as described earlier). Some BBSers spend more time on the phone than many BBSs, yet you do not think they should pay business rates because they don't "solicit the public to call" them. What is so magical about this "solicit the public to call" idea that it alone should double someone's phone rates? Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: If there are going to be two sets of rates, one for 'residential' and the other for 'business' users, then there has to be some starting point to decide what falls in which category. I thought the 'do you solicit the public' question was one way of deciding who should go where. It was not intended as the last word or final test. To answer your question about how much use is made of the service, I do not think a personal/business use distinction should be made based on the amount of time a line is engaged. Certainly the one who uses more of the service should pay more *per use*, but I don't think they should have an overall higher monthly rate merely because they use it more. The BBS-addict you described is placing a call on his telephone just like a person calling voice is using the phone. He should pay for what he uses, but his is residential use, because it is a casual call, placed at his discretion, lasting whatever time he wishes to be connected. Short of shutting down the board, the sysop does not make these choices: He responds when the phone rings, provides the information or service demmanded of him by the caller and in fact encourages others to call and utilize his service through his advertising. There is a difference between specifically prompting others to call you and providing them some service -- even chat -- when they call and the person who casually uses his phone at his convenience to place such calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 12 Jan 91 16:51:36 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article <15941@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > Throw out the small-minded city council, that's what! (I'll resist > flaming about the morality of forcing licenses *at all* upon people > who are engaged in entirely voluntary association.) When (assuming if) the U.S. government policy and telephone utilities catch up with their own direct-dial, universally accessed and used E-Mail network, it can be certain that highly restrictive telephone tarriffs as well as legislation will be used to stamp out the various BBS networks in lieu of a costly system provided by Telcos. Enjoy them while you can. Brian Crawford INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 Amateur: KL7JDQ USA [Moderator's Note: Well, I dunno ... AT&T, Sprint and MCI all have commercial email services at this time, and the government has the Internet, yet you don't see them hassling the BBS guys all that much except for the current controversy over what rates to be charged. All of the big three email providers -- or four if you count Compuserve were more than eager to interconnect with the 'free' Internet once the technical bugs were worked out. They don't seem that eager to squash the others in my opinion. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:00:56 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be > no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch > reports were off-normal. > Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone > for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on > a given day! Amen to that! I can always tell when the kids have gotten home from school. Our "clattering antique" (Western Electric 2B ESS) just percolates! Pretty quite, otherwise. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:56:59 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > Perhaps, but what exactly are the differences in the "FCC mandated line > access charges" between residences and businesses? I may be wrong, but > thought that I heard, way back when this good-intentioned but > poorly-thought-out access charge business started, that businesses got > hit harder. > Anyone know? A quick call to the Business (as opposed to Residence) Business Office (I forgot this week's acronym!) reveals that the Federal Access Charge for a 1FB (flat-rate Business line) just went down this week from $4.82 to $4.71 - a reduction? I'm impressed! Currently, the RESIDENTIAL charge, per line, is $3.50. God bless Harold Greene. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: Frederick Roeber Subject: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 12 Jan 91 06:31:42 PST I believe the confusion over the "secure phone" mentioned in the book, The Cuckoo's Egg, arises from Dr. Stoll describing a few phone calls he received: One day, he answered his phone only to hear a recording "This is not a secure phone..." The person on the other end hung up and tried again, with the same result. After a couple tries, he finally got through, and was able to start questioning Dr. Stoll. Dr. Stoll replied, "This is not a secure phone..." A friend of mine, who does military security work, said this is the result of calling a non-secure phone from the government's secure phone system and trying to initiate a secure call. When making a secure call on this system, one first makes an ordinary phone call -- over any network, FTS, AT&T, or whoever. When the other end has been reached, one presses the `secure' button. This makes each end call the main computer that controls the secure phone system. Through an encrypted conversation, the main computer sends each phone two numbers: a key with which they can communicate with each other (for that conversation only), and a key to be used for the next call to the main computer. Then the main computer drops out, and the phones can send encrypted traffic to each other. Of course, if you hit `secure' when other end is a regular phone, the main computer realizes it can't set up an encrypted link, and plays the warning message. It also logs the attempt. So Dr. Stoll need not have been anywhere near a secure phone to get such a call. Frederick G.M. Roeber | e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@vxcern.cern.ch r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: +41 22 767 31 80 ------------------------------ From: Kari Hardarson Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 12 Jan 91 18:49:53 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill The Icelandic PTT also uses the big four-prong plugs. (Big enough for supplying electricity to a stove !). The 2nd pair is used to forward the connection to another outlet. If an outlet is used, an internal switch cuts the forward link and prevents other phones down the line from being used. The switch is mechanical, i.e. when a phone is plugged into the outlet, the switch opens. I guess they do it to prevent the telephone line from being overloaded by too many telephones. Doesn't make much sense these days, I should think, since the newer telephones don't draw as much current as the older ones did. Kari Hardarson 217 Jackson Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27514 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 11:53:45 -0500 From: randall@thor.sandiego.ncr.com Subject: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo Pat: It might interest you to know that the fiber optic break which affected NY particularly Wall Street was a terrorist operation, but is being kept covert for fear of alerting the American public. This information is from a second hand CIA source, so if you quote me I just say it's second hand. Randall [Moderator's Note: Consider it said, then. What you say does not surprise me, but I don't know if I believe it or not. The Central Intelligence Agency has had a long reputation as agent provocateurs; that is, they create their own terrorism sometimes so they can blame whoever the current enemy of the people happens to be. Maybe the CIA cut the cable themselves hoping to stir up more trouble. Mini-book review: Read and enjoy "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence". It is a fascinating book and explains lots of CIA dirty tricks. The book was banned here in the USA, but now and then you can find a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #30 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23098; 12 Jan 91 23:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21617; 12 Jan 91 22:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25648; 12 Jan 91 21:04 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 20:23:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Technical error in issue 30 BCC: Message-ID: <9101122023.ab00907@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To our mailing list readers who burst their digests into undigested format: An error in issue 30 (released Satruday night) will prevent the process from working correctly. There are only nine messages ... not ten. Remove the erroneous duplicate header in the table of contents. Peter da Silva's article is listed twice there ... but the article was only printed once. By removing the duplicate header in your editor then saving it back out, you should be able to undigest the issue properly. Sorry for the error and confusion. PAT   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28570; 13 Jan 91 2:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32268; 13 Jan 91 1:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20040; 13 Jan 91 0:08 CST Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:30:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #31 BCC: Message-ID: <9101122330.ab16314@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:30:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [J. Eric Townsend] Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert Jacobson] Re: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot [Robert Jacobson] Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Dave Levenson] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Dave Levenson] Recording Phone Calls [David Michels] Baku-Vanaku Beachside Revisited [K. M. Peterson] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Dave Levenson] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Bryan Richardson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:55:53 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why? Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > The other employee told me that the > two phones were somehow linked with the payphone in the lobby (on the > same line), and that's why the two phones can't be used to initiate > calls. > The two phones are each typical AT&T wall-mount model type phone. Does > anyone have any information about this? Traditionally, extensions off of Semi-Pub coins are dial-less sets. Some time ago, I installed a B1M (Measured Business) loop to the pizza kitchen of a convenience store. I installed the wall jack and they hung a 554-type DIAL-LESS set. Obviously, the line is intended for incoming-only calls, but it was a "plain" line - allowing OUTgoing with a dial-equipped phone. As for the "hunting" on the Semi-Pubs: I've never heard of or seen that! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) [Moderator's Note: Long, long ago, in a different place, a nerdy ninth-grade student fixed up a neat deal for his uncle who owned the drugstore on the corner: He took a two-line turn-button phone and installed it in the pharmacy area in the back. One side of the turn button was the pharmacy phone line; the other side of the turn button was an extension from the semi-pub coin phone booth in the front of the store. As we all know, those old two-line turn-button phones had a third pair/set of contacts in them: the turn-button could be pressed down (on release it would spring back up) and this normally was used to sound a buzzer at another extension. But the smart-alecky kid used it to momentarily send one side of the line to ground on the pay phone pair ... this was long before the 'dialtone first' era ... and the resulting dialtone on the pay phone line saved his uncle (but mostly him) the 'nuisance' of having to walk to the front of the store and deposit a nickle in the coin slot to get the same dialtone. He could dial from the two-line phone in back of course ... then one day the telephone inspector came around to see if 'something might be wrong with this instrument'. Panic! The wires were quickly clipped at the pharmacy end and never reconnected. The inspector, a fellow with a big red nose and a gleam in his eye said he hoped he'd not have to visit these premises again; that there'd be hell to pay if he returned. The lad's uncle, not being a regular reader of telecom, had known nothing about the 'mystery third position' on the turn-button ... only that his smart nephew had fixed up a new phone for him in his office. There was hell to pay, alright, and it did not require a return visit by the inspector. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "J. Eric Townsend" Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:28:28 GMT In article <16011@accuvax.nwu.edu> jyacc!charles@uunet.uu.net (Charles McGuinness) writes: >In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch says: >> I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? >You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer >rotary dial phones! A while back, my grandmother (who is 88 years And the rest of us have little choice. UH has no real organizational level telecommunications policies. Most departments still have the rotary *only*, department level switching units. When I got my office phone (touch tone) I discovered that I couldn't use the office-to- office intercom system easily because it was pulse driven. I now astound the mathematicians by manually dialing with the switchhook if I need to buzz another office. :-) J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Mangler - UH Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 Motorola skates on Intel's head! ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology Date: 12 Jan 91 23:47:50 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Chris Johnson's discrimination between "business" decisions and "political" decisions is naive, though commonly held. There are few business decisions which do not have a political component, whether it is a trivial battle between divisions within a corporation or more serious attempts to alter the balance of benefits and/or power within society. For example, whether we have the "best" telephone system in the world -- something which could easily be challenged by references to other systems, if Chris knew more about them -- is perhaps of secondary importance to the question of who pays for the high level of services available (of which only a few are useful to the bulk of the population). The decision to lower long distance rates and raise local rates (via an access charge) has shifted the burden of paying for the public telecommunications network from large users to residential/small business users, to the tune of about four billion dollars a year or more. But the issue of technological policy is a larger one than the mere redistribution of monetary benefits and costs. It's a question of who gets to make policy. Perhaps I don't have Chris' broad knowledge of technology policy, but as a student of the history of technology for about twenty years, I certainly don't share his sunny optimism regarding the current system; history is not on the side of Chris' argument. Finally, I wouldn't throw around the label of "Luddite" so carelessly. In fact, as Montgomery has pointed out in TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE (MIT Press, 1974), the Luddites, who protested the automation of many craft activities, were ultimately successful not in forestalling technology but in mitigating its worst social effects. British working life, for awhile, became the most progressive and advanced in the world, with decent wages and relatively safe conditions, as a result of the Luddites' effect on British law. And this was while Britain was literally taking the world by storm. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot Date: 12 Jan 91 23:51:24 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Judge Greene gets to interpret the law, and he interpreted the law with regard to the antitrust violations committed by AT&T. He was responding to the Attorney General of the U.S., who proposed the settlement in the first place -- and who gave HIM the right to make the law? Judge Greene-bashing is not only old hat, it's fruitless. I should add that in my discussions with Judge Greene's staff (I was a staffer for the CA Legislature for eight years in the area of telecom policy), I found them more knowledgeable than any legislator or congressional staff (with the possible exception of the OTA) with whom I came into contact. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' Date: 13 Jan 91 01:52:22 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15968@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gtisqr!toddi@cs.washington.edu (Todd Inch) writes: > (Remember: Do your kids know how to dial a rotary phone for > emergencies?) My friend's kids once asked why the act of pushing keys on the telephone was called 'dialing'. 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: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 13 Jan 91 01:44:36 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <15965@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > >OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest? > [Moderator's Note: ... > the southwestern-most point for Chicago area service. When HOME kicked > in on my unit, a nearby highway sign said we were 70 miles from > Morris. All that on a .6 watt handheld ... see why I don't concern > myself with the exact specifics of the antenna I use? Admittedly, I > had the 'standard' antenna for a handheld, not the little 1/8 wave > loaded stub I installed a month or so ago. PAT] It has been my experience that the HOME or ROAM indication (i.e. something other than NO SERVICE) means only that the mobile or portable cellular telephone is receiving the setup channel from a cell. It doesn't necessarily mean that the cell would receive your signal if you tried to SEND. At 70 miles range, you may well be able to receive the setup channel which is transmitting at a hundred watts or more. Moreover, if you are receiving it 'most of the time' with a lot of fading, you'll still probably display an in-service indication. But try to initiate a call with your 0.6-watt hand-held with its 1/8th-wave antenna when the cell's access channel receiver is 70 miles away! The cell may not hear you. You may also have a signal too weak or intermittent for conversation. 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 [Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it? Wouldn't it make better sense to tone down the cell just a little so a more realistic range *in both directions* could be observed? I've done the same thing with my cordless phones in the past: Mounted the base antenna on the roof and peaked up the base output a little so I could hear it on the remote unit two or three city blocks away ... but to what avail if I can't make the trip back? PAT] ------------------------------ From: michels@tramp.Colorado.EDU (MICHELS DAVID) Subject: Recording Phone Calls Reply-To: michels@tramp.Colorado.EDU (MICHELS DAVID) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 02:07:25 GMT It used to be, when answering machines were first becoming popular, that the conversation recording feature always put out a tone every few seconds. Not anymore, now many of them seem to provide silent recording. Have the laws or just ethics changed? Is recording of telephone conversations legal, or is it required to notify all participants involved before-hand? I would assume recording for 'personal use' is legal, just as it is legal to record TV shows and copy software. But that's just a hunch, anybody know the real answer or how to find out?? [Moderator's Note: State laws vary. Check yours with an attorney. The tone signal was/is a convenient way not to 'forget' to notify the other party ... but merely notice is required; not any specific kind of notice. It is adequate to announce (on the recording itself at the start of the call) that you are recording it, and record the other person's assent to what you are doing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "K. M. Peterson" Subject: Baku-Vanaku Beachside Revisited Date: Sat, 12 January 90 00:00:00 GMT I see our friend from Fiji is back. That's right, not the one from Phoenix. For everyone who lost this thread, several months ago, AT&T was running television ads that stressed the superior customer service available from AT&T by showing a proto-Yuppie dialing Phoenix (presumably Arizona) and getting Fiji. This struck Telecom readers as rather unlikely. Apparently AT&T as well, because I just came across a new version of this ad showing the same picture, but the commentary begins: "I was trying to call overseas. I think I remember the number but..." (And up pops our friend at the beach) "Baku-Vanaku Beachside". (I think that's what we agreed that he said...) So, it appears that AT&T rethought this approach of how one could misdial Fiji for Phoenix. Anyone have the straight dope on this one? K. M. (Kris) Peterson Prime Computer, Inc. KMP@VM370.Prime.COM +1 508 620 2800 x3667 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Date: 13 Jan 91 02:24:02 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16006@accuvax.nwu.edu>, zweig@cs.uiuc.edu (Johnny Zweig) writes: > I have had my AT&T Universal card for six months now (if memory ... > phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T > Universal VISA cards aren't distributed? It seems kind of like a > you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I > have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths). Why would anybody give you a free credit card unless there was something in it for the giver? Yes, they get the spiff from the merchant who accepts it, but the real reason they wanted to blanket the country with these cards, and the real reason they offer you a toll discount when you use it, is that it keeps your toll traffic on their network. It wouldn't be accomplishing its real purpose if it allowed you to use if on anybody else's network, would it? 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: Bryan Richardson Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Date: 13 Jan 91 03:52:28 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Purdue University In article <16006@accuvax.nwu.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >...I ordered it the same day I read about it in >comp.dcom.telecom) and have continually had trouble getting the number >to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This >includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and >Canada. >My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for >distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home >phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T >Universal VISA cards aren't distributed? It seems kind of like a >you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I >have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths). Most calling cards issued are issued in connection with a particular line or billing number; The calling card number is of the form:NPA-NXX-XXXX-PINN. Upon request and for internal use, calling card numbers are generated where the first four digits are not N(0/1)X-N. Looking at my Universal Card, I see that the same thing holds true of the calling card number there. I suspect two reasons for non-acceptance by other IECs: 1.) The most likely is that the number is not distributed to other IECs to prevent customers from dialling using other IECs -- where you're sure not to get your 10% and perhaps a whole lot worse (AOSs). 2.) The other databases performing the validation are unable to accept numbers which do not conform to N(0/1)X-N as the first few digits. (This is probably unlikely, as they undoubtably wish to provide similar 'security.') Bryan Richardson AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University. Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #31 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04771; 13 Jan 91 4:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09209; 13 Jan 91 3:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18567; 13 Jan 91 2:13 CST Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 1:19:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #32 BCC: Message-ID: <9101130119.ab15702@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Jan 91 01:18:58 CST Volume 11 : Issue 32 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [TELECOM Moderator] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter Anvin] Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Jim Redelfs] Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Dave Levenson] Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Tim Russell] Re: Random-Dialling Children [Jim Redelfs] Good News on the Telemarketing Front [Larry Jones] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 22:11:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Mike Godwin responds in issue 30 to my comments in earlier issues: My original comments: >> His reply: > >>[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual >>community is what you find important, it should be okay, and >>encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling >>fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, >>they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual >>chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. >This is an untenable reach on your part, Pat. BBSs are not like >900/976 chatlines. If you think they are, then you must have been >calling a very different sort of BBS from the ones I've experienced >over the last decade. Perhaps then you are not all that familiar with the range and scope of BBSs in America today ... or the 900/976 chat line scene. There are plenty of nice BBSs around, and more than a few 'naughty' ones as well. In both instances, by voice communication in one and by data communication in the other, people call to relate to one another, to chat by modem or speak with others, alone or in a group, friends (I use that word loosely!) or total strangers. Both the sixteen line TBBS sites with their own version of 'CB Simulator' and the six/seven line Diversi-Dial boards run on Apple ][ computers exclusively for chat purposes have a wide range of devotees. >Apparently, I need to explain the word "community." It does not denote >two people talking out each other's fantasies. Nor does it denote >rape-crisis hotlines, which are also, generally, two-person >interactions. Rape-crisis is probably not a good example here, although my inclination would be to give them a break on their phone costs if possible through the creation of a third, intermediate rate for non-residential/non-business service. You are correct this is one on one. But if two people -- sysop and BBS'er -- can sit in chat and discuss matters of interest at residential rates, why can't two people sit and chat voice discussing 'other things' also get residential rates? Or conversely, why do sysops get residential rates while voice-style information services pay business rates? >Virtual communities give rise to colloquies, not merely dialogs, Pat. >More than two people can talk with each other at once, and the >relationship is not structured the way 976 lines and rape-crisis lines >are, with one person invariably seeking some particular kind of >service or information from the other, and often paying for it. There are lots of 900/976 numbers where several people chat voice at one time in a common 'tank'. Likewise there are plenty of BBSs where only two people can talk at once, i.e. the sysop and the caller. And sometime you should ask a few old veteran sysops how many times per day they are called into chat by a new (and heretofore unknown to them) user who invariably asks "what downloads/games do you have here? How old are you? What kind of computer is this?". So some lonely nerd of a sixth-grade child phreaks his way around the country calling BBSs and pestering one sysop after another ... while another chap sits at home and calls a different 900 number daily looking for some person who will talk to him ... what is really the difference ??? >If 976 lines are what come to your mind when I use the word >"community," then I've learned quite a bit more about how you think >than I knew before, Pat. :-) 900/976 devotees (of the community chat lines) are every bit as much a community as are the devotees of some particular BBS. Admittedly the one-on-one 900 callers tend to stay anonymous, but the community chat lines are indeed, quite frequently the same old voices on the other end. Yes there are newcomers daily -- just like on a BBS. Yes, there are people who have been around for awhile and call daily ... just like on a BBS. What is really the difference ??? One chooses to speak, while the other chooses to type. Both choose to call because the person or organization on the other end **has solicited calls from the public** -- invited the public to share in hospitality with them. But you say one is a virtual community .. the other isn't. Maybe it is a matter of your subjective taste and attitudes in how one person should socialize with others. >Our Moderator asks why Compuserve shouldn't get residential rates >since Compuserve is a virtual community. The answer, of course , is >that Compuserve is a commercial service, Pat. Most BBSs are not. So do you want an auditor from telco to examine your books and see if you made money or not last year? Back in 1979-80 Compuserve was not making money. I know your answer to that is that well, their *intent* was always to make money ... and the BBS sysop does not *intend* to make money. Therefore, virtual community or not, since the sysop is only doing it out of the goodness of his heart and Compuserve is doing it for the money they make, the sysop gets off the hook while CIS pays. But if it is the 'profit motive' which is to be used to decide whether or not a virtual community ought to pay business rates on the phone, then we are back to the dial-prayers and other itinerant information providers who offer voice recordings of one kind or another out of, I might add, the goodness of their heart or their desire to serve the community. You see Mike, sysops do not have a monopoly on goodness of heart or desire to serve the community. A lady in Chicago runs a recorded message each day giving soap opera updates '... for the folks who work all day and cannot watch daytime television as I do ... '. Any number of folks have an extra phone line set up to give inspirational talks, book reviews, their view of current events or whatever. All are little one person operators who, like the sysop, believe in sharing their skills and knowledge with others freely. >I'm not advocating residential rates for all virtual communities. I'd >just like to see them for the very small-scale virtual communities >that arise on hobbyist BBSs. Your passion for seeing that these BBSs >pay residential rates will wipe a great number of them out, Pat. This >is a loss that should be avoided. I think you meant to say 'your passion for seeing them pay *BUSINESS* rates will wipe them out.' I will proceed from here on the assumption that is what you meant. I have no such passion. Did I not early on in this thread say I thought there should be a third rate step, an intermediate rate for phones not used as typical residence phones but certainly not as business phones either? If there are only to be two rates, one business and one personal, the BBSs should be treated no differently than anyone else in the 'business of' providing information, indiscriminate chatting and other services to the public out of goodwill. At present, that means pay business rates. The fact that it is regarded as a 'hobby' rather than a 'business' has no bearing on the matter since a good many dial-prayer, soap-opera review, conspiracy-theory VOICE services are regarded by their proprietors as hobbies also. They pay business rates at present. You want to 'avoid the loss of BBSs'. All well and good. Others want to keep their public-service hobbies alive also. It isn't the virtual community that matters; many of them have their little community of regular participants. It isn't the profitability that counts; none of the folks using the phone as a hobby would claim they get any sizeable amount of contributions sent to their post office boxes. It isn't how few there are around that counts; if anything there are more BBSs in any large city than churches, charities and telephone public service announcement-givers put together. At last count in metro Chicago we had over 400 BBS programs operating, per a recent BBS directory. It isn't that BBS sysops are so special and so different; they aren't. They have chosen a media and a method to express themselves and serve others. None of this would have come to pass had it not been for the multi-line chat systems like Diversi-Dial and TBBS sixteen line boards whose (apparently) wealthy owners unflinchingly spent plenty of money to set up such systems, charged a few dollars to let everyone on, and then went stiff when it was time to pay telco their due for the month. I have no doubt telco would have never touched the *really* little guys who visit electronically with a few friends at night had it not been for the real abusers in the modem world. And now, everyone gets to pay. Tell the Judge you think there should be a special rate step for the hobbyists and non-profits who use the phone in any capacity -- whatever their thing. That should be a compromise almost everyone could live with. ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 13 Jan 91 06:22:08 GMT Organization: Northwestern University I propose a very simple solution to this problem, which the telcos will fight until doomsday to avoid: let all IRS certified non-profit organizations qualify for residential rates, unless they order special business services like 800 numbers and Centrex. That is the way it works in Sweden, which a few years ago started having separate business and residental rates. If the American and Swedish telenets are anything similar, the "heavy use of telco resources" is a bogus argument; the more a certain user uses the phone the more profitable a line is. The monthly line fee does not cover the telco's expenses for maintaining the local loop, so people who use their lines a lot are subsidizing the ones who rarely use their phones. Well, you may say, the telco doesn't get money for incoming calls (and for example BBS lines are almost exclusively inbound), but the caller is paying the telco anyway; as I have understood it even when the call is long distance (which BBS calls typically aren't). Also regarding the flat fee calling being eliminated for a per-call charge because of BBS's being online for hours or days at a time: doesn't this sound like a contradiction? If there is a per-call charge, wouldn't you ought to be *more* reluctant to hang up and call back later, than if you have a flat fee? Just a thought! Just my $0.02 worth... H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:00:10 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > I tried about ten different listed numbers, and they had them all. I > tried two unlisted numbers, mine, and they had neither, nor did they > know me by name at my current or previous addresses. We have two levels of non-printed telephone serivces: Unlisted and Non-Published. Unlisted is available from D.A.; Non-Published is NOT. We charge more to provide the latter than the former. Using the above "definitions", what type is your "unlisted" service? Does CompuServe make such distinctions with their service? JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications Date: 13 Jan 91 02:35:27 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16015@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) writes: > Also, in Sweden the indoor wiring is serial, not parallel, meaning > that if you lift the handset on one phone, you disconnect all phones > with lower priority, i.e. further away from the incoming line. This > looks to me like it almost has to be some form of on/off relay here? It sounds to me as though that's what the second pair is for. If the telephone sets are wired in series, then each set would require two pairs from the wall-socket: Tip and Ring in, and Tip and Ring out to the next set on the line. The switchhook in each set probably implements a 'double-pole, double-throw' arrangement. The inbound pair is connected to the outbound pair when the instrument is on-hook. When the set is off-hook, this connection is broken, and the inbound pair is connected to the hybrid in the set. This is a wild guess on my part; I have never been in Sweden, and have no knowlege of the telephone system there. 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: Tim Russell Subject: Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls Date: 13 Jan 91 03:07:26 GMT Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA In article <72160@bu.edu.bu.edu> roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu (Frederick Roeber) writes: >A friend of mine, who does military security work, said this is the >result of calling a non-secure phone from the government's secure >phone system and trying to initiate a secure call. When making a >secure call on this system, one first makes an ordinary phone call -- >over any network, FTS, AT&T, or whoever. When the other end has been >reached, one presses the `secure' button. Quite true - my brother works as an engineer for a government contract company in Dallas that produces a new phone switch used, among other places, at Cheyenne Mountain. He was telling me that their system has this feature, where someone who calls in first hears a computer-played "Go secure" repeated over and over, then once they do that, connects them with their party. Anyway, the thing that's neat is that the message is his voice digitized, so his voice will be heard if/when "the big one" comes. Tim Russell Omaha NE russell@spdcc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:59:28 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Random-Dialling Children Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > For the next half-hour, he tried to coax a phone number... Yet another change that has occurred since Divistiture: We ALWAYS put the telephone number on the number-plate on all the sets. Come to think of it, I have been in NUMEROUS homes where there wasn't a phone number to be found! Post your number on or near your telephones - it could help end a crisis! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 17:23:23 EST From: Larry Jones Subject: Good News on the Telemarketing Front According to a (very brief!) note in the Business section of Friday's {Cincinnati Post}, US Sprint has laid off 280 telemarketing employees. It may not be much, but it certainly is a step in the right direction! Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH 45150-2789 513-576-2070 Domain: scjones@thor.UUCP Path: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones [Moderator's Note: The only thing that will happen now is those 280 people will get scattered all over the USA in other telemarketing firms looking for fresh meat. So instead of getting a call every few days from someone wanting you to switch over to Sprint now you will get two or three calls a night from different firms, some wanting to sell life insurance, cemetery plots from others, and occassionally someone sellng motor club or encyclopedias. And you call that progress? A step in the right directon? :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #32 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26132; 14 Jan 91 2:02 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28258; 14 Jan 91 0:29 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17243; 13 Jan 91 23:23 CST Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 22:25:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #33 BCC: Message-ID: <9101132225.ab25066@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Jan 91 22:25:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 33 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Texas Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise [TELECOM Moderator] BBS Decision in Texas [Ed Hopper] Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Ed Hopper] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Michael P. Deignan] Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bill Nickless] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 21:53:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: BBS Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise As the next message in our Digest today will explain, a compromise has been reached between Southwestern Bell and sysops in their service territory. Perhaps this compromise will serve as a guideline for other telcos faced with the same decision. To me, it seems like a reasonable solution and should satisfy most sysops who -- as it has been pointed out here many times -- are basically trying to combine their hobby with public service to their community. At the risk of having someone write to news.groups and say something silly about how 'the Moderator never prints anything which would prove him wrong', may I respectfully ask that anything still unsaid on this issue be written up and submitted in the next day or two so that the topic can be closed here later in the week. It has taken up a huge amount of bandwidth here in recent days. Thanks. Also I want to thank Ed Hopper for typing in the lengthy report which follows and getting it in to the Digest on a timely basis. PAT ------------------------------ Subject: BBS Decision in Texas From: Ed Hopper Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 14:09:30 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 On January 9, 1991, the Texas Public Utilities Commission, on a vote of 3 to 0 approved a negotiated settlement in Texas PUC docket 8387. This is the case of Reginald A. Hirsch, et. al. vs Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. This case grew from Southwestern Bell's attempt to assess business rates to all known BBSs. The negotiated settlement provides for the following provision to be added to the Southwestern Bell tariffs: ----- Begin quotation from proposed stipulation ------ 2. Southwestern Bell agrees to amend Section 23, Paragraph 3.1 of its General Exchange Tariff defining business service to include the following footnote: As a result of a Stipulation in Docket No. 8387 approved by the Commission on ______, Southwestern Bell agrees that all Bulletin Board Systems ("BBS") that are located at residence locations that do not solicit, require, or receive monetary compensation and that use three or fewer local exchange access lines shall be permitted to subscribe to local exchange access service at the approved residential rates. BBSs that are eligible to subscribe to local exchange access service at residential rates may publish their name, telephone number and technical information in a listing of BBSs by location or subject matter. Such listings must be purely informational to advise readers of the BBS's name, telephone number, location, subject matter, hours, baud rates, and other technical information. BBSs that do not meet these conditions will be considered businesses, and approved business rates will apply for all local exchange access lines used by such BBS. ------------------- End Quotation ----------------- The stipulation also provides that Southwestern Bell will provide a single point of contact for BBS operators and that for a period of 90 days after the PUC decision, they will waive service charges on orders to change service from one class of service to another in order to comply with settlement. This has been a long fight. The settlement is not what any of the parties would consider perfect. It does give BBS operators in Texas a firm set of guidelines in which to operate. They no longer have to play "Russian Roulette", hoping that they reach a SWBT business office that understands the rules. Ed Hopper President - COSUARD BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ Subject: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates From: Ed Hopper Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 14:39:27 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 There has been a lot of discussion here in Telecom regarding BBS's and the application of business rates. With the decision in Texas, I'd like to pass on my views and speak to some of the issues raised recently. Before I begin, I believe it is important to make some distinctions. 1. Obviously, I do not believe, nor does anyone I know believe, that residential rates should apply to a BBS located in a business location or run by a business or corporation. Telephone company rules on the provision of residence lines already speak to providing service in such cases. I do not disagree with them. Unless otherwise specified, all references to BBSs in this document refer to home based BBSs. 2. One must recognize that there are several categories of BBS systems. To briefly recount them for the purposes of this discussion: A. Free BBSs. These systems do not request donations of their users. Some even refuse to accept unsolicited donations. B. Donation BBSs. These systems request donations from their users. Such donations might be project-specific (i.e., raising money for a new hard drive) or may be solicited to defray ongoing operating costs. No quid pro quo is offered for donations on these systems. C. Fee BBSs. These are systems who have published schedules of fees. (i.e., $25 for a years access, etc). Some BBS's in this category do play word games, calling their fees "donations". (For the record, Ed Hopper's BBS *does* have a schedule of fees for access to shareware downloads. All message functions are free to all callers.) Also, for the purposes of this discussion, only CASH BBS fees and donations are considered. There has been some attempt to consider uploads, messages, cans of Spam, etc. to be "consideration". In the Texas case, only monetary compensation is included. Now, with distinctions made, to deal with some of the issues: Issue #1. - Who SHOULD pay business rates? I feel that, in the present circumstances, Fee BBSs should pay business rates. I do not feel business rates should apply to Free or Donation BBSs. The Texas settlement only protects Free BBSs. Donation BBSs must pay business rates. Issue #2. - Why a three line limit? A peculiarity of the Texas settlement is the "three line provision". This holds that a BBS that, under all other criteria, qualifies for residential rates must pay business rates if that BBS has four or more lines. This is an area where COSUARD on the one hand and SWBT and the PUC staff on the other, agreed to disagree. COSUARD accepted the settlement based upon our assessment of the politics of the situation, not because of our view that this is perfect. Our disagreement is based upon the fact that this restriction is an unprecedented restriction on consumers. It is certainly conceivable for one to envision situations where residential customers would order four or more telephone lines for non-computer uses. Individual lines for three children, for example. Needless to say, if SWBT told a residential customer that he could not have four residential lines for non-bbs purposes, the Texas PUC would quickly act to remedy the situation. I feel that this provision is discriminatory. Again, in order to forge a settlement, COSUARD agreed not to oppose this in the settlement of the case. The PUC and SWBT understand that COSUARD and/or others may move to oppose this provision later in other forums. In fact, one Houston sysop, Donald Saxman, testified against this provision during hearings on the case. Issue #3. - Three or more lines consume additional physical plant resources (i.e., cables). Sysops should pay for that. I do not disagree here. HOWEVER, sysops should only pay based upon tariff provisions that apply equally to ALL customers. Most telcos, including Southwestern Bell, have provisions to bill construction costs to customers for situations where unusual expenses are incurred. In no place, however, is the application of business rates vs residence rates considered to be a remedy for such a problem. Further, the assessment of such construction costs should not vary depending on the intended use of such a line (i.e., BBS or voice). Issue #4. - BBS lines are more busy than others and should pay accordingly. Here I must speak to the situation in Texas only. In Texas, flat rate service is nearly universal. The normal residential and business customer in Texas has flat rate service. Measured service is an option, but flat rate service is the basis for policy decisions. The tariffs do not say "Flat rate as long as you don't use TOO much", they say FLAT RATE period. Public policy is that telephone customers in Texas are entitled to service without charge for usage. (Measured service is available as an *OPTION*) If Southwestern Bell wishes to apply charges based upon usage, it should be done via rate making procedures before the PUC. The PUC should decide if a break with previous public policy in Texas is justified. Such rates should be equitable so that the proverbial talkative teenager also bears such a burden. The application of business rates should not be used as a back door alternative to the imposition of a mandatory measured service tariff in Texas. Issue #5. - What about other non-profit organizations (Rape Crisis centers, the United Way, etc.)? They pay business rates, why shouldn't "non-profit" BBSs? There are several important differences here. First, virtually all such organizations operate from business premises, most sysops do not contest the assessment of business rates on otherwise residential BBS systems located in a business location. Additionally, corporations cannot normally subscribe to residential rates. Most non-profit organizations are non-profit corporations. Second, a non-profit organization is typically far more sophisticated than a BBS. They do have sources of income, paid employees, etc. A BBS is an individual undertaking paid for out of the wallet of an individual. Additionally, with the exception of certain communications oriented undertakings like suicide-prevention hotlines, communications costs are an incidental portion of the total operating budget of a non-profit organization. With a BBS, such charges can make the difference between life and death. Third, while it is generally true that non-profit organizations pay business rates, this is not always the case. For example: -- Alcoholics Anonymous encourages it's members to call another member if they are tempted to drink. Should AA members pay business rates? -- Many ministers and other unpaid persons engage in over the telephone counseling from home (for that matter, so do many PAID counselors). -- Some hotlines subscribe to one business number which is then call-forwarded to various volunteers homes on a nightly rotation. Should those volunteers pay business rates? Issue #6 - "What makes sysops so special?" I have heard this in several venues (including negotiations with SWBT). Here's my answer. A BBS is something unique. It is one of the few ways for an individual to inexpensively give voice to his views. If I want to post my views on the mideast, AT&T/NCR or the Houston Astros, I have a venue to do so. I also provide a method for other individuals to do so as well. If they don't like my little popstand, they can set up their own. No it's not CBS, the {New York Times} or even the Podunk Weekly Bugle, but it's mine and no one has a say in what I "publish" there but me (and the libel/slander laws). I think this IS unique. I think public policy should be to nurture such free expression. That nurturing should take the form of recognition that BBSs fall in a grey area and should, for the aforementioned public policy reasons, be given the benefit of the doubt in the assessment of residential rates. Issue #7 - Why should a BBS be allowed to accept donations? The BBS hobby is unique in my view. A BBS serves no purpose if there are no callers. There is little reason for callers to join in the hobby if there are no BBSs (yes, they can call Compuserve. That isn't a hobby, that's a business transaction). This is a shared hobby. It takes two to tango. I do not believe that it is improper for a caller to assist in the expenses associated with the provision of the BBS. In fact, I believe it is almost a moral imperative for BBS callers to support some BBS somewhere. It has been my experience and also the experience of many other sysops that such fund raising only brings in a few dollars every year. Normally, the total funds raised do not equal the difference between a business and a residential line in Texas (Approx $250 per year). COSUARD voted to accept a settlement that we feel is imperfect. It is the best deal we feel we could get. It gave the BBS operator some legitimacy and some basic security. The alternative presented to us by the PUC staff and Southwestern Bell was to see ALL BBS systems assessed business rates. This would be a disaster in our view. In order to protect as many as possible, the settlement was accepted. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com [Moderator's Note: Ed, my sincere thanks for rushing this report into the Digest as soon as possible. I'm moving it to the top of the queue for the same reason you sent it in: It is an important issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 14:15:46 GMT In article <72156@bu.edu.bu.edu>, crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: > When (assuming if) the U.S. government policy and telephone utilities > catch up with their own direct-dial, universally accessed and used > E-Mail network, it can be certain that highly restrictive telephone > tarriffs as well as legislation will be used to stamp out the various > BBS networks in lieu of a costly system provided by Telcos. The Moderator demurs, based on AT&T Mail and the Internet. Sorry, Pat, but it's happening already. The crackdown on BBSes here in Houston occurred just before SWBell came out with their own "Sourceline" system. I find that, like Thoreau's trout, convincing circumstantial evidence. AT&T Mail, etc, are not in direct competition with BBS systems. The Internet is not intended as a public-access system of *any* kind. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop in Michigan. Just wait... they'll be coming out with their own Teletext type system, sure as God evolved little apples. (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 13 Jan 91 04:22:55 GMT Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 >[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of >not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, >suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory >(312-731-1100) and similar? They also regularly solicit business publically thru adverstisements. I've yet to see a BBS post a TV ad. If the IRS recognizes it as a business, then let it be a business. Otherwise, let it be a hobby. Michael P. Deignan Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 16:10:06 CST From: Bill Nickless Subject: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole in the center of the bit. I have needed one for refilling HP toner cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular phone. I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores. I really don't want to have to put a Torx bit in a drill press, but may have to. Any help would be appreciated. Bill Nickless (616) 927-0982 nickless@{flash.ras.anl.gov|andrews.edu} ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #33 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26491; 14 Jan 91 2:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28258; 14 Jan 91 0:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17243; 13 Jan 91 23:23 CST Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 23:17:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #34 BCC: Message-ID: <9101132317.ab11364@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Jan 91 23:17:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 34 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Norman Yarvin] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Paul Coen] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell [Gregory G. Woodbury] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Julian Macassey] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Jim Redelfs] Re: Source of Dial-less Phones [David Smallberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Norman Yarvin Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Date: 13 Jan 91 18:05:53 GMT >[Moderator's Note: Good question. Is there any single method of >charging for phone service and use which everyone would be happy with? >I'd personally like to see an intermediate category of rates applied >to lines used in a non-residence/not-really-business environment. It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this. One is to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and additional considerations. The other is to charge by cost. This would mean removing the distinction between residence and business listings. For local calls, I presume that it would mean both a per-call fee and a (low) fee depending on connection time. For long distance it would mean junking the flat-rate FCC access charge, and charging both local rates (paid to the LOC) and long distance rates (paid to the IXC). (I make no claims to omniscence regarding the above scheme; if it is not a decent stab at reflecting costs, correct me.) Then, if politicians/do-gooders wanted to subsidize the phone bills of poor people, or charities, or electronic communities, or whatever, they could spend tax money (they already add tax to phone bills) and do it directly, rather than doing it in the current underhand manner. We just had a session of griping about how complex the world is becoming. In the telecommunications world, this is largely a function of the complexity of the policies and regulations governing it. Those who gripe about complexity would do well to attack this obvious target. Norman Yarvin yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 15:34 EDT From: Paul Coen Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates I just had to respond to the people who were claiming that BBSs were no different than 900 numbers. Remember -- the people who are operating 900 numbers are usually at least breaking even on their costs, due to the per-minute charge on the 900 number. 976 numbers also generate revenue, I believe. The "hobby BBS" does not. The comment about amount of usage is a semi-valid one. Think about it -- even if you pay-per-use, that isn't going to affect incoming calls. Since the call is being made by the other party, not the BBS, there really isn't any easy way to apply measured service to BBS lines. As far as home-run, local, non-revenue-generating dial a prayer or other lines are concerned, why should they pay extra either? Is the purpose of the business rate to charge for more use, or is it so the phone company gets a cut of any profit you make via your use of the telephone? If you're not making money, or operating as a loss, I really can't see the justification. The fact that when you get a residential line, last time I had NJ Bell service anyway, you don't get anything telling you how much you can use your phone should mean that you can stay on the line 24 hours a day talking to your friends in the local calling area. Why should it be any different when you hook a computer up to it? The average BBS probably doesn't use any more phone time (and maybe less) than a family with several teen-agers. The average BBS isn't costing the local phone company extra money, really. As long as all the local circuits aren't busy, who cares what the rest of the lines are doing? That's like computer center managers that say that running games on a minicomputer late at night (when the computer would be otherwise idle) is COSTING them money. There's a difference between "cost" and "non-revenue- generating," I think. The only cost I can potentially see is that the phone companies are actually having to maintain line quality, rather than letting it degrade to the point where data communications are difficult. Just so you know where I stand, I'm a co-sysop on a BBS owned by Drew University. The Drew Underground has six NJ Bell lines, which we pay business rates on because they're located in University-owned buildings. (Of course, getting NJ Bell to repair problems is like trying to squeeze oil out of a piece of rock, but that's another story). Fortunatly, the $$ comes from a University budget, not us. The preceeding may not even be my opinions, never mind Drew U.'s Paul Coen Academic Computer Center Drew University ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 02:03 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates This thread is meandering off into all sorts of nice paths that would be quite interesting if ... and that's a big IF ... there was policy being made. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Rather, existing policy is being interpreted. Here are some thoughts to consider: 1.) Telcos are *not* enacting any "new policy" or "new tariffs" in these cases. Rather, they are acting under existing tariffs and simply saying BBSs fall under those tariffs. Thus, all our nice discussions about "communities of interest" have no bearing. What does have bearing is what Telcos have been able to get into long-standing tariffs about what constitutes a "business" for rate-charging purposes. 2.) That definition of a "business" has nothing to do with profit or tax status, and it has very little to do with electronic "communities of interest." Altough the words may vary from Telco to Telco, they esenti- ally state that a "place" open for public entry is a "business" in the meaning of the tariff. Under such tariff wording, it has become rather common for churches (that once enjoyed a residential rate as a courtesy) to have had to pay business line rates for a couple of decades. Similarly, even private clubs and fraternal organizations that have but limited access to small segments of the public have paid business rates. The Indiana case was squashed very quickly on that one. It's certain the Michigan case has to be addressed in the same light, for that's the sort of argument the Telco will raise. 3.) The stories about "burdening the plant" are old, too, based on the way business loaded the switched telephone network from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday, years ago. Such claims oare shibboleths taught to all Telco people at their grandpa's knee. The real fact is that the load on the switched telephone network has changed dramatically, and in highly local ways. Nobody knows for sure what the peak is, and it can't be stated in aything but a local sense for ay known case. Telcos do take "snapshots" of a week or so, in places where it seems to be needed. A really good example occurred in recent years at New Port Richey, FL, where there was ahigh level of complaint that nobody in GTE addressed ... until they did get a new traffic manager who did have an open mind. He was stonewalled with the old "9-5, M-F" stories INSIDE the Telco; told the plant was fully ade- quate for that peak, and it hed been measured and proved in New Port Richey several times. It simply could NOT be inadequate switching plant. He asked if it ever got checked at other days and hours and was told they hadn't done that for 25 years. Why? Because the "AT&T book" (another one of those common Telco references that nobody can ever lay their hands on or name) said the peaks were M-F, 9:30 AM and 4:30 PM ... when, like "everbody knows," business loads the plant. Well, he had the budget and control, so he ordered nights and weekends measured. Surprise! They found the largest peak of the whole week was 10 AM Saturday, when all the retirees got on the phone with their children up north! Not "business lines," not "teenagers," not "faxes and computers," but senior citizens! My point in all this is that any discussion about relative usage is just a red harring, anyway. Nobody is particularly measuring bbs usage to prove it requires extra plant. Their whole issue is the right of the Telco to determine if a line exists for general public usage. Like it or not, they have a rate for usage defined in that sense, and the right to charge for it. Perhaps the best anyone might claim here, then, is that they run a "hobby," and try to claim other "hobbies" are exempted on a per-case basis. 4.) About the only thing one might try to counter any of this is to demand the Yellow Pages listing under the *new* heading "Computer Bulletin Boards" and file Utility Commission complaints until such time as the Telco complies. Even there, if they have a heading for "Computer Services," one's argument can get quashed. However, sufficiently querulous Sysops might make some use of this, quibbling about what heading should be started up or such. But, people who take money probably should have such a listing, anyway. For-pay boards would probably want it, when you think about it. Anyhow, for the instant, what has to be addressed is interpreting the Telco's right to charge for places the non-family, unrelated public is invited to call. ------------------------------ From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell Organization: Wolves Den UNIX Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 04:43:11 GMT In article <15992@accuvax.nwu.edu> jsw@iugate.unomaha.edu writes: >If we figure that the metro Omaha area gives Ma Bell about 500,000 >50/500000 of the active lines, or about 1/100 of one percent. >Why is it then, that they are paying >>THAT<< much attention to such a >miniscule group of their subscribers ?? Well, the answer is evident after digging around a little bit. The LECs hope to be freed relatively soon to provide their own information services. The software and all the necessary technology for an LEC to provide a Prodigy-type service was developed at Bell Labs back in 1982.* When ISDN becomes are real service to each subscriber, it will be easy for almost anyone to set up a BBS and offer direct ISDN access. The LECs do not want the BBS operators providing for free, what they hope to make tons of money from! * I was there for a while and worked on it. Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:01:40 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when > dialing? > [Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones > generated any frequencies or tones. PAT] They DON'T! They simply flash/open-close/pulse the loop - the appropriate number of times for each digit. I've successfully "dialed" a call using only the switchook. (It is a challenge!) JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? Date: 13 Jan 91 15:41:13 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <15962@accuvax.nwu.edu> jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 23, Message 6 of 6 >On this topic, why do many voice mail and other phone operated >services insist on users having DTMF phones ? Is it really hard to >detect pulse mode digits? I can see that the low numbers might be a >problem, (can't distinguish it from a noise pulse), but if one saw >five to ten regularly spaced pulses, isn't that adequate for >recognition? The reason is that the pulse is a DC disconnection at your phone instrument. This disconnection and therefore interruption of the DC current extends only to your local CO. The far end will just hear a click. Hearing the click above line noise is tricky. So yes, at the far end, these are not "pulses" of 0 - 10V with 300V transients, but clicks, not quite the same thing. DTMF on the other hand is still DTMF after it has been down a fiber optic cable and across two satellite links. Touch Tone was invented so subscriber signalling could be carried over radio (microwave etc) circuits. Pulse dialling will not work unless you have copper wire carrying DC - yes, subscriber carrier excepted. Voice mail boxes, etc work well with DTMF and miserably trying to listen for clicks. Then DTMF is also faster than pulse. Plus of course there is no pulse equivalent for * and # (-: In the UK, a bank was offering a dial in interactive account service. Because of the dearth of DTMF phones in the UK, part of the banks deal was a ten pound (money) deposit for a hand held DTMF generator that you held to the mouthpiece to punch in your account number etc. >I've seen AT&T answering machines which say on the box that they >work with pulse phones (at the remote end, for checking one's >messages). I haven't played with them. Does anyone know how they >work, or how reliable the detection is? Not too reliable I would guess. DTMF = Dual Tone Multi Frquency = Touch Tone CO = Cental Office = Telephone Exchange Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:02:20 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: REe Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Availabl Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > By the way, I tried to get a whole ream of these forms for my pals at > work (we all chose AT&T, and getting an employee discount probably > being a significant factor, we don't want to be "slammed"), but I was > informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell service > representative individually. I think the time has come that changes to your service be made ONLY on a call-back verification basis. Another improvement would be to require "positive input" from EACH customer, saying that WANT a new service (such the introduction of a new "dial-a-rape-your-phone-bill-NNX"). Currently, they are operating like the book clubs: Call *US* if you *DON'T* want the service! Not good. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: David Smallberg Subject: Re: Source of Dial-less Phones Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 03:23:12 GMT In article <15953@accuvax.nwu.edu> paul.schleck%inns@iugate. unomaha.edu writes: > ... The most noticable prop at the "headquarters" were red and >blue phones without dials. These would be nice to have as extension >phones (no dials for kiddies to mess with) ... Until they learn how to click out a number. (It's interesting how many people don't know you can do this: back when all UCLA phones were rotary dial, many secretaries were told to lock their phones with a little cylinder stuck in the "5" hole, so that no digit past 5 could be dialed. This was supposed to prevent one from making outgoing calls (you had to dial 9 first), but allowed calls to UCLA emergency (35, hence the reason for putting the lock in "5"). Of course, some people knew how to defeat this: it looked weird, what with seemingly random combinations of dialing (for digits 1 through 5) and clicking the switchhook (for 6 through 0). David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #34 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13157; 14 Jan 91 11:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08977; 14 Jan 91 9:42 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10860; 14 Jan 91 8:35 CST Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 7:55:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #35 BCC: Message-ID: <9101140755.ab05749@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 14 Jan 91 07:55:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 35 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What are Secure Lines? [Macy Hallock] Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Macy Hallock] Alternative Communication in Germany [Richard Budd] British Modem Useage in US? [Mike Vevea] X11 Numbers and Purposes [Sean Williams] Re: Local Long Distance Calls [Peter G. Capek] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:06 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <16014@accuvax.nwu.edu> JR writes: >> Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you don't want to read >> about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}. >Although your was an EXCELLENT discussion of the "how to" and "why use >a" secure (a) line, but it sure makes ordinary loops sound virtually >non-private! Well, that's because its true. Most of the security we have on normal telephone loops is primarily due to the ignorance of the masses of telecom technology. The casual layman is unable to do much with that mysterious telephone wire... This is changing. Prior to deregulation, or better yet, Carterphone (1968) the telco's did everything they could to keep the information to themselves. It was to their benefit, and they were successful. The only others who knew much about telecom were very large organizations, such as governmental or multi-national groups who had internal communications networks independant of the telco's. Now, you can go to Radio Shack or your local library and obtain a text with accurate and understandable information regarding common telecom technology. The local loop is now considerably less of a mystery. Many people are able to work with the standard two wire loop telephone line. And they do. My sons are familiar with this technology, and either one of them could do a good job of tapping a line with less than $ 10.00 worth of overpriced parts from Radio Shack ... or some of the junk in their workshop. I can assure you they are not unique. (I do wish more of our youth were more technically adept...) >Virtually everything I have heard in the course of my years has not >been memorable, yet ordinary subscribers are increasing concerned >about the security of their ordinary transmissions! Having owned an alarm company for fifteen years, I can assure you that more and more people are becoming concerned about the security of their telecommunications. Much of this concern is based on what they have seen television or rumor. What is important is that they feel compromise of their telecommunications is not only possible, but probable under the right set of circumstances. They also beleive that since they have seen it done with reliative ease, and in a manner they understand (namely cutting a wire or clipping a couple of wires onto a terminal) that it can be done just as easily to them. >I had a new-home installation recently where the subscriber insisted >that the Network Interface be placed INSIDE the home, and that the >dropwire enter the foundation BELOW grade! The customer's primary >concern was the integrity of his home security system. >After two hours and a dozen calls, we (US WEST Communications/NE) >acquiesed and accomodated the customer. I explained that all a >reasonably skilled burglar would have to do was to simply walk out to >the wirepost in front and cut the line. He was not swayed. This is a common requirement in our alarm installations. The phone companies here are grudgely cooperative, but are always trying to discourage it, often by levying ridiculous fees. The argument the phone companies make is that complicates their testing. Note that these are the same phone companies that send out newsletters crowing about their abilities to test lines remotely, without entering the premises. The idea here is to discourage the casual burglar easy compromise of the phone line. We also ensure the line going up the pole is in rigid metal conduit. We also seem to find most of the pedestals (terminals for buried cables) unlocked or unbolted, and require the phone company to secure these terminals in accordance with their own policies. Of course, the professional burglar will know how to effect a compromise of the buried phone line, but we aim to make his job as tough as possible. In some installations, we even leave a decoy conventional telephone terminal on the side of the house. On others, we will have two separate buried phone lines entering from two different places on the premises ... all of which is carefully monitored and alarmed. Since the phone companies have priced conventional leased alarm lines and other special services so outlandishly now, most home and business owners are now using the standard phone line for alarm transmission, just as the phone company intended. Yet they place obstacles in the way of those who try and secure these facilities, since the phone company will not. In most cases, these additional security arrangements actually increase the reliability of the phone line. I might add that the phone companies have begun to offer the "piggyback" alarm transmission services in some large cities. These use the regular phone line to provide both dial tone and a relatively sercure supervised (monitored) link between the CO and premises. The charge to the home/business owner is even fairly reasonable. The charges to the alarm company are not reasonable. The special circuits and backbone arrangements required are expensive and not able to be afforded except by the largest alarm companies, and then only in densely populated areas. In instances where we need extra phone line security at a premises, we now use cellular telephone data links through the regular cellular carriers. This does no good for those outside cellular service areas, though. >Another customer had their security system installer build a wooden >box around the protector housing and (drop) riser tube, complete with >magnetic switch! Explaining to the customer that two minutes (or >less) with a tile spade would circumvent THAT safeguard (dig up and >cut the shallow drop). Yes, we have done that, too, for a customer. I might add we have acutally stopped several burglary attempts with these measures, and have even had a few apprehensions, too. The customers seem pleased with the results. The phone company's answer, when shown this information was either "lease a line and pay the bill" or "sorry, nothing we can do". >In my (not yet) vast experience, I have encountered only ONE "tap" and >it was merely a (convicted) case of "Theft of Services"!! >Has there been much (any) traffic here regarding unauthorized entry >into residential SNIs (Standard (telephone) Network Interfaces - >complete with working, RJllC jack) on the backs of homes? I recall >seeing a short bit about it on CNN Headline News a couple of years >ago. Yes, we have had several experiences. Besides compromises to service for burglary, we have seen a couple of taps. In both cases, the local phone company and police department did little about it. We counseled the customer to seek legal counsel and consider a suit. In both cases, the client did not want the publicity a suit would bring. (One of these clients was a judge, the other involved in a very messy divorce case) We also find that customers are willing to use network interfaces for their intended purpose (testing the outside phone line to locate a line fault) more readily when they can access the interface jack easily. A closet or basement location seems ideal. In many condo's we have worked on, they are in the closet in the garage. When customers test their phone line at the network interface when their phones do not work, everyone wins. The phone companies here act as thought they are trying to discourage this testing by customers ... although that's not what they say. I wonder if this might have anything to do with their attempts to sell inside wire maintenance for revenue enahancement? >Our SNI vendor (Seicor) finally replaced the "can wrench" bolt with >the Allen/Torx-like-headed bolt. GREAT! Just another tool to carry >to the back of each house! Still not terribly secure. In this area, the phone installers do not even want to tighten the bolts on their terminals. The SNI's here have a plastic door that snaps shut, along with a place to put a lock. No lock is ever used, though. (Not that it would offer much security, anyway) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:26 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <16013@accuvax.nwu.edu> JR writes: >> In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of >> high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in >> enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised >> concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a >> higher threat of disruption. >US WEST Communications (NE) is offering special, "self-healing" >(whatever THAT means) fiber service to major business. I have >forgotten the two options, but one includes installing TWO cables to >the business, fed from opposite directions. One is (presumably) idle >(spare?) while the other one operates. In the event of an outage, the >system automatically (again, presumably) switches to the back-up >cable. Due to the mindset of many phone companies, this is a poor option. In most (but not all) area, what you get is a feed to the same CO for both cables. The protection you receive is partial at best. What I have seen is: Two entrance cables, entering at separate points...that meet somewhere down the street and use the same feed cable back the the same central office. This yields no protection against many, if not most, types of failures. Examples: truck hits phone poles, takes out major cable or backhoe digs up backbone cables In Chicago and a couple other cities, their are companies that offer intra-city local feed cable (usually fiber) that can be used to access your IXC independantly of the telco's cables and CO. We advise our customers with critical communications needs to have two separate feeds to two separate IXC's using a different link to each. Around here, the only real alternative to using the local telco for network access is a microwave link. And that's what we suggest. Many customers do not want to pay the costs associated with this kind of redundant service. And in every instance, they have been out of communications at some time for a period. The reasons are many: cut cable, CO outage, IXC failure ... the effect is the same. Another curiousity: In Ohio, the telco's have written into their tariffs that each premises shall have only one entrance point. Ask for redundant feed cables, and the first thing they do it cite the tariff. I have also seen them violate this tariff provision repeatedly for their own convenience. When confronted with this the answer is almost always "necessary to provide required service" or some other variation. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: SAT, 12 JAN 91 21.57.10 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Alternative Communication in Germany Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie,NY A friend handles mortgages for customers of the Bayerische Hypotheken Bank in Munich. Since November he is on temporary assignment with their new offices in Leipzig. (Don't get me started on his adventures trying to explain mortgages to customers who haven't been allowed to purchase a house in over forty years.) After being unable to establish telephone contact between Leipzig and Munich through the former East German phone system, the Leipzig office set up a satellite uplink and as of our last conversation in December, calls from the Leipzig branch to Munich headquarters are bounced back and forth off the satellite. Propogationhas been a small trade off against waiting over an hour to get a clear line to Munich through the existing system. I would be interested in hearing how the telephone system in reunited Germany is coming along and when that system will itself be reunited. Needless to say according to my friend, it will be a long time before the Leipzig office will be installing automatic tellers. I speak for myself on Marist's system and not for IBM, on whose system I can't even receive TELECOM Digest. [Moderator's Note: There is a distribution list for TELECOM Digest at IBM and I'm sure they would add you if asked. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Vevea Subject: British Modem Useage in US? Organization: Mass General Hospital NMR Imaging Center Date: Sun 13 Jan 90 00:00:00 GMT A friend who recently moved here from England has an internal modem in a PC clone. He's dealt with the power considerations for the machine, but is interested in whether he can use the modem here. He's been told that the only incompatability in the interface to the phone system is the physical plug, so if he replaces that, he can continue to use the modem, but isn't sure he believes his sources. My memory is that it is reasonable, but I'm not sure ... can anyone tell me for sure? Thanks a lot! mikeV ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Sun Jan 13 22:33:30 EST 1991 Subject: X11 Numbers and Purposes While playing around with my phone, I came across the following X11 numbers and what they do. Are these constant in different regions or specific to only one exchange/telco? (I have United Telephone of Pennsylvania) Obviously, I have only listed the numbers which were not met with a "Call cannot be completed..." recording. 211: Upon connection, plays one long tone, then silence. Whenever you press any number from a Touch-Tone phone, plays 3 short beeps. Whenever you dial any number from a rotary phone, replays the original long tone. I guess this number is used for testing purposes. 311: Digitized voice reads off the number from which you have called. There must be SOME use for this. 411: "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed...(etc)...717-243" This recording is from a different exchange. My exchange is 717-834. The telco's regional / area office is located in the 243 exchange, however. I have heard of this number being used in other areas as the directory assistance number, but we use 1-555-1212. (This number reaches Bell of Pennsylvania's Directory Assistance. I'd assume that United must not have their own.) 511: I kept getting a busy signal when calling this number. Maybe that's all it's supposed to do. 611: Friendly repair service representative answers. 911: The hi-tech computerized emergency number where they can find your house and list your name before they even answer your call. (really!) This service was just put into operation in my area last month, and the phone company has warned us repeatedly to call only in case of real emergencies. (They have all that computer equipment, but they only have two incoming lines. Okay, so it IS a small county!) So that's all for my experimentation. Maybe someone else has numbers which do something else? Or maybe different numbers which do basically the same thing? Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 00:42:57 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls Coincidentally, following my posting of a few days ago about intra-LATA calls being completed by IECs, there appeared in Saturday's {NY Times} an ad ("legal notice") by "AT&T Communications of New York, Inc", stating that they had filed a proposed tariff with the NYSPSC to introduce 10ATT+0 calling on an intraLATA basis within the state of New York, effective March 7, 1991. The ad went on to say that they had filed a petition with the NYSPSC seeking to amend their "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity" to authorize them to provide that service on an intracity basis within NY Tel's LATAs, and within those of other LECs throughout the state. Peter Capek ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #35 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06208; 15 Jan 91 4:28 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07475; 15 Jan 91 2:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05917; 15 Jan 91 1:50 CST Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 1:30:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #36 BCC: Message-ID: <9101150130.ab24895@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jan 91 01:30:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 36 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Nastiness Continues [TELECOM Moderator] Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed [David Gast] Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Gordon C. Zaft] Re: Recording Phone Calls [Peter Marshall] Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Greg Montgomery] Re: Is Employee Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Peter Marshall] Re: Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea [Jim Breen] Uniden GTS-4000 CMT Programming [Mark Earle] Re: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? [Brian McMahon] Re: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? [Ken Donow] USA to UK Telco lLnk [Kevin Carney] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 0:30:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: The Nastiness Continues The person who sent the mail-bomb several days ago to all the various names gathered up from the Digest is continuing his vendetta by forging postings to comp.dcom.telecom, adding the information necessary to trick the backbone sites into accepting his traffic. This is nothing new on the net: crackers and other malcontents have engaged in this sort of abusive behavior for years. Maybe it gives them a high of some sort to ruin or deface the work others are doing. But we have been fortunate here in the past, with very little of this in the telecom newsgroup. If you have questions about the authenticity of messages in comp.dcom.telecom you can check the header information. TELECOM Digest will always show a line saying "sent by news@accuvax.nwu.edu" or "bu.edu". That line in the header is more difficult to defeat. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 17:37:16 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed The Moderator wrote: > A large number of readers -- primarily those who had posted here in > recent weeks -- were subjected to a 'bombing run' on Friday. The > person simply collected up all the names and sites he could find, by > copying the address information in messages here, and sent out a mass > mailing. > From time to time, the network is misused in this way, with anonymous > postings and mass-mailings sent through other than the normal mailing > list channels. I find this posting rather curious because many of us have complained in this forum and elsewhere about corporations buying and selling our names and about information gathered for one purpose being used for another purpose. The Moderator has responded that by voluntarily putting information in the public arena, we should not complain when it is used. He has noted that he has an unlisted telephone number and a PO Box for an address. Now it seems to me that we are not forced to post to the TELECOM Digest, that we do so of our own free will and that by the logic above, we should not complain when it is used by someone else. Why should junk mail or junk phone calls be considered acceptable behavior, but junk e-mail messages be unacceptable behavior? (Cost considerations aside since we can debate all today over who subsidizes whom). In fact, I would argue that his action was less offensive than junk mail or junk phone calls for the following reasons: 1) I have expressed some interest in telecom issues. I have not, for example, expressed any interest in the {Mercury News}. Yet I should be polite to the cretin that calls? 2) Neither the TELECOM Digest nor the sender of the messages recieved any renumeration for selling information about me and no commercial soliciation was done. 3) Only my name and e-mail address was used; there was no attempt to determine income, political affiliation, buying patterns, race, sex, or other demographic data. 4) The sender explicitly stated that anyone who did not wish to receive future mailings from him would be taken off the list. (In fact, the entire list has ceased). The {Mercury News}, for example, refuses to take names off its list even when explicitly requested to do so. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast [Moderator's Note: Well, you raise some good points and I haven't much argument with them except to note that on this net at least, I thought there had always been an implied understanding that that sort of thing was not acceptable. No such understanding or agreement exists with the {Mercury News} that I know of. So it is not so much a matter of using informaiton publicly available (which I still say is basically okay even though I find a lot of it in bad taste myself) as it is violating the so-called 'net etiquette' here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gordon C Zaft Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? Date: 13 Jan 91 08:05:53 GMT Organization: NSWSES, Port Hueneme, CA In article <15921@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >Of the areas I have listed as having (now or later) N0X/N1X prefixes, >215, as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by >removing the 1+ from toll calls within it (i.e., change from 1+7D to >just 7D). I do understand (relying for now on the Digest) that 412 This isn't true. We here in 805-land lost our 1+7D last year (this, despite the fact that a number of calls in the local area go from GTE to Pac*Bell and are toll calls. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls From: Peter Marshall Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:43:32 PST Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service Re: David Michels' 1/13 post; wonder if there's intentional linkage to the recent discussion of workplace monitoring here? If so, what's the relationship, and how to readers see any interplay between these areas? However, the Moderator contradicts himself in his reply to David -- he is indeed correct that state laws vary on interception and recording, but since some of these very state laws require prior consent of one or all parties, it is not the case, therefore, that in blanket fashion "merely notice is required." Peter Marshall ------------------------------ Subject: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone From: Greg Montgomery Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 10:06:10 EST Organization: Montgomery Consultants, Inc. I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and I can hit a button to switch between lines. Radio Shack used to sell a device that did this. It had two inputs for the phone lines, and one for the telephone. You would hit a button to flip from line one to line two and vice versa. However, they don't sell it anymore. Does anyone know if anyone still sells one of these, or if they are pretty easy to make, how to make one?? Also, I'm looking for reccomendations on two-line cordless phones. Most of the places around just seem to sell an AT&T and Panasonic (I can't think of the model numbers right now). The AT&T is in the $170-180 range and the Panasonic is in the $140-160 range. If anyone has any experience with either of these phones, or any other two-line cordless phones, please let me know what you think of them. Thanks, Greg Montgomery | Montgomery Consultants, Inc. Internet: greg@turbo.atl.ga.us UUCP: {rutgers,ogcise,gatech}!emory!turbo!greg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 10:25:43 -0800 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? Responding to MiKe Miller's 1/11 post and the Moderator's reply in vol.11, #29; this issue may be an old one, but it's by no means stale, and the overall climate surrounding it is both somewhat changed and certainly not stale itself. Somewhat contrary to the appearnce suggested by the Moderator's initial reply, this is a not un-complex question, and "answers" are not simply straight-forward. Mr. Miller obviously has what is fundamentally a legal question here; thus, would probably be best advised to do the legal research called for or to consult competent legal counsel to get a "true answer, not an opinion." Despite the qualifiers in the initial response Mr. Miller's gotten here, he has indeed gotten himself "an opinion," of course. E.g., it is "apparently" legal, and "I do not believe...." Further, what "all telcos" do maybe rather irrelevant to Mr. Miller's situation, and it is also important to point out that "performance" monitoring (better called electronic workplace surveillance) does not equate with *all*monitoring. One must also note the absence of any sort of legal provisions in the original reply. Relevant variables not noted so far might include whether the workplace in question is unionized or not and the not-unimportant question of whether the *callers* involved will have prior notice as to monitoring of what by definition is also *their* communication. Mr. Miller may also want to note, e.g., the CA PUC rules on such monitoring, as an interesting example of legality and absence thereof, and a recently released CWA-sponsored study that purportedly found higher incidence of stress and stress-related illness in monitored employees. Peter Marshall ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 22:16:18 GMT In article <15950@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > [quotes ad for PTC in PNG] > and comments: It's interesting that the PNG Post and > Telecommunication Corp. is hiring people itself, rather than relying > on the international consulting arm of a telephone company, such as > Bell Canada International.] I guess we are used to PTC doing its own thing. They advertise for staff a lot in the press here, and a number of Australians have done a stint there. Generally the network in PNG is in quite good shape; certainly a lot better than many developing countries. I am not surprised they don't use a consulting company. Those thing cost MONEY, and as the biggest source of foreign money in PNG is aid from Australia, they don't have an awful lot to splash on consultancies. Jim Breen AARNet:jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:26:14 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Uniden GTS-4000 CMT Programming Wanted: Information/details on user programming on the Uniden GTS-4000 mobile cellular telephone. This phone is also sold in a "bag phone" configuration. It has ONE NAM, and so to use service in another area I need to easily field-program the unit (hopefully via the keypad with no 'gizmos'). At the dealer, a "special" hanset (which looked an awfully lot like a regular one!) was plugged into the transceiver module, indicating possibly my 'regular' handset simply needs a jumper changed? The phone works well, and compares favorably with phones I've used from Motorola, Radio Shack, and others. Also wanted: source of a jumper that appears to look like an RJ-11, but has 10 contacts. This connects the cradle to the transceiver module. They supplied a 20' cord, I need about a 6" in the configuration I use; the excess right now is coild up, kinda ugly. No one seems to have these cords in 1 @ quantity. Thanks! mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 13:28:57 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: ... Terrorist Act? In TELECOM Digest V11 #30, our Moderator writes: >Read and enjoy "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence". It is a >fascinating book and explains lots of CIA dirty tricks. The book was >banned here in the USA, but now and then you can find a copy. PAT] Pat, this is rather old information. Marchetti, Victor, and John D. Marks. _The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence_. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974 Library of Congress Number 74-4995 ISBN: 0-394-48239 I doubt that it is still in print, since its content is now severely dated, and many more recent treatments of the Agency are available. But it is certainly not the sort of samizdat that the Moderator seems to imply. In fact, it was even included on a list of books about the intelligence community compiled by CIA. It certainly is a good treatment of problems in the Agency in the days before the Church Committee, but anyone looking for an expose of current Dirty Deeds will be disappointed. In some minds, though, CIA is already guilty of almost any crime imaginable. Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 06:32:36 PST From: cdp!kdonow@labrea.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terroris What are you trying to prove here? The book was not/is not banned in the US. Unless you have concrete knowledge to the contrary, you have an obligation to be very careful with this kind of claim, and the point made in Randall's letter. As you well know, fiber cuts are common business and the account given by the teleco fits the facts of the disruption as they were experienced by the people in the area. Or maybe it was all a joke? Ken Donow [Moderator's Note: Well first of all, I did not say the CIA cut the cable. I printed a message from someone who 'heard it second hand that the cut was a terrorist act ...' Since his source was 'someone' in the CIA I noted that the agency has been in the past accused of doing things and then blaming (the covert, destructive acts) on 'black radicals' or whoever we are supposed to hate at that time. Regards the book, it was written and ready for publication. The CIA went to court to block publication. The court upheld the CIA. It was appealed to a higher court and the decision was to have the CIA approve what could or could not be printed. The edition of the book circulating in the USA has many empty pages and entire paragraphs left blank by the authors deliberatly to show the extent of what they were forbidden to write about. Interestingly enough, the *European version* of the same book is 100 percent intact. So pick some word other than 'banned' which you think is more appropriate. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin Carney Subject: USA to UK Telco Link Date: 14 Jan 91 05:39:22 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA To anybody who can help, I am posting this question on behalf of my uncle. My uncle lives near San Luis Obispo, California and has a Macintosh Plus with the Hayes compatable modem sold by Apple. His brother lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland and has an Atari ST with a modem of an unknown type. They would like to be able to transfer files between their two computers (apparently there is a "Mac" board that fits in the Atari and allows Mac software to be run). This linkup isn't working. It doesn't matter from which direction the connection is initiated, the symptom is the same. The machine which is supposed to answer the phone does indeed answer the phone, but the machine initiating the call never sees carrier detect. I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a different set of rules, but i've never had any personal experience attempting a telco link from the USA to Europe. Is this true? Could the problem be that that neither modem will ever see carrier detect since the other one will never respond in the required way? If so, does there exist anything like an "international" modem which can operate according to both sets of rules? Kevin Carney Amdahl Corporation kbc@amdahl.com (408) 746-7439 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #36 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09365; 15 Jan 91 5:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25556; 15 Jan 91 4:03 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07475; 15 Jan 91 2:56 CST Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 2:17:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #37 BCC: Message-ID: <9101150217.ab09374@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jan 91 02:17:21 CST Volume 11 : Issue 37 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie [Mark Earle] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [George Goble] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Gregory M. Paris] A Child of the Information Age [Sean Williams] Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Peter Marshall] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Larry Rachman] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Macy Hallock] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bob Stratton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 18:50:11 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie On several occasions, I've taken my Uniden GTS-4000 phone, and temporarily installed it in my work vehicle. This is a Chevy 1/2 van, with only front window and driver/passenger side windows. Otherwise, all metal. The CMT sits on a wooden work bench about three inches off the floor, with a "gain" rubber duckie (Radio Shack's $30 product, about one foot long). My 'normal' installation is a roof-mounted Antenna Specialist gain antenna fed w/low loss coax. Supposedly the "best" set up, compared to on glass antennas, antennas with RG-58 feedlines, etc. Well-in PRACTICAL terms, the phone on it's rubber duckie works as well as when on a "real" antenna. Typical: On I-37, I lose the "home" carrier at mile marker 90 with the "real" and with the rubber duckie it's at mile marker 88. Big deal! Similar observations at other "boundaries". Note, this is not ONE cell -- I'm not in that contest ... but only the point I lose "home" and have to use "roam" facilities. So, not much real difference. Note: this is on Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, the wireline carrier. I incur no "roam" daily charge, but there is this 'penalty'. From 2000-0700 daily, plus all day Sat/Sun/Holidays, I pay 0.00 as the airtime rate. Peak is .38/min. BUT, when in ROAM, it's .38 24 hrs/day. So I try and be aware if I'm in ROAM, to the point of not letting the phone switch automatically. I want to KNOW when the higher evening rate is in force. Well -- at least compared to Higdon et all, I seem to have a reasonable rate. I posted this briefly before, but for summary/completness: Plan Rates $40/mo .38 P .00 OP $24/mo .38 P .21 OP $15/mo .58 P .58 OP $125/mo .22 P .22 OP Note: all but the $15/mo plan include call waiting, forwarding (conditional and immediate) and three way conference calling. Note: three way conference calling, and answering the call waiting beep, incur 2x the airtime rate (of course, on weekends, with the $40/mo plan, 2x 0 still = 0) Also offered are: Mail Service 1 4.95/mo 10 msgs/30 secs duration 72 hour retention Mail Service 2 9.95/mo 20 msgs/60 secs duration one week retention Pager Alert Feature $2/mo Incoming call restriction $5/mo Outgoing call restriction $5/mo Toll Restriction (no 1+) $5/mo Mr. Rescue $2.50/mo (gas/jump start) Detailed Billing Statement$2.50/mo (included in $125 and $40 plan "free") 911 and 611 (service) Free One time service activation fee $25 You are also billed as follows in some cases: If you make an outgoing call, and let it ring for longer than thirty seconds, you are nicked one minute airtime. If you leave your phone on, and have no forwarding in effect, AND the callee lets it ring more than thirty seconds, you are nicked one minute even if you don't answer. Follow Me Roaming works as expected. Folks calling a remote roam port Always get nicked for the LD call, because there is a "enter the mobile number you wish NOW voice prompt" so they'll get docked even if you don't answer. As above, you'll get nicked if in a roam city, the phone is on, and the callee lets it ring more than thiry seconds. Directory assistance: always billed at .40/call within SWB area. DA to your LD carrier for calls outside SWB are between you and them (mine is AT&T, .60/request). No "allowance". Airtime also applies if during Peak, so a local DA call costs at least 78 cents. Makes one keep the pocket minder up to date! Conditional forwarding: after three rings, the caller gets a voice announcement, "please wait, your call is being forwarded". The process takes about one minute! You are NOT billed airtime for conditional forwarding, nor for immediate forwarding, regardless of how long the callee lets it ring. Anyhow, that's most of the stuff I can think of for my particular service. Overall-it's great, much more flexible than the pager I used to carry, and fairly priced. Now, if that 0.00 airtime was 24 hours !!!!!!!!! or if it was .05/min, or something like that. My comments earlier regarding the "real" vs "rubber duckie" coverage, are for calls made-not simply when the roam light or no service are or are not on. I get indication of service about five miles before it is actually useable; but once "there" it's dead solid, no static or problems. mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] CIS 73117,351 MCI Mail to: MEARLE My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University [Moderator's Note: Ameritech does not have bad rates at night, and I am fortunatly grandfathered into a plan they no longer offer: Off peak hours (9 PM to 7 AM plus all day Saturday and Sunday the rates are ten cents for the *first three minutes* and ten cents per minute thereafter. It is less expensive than any payphone I've seen. Of course daytime rates under my (grandfathered) plan are 65 cents a minute, but then I rarely use the phone during daytime hours; why bother since I have oa phone on my desk in the office to use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Goble Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 12:57:54 GMT >[Moderator's Note: When I was visiting in Independence, KS this past >summer I had my Radio Shack CT-301 with me. In most areas of town . . . >Tulsa, OK -- sixty plus miles to the south! Returning home on I-55, >Ameritech only guarentees service when you get 'close to' Morris, IL, >the southwestern-most point for Chicago area service. When HOME kicked >in on my unit, a nearby highway sign said we were 70 miles from >Morris. All that on a .6 watt handheld ... Ameritech/Chicago is notorious for cranking up the xmitter power on their "paging" (control) channels. (Mouth is bigger than their ears). Running my Motorola in "maint" mode, to display received signal strength, I approached Chicago from Lafayette, IN, coming up I-65 from the south. I received "usable" (i.e. phone goes "in service") signal strengths 50 or 60 miles out from known cell sites. However, one could not initiate any calls until approx 25-30 miles away. These cells are not "balanced". The intense competition, where xmitter power is "jacked up", to make your phone jump over to the B carrier (even though not usable for service), just to keep your phone from locking onto the A-carrier (for those whom leave "A or B" selected). The second reason, is that Ameritech (Chicago) uses AT&T built RF equipment which sucks (in receive) compared to Motorola RF equipment. Motorola receivers do at least 10db better than AT&T I have noticed. This is more of a difference than the .8W or 3W between portables or transportables. When returning to Lafayette, IN, one starts to receive GTE Mobilnet about thirty miles out, and within one mile, the system is usable to initiate calls also. Roger Reeves (Mobilnet Engineering) says Mobilnet is very careful about balancing the cellsites and pointed out many other carriers conduct "power wars" with their control channels to "steal away" phones, and this results in large areas of "no service", even though the phone is indicating "in service". ghg [Moderator's Note: I did not try actually making a call when I was that far south of Morris, but in the case with Tulsa, I did speak with the operator, provided I stayed on the second floor by the window. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 10:40:56 -0500 From: "Gregory M. Paris" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? > [Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme > difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is > there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it? > Wouldn't it make better sense to tone down the cell just a little so a > more realistic range *in both directions* could be observed? I've The point is to keep customers' phones from roaming. As long as a cell phone is receiving the setup signal from its home system, it won't roam (at least, not automatically). A cynical person would say that cellular providers do this to make more money, since it makes customers have to wait until they get in range of their home system to make calls. Being less cynical, perhaps there's good to this too. Probably many people don't want to pay roaming charges to another provider just because they happen to be a bit out of range or in a dead spot. Considering how outrageous such charges can be, one might say that the home system is providing a valuable protection service by preventing its customers from accidentally roaming. Greg Paris ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 14 23:18:09 EST 1991 Subject: A Child of the Information Age Dear TELECOM Digest readers: I'm a high school senior. I am interested in getting a job in the telecommunications field after I am through with school and college, and I was wondering what course of study I should be persuing. Of course, being a product of the information age, I turn to my computer for the answers. Well, not actually the computer -- but the people linked to it. Other people are great sources of information, and this is why I am turning to you. I would like to hear your stories. To know how you got started. Where did you go for your secondary education? In your opinion, what particular part of the telecommunications field should I be trying to get into? Does it matter? I would like you to tell me what you do, if you are working in a telecommunications job, and to give me some advice if you are willing to do so. I thank you all for your time, and hope that anyone who would like to share their "lives" with me would please send a note to my mailbox. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from some of you. Sincerely, Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology From: Peter Marshall Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 12:14:07 PST Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service To paraphrase Chris Johnson's earlier reply, it is indeed difficult to sit by and let him remain unanswered. For example: "straying from the topic of telecommunications, and into the politics of technology"? Is Mr. Johnson kidding? Or has he so thoroughly failed to understand the comments he was responding to with such energy? An "indictment of technologists"? Here too, I'm afraid that weren't it either. And what a marvelous job of segregating off the "business end of such organizations." That arbitrary exercise has little to do with the phenomena in question here. See, for example, David Noble's AMERICA BY DESIGN. So-called "technological innovations" as Mr. Johnson uses the term, seems to be more a label than anything else. Nor is his use of the shopworn cliche that "they" are "only tools" worth much as yet another example of the usual reductionism. Thus the old argument premised on "use" by no means "makes all the difference." The comments re: the telecom system go some further distance to beg the relevant policy/political questions too. And although Mr. Jacobson is no "luddite," granting Johnson's apparently shallow understanding of this term, one fails to see how Mr. Johnson is contributing, n/w/s his alleged intention, to focus the issues on "where the decisions should be and presently are being made." I don't see as his assumption that "societal effects are impossible to predict" helps him provide this focus either. Seems it goes in the opposite direction. Given his interest in such "effects," he might find it useful to acquaint himself with what was once called "Technology Assessment," which did not share his assumption. Peter Marshall ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 91 06:47:27 EST From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted In a recent issue of Telecom, Bill Nickless writes: >I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole >in the center of the bit. I have needed one for refilling HP toner >cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular >phone. I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores. Call "The Bit Connection", at 719 S. Harbor, Fullerton, CA 92632, 714-680-3678. Their ad on page 56 of the December, 1990 issue of "Nuts and Volts" magazine reads: THE BIT THAT FITS REMOVAL BITS for TORX(r) Security Screws Kit includes T10,T15,T20 and T25 Other Security Bits Available Only $12.95 (CODs Welcome) A friend of mine ordered these, and was quite happy with what he got. (I, of course, would *never* have a need for such a thing :-). (BTW, "Nuts & Volts" magazine is kind of interesting in its own right. Its a pennysaver-type pub that deals in used and quasi-legitimate electronics; kind of like a 'paper hamfest'. Contact # is 714-632-7721 (voice) 714-632-3041 (fax). Larry Rachman, WA2BUX 74066.2004@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 12:13 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 >I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole >in the center of the bit. I have needed one for refilling HP toner >cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular >phone. I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores. Several models of cellphone seem to use these. Fujitsu and OKI used them, too. All seemed to be the same size. We would often just knock out the center pin with a very small old chisel. If you want the real thing, several of the suppliers to the cellular dealers have them. ORA Electronics in CA (800-423-5337 or 800-431-8124) comes to mind ... they have a nice catalog of cellular stuff and other electronics, too. Since they are primarily wholesalers, they like to deal with dealers, but are not too picky about small orders. I like their antennas, BTW. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Bob Stratton Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 16:10:06 CST Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted > I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole > in the center of the bit. I have needed one for refilling HP toner > cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular > phone. I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores. When I was looking for the same tools, I was given a great suggestion. Go find the local "Snap-On" tool man in your area. These guys drive around in big Ford Step-Vans, and sell tools to gas stations/garages/etc. They tend to be pricey, but they have every tool known to man and God, and will guarantee them for life. They carry entire Torx sets (weren't they invented by Ford for automated assembly of autos?), and will sell you individual tools too. You may also find a company called "Matco" that works in the same manner. Bob Stratton | strat@ai.mit.edu [Internet] Stratton Systems Design | dsc3rjs@vmnmdsc [BITNET,only if you must] | +1 703 823 MIND [PSTNet] Disclaimer: The above opinions are mine alone - Who else would want them? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #37 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14822; 16 Jan 91 0:10 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10902; 15 Jan 91 22:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20103; 15 Jan 91 21:15 CST Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:11:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #38 BCC: Message-ID: <9101152111.ab10425@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:11:19 CST Volume 11 : Issue 38 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ring Director Comments [Jack Winslade] Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone [Harvey Newstrom] Re: BBS Decision in Texas [Peter da Silva] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Chuck Bennett] Expanded New Castle County Calling Areas (Delaware) [Carl Moore] Packet Info From Germany, a Followup [Dean Riddlebarger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 23:14:56 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Ring Director Comments Reply-to: jack.winslade%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 I know I have made these comments to some in private mail, but I'll comment here since they seem to be coming up again and again. I have used the Ring Director (four line version) from Lynx Automation for several months without any problem. It's on a 5 ESS office with the Selective Ringing and it quickly switches upon a valid ring code and does not false. It does have an exclusion switch. If this is off, any device going off hook will 'step on' an existing connection. If this is on, a connection on any one line will lock out all others, except for what appears to be a volt or so of battery. One thing I thought of checking for but did not was to see how it operates on a PBX. I use it on a normal Selective Ringing line with the normal two on, four off cadence. On the PBX at work, (S/85) we have a 1 on, two off cadence with normal ringing for on-campus calls, two short for outside calls, and short- short-long for priority calls. I guess I should take it in and see what it does there. Hello Direct lists only the two-line box. I phoned Lynx directly and ordered the four-line one. As an aside, for a while, I was actually able to use two modems, a HST Dual and an older silver Hayes 1200 on two separate ring codes simply by connecting them in parallel to the jack. At the time, the HST counted the two short as two rings, and the Hayes counted it as one. I set the S0 register of the Hayes to three and the S0 of the HST to four. Normal ringing would cause the Hayes to pick up on three while the HST waited for the fourth. Two short would cause the HST to pick up on the second burst of two rings while the Hayes waited for the third. The only major problem was that if I was on the 1200 and the HST would grabe the line and attempt to dial out, it would generate all kinds of line trash. This 'feature' disappeared when the HST was upgraded to V.42, and it now responds like the Hayes, showing each burst of two short as one ring. Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ From: hnewstro@x102c.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) Subject: Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone Date: 14 Jan 91 16:08:02 GMT Reply-To: hnewstro@x102c.ess.harris.com (Harvey Newstrom) Organization: Harris Electronic Systems Help! A friend of mine had a bizarre experience trying to make a collect call from an AT&T pay phone to an AT&T home phone, both here in Florida. The phone rings at home, and a recorded message says: "You have a collect call from an <.....>. Press one to accept the charges. Press to to deny the charges." The phone is a rotary dial and has no buttons. The woman at home dials "0" and gets an operator. She describes the situation, and the AT&T operator could not tell her how to accept calls. She suggested that the woman subscribe to touch-tone dialing. Meanwhile, my friend at the pay phone gets a recording saying that the charges were denied. She immediately called home with money and asked her mother why she refused a call from her! Any idea how to accept collect calls from a rotary phone? And a rhetorical question: Why couldn't the AT&T operator help? Harvey Newstrom (hnewstro@x102c.ess.harris.com) [Moderator's Note: Well *supposedly* rotary phone accounts are listed in the data base as such, and touch tone accounts as such. I know that when making outgoing calls billed to calling cards, after the tone signal we interpret to mean 'enter your card number now', if you are on a rotary dial phone the AT&T operator will come on the line and take the card number. If you are at a tone phone and simply do not enter the card, she will likewise come on, but it has to time out first. I think on incoming collect calls or bill to third number calls where the (proposed to be) billed party is expected to press something the same rule applies: for rotary, within a second or two the operator will intercept it, otherwise lack of pressing something will eventually time out to the operator anyway. It sounds like something went wrong in the case you describe. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: BBS Decision in Texas Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1991 22:38:00 GMT Let's compare this with our esteemed Moderator's conecpts of what constitutes a "business": > Systems ("BBS") that are located at residence locations that do not > solicit, require, or receive monetary compensation So far, so good. Pat has made this point in the past. > and that use three or fewer local exchange access lines Whoops. Oh well, 1 out of 2 ain't bad. > at residential rates may publish their name, telephone number and > technical information in a listing of BBSs by location or subject > matter. Oops, make that 1 out of 3. > This has been a long fight. The settlement is not what any of the > parties would consider perfect. Definitely. COSUARD caved in under pressure, it seems, rather than stand up for reasonable restrictions. The rules that came out of this are purely ad-hoc and while they cover the majority of current BBSes they provide absolutely no basis for future developments simply because they are grounded in expediency instead of logical resoning from first principles. In passing, and at the risk of being overly political, this is typical of bureaucratic regulations passed at the urgings of special interest groups, no matter how well-intended. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 09:34 EST From: "Chuck Bennett (919) 966-1134" Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Bill Nickless wrote: > I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole > in the center of the bit. I have needed one for refilling HP toner > cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular > phone. I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores. Tamper-resistant Torx bits can be obtained from: Jensen Tools, Inc. 7815 South 46th Street Phoenix, AZ 85044-5399 602-968-6231 602-438-1690 (FAX, 24 hours) I have no affiliation. But, I do have a set of their Torx bits!! Chuck Bennett University of North Carolina ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 9:49:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Expanded New Castle County Calling Areas (Delaware) Area Code 302: I have examined the new calling areas in the Wilmington (Delaware) call guide. The New Castle County exchange areas are Holly Oak, Wilmington (this includes the Newport exchanges), Hockessin, Newark, New Castle, Delaware City, and Middletown (NOT included is Smyrna, in Kent County but also serving the extreme southern fringe of New Castle County). The New Castle County exchange areas are now all local to one another. In other words, there is no change in the Newark calling area; and the calling areas for New Castle and Delaware City are now the same. Local calls from the New Castle County exchange areas to points outside are not affected; they are: From Newark to Kemblesville and Landenberg (both Pa.) From Hockessin to West Grove, Kemblesville, Landenberg, Avondale, Kennett Square, Mendenhall (all Pa.) From Wilmington to Landenberg, Avondale, Kennett Square, Mendenhall, Chester Heights (all Pa.) From Holly Oak to Chester Heights, Marcus Hook, Chester, Woodlyn (all Pa.) From Middletown to Warwick (Md.) and Smyrna (Del.) (none from New Castle and Delaware City) I assume similar plans are in effect in Kent and Sussex counties. Delaware still has 1+7D for toll calls within it, and customers were reminded to drop the 1+ for newly-added local points within Delaware (besides re-examining any foreign-exchange service). ------------------------------ From: Dean Riddlebarger Subject: Packet Info From Germany, a Followup Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 16:12:47 GMT Last week I posted a request for information on packet level gateways between Germany and the U.S. Here is the information I've received thus far. It looks like such connections should be fairly straight- forward as long as one is proficient enough to deal with the telecom authorities in Germany [my coworker tells me that it's easy to deal with said bureaucracy as long as you express a sincere willingness to use copious amounts of C4 on the local office...:-)]. I suppose that this info has also spawned a need for one followup item: Is it possible to get information on PC Pursuit [or other such services] via the net, or must I grope around for an 800 number? Anyhow, thanks to all who responded. dean [Moderator's Note: Information about PC Pursuit can be obtained two ways: 1-800-TELENET will connect you with their sales and marketing staff. Or, dial into your local Telenet node then @c pursuit to connect with the Net Exchange, the informational BBS operated for subscribers of PC Pursuit. (The BBS is free.) PC Pursuit is $30 per month and a real bargain. PAT] [Attachment] There is indeed dial-in X.25 service in Germany, and their network does talk to Tymnet. Here's a help file from MCI Mail, which uses Tymnet for their international access, explaining how to get in from Germany. I expect you can figure out what parts are about X.25 and what parts are MCI specific. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl Updated 9/89 GERMANY DATEX-P CONTACT FOR SUBSCRIPTION TO PACKET SWITCHING SERVICE: Datex-P Network Deutsche Bundespost FTZ T21 Fermeldetechnisches Zentralamt Beratungsstelle Dateldienste Post Box 5000 6100 Darmstadt, Federal Republic of Germany Tel: (49-6151) 83-4641 Telex: (841) 419511 A/B: 419511A FTZ D Trouble Reporting - Tel: number above from 0800-1700 local time M-F, Telex: number above, Fax: (49-6151) 834639 DIAL-UP ACCESS VIA PSTN: (300 and 1200 bps access available) DATEX-P has an extremely complicated fee structure. All charges in Deutsche Marks (DM) and Pfennig (Pf) (Note: 100 Pf = 1 DM) NUI Charge: DM 15 for 1, DM 5 ea. add'l Telephone call charge: Pf 23 per Call Charge unit* *The length of a Call Charge unit varies: Mon-Fri 0800-1800 1 unit = local call 8 minutes. From outside, dep. on dist. 1 unit = either 60, 20 or 15 sec. Sat., Sun., Nights & Holidays 1 unit = local call 12 minutes. From outside, dep. on dist. 1 unit = either 120 or 38.5 sec. Access Charge: Pf 4 /minute at 300 BPS Pf 5 /minute at 1200 BPS Connect Time Charge: Pf 15 /minute Volume Charge: Pf 1.3/segment Connection surcharge: Pf 5 /call PAD Charge: Pf 6 /minute ACCESS NUMBERS: CITY PREFIX 300 BPS 1200 BPS 1200/75 BPS Augsburg 0821 36791 36781 36761 Berlin 030 240001 240081 240061 Bielefeld 0521 59011 59021 59041 Bremen 0421 170131 14291 15077 Dortmund 0231 57011 52011 52081 Duesseldorf 0211 329318 329249 320748 Essen 0201 787051 791021 793003 Frankfurt 069 20281 20291 20201 Hamburg 040 441231 441261 441281 Hannover 0511 326651 327481 327591 Karlsruhe 0721 60241 60381 60581 Koeln 0221 2911 2931 2951 Mannheim 0621 409085 39941 39951 Muenchen 089 228730 228630 228758 Nurenberg 0911 20571 20541 20501 Saarbruecken 0681 810011 810031 810061 Stuttgart 0711 299171 299061 299291 LOG-ON PROCEDURE: 1. Dial telephone number provided by the Deutsche Bundespost (DBP) for your appropriate speed. 2. Upon receipt of high pitched tone, switch modem to data mode or place handset into acoustic coupler (depending on your equipment). 3. Enter a period (.) and a carriage return (CR). DATEX-P will identify itself with the port address, and will wait for your call request. DATEX-P:XXXXXXXXX You can now change from German network messages to English by typing: language english (CR) 4. DATEX-P will respond with three carriage returns. Enter the letters NUI, a space, your user name provided by DBP, and press RETURN. System will respond with: DATEX-P: Password 5. Enter the password issued by DBP, and press RETURN. System will respond with: DATEX-P: (your user name) active 6. Enter 03104004759 and press RETURN. System will respond with: DATEX-P: call connected to 3104004759 P3 HOST IS ON LINE Port: 3. Please enter your user name: Password: 7. Now enter your MCI Mail user name and password and press RETURN after each entry. 8. Once you leave MCI Mail by typing EXIT, type NUI OFF to be sure that your DATEX-P account is closed. ------------- From: Manwai Yip Yes, your associate in Germany may use Germany's Datex-P network to connect with a dialout modem in the US in order to call your company's central server. Your associate will have to contact the Bundepost in Germany and get what's called a Network User Identification. A NUI is basically a billing account on Datex-P. Your associate would call a Datex-P dial-in in Germany and logon to the network with his NUI. Any calls he makes will be billed to him via the NUI information. The Datex-P is connected with Tymnet and Telenet in the USA (among other nets, Telenet and Tymnet being the main ones). Telenet, as you may know has an out-dial service called PC Pursuit. After getting a NUI, your associate in Germany can use the dialout modems that are part of the PC Pursuit service without having to subscribe to PC Pursuit. He can directly access the modems, and the connect charges will be billed to his NUI. For instance, to reach the dialout modem in Houston, TX, your associate in Germany would access NUA 0311071300024. NUA stands for Network User Address, and is sort of the "telephone number" on the nets. 0311071300024 is the NUA for Houston's PC Pursuit dialout modem (2400 bps). Tell me which city you need the NUA for and I can get it for you. That is, if that city has PC Pursuit access. bt455s01@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Dean Riddlebarger Truevision, Inc. [317] 841-0332 dean@truevision.com uunet!epicb!dean ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #38 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17190; 16 Jan 91 2:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21531; 16 Jan 91 0:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03111; 15 Jan 91 23:22 CST Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 22:26:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #39 BCC: Message-ID: <9101152226.ab10393@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jan 91 22:26:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 39 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Steve Forrette] Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert] CA Touchtone Surcharge [Ken Jongsma] CA Area Code Changes [Ken Jongsma] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Ron Heiby] Re: Calls To and From Japan [Rop Gonggrijp] Re: Recording Phone Calls [Steve Forrette] Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Alex Darren Griffiths] More on AT&T / MCI Advertising [Lou Judice] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 13:08:00 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <15963@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >In article <15877@accuvax.nwu.edu>, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve >Forrette) writes: >When roaming in a foreign system: >> Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby >> the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the >> supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered? >However, according to the postings (and this is quite hazy, so please >DO correct me here), AT&T installed a new system in their 4ESS(?) >toll-switches, which didn't allow for the CALLED party (ie, the roam >port) to hear the calling party (ie, the person entering the touch >tones) UNTIL supervision was returned. That is so say, TWO-way >conversations commenced AFTER supervision, not before, as had been the >case. You could still hear the party you were calling, but they >couldn't hear you until their end sent out a supervision "wink" (or >whatever). I don't recall any stated outstanding reason for this, >although a few were presented. Yes, this makes perfect sense. So, the big question is, why did AT&T decide to change this? There must have been some fraud going on somewhere, I suppose. But, as I understand it, a DID customer can get in big trouble for doing bad things with supervision. You would think that it would be easier to go after the few people abusing the system than to change their toll network. And I'm sure that this would be one issue where AT&T would have the full cooperation of the local telco. Didn't AT&T think that this new setup may be a problem to someone? Imagine what would happen if the local telcos did the same thing. Suddenly, no long distance carrier's calling card services would work, as they normally don't supervise until the actual call is answered. Surely, AT&T wouldn't like to have to change THEIR system because of a local telco change, but it's okay to force the cellular carriers to do just that. I'm really surprised that this is coming from AT&T - it just smacks of something one of the "other guys" would do, doesn't it? Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 14:21:59 PST From: "John R. Covert 14-Jan-1991 1723" Subject: Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. From: Dale Neiburg, NPR Engineering Date: 14 January 1991, 14:40 EST On 10 January, John Stanley wrote: > Tuesday evening, about 4:10, the local PBS station lost the feed >for a program called "Fresh Air". After a few minutes, they came back, >using a poor quality phone feed. > At the end of the show, we were told that the problem was caused by >a break in a fiber cable between New York and Philly. I don't know if >they get the feed in real time, but would guess that they must if they >put up with the poor feed just to carry the show. > YACC (Yet Another Cable Cut)? First of all, FRESH AIR isn't on PBS, but rather on NPR. PBS does television. NPR does radio. Radio is very much like television, only the pictures are better. In fact, I was working in satellite control when the failure occurred, so was one of the mini-throng trying to get service back up. According to the best information we have, the problem wasn't a cable cut but a failure in the telco office serving the fiber-optic carrier that delivers the program from the producing station in Philadelphia to the satellite uplink in Washington. I didn't think the phone feed was so bad. The hum was AT LEAST 8 dB below signal ;). Disclaimer: I keep NPR on the air; I don't speak for them. Dale Neiburg Vox: 202-822-2402 [Moderator's Note: And let me tell you, Mr. Neiburg, I don't know what we would do in this household without NPR, via WBEZ. When Mr. Covert first began passing along messages from folks at NPR to the Digest, some of them were *so good* I questioned him thinking the messages had actually been radio commentaries. (I did not want to use them and violate copyright.) Most of NPR's stuff is excellent, and when you are trying to raise a small child as we are here, NPR fills a big void in a home where the television is deliberatly kept unplugged. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: CA Touchtone Surcharge Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 20:13:44 EST From: Ken Jongsma John Higdon and others from CA have been commenting about the pending removal of touch tone charges from their bills. The following statement appeared in my GTE bill: Effective Feb 1, tone calling will be available to all GTE CA customers. Effective Feb 1, all billing for tone calling will cease. Effective June 1, local calling will extend from the current 8 miles, to 12 miles. So far, so good. Now the killer: The CPUC has authorized GTE to increase local service 4.74% on Feb 1, to compensate for lost revenue. The CPUC has authorized GTE to increase local service an additional 6.37% on June 1, to compensate for the extended local calling area. For reasons not specified in the flier, local rates will increase on Oct 1 an additional 2.45% for local services. Bottom line: GTE rates are going up 11% to compensate for the loss of revenue. You didn't really think you were getting something for nothing, did you? Can't wait to see how Pac Bell handles this. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Subject: CA Area Code Changes Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 20:19:26 EST From: Ken Jongsma As previously reported in the Digest, there are several new CA Area Codes coming up. Here are the implementation dates: Sep 2, 1991 Alemeda & Contra Costa Country get 510 Jan 27, 1992 Permissive dialing ceases Nov 2, 1991 Los Angeles adds 310 All GTE 213 number move to 310 plus some Pac Bell May 3, 1992 Permissive dialing ceases Jan 1993 714 splits into 714 & 909 Details being formulated Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Date: 15 Jan 91 00:04:32 GMT Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL When I got my Universal "welcome" packet, the brochure strongly implied that only AT&T would recognize the calling card number associated with the card. I had the opposite reaction to that of Johnny Zweig. I thought, "goody! Now I won't accidentally get ripped off by some AOS!" Just in case, I called the 800 number on the card to make sure I was reading it right. The person at the other end was very friendly (as on the other two times I've called them), but wouldn't commit to the number being good *only* for AT&T. She maintained that it was still my responsibility to listen for the "AT&T" identification and/or use the 1-0-ATT prefix. Can anyone confirm that the Universal card's calling card number is valid *only* for AT&T service? celoni@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jim Celoni) writes: >A caveat about the Universal Card: the magnetic stripe has the credit >card number, not calling card number, so if you swipe it into a public >phone, your credit card will be billed *by whatever carrier the phone >wants to use*, and even if it's AT&T you won't get the 10% off. I don't think that this is accurate. I believe that the stripe contains both numbers on it. I believe this because when traveling last week I decided to test the theory that both numbers were there by inserting it into an AT&T hotel lobby calling card phone. (Pretty nifty phone. Black. "data" port for a modem. LCD alphanumeric display. card slot.) I inserted my card and it asked me for my PIN, just like for a normal calling card. I don't think it would ask for a PIN if I had used a regular MC/VISA card. I called the Universal folks to ask them about it. They were very nice, misunderstood my question, but their answer was informative. They told me that many public phones were not yet programmed to know about the Universal card, and for those it would be important to key the number in manually. Of course, they also reminded me to listen for "AT&T". Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: Calls To and From Japan Date: 15 Jan 91 06:59:39 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >Whenever I call Japan, I cannot help but notice the poor quality on >the line. It does not seem to matter if I am calling via AT&T, MCI, >or Sprint except that Sprint cut me off. (Past tense on purpose). Well, maybe it is about time that you stop taking the route that they give you (being the lousiest they can get away with) and start routing your own calls through the network. 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: Mon, 14 Jan 91 14:18:13 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <72174@bu.edu.bu.edu> you write: >It used to be, when answering machines were first becoming popular, >that the conversation recording feature always put out a tone every >few seconds. Not anymore, now many of them seem to provide silent >recording. Have the laws or just ethics changed? >Is recording of telephone conversations legal, or is it required to >notify all participants involved before-hand? I would assume recording >for 'personal use' is legal, just as it is legal to record TV shows >and copy software. But that's just a hunch, anybody know the real >answer or how to find out?? Here's what the Pacific Bell White Pages have to say about the subject: "Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to be recorded, one of the following conditions must be met: "1. All parties being recorded must give their prior consent to being recorded; or, "2. All parties being recorded must hear a 'beep' tone approximately every 15 seconds. "Exemptions to these provisions apply to commercial broadcasting purposes when the person being recorded has been informed." The two rules seem very common-sense to me. I have on several occasions recorded conversations between my and merchants when there has been a dispute or I expect there to be one. In particular, calls to the Business Office for local service changes to my phones get recorded. Since my service orders tend to be more complicated than most that the Residence office deals with, they have the tendency to be messed up. This way, I can establish without question just who's mistake it was. By the way, I use my Panasonic KT-T1427 answering machine to record. It generates the fifteen second tone automatically. A couple of times I've had people ask me "what kind of phone are you calling from?" When I mention that the tone indicates that the call is being recorded, the person on the other end without exception has been surprised and didn't know what the tone meant. I tell them that it is being done for my protection so that I can establish without question exactly what I have requested. For the people that don't say anything, I don't know if they are aware of what it means, or just ignore it. Once I had a rep deny permission after I explained the purpose of the tone. I then turned off the recorder. This was about ten minutes into the conversation, so I asked her why she didn't speak up at the beginning. She said that she had "no way of knowing what the tone was for." I didn't go into it further, but are there really that many people that don't know what a tone at regular intervals during a telephone calls means? I explained that I had met my obligation under the tariff to provide notice, but seemed to be beside the point. Note that mostly, it is not worth my while to record. Only when a mistake in the order, such as a change in long distance carriers, will cost me a lot in terms of money or hassle to correct do I find it worth the effoct. Steve Forrette, forrette@cpry.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 13:38:29 PST From: Alex Darren Griffiths Subject: Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls In article <72160@bu.edu.bu.edu> roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu (Frederick Roeber) writes: >A friend of mine, who does military security work, said this is the >result of calling a non-secure phone from the government's secure >phone system and trying to initiate a secure call. When making a >secure call on this system, one first makes an ordinary phone call -- >over any network, FTS, AT&T, or whoever. When the other end has been >reached, one presses the `secure' button. I worked in the office next to Cliff at Lawrence Berkeley Labs for a year or so, including part of the time documented in the book "The Cookoo's Egg". While Lawrence Livermore Labs is crawling with spooks, special phones and phone networks I can assure you that nothing like that existed at LBL. Both Cliff and I simply had the standard PacBell phones everyone at the lab was issued and the standard government issue FTS lines. The FTS lines were publicised as a cost saving measure for calls between labs, we certainly didn't know of any encryption on the lines and neither of us had anything like a secure button, in fact the only security we had came from shutting the office door when talking to our girlfriends (I, for one, didn't care who listened when speaking to slimy spooks and I don't believe Cliff did either). I suspect that any calls back to the lab were made so the spooks could be sure of the person they were talking to. They already had Cliff's number and it's unlikely someone would sneek into his office and pretend to be him, although considering the security at LBL it would not be to difficult. After Cliff left the lab for a year or so I did here that there was a "special" phone somewhere, but I've no idea where it is at the lab or what makes it special. Cheers, darren griffiths dag%speedo%pgne@uunet.uu.net (I know the address is gross but I only design networks now, I don't run them, thank god, so don't blame me.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 10:29:39 PST From: Peripheral Visionary 14-Jan-1991 1326 Subject: More on AT&T / MCI Advertising Any one catch the very clever new MCI advertisements this weekend? To the music of pomp and circumstance they point out that AT&T was "awarded" a golden turkey prize by the {San Francisco Examiner} for one of the ten worst advertising campaigns of 1990. Then they point out that "this message was brought to you by MCI, which is pleased to be able to give wider publicity to this award". ljj [Moderator's Note: MCI ran the same ad in several newspapers last weekend including the {Chicago Sunday Tribune}. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #39 *****************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20050; 16 Jan 91 3:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12157; 16 Jan 91 1:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21531; 16 Jan 91 0:28 CST Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 23:41:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #40 BCC: Message-ID: <9101152341.ab13154@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jan 91 23:41:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 40 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Dial 900 Reverse Directory Assistance [Carl Wright] Concerted Action [Will Martin] Resale of Multi-Location Wats Discount [Jody Kravitz] Estonia Joins Nordic Mobile Phone System [Morten Reistad] Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [Andrew B. Morley] Call Recording in the UK [Andrew B. Morley] 804 Area Still 1+7D (Toll Within NPA) [Carl Moore] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John Higdon] Re: CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie [Dave Levenson] Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [John Higdon] Re: ... Terrorist Act? [Sam Cramer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carl Wright Subject: Dial 900 Reverse Directory Assistance Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 06:02:03 GMT I don't know which company Compuserve is using for their Phone Number lookup service, but the following is most of the text of a brochure I have gotten. " Introducing Nationwide Reverse Directory Assistance from TELENAME 1-900-884-1212 Reverse Directory Assistance YOU provide our Operators with an area code and telephone number WE respond with the listed name and address! A charge of $1.50 for the first minute, 75 cents for each subsequent minute Unlimited inquiries per call 80 million listings, excluding "unlisted" phones. No refund if a listing is not provided." Based on other information I got, I believe the database also includes businesses with residential information. This is a service of Times Journal Company. If you are interested in doing this kind of look up with larger groups of data, call them at 1-800-523-7346. They are located in Springfield, VA. I haven't tried it yet myself, but I'll let you know what I get when I do. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 [Moderator's Note: When I tried them just now (2335 hours, Tuesday) they did not answer. Maybe it is a daytime only service. One should be able to rapidly get four or five numbers identified in a minute on line with them. It might be worth the money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 14:07:28 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Concerted Action What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same instant and tried to make a *local* call? (Yes, anyone who got dialtone would also get a busy because the phone they called would also be offhook, but aside from that ...) I say local because we have seen good examples already of LD networks getting overloaded. I know earthquake areas have had occasions approaching this because the quake jolts handsets off the phones, plus then everybody who can reach a phone tries to call somebody. But I think it would certainly be more interesting if it was a concerted human effort. Pick a time, say 12 noon Eastern on 30 Jan, and everyone in the US, across all the time zones, picks up their phones at that same moment. Would any actual damage result? Would CO power supplies blow, would the batteries drain to unrechargeable levels, or would some other components destruct? Or would the US phone system just immediately drop to the performance level of some third world area where it takes hours to get dialtone? In the latter case, how long would it take to recover? If everyone hangs up at 12:05, would things immediately return to normal, or would the software on all ESS-type COs have crashed during that instant? If it was harmless, maybe we could start a movement to do this, perhaps a "Protest the phone system breakup" effort. I'm sure DJs on radio stations would cooperate in publicizing it -- they tend to encourage stuff like this on their own anyway. (I'm sure somebody reading this is all outraged and ready to send in a strongly-worded protest about the poor souls who need to call 911 at that instant and won't be able to. Don't bother; we've heard it all before. We all know this is just blowing smoke anyway and it'll never happen. [If it does, it *would* be a good time to rob a bank ...] :-) Idly speculating, Will [Moderator's Note: What kind of sense does it make to encourage a protest of 'the breakup of the phone system' by committing acts which at the very least would degrade the system temporarily and in the worst case scenario possibly cause some harm? Most radio station DJs, like a few newspaper reporters I could name should be grateful the First Amendment allows them to speak and publish nonsense. If you wish to protest the continuing decay of the phone system in the USA, then talk to Congress about re-writing the laws to work around Judge Greene to whatever extent possible. Try to get the old gentleman off the bench before he delivers himself of another incredulous judgment. But why even consider something to hassle the telco? I can assure you many of them don't like the current state of affairs either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 02:27:42 PST Subject: Resale of Multi-Location Wats Discount My wife owns a small business and as a consequence we are members of the local Chamber of Commerce. This month's newsletter carried an article about "fantastic discounts on long distance service from AT&T". The article referred to "AT&T United Wats" and gave the same 800 number three times at various points in the article, almost as if it was an audio announcement. I called the 800 number. It was not AT&T. A voice-mail system announced the name of a "marketing" company, took my name and number, and a salesman called me back. The salesman said "I'm from the AT&T United Wats program." "Are you from AT&T I asked?" "I'm from the AT&T United Wats program." I later extracted the name of his company from him, though reluctantly. He claims to have a "National Contract with AT&T" to market multi-location Wats discounts. Apparently, they send your phone number to AT&T, and you get a discount off whatever AT&T business plan you are currently on (Interstate only). They, in turn, get some kind of reporting of the discount you received and bill you back a portion of the discount. That's their profit. Actually, the salesman had a much slicker way of saying it all, emphasising the discount which is claimed to be reflected on your AT&T bill as a "multi-location Wats discount". The discount is claimed to be 31% on a $100 bill. Their fee was always quoted as being $10 for bills between $100 and $250. In fact, $10 is their minimum charge. It apparently flattens out somewhat as your bill gets larger. I'm concerned about several things. First, contract or no contract, I'll bet they don't have the right to represent themselves as AT&T. I'm especially concerned about this because of their apparent endorsement by with the Chamber of Commerce. Second, if the plan is a legitimate way to get a larger discount, I'm concerned about my privacy. This company definitely gets a database of the interstate calling volume of all its customers. Perhaps they even get a call detail. They are not a common carrier. Do I want my business volume (and possibly clients, suppliers, etc) known to a third party who is not bound by the same regulations a common carrier is bound by ? Am I being hyper-sensitive ? Is this kind of thing commonly accepted business practice (remember the implied Chamber of Commerce endorsement) ? If this generates any interest, I'm willing to post the article from our Chamber's newsletter, as well as the brochure which they wrote the article from. Thanks, Jody Internet: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz [Moderator's Note: He probably had the right to claim *limited* affiliation with AT&T for the purpose of his program only. And yes, AT&T is still allowing aggregators (the official name for his type of operation) to resell their service. But please do post the brochure you received. It should lead to some interesting commentary here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 91 15:45 +0100 From: Morten Reistad Subject: Estonia Joins Nordic Mobile Phone System {Computerworld Norge} issue #1/1991 reports that the Nordic mobile phone system will expand to Estonia. Already this month the first calls will be made from Tallin, through an NMT-450 switch in Finland, the paper says. It says nothing about rates or numbering plans. Do I use +7 0142 XXXXXX to call them, and do the uniform nordic internal NMT-rates apply ? In that case it will actually be the cheapest way to call the Soviet Union from here. Morten Reistad ------------------------------ From: abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) Subject: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call Date: 15 Jan 91 16:31:34 GMT Does anyone know how I go about detecting the end of an *incoming* call on an ordinary residential line? I thought I once read that the voltage changes or someting. I am in the UK. Andrew Morley -- --- abm88@uk.ac.soton.ecs ------------------------------ From: abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) Subject: Call Recording in the UK Date: 15 Jan 91 16:31:34 GMT Earlier there was a discussion on recording calls. I don't know about the legality but as far as I know all answering machines which have a call recording facility put bleeps in every fifteen seconds. In the case of mine (a Panasonic) call recording doesn't work until (in the words of the instruction manual) "it is enabled by pressing PROG then # 2 2". Then it works with a bleep. As most of the setting-up commands begin with a hash (eg # 4 n to set number of rings before answer) I tried PROG # 2 1 and it now records without a bleep. Prersumably it is cheaper for them to print a different manual specially for the UK rather than having to produce a different product for the UK and elsewhere where silent recording is permitted. Andrew Morley -- --- abm88@uk.ac.soton.ecs ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 11:16:37 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 804 Area Still 1+7D (Toll Within NPA) 804 area still does not require area code on long distance within it. But all the neighboring areas (301 in Md., 703 in Va., and 919 in NC) do. Perhaps 804 should eventually be changed for area-wide uniformity? (By around 1995, it will be necessary to accommodate area codes of NXX form.) ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Date: 15 Jan 91 12:13:32 GMT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN In article <72173@bu.edu.bu.edu> dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >At 70 miles range, you may well be able >to receive the setup channel which is transmitting at a hundred watts >or more. >[Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme >difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is >there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it? None, and there isn't. While cell sites generally run more power than a mobile, the whole point of cellular is the non-interference of alternate or distant cells and running megapower from a site would defeat that just as much a high power from a mobile. Dave is correct when he points out that there are many times when you may have indication of service when indeed you can't make a call, but there are many reasons for that. The most common is that the mobile has a much less efficient transmitter/antenna combination than the site, or that it is a 0.6 watt handheld with no ground plane vs a well set up vehicle installation. Personal experience has been that my handheld frequently shows service available but refuses to connect to a site, where my truck phone almost always can make a call if service appears available, even in the most out-of-the-way desert rural areas. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie Date: 15 Jan 91 13:05:45 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16050@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) writes: > Well-in PRACTICAL terms, the phone on it's rubber duckie works as well > as when on a "real" antenna. Typical: On I-37, I lose the "home" > carrier at mile marker 90 with the "real" and with the rubber duckie > it's at mile marker 88. Big deal! Similar observations at other > "boundaries". Note, this is not ONE cell -- I'm not in that contest > ... but only the point I lose "home" and have to use "roam" > facilities. I think Mark is saying that he gets switched from HOME to ROAM at approximately the same point regardless of which antenna he's using. Somehow, that is not surprising. One switches from HOME to ROAM when one's cellular telephone set discovers that it is closer to a cell belonging to a system other than the one it considers to be its home system. That should happen at the same geographic location every time, unless cells are being created or moved. The fact that it varies by a mile or two is probably the result of some granularity introduced by the timing of the periodic locate interval in the mobile unit. I think they typically re-scan the setup channels and re-determine which one is strongest every minute or two when they're idle. The mobile antenna choice probably affects overall signal strength, and possibly the directionality of the coverage, but not the relative strength of two neighboring carriers. 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: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Date: 15 Jan 91 11:53:45 GMT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN In article <72169@bu.edu.bu.edu> jet@uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >And the rest of us have little choice. UH has no real organizational >level telecommunications policies. Most departments still have the >rotary *only*, department level switching units. As does most of Japan. The first thing that caught my attention when poking around with the phones here is that DTMF is the exception rather than the rule. This comes as quite a shock after reading glowing report after report of how the Japanese phone system is so superior. The bulk of the NTT switching network is crossbar that has had no DTMF capability added. Most PBXes, including the one at the hotel where I am staying, wouldn't recognize a DTMF tone if it bit it on the foot. The usual instrument for customers is a push button "cute" phone of domestic manufacture that pulses at 20 pps. The casual observer would be led to believe that touch tone is common in Japan, when in reality it is not. And those phones! The instuments are atrocious. They sound bad, have a half-life of about six months and are worse than your typical Time-Life special. In fact, the only DTMF other than on coin phones (which are in many ways superior to those in the US) I have seen so far is in the office where I am working. It is an American operation and those in charge found the local instrument offerings so bad that they (at great expense) brought "real" telephones over from the US. Amusingly, among the equipment was a Panasonic KX-T616. The phones the Japanese design and build for export are vastly superior to what they foist upon the home folk. While DTMF may be nearly universal in the US, it will be along time before the rest of the world can say the same. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 09:58:14 PST From: Sam Cramer Subject: Re: ... Terrorist Act? I realize we may be getting a bit off the track here. Nonetheless... People who put stock in what Marchetti has to say may be interested in knowing that he is an outspoken anti-semite. Sam ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #40 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23461; 16 Jan 91 4:18 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13093; 16 Jan 91 2:44 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12157; 16 Jan 91 1:35 CST Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 0:59:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #41 BCC: Message-ID: <9101160059.ab00319@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jan 91 00:59:30 CST Volume 11 : Issue 41 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Deadline! What Now? [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [John Nagle] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [James H. Thompson] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bill Nickless] Re: A Child of the Information Age [Robert Jacobson] Re: USA to UK Telco Link [Lars Poulsen] Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Dire Wolf] Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? [Carl Moore] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Nigel Allen] Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Dire Wolf] How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Steve Shankman] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Edwin D. Windes] Re: ISDN to DDN, How? [Douglas Coffland] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 23:54:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: The Deadline! What Now? So the Deadline we've all been waiting for has come and gone as of a couple hours ago ... I am afraid to turn on the radio or TV for fear the news will be the worst. Can any of our readers with some background knowledge on telecom in the military advise us on how telecom is handled in a battle situation? I'm a little familiar with the old-fashioned battery phones they used during World War II. What about now? PAT ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Date: 15 Jan 91 08:52:51 GMT Screwdrivers for tamper-proof Torx screws (the ones with a pin in the center of the hole) are available from Jensen Tools, at 1-602-968-6321. A full set of drivers (sizes TT-7, -8, -9, -10, -15, -20, and -25) is available for $34.95, or $5.50 each. You can also get a set of six keys (like hex keys, but tamper-proof Torx bitted) for $18.95. Bits for power screwdrivers are available. Torx - Tommorow's screw today! Design them in now! No cam-out! No slip! Robot-compatible! Metric! John Nagle ------------------------------ From: "James H. Thompson - HNL" Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Date: 15 Jan 91 09:12:25 HST Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI In article <72208@bu.edu.bu.edu>, nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov (Bill Nickless) writes: > I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole > in the center of the bit. I have needed one for refilling HP toner > cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular > phone. I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores. They are called "Tamper-Proof Torx" Tool Catalogs like Jensen Tools carry them. Jensen Tools 602-968-6231 James H. Thompson jimmy_t@verifone.com (Internet) VeriFone Inc. uunet!verifone!jimmy_t (UUCP) 100 Kahelu Avenue 808-623-2911 (Phone) Mililani, HI 96789 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 15:47:22 CST From: Bill Nickless Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted I'd like to thank everyone who responded to this query. I had two responses to it before the TELECOM Digest arrived in my e-mailbox! I ordered a set of bits and a handle from Jensen Tools and am expecting it by the end of the week. Bill Nickless +1 616 927 0982 nickless@{flash.ras.anl.gov|andrews.edu} ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: A Child of the Information Age Date: 15 Jan 91 17:12:36 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle My experience, Sean, has been that training in "telecommunications" itself is a very austere and not necessarily very rewarding study. I found myself, as a young college student, interested in how people communicate. Gradually, after a B.A. in sociology/communications, an M.A. in television, and another M.A. in communications management (the first two at UCLA, the third at USC), I came to the conclusion that what one needs to know isn't the nitty gritty of "telecommunications" -- like engineering etc. -- but rather a broader awareness of how and why it is that we use telecommunications to do other things. My last degree was a Ph.D. in planning theory, at UCLA. I learned how people can make policy to affect the way that corporations and government develop telecommunications networks, what services they supply, and who pays for these services. These are important lessons. Then I went and worked for the California legislature for eight years, making this policy. That was a another lesson: people don't always make this policy rationally or according to some sort of economic algebra. Lots of decisions are made in surprising, even crazy ways! But for me it was wonderful to try to make sense of all the contending interests -- cable TV, telephone companies, private firms using telecommunications, residential consumers, the PUC, etc. I even passed some important laws dealing with privacy and access to information that will dramatically affect the way people live in California, in the 2000's. Now I work helping to set up a laboratory researching virtual reality technology. Another switch! I guess what this all means is that you can't really "plan" your career, just do what feels most interesting and right. (If you can plan it, your career is too simple.) Take lots of courses on the broader subjects -- communications, history, linguistics, cultural studies, media, electronics, business -- and you will find yourself, like the driver of a car, driving between the lines without having to check your position every moment. That's a good way to live! Peace to you, Bob ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 17:39:04 GMT In article <16049@accuvax.nwu.edu> kbc@uts.amdahl.com (Kevin Carney) writes: >My uncle lives near San Luis Obispo, California and has a Macintosh >Plus with the Hayes compatable modem sold by Apple. >His brother lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland and has an Atari ST >with a modem of an unknown type. >This linkup isn't working. It doesn't matter from which direction the >connection is initiated, the symptom is the same. The machine which is >supposed to answer the phone does indeed answer the phone, but the >machine initiating the call never sees carrier detect. >I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a >different set of rules, ... Is this true? Yes. In general, modem technology has been pioneered in the USA, and when new technology with better performance was developed, it was brought to market. While the market was proving the technology, and establishing a critical mass that defined the "industry standard" for the American market, the CCITT would set up a committee to "do it right" and this (similar technology but incompatible implementation) is what the European manufacturers would build for their local telcos. With deregulation of the telephone industry all over the world, this is changing. Many European countries now allow customers to import their own modems, so the American models often get somewhat established before the CCITT versions become available. In response to this, the CCITT is beginning to require compatibility with the American "industry standards" as a fallback mode of operation. SO: The latest and greatest (9600 bps, $500+ price/performance class) modems are compatible. But in the under $200 mass market, the solution is to buy a cheap American modem and hook it up (illegally if need be). This is not all that hard IF AND ONLY IF you understand telephone wiring enough that you would be able to do the same thing with an answering machine. If you don't know this - don't try. European telcos are paranoid about customers messing with THEIR wiring. (Like 1960's revisited). I gave my brother a nice Panasonic speakerphone for Christmas one year, and he was afraid to install it for fear that if the phone company found out they might disconnect his service. (He is an EE!) Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Dire Wolf Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 22:02:43 GMT Jim.Redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs) writes: >Another improvement would be to require "positive input" from EACH >customer, saying that WANT a new service (such the introduction of a >new "dial-a-rape-your-phone-bill-NNX"). >Currently, they are operating like the book clubs: Call *US* if you >*DON'T* want the service! Not good. No telephone services that I know of are added to anybody's bill without their permission. If you are referring to 900-type services, I most certainly do not want to have to call the business office to tell them I might want to make a call two days down the line. None of those services are automatically billed to me because of something I neglect (like sending the card back within ten days). I will theoretically only be billed if the services are explicitely requested (by dialing) from my house. Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 17:49:47 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? Carl Wright writes in note dated 7 Jan 1991 that (quoting from BellSouth Open Network Architecture Outlook newsletter) "Bellcore requires any area code running short of numbers to convert to Interchangeable Central Office Codes (ICOC)" (in other words, go from NNX to NXX form for prefixes). Georgia as far as I know only has had to use ICOC in the 404 area; similarly, 919 only in North Carolina. Alabama has only one NPA, 205. Dialing requirements may have been changed in 912 and 704 for statewide uniformity? That's not the case in Virginia, where area 703, not particularly crowded that I know of (it split to form 804 in 1973), uses ICOC because of the crunch in the Washington DC area. Also, notice that 617/508, 303/719, and 305/407 splits were done in 1988 without N0X/N1X, as were the earlier splits 714/619 and 713/409. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 18:08:00 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. I remember seeing a conventional 500-type set at a military base in Halifax with a warning sticker saying "This line is not secure". The phone was in a guard's booth, and was probably on a Centrex line from the local telephone company. I thought it would be neat to get one of those stickers, but I didn't want to ask any military personnel for one. I had forgotten about it until someone started the thread about secure lines. Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Usenet: ndallen@contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: Dire Wolf Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 22:07:24 GMT dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >cell. It doesn't necessarily mean that the cell would receive your >signal if you tried to SEND. At 70 miles range, you may well be able >to receive the setup channel which is transmitting at a hundred watts >[Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme >difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is >there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it? In addition, I think the FCC regulations are fairly explicit that one should not transmit farther than the equipment can receive. How do you know if you're interfering with someone elses' legitimate communications if you can't hear them? Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 15:23 MST From: Steve Shankman Subject: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? Being in the car business, I recently was able to get an Audiovox (PacTel) cellular phone. I would like to use it as a semi-portable unit, although it is a in-car unit. I have already gotten a whip antenna with a 90-degree bend, and I think I know what the wires are for. But I don't know how to program the phone. I noticed that in an earlier posting someone instructed how to program a certain model of phone. Can someone tell me how to go about programming the phone and initiating service? Thanks for the help! Steve Shankman sshankman@mis.arizona.edu shankmas@arizvm1.ccit.arizona.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 11:22:50 EST From: Edwin D Windes Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL In article <16006@accuvax.nwu.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I have had my AT&T Universal card for six months now [...] >and have continually had trouble getting the number >to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This >includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and >Canada. >My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for >distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home >phone works fine) [...] They are different types of numbers. The number based on your home phone is owned by the LEC; the number on your Universal card is owned by AT&T. Whoever owns the number can chose whom to share it with. I consider it a feature that my universal card can't be accepted by some sleazeball COCOT pretending to by AT&T. [Moderator's Note: And of course local BOC cards will work like AT&T cards because they share the same database. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doug Coffland Subject: Re: ISDN to DDN, How? Date: 14 Jan 91 16:46:07 GMT Reply-To: Doug Coffland Organization: Computations Department, LLNL, Livermore CA > Does any one know of any equipment which will allow an ISDN connection > to the DDN (Defense Data Network) either X.25 or TCP/IP? Rick, I am not familiar with the DDN and if this is an X.25 network, an X.25 connection is probably the most straight forward since ISDN offers an X.25 network itself. We have an ISDN equipped 5ESS on site here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and AT&T has provided their 7500 terminal adapters that produce pure X.25 at the output on a V.35 interface. If you are working from a DMS100, it will require another type of device with the same function since the standards are not totally implemented yet. Anyway, the X.25 packet switched data is provided on a packet switched 'B' channel over a Basic Rate Interface (BRI). Any user on the 5ESS with a packet switched 'D' channel available can access these packet 'B' connections. You can restrict this access via Closed User Groups, which we do in some cases. We do not have a connection available from the 'B' channel circuit switched services to the ISDN packet network. You may encounter more difficulty than we have if you are relying on you local phone company to provide the 'B' packet service. It may or may not be tarriffed in your area. We don't have this problem since we own the switch. Some of our 'B' packet connections are used to access the Lab wide Ethernet, known as LabNet. We use a gateway from Develcon to do this. It currently only provides X.25 to TCP/IP service but this seems to fullfill one of your requirements. The Develcon system takes X.25 off of a V.35 interface so a terminal adapter is required. We also tested a Cisco gateway and it worked well. Douglas R. Coffland Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory coffland@roxanne.llnl.GOV 415-423-7867 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #41 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26341; 16 Jan 91 5:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07208; 16 Jan 91 3:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac13093; 16 Jan 91 2:45 CST Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 2:06:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #42 BCC: Message-ID: <9101160206.ab06446@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jan 91 02:06:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 42 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Last Word! and Other Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Barry Margolin] New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco On Business Rates [Charlie Lear] Cost Accounting - (was Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates) [Henry Schaffer] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Will Martin] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jeffrey Comstock] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 1:34:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: The Last Word! and Other Administrivia This issue of the Digest is devoted to several more rebuttals/replies in the 'BBS and Phone Rates' thread. Please ... don't feel that I am looking for any more messages on this subject; but if there is something you have not said that absolutely must be said please send it in NOW ... with an arrival time prior to Wednesday evening. I do have more where this bunch came from, and will run another issue tomorrow with any remaining messages. I'll print as many as possible and try to be gracious about it at that ... getting in the last word, of course, so that the boys over in news.groups won't be disappointed. Then please, if you feel it needs to go on, write to each other, not me! :) For next: Special guest in the Digest tomorrow also, so everyone on best behavior please. Please come properly attired. Clifford Stoll, author of the book we've been discussing (the 'secure phone' thread) has sent along his version of what happened on that phone call ... I will try to get that message out Wednesday overnight/Thursday morning. PAT ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 08:06:34 GMT In article <72205@bu.edu.bu.edu> ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: >Issue #4. - BBS lines are more busy than others and should pay >accordingly. >If Southwestern Bell wishes to apply charges based upon usage, it >should be done via rate making procedures before the PUC. The PUC >should decide if a break with previous public policy in Texas is >justified. Such rates should be equitable so that the proverbial >talkative teenager also bears such a burden. The application of >business rates should not be used as a back door alternative to the >imposition of a mandatory measured service tariff in Texas. Even a family full of talkative teenagers would have a hard time tying up a line as much as a popular BBS. Phone companies can only offer unlimited service at a reasonable rate so long as users don't abuse it. And if calling a BBS forced a measured service tariff, BBS users would be discouraged from using them (it would be trivial to run up hundreds of dollars of charges calling a BBS on measured service), and the sysops would complain about the charge driving them out of hobby. It sounds to me like a reasonable compromise was reached; limiting a BBS to three lines limits the amount of load that BBS can put on the network, but still permits the service to be free. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Subject: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 16 Jan 91 21:56:12 NZD (Wed) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz My experience of BBSs and business rates may be of interest to other c.d.telecom readers. I have followed the debate with keen interest and submit my scribblings for comparison. New Zealand Telecom is now a private corporation, the NZ Government holds a controlling share, NZ Telecom and a consortium (including Bell Atlantic and Ameritech) holding the rest. The telco is split into several regional operating companies (ROCs), despite a population of only three million. I have been running a BBS for over three years. In that time I've had no real cause for complaint. When I upgraded my BBS, I was asked why I needed three lines into my house. The clerk listened politely, and not only gave me my choice of numbers but found desirable ones in a hunting group. They were listed in the directory as The Cave BBS. In September I put a 3B2 system online to provide a public access Usenet feed and requested another four lines. I was asked the purpose, and again no trouble. The clerk asked her supervisor to call me. After verifying that I was not running a commercial system he allowed the residential classification to proceed. He asked if I intended changing to a commercial BBS structure in the future. I assured him that if I went commercial, or got a company to sponsor one or more lines, those numbers would be notified to Telecom and a reclassification to business rates would be in order. In October I was startled to receive a phone call from my boss. Someone purporting to be from Telecom Investigations Division had rung my workplace and demanded all sorts of confidential information. When none was forthcoming, they rang off and called back a co-worker. Did I work from home? What was my connection with the firm? Did I do business from my home address? Did they redirect callers to my home number? Shortly after, I was called at home by a person describing himself as the Manager of Directory Services. I had been "under investigation" for "some time" for illegally running a business from my home while maintaining residential phone rates. If I was found "guilty", this person assured me my "fraudulent" activities would not only result in business rates being applied and backdated to the time of line installation, I might be prosecuted. I explained the whole BBS scenario to this guy, who refused to believe a word of it. Nobody allowed Joe Public to access their computer for nothing. "I got a computer on my desk. I use databases. They cost a lot of money." I listed the differences between a BBS and a database. "Even so, you wouldn't have seven lines running into your house if you weren't running a business." Again, I detailed what a BBS was, including the analogy between CB radio and boards. They do it with radios; we do it with modems. "You still haven't convinced me. I'll give you fourteen days to get a written explanation to me or else I will reclassify all your lines as business." If I disputed his decision, who would I appeal to? "Nobody, I am the person in charge of deciding what is and isn't a business. I make the decision, and if you refuse to pay we'll charge you with fraud." Hell, I didn't need fourteen days. I waited for half an hour before I stopped shaking with anger, and phoned the area manager of my ROC. He was horrified at what had happened. He'd check it out and get back to me. I hookflashed and dialled my contact within Telecom Corporate (Hi Nelson!). He said he'd suss it out and get back to me. After two days, I got a call from the area manager apologising for this person's actions (far from being in charge, he was in fact at office supervisor level). I had come to his attention because the data entry clerk had queried four new listings with the same address being flagged residential. The lines would remain at residential rates, I had no need of a letter of explanation and would I please forget about the whole matter. That's where it would have ended, but in typical world-wide telco style the next bills arrived with my rating on all six lines changed to business ... so much for fourteen days to convince the Manager Directory Services! Four of them have since been changed back, but I'm still waiting for the other two to be reversed and still waiting for the credit for the overcharges. This has two important lessons for TELECOM Digest readers in the USA: 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems. 2 - Representatives of Bell Atlantic have told me in person that New Zealand is now very much the US "guinea pig" system as far as rating and tariffs are concerned. (Maybe our system was unneccessarily split into ROCs to better simulate the American telco model?) Any decisions with regard to business rate charging for BBSs in New Zealand are likely to have a flow-on effect to the RBOCs in the USA. If they can get away with it here, you can bet they'll try getting it past the PUCs on precedent. I'm just damn lucky I have a reasonable, responsible area manager. Mr. Townson, I respect your arguments for/against BBS business rate classification (do I get the impression you're enjoying playing devil's advocate? 8-). Nothing you have said convinces me that SWBell/GTE is anything but a clear case of discrimination based on the number of inbound calls. Business rates are designed to recover fair costs of a large number of bidirectional calls. Most business lines have some form of keyphone or PABX installed, reducing the number of trunks required compared to the number of handsets in use. Business rates recover that loss. No tariff I have seen allows a telco to arbitrarily change the classification of a line used for residential purposes merely on the basis of the number of calls received. If that was the case, every home with a teenaged daughter would be in for a nasty surprise when the next phone account arrives. Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 643429 V32 PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Cost Accounting - (was Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates) Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 03:32:15 GMT In article <72210@bu.edu.bu.edu> yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 34, Message 1 of 8 >It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this. One is >to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and >additional considerations. The other is to charge by cost. ... Cost accounting is much easier (but less interesting :-) when most of the cost is *Variable*. But, it seems to me, that most of the cost for local service are Fixed costs, and so the cost to the phone company of having you for a customer for a month do not change much regardless of how many phone calls you make per month. Here are the cost categories I see: Being a customer - having an account, getting mailed a bill, processing payment, providing telephone book listing. Fixed. Local loop - from your place to CO and CO line-card. Fixed. (Ecept for rare cases of local loop multiplexing) CO switch - Fixed for non-blocking switches. Mostly Fixed and partly Variable for blocking switches (the basic switch cost is Fixed, and the Variable cost is for increaseing the hardware enough to be able to handle one extra simultaneous user.) I don't have figures for the above, but it seems the costs are mostly Fixed. Unlike Variable costs which can be attributed in a logical fashion, Fixed costs have to be assigned by policy decisions, and the recent policy decisions over "business" vs. "residence" boil down to judgements of who "deserves" to be treated better (i.e., who we like) and not of who it costs more to serve. I think that mixing up these decision criteria leads to confusion. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 10:59:21 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates I've just caught up with the Digests covering this topic, and hope to get my comments in before the cutoff; I broke my wrist a while back so am typing everything one-fingered, which slows down my response/contribution capability... :-) I can understand the telco's point of view about charging BBS lines more in flat-rate localities (I may not agree, but I can understand it...). But, in *measured service* localities, let me take an extreme opposing view: BBS dial-in lines (and Dial-A-Joke, Time&Temp, etc. lines, too) should be FREE. After all, in measured service, the telco makes its money off the calls other people make TO these lines. It is in the telco's interest that there be as many of these dial-in-only lines as possible, because their existence will generate revenue from the people calling them. The operators of these services (BBSs, Dial-A-Whatever, etc.) have expenses in operating and maintaining the equipment; the telco should do its part by giving them free incoming-only lines. (It would be fine if the lines were set up so that outgoing calls were impossible; perhaps a certain level or number of incoming calls should be required to be maintained so that the telco continues to get adequate income off the lines to justify providing them, too.) Note that the whole business <-> residential distinction becomes moot in this case. Any incoming-only line that generates sufficient income to the telco from the measured service of the calls coming into it should be free to the operator of the service at that number. It doesn't matter if this is the perpetually-busy consumer-assistance- and-info line at the Better Business Bureau, incoming lines to Kinky's Adult BBS, the help desk at Sleazoid Software, Inc., or whatever; all of them create telco income in a measured-service world. Myself, I like flat rate unmeasured service, having a wife at home who is perpetually on the phone, so I don't particularly desire this scenario to come into being here and now. For those of you who are already in measured-service areas (and who don't have the "untimed" measured service described by one contributor), this sounds like something to be lobbied for. Right now, your telcos not only get the income from the measured service, but they also charge the people who operate the facilities that create the calls which generate that income! They're grabbing from both sides. It would seem more reasonable for them to get income from one side only. Y'know, one of the problems in these legal proceedings, like PUC hearings about a telco increasing the line charges for BBSs, is that one side wants a change (the telco) while the other side just wants to keep the status quo (the BBSers). That means one side is attacking while the other is just defending. Since the best defense is a good attack, that puts the latter group at a disadvantage. Any compromise means they *have* to lose something. Why not respond to the attack with a counterstrike, taking the above viewpoint? In response to their wanting to *raise* your rates, don't just ask that they remain unchanged, but instead demand they be eliminated entirely! That way, the status quo could be a settlement out of court... Just some orthogonal thinking ... Will ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Comstock Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: Sewer of Source Code Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 03:26:45 GMT >>[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' >>phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define >>what is a 'business' and what is not. The answer to (2) is the IRS. Tell the phone company to produce tax records indicating you made a profit from the BBS. If they can't do it, it's settled. This hits a sore spot with me, because I don't charge anyone money for access to my system, yet the phone company wants to charge me business rates. When I make a profit on this, then I will consider paying them their (outrageous) rates for a business line. jeff [Moderator's Note: 'Making a profit' is NOT the deciding factor. Which major airline was it that filed bankruptcy last year? They obviously did not 'make a profit', and their corporate tax return will plainly indicate this to be the case. Maybe you are saying 'well, they intended to make a profit', and that is true. But tell me, if you thought you could survive financially from your BBS by charging user fees, wouldn't you like to give it a try also? :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #42 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19047; 17 Jan 91 4:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac29974; 17 Jan 91 3:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad28407; 17 Jan 91 1:57 CST Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 1:53:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Error in Issue 43; Repaired, Retransmitted BCC: Message-ID: <9101170153.ab04190@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Issue 43 had an error in the first transmission at 1:40 AM which will make it impossible to burst or be used by many news readers. Please disgard (and DELETE) the first transmission of issue 43 and work only from the second transmission at 1:48 AM Thursday. Thanks. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19056; 17 Jan 91 4:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29974; 17 Jan 91 3:03 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28407; 17 Jan 91 1:57 CST Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 1:40:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #43 BCC: Message-ID: <9101170140.ab25405@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:40:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 43 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Secure Phones [Cliff Stoll via John R. Bruni] Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Wayne G. Namerow] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Brian D. McMahon] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted (Pete Shipley) Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Andy Jacobson] Re: Recording Phone Calls [Rob Knauerhase] Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [John Ruckstuhl] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Frederick Roeber] Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Jon Sreekanth] External Antenna for Handheld [Cory A. Eaves] Re: USA to UK Telco Link [John R. Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jan 91 01:15:02 EST From: "John R. Bruni" <72077.432@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Secure Phones/Cliff Stoll Hi, I messaged Cliff Stoll regarding the secure phones controversy and he asked me to send the following message: To the Telecom Digest Gang... I've been away from the Usenet for the past couple weeks -- on the road. I'm asking John Bruni to post this note for me, since it'll be a couple weeks before I get on the Usenet (you don't want to know what's going on!) Several people have told me that there's a discussion about a scene on page 42 of The Cuckoo's Egg: about my being called on a secure phone. The guy that I called didn't want to talk to me when I called him, but it was OK once he called me back. Here's my theory: Either, he wanted to make sure that I was a real person and not some bozo. By calling me back, he knew my phone number and knew that he could find out exactly who I was. Possibly, he has some kind of secure telephone system -- say, something that would be secure as long as it was on one network, and insecure afterwards. From what I now know, this seems unlikely; the secure telephone units (STU) systems provide end-to-end encryption but would require both of us to have STU's. Hope this clarifies things -- I'd appreciate it if someone would mail a copy of the thread to me at cliff@cfa.harvard.edu. Cheers, Cliff Stoll (visiting IBM Yorktown Research Labs) [Moderator's Note: Cliff Stoll tried to reach me by phone and left a message on my voicemail saying pretty much what he said here. I'm sorry I missed his call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 09:32:00 EST From: "Wayne G. Namerow" Subject: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls I spoke with Cliff Stoll yesterday and informed him of the Telecom discussion regarding his 'secure' phone call. Cliff stated (quote) 'I have no idea what the guy was talking about' refering to the statement about calling back on a 'secure line'. Cliff suspected that it was fluff and that the guy just called him back normally. Cliff also said that he rarely reads any forums any longer, but he can be contacted directly at: cliff@cfa.harvard.edu. Or through Compuserve... Wayne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 11:11:34 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? (Here's hoping the list hasn't gotten tired of this thread yet... :-) Nigel Allen writes: >I remember seeing a conventional 500-type set at a military base in >Halifax with a warning sticker saying "This line is not secure". Which reminds me -- again -- of another Munich experience. My folks are over there with the University of Maryland's Munich Campus, set up for the college-age dependents of U.S. overseas personnel. UMMC is located right on the base, McGraw Kaserne (due to close eventually). I recall several years ago, working my usual summer job on the Maryland switchboard, when the fourth and fifth floors of the building were taken over for an exercise. I think it was called "Carriage Trader," or something like that, and involved setting up a Corps-level HQ and operations center. This was serious stuff -- armed MPs barring access past the third floor, a cluster of radio trucks parked outside surrounded by rolls of razor-wire, the works. The telecom angle on all of this is that the MPs weren't there for the first phases of set-up, and I could wander around a bit on my lunch hour. The commo technicians were stringing wire and setting up phones all over the place. The phones looked like the old, rotary dial, standard black military phones (as far as I could tell), but had little blue labels on them saying "SECURE". I presume they either tapped into T.S. common gear in the trucks, or ran next door to the Military Intelligence headquarters. I guess they could spare a line or two. :-) (I did also wonder just how "secure" a phone could be if I could get at it unsupervised, but that's another matter...) It's doubtful the building itself contained much in the way of secure wiring. For one thing, you had us damn civilians running around all over the place. Also, some of the switch boxes still had "REICHSPOST" stamped on them. :-) The Maryland switchboard was only marginally better, all electromechanical stuff from DTN (Deutsche Telefon und Normalzeit). By counting clicks, I could tell what numbers people were dialing on outgoing calls -- sounded like a gigantic popcorn popper. Ah, those were the days. Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ From: shipley@remarque.berkeley.edu (Pete Shipley) Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:18:52 GMT In article <72208@bu.edu.bu.edu> nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov (Bill Nickless) writes: >I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole >in the center of the bit. Try Snap-On ... I *know* they have it. Pete ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:14 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? It seems that GTE California Inc., in their infinite wisdom, have decided to give notice of sorts about monitoring of conversations between the public and their customer reps. On page 1A (that is the first page folks) of their phone books can be found a peculiar small print type notice at the bottom of the page that reads as follows: NOTICE CONCERNING MONITORING For training and quality control purposes, a small number of telephone calls between company employees and customers are monitored without notice to the customer or the employee, by supervisory personnel. No recording of the call is made. CALLS BETWEEN CUSTOMERS ARE NOT MONITORED FOR THIS PURPOSE, or for any purpose without the use of an automatic tone warning, except when required by law enforcement and national defense agencies, pursuant to law and under legal safeguards. If you have any questions concerning monitoring, please contact your business office. ---------- I don't know if this constitutes legal notice about monitoring of some sort, but I assume that if GTE can do so in California, than anyone else can too. The weird thing is that the grammar used implies that their could be some "training or quality control (purpose)" to monitoring customers private conversations. What, I might carry on lousy phone conversations? Is that what they're implying? Huh?! Aside from the legal issues, I feel that this notice may have some chilling effect on telephone use, as it indicates that not only can the police monitor (I assume for criminal investigations), but also national defense agencies. I had no idea that national defense could be used as a justification to bug someone's phone outside of the scope of simple law enforcement. As we all well know, "National Defense" is a common justification for all sorts of investigations into constitutionally protected legal activities, political and otherwise. I get the impression that GTE California Inc. considers that by this notice they have given fair warning that your conversation may not be your own if some national security type agency has an interest in you. And if you are reading this who might you be? A computer or telecommunications user, expert or manager? Perhaps. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls Organization: U. of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 06:08:51 GMT In article <16076@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >"Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to >be recorded, one of the following conditions must be met: >"2. All parties being recorded must hear a 'beep' tone approximately every >15 seconds. Just FYI, apparently the Ohio State Highway Patrol records all incoming calls, and uses only the 15-second beep. My mother, who has called them several times to check interstate highway conditions, was annoyed enough by the beep (present even when they put her on hold) to ask about it. I don't know many people who read the front of the White Pages (_Telecom_ readers excepted :), but I can't offhand think of any better way to inform the general public of the significance of the fifteen-second beep. [Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system might work? Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...] Rob Knauerhase, knauer@cs.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Department of Computer Science ------------------------------ From: John Ruckstuhl Subject: Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call Date: 16 Jan 91 08:42:12 GMT Organization: UF CIS Dept. In article <16083@accuvax.nwu.edu> abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) writes: >Does anyone know how I go about detecting the end of an *incoming* >call on an ordinary residential line? I thought I once read that >the voltage changes or someting. I am in the UK. My answering machine (a Sony ITA-500) cannot reliably detect the end of an incoming call on an ordinary residential line. My previous answering machine (a PhoneMate) had the same problem, and I always blamed the machine until I saw the problem on the new answering machine. The problem causes great confusion, sometimes leaving the machine in an error state which might cause lost messages :( A Southern Bell serviceman visited, and said my line was as clean as they get! I explained my problem, but he couldn't help me. BTW, I did my simple inside wiring -- 30' of two pair from the inside block dead-ending at the jack for the answering machine, and another 20' of 2pr from the inside block to a dead-end with a jack. What should be my next step? (Also, has anyone converted a Sony ITA-500 to an ITA-600? The 600 is a "speaker-phone"; the 500 just has "on-hook dialing") Thank you for your help. Best Regards, John R Ruckstuhl, Jr University of Florida ruck@cis.ufl.edu, uflorida!ruck ------------------------------ From: Frederick Roeber Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 16 Jan 91 05:24:24 PST In article <16074@accuvax.nwu.edu>, heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes: > ... I inserted my card and it asked me for my PIN, > just like for a normal calling card. I don't think it would ask for a > PIN if I had used a regular MC/VISA card. Oh, yes it might. Many credit cards have PINs for use in ATMs or POS boxes. (Often these purchases will show up as `cash advances' on your bill.) All of my credit cards have PINs I can rarely remember. Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone Date: 16 Jan 91 10:18:53 In article <16043@accuvax.nwu.edu> greg%turbo.atl.ga.us@mathcs. emory.edu (Greg Montgomery) writes: > I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I > am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and > I can hit a button to switch between lines. ... > Is it easy to make one? Certainly it's easy to make one, but if it was me, I wouldn't. (Time cost of a hack solution exceeds retail price of an available unit ...) J & R Music World 1-800-221-8180 sells a "Arista 241445 Two Line Console" which sounds like what you described. The unit shown in the line drawing is a clunky little box with two (or three) switches, and an LED. The description goes : "Allows a single line phone to work as a two line phone. Switch back and forth between lines. Hold with red and green LED's. Requires no external power." Cost is $19.95, Item # ARS 241445, from their winter catalog. Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Cory A Eaves Subject: External Antennea for Handheld Date: 16 Jan 91 17:45:34 GMT I have a Motorola Ultra Classic Handheld. Since I often travel on the fringes of my home cell, I am considering adding an external antenna to my car. Has anyone done this before? Pardon me if this has already been discussed. Do you think it would help? Should I go with the 5db model? Glass mount or Magnetic mount? Is it even worth the bother? Does anyone else have an Ultra Classic they have integrated into their car? Thanks, ceaves@pps2-po.phyp.uiowa.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Jan 91 13:00:11 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16095@accuvax.nwu.edu> lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: >>I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a >>different set of rules, ... Is this true? >Yes. Well, sort of. As noted, 2400bps and higher are the same everywhere except for the various proprietary 9600bps versions that proliferated before V.32 became cheap enough to be popular. For 1200bps modems, the U.S. "Bell 212" and international CCITT schemes are pretty close except for differences in the initial handshake. Hayes modems and most clones have a B command that make the modem switch from the default 212 mode to the CCITT mode. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 17:10:34 PST From: David Singer Subject: Unbreakable Dialtone Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Once in a while (maybe one call out of ten), pressing the keypad on my phone (or sending DTMF from my modem) won't break the dialtone. If I hang up and retry, it will almost always work. This happens on both my lines, using various instruments. I called telco (well, GTE); they "tested my lines" (dumping a modem session in the process) and said they found nothing, but the problem continues. Can anyone suggest some magic words to whisper in GTE's ear to point them in the right direction? (And yes, I am paying for Touch-Tone service on both lines; one of the techs I spoke with yesterday said that "everyone now gets Touch-Tone", I guess in preparation for the February 1 billing change.) [Moderator's Note: In former times, telco had no easy way to prevent the use of touch tone phones on lines which were being paid for at rotary dial rates. Consequently many people used touch tone service without paying for it. If you got the polarity wrong, the touch tones would not sound. If you got it right they would sound and the buttons would work correctly. One of the improvements in telephony in recent years is the ability of telco to deny tone service to people not paying for it. Yes, you can make the tones sound, but no, they will not cut the dial tone if you are not paying for it. Since your problem is not one of being unable at any time to tone dial (i.e. no general denial of tone service because you are not listed as having it) but only an occassional failure, it is probably because the CO is now and then sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. Try to explain to the Repair Bureau that on occassion you 'cannot cut the dial tone' and ask if they are from time to time sending you a dial tone intended for rotary users. Make sure they do show both your lines being billed for touch-tone service also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #43 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19126; 17 Jan 91 4:33 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29974; 17 Jan 91 3:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac28407; 17 Jan 91 1:57 CST Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 1:48:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #43 BCC: Message-ID: <9101170148.ab25919@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:48:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 43 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Secure Phones [Cliff Stoll via John R. Bruni] Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Wayne G. Namerow] Re: What are Secure Lines? [Brian D. McMahon] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted (Pete Shipley) Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Andy Jacobson] Re: Recording Phone Calls [Rob Knauerhase] Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [John Ruckstuhl] Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Frederick Roeber] Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Jon Sreekanth] External Antenna for Handheld [Cory A. Eaves] Re: USA to UK Telco Link [John R. Levine] Unbreakable Dialtone [David Singer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jan 91 01:15:02 EST From: "John R. Bruni" <72077.432@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Secure Phones/Cliff Stoll Hi, I messaged Cliff Stoll regarding the secure phones controversy and he asked me to send the following message: To the Telecom Digest Gang... I've been away from the Usenet for the past couple weeks -- on the road. I'm asking John Bruni to post this note for me, since it'll be a couple weeks before I get on the Usenet (you don't want to know what's going on!) Several people have told me that there's a discussion about a scene on page 42 of The Cuckoo's Egg: about my being called on a secure phone. The guy that I called didn't want to talk to me when I called him, but it was OK once he called me back. Here's my theory: Either, he wanted to make sure that I was a real person and not some bozo. By calling me back, he knew my phone number and knew that he could find out exactly who I was. Possibly, he has some kind of secure telephone system -- say, something that would be secure as long as it was on one network, and insecure afterwards. From what I now know, this seems unlikely; the secure telephone units (STU) systems provide end-to-end encryption but would require both of us to have STU's. Hope this clarifies things -- I'd appreciate it if someone would mail a copy of the thread to me at cliff@cfa.harvard.edu. Cheers, Cliff Stoll (visiting IBM Yorktown Research Labs) [Moderator's Note: Cliff Stoll tried to reach me by phone and left a message on my voicemail saying pretty much what he said here. I'm sorry I missed his call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 09:32:00 EST From: "Wayne G. Namerow" Subject: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls I spoke with Cliff Stoll yesterday and informed him of the Telecom discussion regarding his 'secure' phone call. Cliff stated (quote) 'I have no idea what the guy was talking about' refering to the statement about calling back on a 'secure line'. Cliff suspected that it was fluff and that the guy just called him back normally. Cliff also said that he rarely reads any forums any longer, but he can be contacted directly at: cliff@cfa.harvard.edu. Or through Compuserve... Wayne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 11:11:34 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines? (Here's hoping the list hasn't gotten tired of this thread yet... :-) Nigel Allen writes: >I remember seeing a conventional 500-type set at a military base in >Halifax with a warning sticker saying "This line is not secure". Which reminds me -- again -- of another Munich experience. My folks are over there with the University of Maryland's Munich Campus, set up for the college-age dependents of U.S. overseas personnel. UMMC is located right on the base, McGraw Kaserne (due to close eventually). I recall several years ago, working my usual summer job on the Maryland switchboard, when the fourth and fifth floors of the building were taken over for an exercise. I think it was called "Carriage Trader," or something like that, and involved setting up a Corps-level HQ and operations center. This was serious stuff -- armed MPs barring access past the third floor, a cluster of radio trucks parked outside surrounded by rolls of razor-wire, the works. The telecom angle on all of this is that the MPs weren't there for the first phases of set-up, and I could wander around a bit on my lunch hour. The commo technicians were stringing wire and setting up phones all over the place. The phones looked like the old, rotary dial, standard black military phones (as far as I could tell), but had little blue labels on them saying "SECURE". I presume they either tapped into T.S. common gear in the trucks, or ran next door to the Military Intelligence headquarters. I guess they could spare a line or two. :-) (I did also wonder just how "secure" a phone could be if I could get at it unsupervised, but that's another matter...) It's doubtful the building itself contained much in the way of secure wiring. For one thing, you had us damn civilians running around all over the place. Also, some of the switch boxes still had "REICHSPOST" stamped on them. :-) The Maryland switchboard was only marginally better, all electromechanical stuff from DTN (Deutsche Telefon und Normalzeit). By counting clicks, I could tell what numbers people were dialing on outgoing calls -- sounded like a gigantic popcorn popper. Ah, those were the days. Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ From: shipley@remarque.berkeley.edu (Pete Shipley) Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:18:52 GMT In article <72208@bu.edu.bu.edu> nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov (Bill Nickless) writes: >I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole >in the center of the bit. Try Snap-On ... I *know* they have it. Pete ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:14 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? It seems that GTE California Inc., in their infinite wisdom, have decided to give notice of sorts about monitoring of conversations between the public and their customer reps. On page 1A (that is the first page folks) of their phone books can be found a peculiar small print type notice at the bottom of the page that reads as follows: NOTICE CONCERNING MONITORING For training and quality control purposes, a small number of telephone calls between company employees and customers are monitored without notice to the customer or the employee, by supervisory personnel. No recording of the call is made. CALLS BETWEEN CUSTOMERS ARE NOT MONITORED FOR THIS PURPOSE, or for any purpose without the use of an automatic tone warning, except when required by law enforcement and national defense agencies, pursuant to law and under legal safeguards. If you have any questions concerning monitoring, please contact your business office. ---------- I don't know if this constitutes legal notice about monitoring of some sort, but I assume that if GTE can do so in California, than anyone else can too. The weird thing is that the grammar used implies that their could be some "training or quality control (purpose)" to monitoring customers private conversations. What, I might carry on lousy phone conversations? Is that what they're implying? Huh?! Aside from the legal issues, I feel that this notice may have some chilling effect on telephone use, as it indicates that not only can the police monitor (I assume for criminal investigations), but also national defense agencies. I had no idea that national defense could be used as a justification to bug someone's phone outside of the scope of simple law enforcement. As we all well know, "National Defense" is a common justification for all sorts of investigations into constitutionally protected legal activities, political and otherwise. I get the impression that GTE California Inc. considers that by this notice they have given fair warning that your conversation may not be your own if some national security type agency has an interest in you. And if you are reading this who might you be? A computer or telecommunications user, expert or manager? Perhaps. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls Organization: U. of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 06:08:51 GMT In article <16076@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >"Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to >be recorded, one of the following conditions must be met: >"2. All parties being recorded must hear a 'beep' tone approximately every >15 seconds. Just FYI, apparently the Ohio State Highway Patrol records all incoming calls, and uses only the 15-second beep. My mother, who has called them several times to check interstate highway conditions, was annoyed enough by the beep (present even when they put her on hold) to ask about it. I don't know many people who read the front of the White Pages (_Telecom_ readers excepted :), but I can't offhand think of any better way to inform the general public of the significance of the fifteen-second beep. [Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system might work? Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...] Rob Knauerhase, knauer@cs.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Department of Computer Science ------------------------------ From: John Ruckstuhl Subject: Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call Date: 16 Jan 91 08:42:12 GMT Organization: UF CIS Dept. In article <16083@accuvax.nwu.edu> abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) writes: >Does anyone know how I go about detecting the end of an *incoming* >call on an ordinary residential line? I thought I once read that >the voltage changes or someting. I am in the UK. My answering machine (a Sony ITA-500) cannot reliably detect the end of an incoming call on an ordinary residential line. My previous answering machine (a PhoneMate) had the same problem, and I always blamed the machine until I saw the problem on the new answering machine. The problem causes great confusion, sometimes leaving the machine in an error state which might cause lost messages :( A Southern Bell serviceman visited, and said my line was as clean as they get! I explained my problem, but he couldn't help me. BTW, I did my simple inside wiring -- 30' of two pair from the inside block dead-ending at the jack for the answering machine, and another 20' of 2pr from the inside block to a dead-end with a jack. What should be my next step? (Also, has anyone converted a Sony ITA-500 to an ITA-600? The 600 is a "speaker-phone"; the 500 just has "on-hook dialing") Thank you for your help. Best Regards, John R Ruckstuhl, Jr University of Florida ruck@cis.ufl.edu, uflorida!ruck ------------------------------ From: Frederick Roeber Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 16 Jan 91 05:24:24 PST In article <16074@accuvax.nwu.edu>, heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes: > ... I inserted my card and it asked me for my PIN, > just like for a normal calling card. I don't think it would ask for a > PIN if I had used a regular MC/VISA card. Oh, yes it might. Many credit cards have PINs for use in ATMs or POS boxes. (Often these purchases will show up as `cash advances' on your bill.) All of my credit cards have PINs I can rarely remember. Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone Date: 16 Jan 91 10:18:53 In article <16043@accuvax.nwu.edu> greg%turbo.atl.ga.us@mathcs. emory.edu (Greg Montgomery) writes: > I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I > am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and > I can hit a button to switch between lines. ... > Is it easy to make one? Certainly it's easy to make one, but if it was me, I wouldn't. (Time cost of a hack solution exceeds retail price of an available unit ...) J & R Music World 1-800-221-8180 sells a "Arista 241445 Two Line Console" which sounds like what you described. The unit shown in the line drawing is a clunky little box with two (or three) switches, and an LED. The description goes : "Allows a single line phone to work as a two line phone. Switch back and forth between lines. Hold with red and green LED's. Requires no external power." Cost is $19.95, Item # ARS 241445, from their winter catalog. Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Cory A Eaves Subject: External Antennea for Handheld Date: 16 Jan 91 17:45:34 GMT I have a Motorola Ultra Classic Handheld. Since I often travel on the fringes of my home cell, I am considering adding an external antenna to my car. Has anyone done this before? Pardon me if this has already been discussed. Do you think it would help? Should I go with the 5db model? Glass mount or Magnetic mount? Is it even worth the bother? Does anyone else have an Ultra Classic they have integrated into their car? Thanks, ceaves@pps2-po.phyp.uiowa.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Jan 91 13:00:11 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16095@accuvax.nwu.edu> lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: >>I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a >>different set of rules, ... Is this true? >Yes. Well, sort of. As noted, 2400bps and higher are the same everywhere except for the various proprietary 9600bps versions that proliferated before V.32 became cheap enough to be popular. For 1200bps modems, the U.S. "Bell 212" and international CCITT schemes are pretty close except for differences in the initial handshake. Hayes modems and most clones have a B command that make the modem switch from the default 212 mode to the CCITT mode. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 17:10:34 PST From: David Singer Subject: Unbreakable Dialtone Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Once in a while (maybe one call out of ten), pressing the keypad on my phone (or sending DTMF from my modem) won't break the dialtone. If I hang up and retry, it will almost always work. This happens on both my lines, using various instruments. I called telco (well, GTE); they "tested my lines" (dumping a modem session in the process) and said they found nothing, but the problem continues. Can anyone suggest some magic words to whisper in GTE's ear to point them in the right direction? (And yes, I am paying for Touch-Tone service on both lines; one of the techs I spoke with yesterday said that "everyone now gets Touch-Tone", I guess in preparation for the February 1 billing change.) [Moderator's Note: In former times, telco had no easy way to prevent the use of touch tone phones on lines which were being paid for at rotary dial rates. Consequently many people used touch tone service without paying for it. If you got the polarity wrong, the touch tones would not sound. If you got it right they would sound and the buttons would work correctly. One of the improvements in telephony in recent years is the ability of telco to deny tone service to people not paying for it. Yes, you can make the tones sound, but no, they will not cut the dial tone if you are not paying for it. Since your problem is not one of being unable at any time to tone dial (i.e. no general denial of tone service because you are not listed as having it) but only an occassional failure, it is probably because the CO is now and then sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. Try to explain to the Repair Bureau that on occassion you 'cannot cut the dial tone' and ask if they are from time to time sending you a dial tone intended for rotary users. Make sure they do show both your lines being billed for touch-tone service also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #43 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22261; 17 Jan 91 7:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09453; 17 Jan 91 5:17 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28125; 17 Jan 91 4:13 CST Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 3:28:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #44 BCC: Message-ID: <9101170328.ab28586@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jan 91 03:27:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 44 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: BBS Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise [Peter da Silva] Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Peter da Silva] Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Carl Wright] BBSs vs. Ma Bell [Ken Stox] Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Mike Gardner] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Bob Goudreau] Re: RS 484 Data Link Protocol [Harry Broomhall] Telecom in the Italian Army [Paolo Bellutta] BC Tel Wants to Drop Touch Tone Charge [David Leibold] Programming Cellular Phones in General [Pat Barron] Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid & High Frequency Loss [A. Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: BBS Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise Date: 14 Jan 91 16:30:20 CST (Mon) From: Peter da Silva > To me, it seems like a reasonable solution and should satisfy most > sysops who -- as it has been pointed out here many times -- are > basically trying to combine their hobby with public service to their > community. I hope not. That BBS you said in response to my last message sounded like it should not be put under business rates does *not* qualify for residential rates under the compromise simply because it is running more than three lines. A criterion, by the way, that has nothing to do with cost recovery (in fact the more lines the more income for the phone company) or anything else you have been saying should qualify a BBS as a business. While this isn't something that has been "left unsaid" (I've said it before), I think it needs to be brought up at this time. The only reason for the multi-line restriction is to keep multi-line BBSes down so that there is less competition for Southwestern Bell's favored Videotel services. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1991 22:47:54 GMT In article <72205@bu.edu.bu.edu>, ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: > Issue #6 - "What makes sysops so special?" If you have to answer this question you have already lost. The position you are arguing is that sysops are not special, and should not have to pay a higher rate than other residential customers. Any other response to this is weak and (as the moderator has so ably demonstrated) can be easily dismissed simply by bringing in other worthy causes. On the point of BBSs that solicit donations, I believe SWBell's point is valid. I report to the IRS and pay taxes on my shareware income, even though it is voluntary donations and comes nowhere near covering my costs. You don't ask for payments to support a hobby. Unsolicited donations, however, are another matter. Business don't run on spontaneous gifts. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 05:25:52 GMT In the article, (Norman Yarvin) writes: >It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this. One is >to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and >additional considerations. The other is to charge by cost ... [good stuff removed] >We just had a session of griping about how complex the world is >becoming. In the telecommunications world, this is largely a function >of the complexity of the policies and regulations governing it. Those >who gripe about complexity would do well to attack this obvious >target. IMHO this problem will not be solved quickly, but that an unexpected path may lead us to a solution. In computer systems, there is a "law" that computer systems grow in comlexity until they are abandoned or rewritten. [Gilb's Fourth Law] The easiest way to simplify the system may be to make it so complex that its users reject it and abandon or rewrite. I'd bet on this route before I'd try to convince the carriers and regulatory commisions to rewrite the way they do their "business". They are already susceptible to the "incrementalism" practiced in the creation of law where a law is proposed and accepted to apply only to an extreme portion of the population, then is extended gradually to more and more of the population,i.e. the Federal Income tax or the current inch-by-inch battling you witness over abortions. We can propose that nonprofit organizations, since they serve the public good, should be provided lower telephone rates. Then during a period of public sympathy for the nonprofits we urge the further reduction of their rates, maybe to zero. Since they have so much lower rates there should also be consideration given to less public agents that serve the public through BBS, recorded message services, and others. Mind you not as much as the real nonprofits, but they should not have to pay as much as big corporations which are only interested in their own profits. Really the corporations should be paying a greater portion of the costs of communications since they benefit so greatly from the telephone system. I think you probably have gotten the idea by now. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: stox@balr.com (Ken Stox) Subject: BBSs Vs Ma Bell Organization: BALR Corporation Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 16:10:23 GMT One point I have not yet seen made in the "are BBS's a business" debate, that I think has been overlooked, is that BBS's must be a great source of income to the phone companies right now even if they are being charged residential rates. Let's make the following assumptions: 1) Most BBS usage is during the evening and late night hours when the telephone system is at it's lowest usage. 2) A great deal of BBS calls, if not the majority, are at the very least not a 'local' call, but measured service. ( From what I have read in comp.dcom.telecom, Texas appears to be flat service. That seems to be an exception to most of the country; am I wrong in this assumption?? ) So, what is the end result ?? The phone company is getting a great deal of revenue from times that would normally be idle, or close to it. What a great deal. I beleive these points make a significant difference when compared to hotlines, etc. who are paying business rates since their usage will probably fall closer to or in peak hours. I always thought the justification for business rates was that the premium was to offset the costs necessary to cover the peak load on the network. Ken Stox [ former sysop of 'yabbs-yet another bulletin board system' ] stox@balr.com BALR Corporation uucp: {uunet|att|attmail}!balr!stox 600 Enterprise Drive voice: (708) 575-8200 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 10:14:04 -0600 From: Mike Gardner Subject: Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates >And if calling a BBS forced a measured service tariff, BBS users would >be discouraged from using them (it would be trivial to run up hundreds >of dollars of charges calling a BBS on measured service), and the >sysops would complain about the charge driving them out of hobby. It >sounds to me like a reasonable compromise was reached; limiting a BBS >to three lines limits the amount of load that BBS can put on the >network, but still permits the service to be free. I've slogged through a lot of this topic and I don't seem to recall anyone providing real information about how BBS's impact the switch traffic in a reasonably sized city(say 150,000) people. How many BBS's(and lines) exit per 100,000 people. What percentage of the total traffic in the local switch can be attributed to local BBS lines? 1%, 10% .005%? Local switching systems are designed with some "typical" or "average" use in mind. Surely this average varies with the size of city, "type" of city (industrial vs college town) etc. The local operating company must then design the local switch to accommodate the local usage patterns. Why should bbs use be considered as anything other than part of the "local usage pattern"? I'm not sure of the exact details of the process but I'm fairly confident that if a local switch needed expansion because of local usage patterns that that cost would be easily reflected in the rate base. Of course it can be said that if you charge the "excessive" users either through measured service or business rates(back door) that you don't have to raise everyone's rates. Well that's ok, EXCEPT there you go again, making comparisons against this "average and acceptable use". This "standard" is not defined in the tariffs nor anywhere else in the public domain. Why is putting four lines on a BBS any worse than building a twenty unit apartment building? Are we talking about an inability to design the system to meet local needs, or the unwillingness to admit that when you get a phone line you are only entitled to use (or be called) up to some arbitrary amount before the phone company must invent extra charging methods that are not defined in the tarrifs? University of Illinois, Computing Services Office 1304 W Springfield, Urbana, Il 61801 Michael G. Gardner, Assistant Director, 1122 DCL (217)244-0914 gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu FAX (217)244-0916 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 13:08:18 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates In article <16105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: > This has two important lessons for TELECOM Digest readers in the USA: > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not > desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have > appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is > DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or > even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems. Au contraire; in a *totally* deregulated telecommunications environment, you wouldn't be forced into the arms of a single telco. Complete deregulation would allow competition in both the long distance and local markets, and you'd be able to switch to a competing telco if not satisfied with your current one. The problem you're experiencing is a result of *unbalanced* deregulation. There is still a regulation giving the telco a legal monopoly, but some of the regulations protecting consumers from that monopoly have been removed. Regulation does have its place, and telcos that gain the privilege of monopoly must be prepared to surrender some of the normal privileges of the market as well. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Harry Broomhall Subject: Re: RS484 Data Link Protocol Organization: Demon Systems Limited Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1991 00:46:34 GMT In article <16005@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dave Price writes: >A research group here has come up against a possible (likely?) >requirement to implement RS484 data Link protocol. >Has anyone got experience of this protocol, what it entails and how >long (man days etc) it might take to implement. I have checked several >text books in my possession and I cant yet find any references to it. >In our circumstance it will need to be implemented over a point to >point link. I have found reference to this in my indexes. 1) All RS numbers are now refered to as EIA numbers. 2) EIA484 can be got from American Technical Publishers, Hitchen, Herts (tel 0462-37933) in the UK. 3) It is described as: 'Electrical and Mechanical Interface characteristics and Link Control protocol using communication control characters for serial data link between a direct numerical control system and numerical control equipment employing asynchronous full duplex transmission' The price in my 1988 catalogue is 17 pounds, which means that it is not very big, so should not be too difficult for a comms guru to implement! Regards, Harry ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY Subject: Re: Telecom in the Italian Army Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 14:37:11 MET DST Nine years ago I had to be in the army for twelve months (in Italy it is compulsory). While in the army my duty was to answer the phone at the PBX of a medium size command center some 40 km from the northern border of Italy. The PBX (sorry don't know the model but I think it was GTE or similar) was electromechanical with relays on some boards for the switching. No tone dialling, 100 derivations (two digit numbers) of which two had priviledged call for the pbx operators (there were two operators working simultaneously). At the pbx were connected some twenty "military" lines plus two "civil" lines. The "military" lines were in fact 20 VHF (FM 170 Mhz) bidirectional links. The radio link was a box 50x50 cm and 20 cm deep with a wire as aerial. No scrambling. The "civil" lines were SIP (the Italian telco) public lines (with number published on the phone directory). Some of the "military" lines were in fact point to point lines supplied (and maintained) by SIP. Telex (110 baud!!) were on SIP point to point lines, again, unscrambled. The quality of the radio link was from good to barely understandable. Noise immunity was 0. In fact during storms they were useless. On site telecom is still provided by old phones like in world war II but in some cases radio is bridged on telephone lines (and vice-versa). Nobody told be at that time not to disclose any information (besides from the SIP unlisted numbers of the munition deposits), anyway I didn't say very much. ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: BC Tel Wants to Drop Touch Tone Charge Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 0:05:51 EST In the first Canadian case (to my knowledge) of a telco dropping the extra charge for touch tone (referred to in BC Tel lingo as Touch Calling), the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission received an application (Telecom Notice 1991-7 for those interested, BC Tel Tariff Notice 2240) to increase all local service line rates by $0.90 residential, $1.90 business (Cdn funds), but allow for either pulse or tone service. Exchanges or areas without tone equipment can receive a price break for the local line charge equivalent to the price increase involved. If this passes, the BC Tel wants to drop rentals and repairs on rotary equipment, and to equalise the phone set rental rates to that rotary will cost as much as tone (standard phone sets). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1991 22:32:46 -0500 (EST) From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com Subject: Programming Cellular Phones in General I've seen several messages (including one from myself, still unanswered - I'm still looking for programming data on the Uniden CP2000) asking about how to program one cellular phone or another, but have seen few answers. Perhaps they've been sent directly to the requesters, I don't know, but I think this is a question of more general interest than one or two isolated posts. I there is, in fact, sufficient interest, I'd be willing to collect and collate programming information for various phones, and submit the collection for the TELECOM archives. Would this be something people would be interested in? Other comments? Pat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 23:34 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss Casey Leedom writes: >Apparently there used to be a PREFIX-00XX number that the service >technicians could call that would provide a 0DB frequency sweep, but all Well some places they still do ... in 415, you could try NXX-0046. This motif is by no means universal though. I do know that in S.F., (where the protesters are burning CHP cars right now) 431-0046 will provide sweep tone, but I don't know the range or response. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #44 ***************************** ISSUES 45 AND 46 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. NEXT THREE ISSUES ARE 46,45,47.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11384; 19 Jan 91 1:15 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28108; 18 Jan 91 23:44 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27748; 18 Jan 91 22:40 CST Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 22:27:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #46 BCC: Message-ID: <9101182227.ab29452@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Jan 91 22:27:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 46 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Recording Phone Calls [herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com] Re: Recording Phone Calls [Michel Denber] Re: Recording Phone Calls [Nigel Allen] Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Linc Madison] Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Secure Phones [Peter G. Capek] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Daniel L. Herrick] Re: Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone [Kim Long] Re: Concerted Action [Heath Roberts] Re: Concerted Action [Richard Budd] Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Julian Macassey] Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Jim Redelfs] Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed [John M. O'Shaughnessy] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 07:57:16 PST From: "B.J. 17-Jan-1991 1000" Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls In Volume 11 Issue 43, Rob Knauerhase asked: > [Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system might > work? Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...] Your question was in respect to the Ohio State Highway Patrol. I don't know what they do, but I do know how one large financial firm operated. A couple of years ago I had a problem (since resolved) with my account at a large financial institution. The problem was compounded when a service representative lied to me about the state of my account. Fortunately, the institution recorded all calls so the lie was recorded. In the process of clearing things up, I asked a few questions about the recording process. The person who lied to me was part of an office that handled up to sixty simultaneous conversations with customers. I was told they had a machine that recorded all conversations on a sixty track tape. The tape was changed every twelve hours. They kept the tapes for six months so they could be reviewed if a problem arose. They also kept records of which representatives were talking on which track at which times. If you could give the approximate time of a call and the name of the representative, they could search for the call fairly easily. They now give out confirmation numbers, and I assume those numbers contain a direct or indirect key for accessing the conversation in their tape library. B.J. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1991 12:59:54 PST From: Michel_Denber.WBST147@xerox.com Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls "[Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system might work? Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...]" I had occasion to stop by our local (Brighton, N.Y.) police HQ last year. In the office in plain view on a table was a large 1/4" reel-to-reel tape deck with 10" reels turning at what looked like 1 7/8 ips (the standard "slow" speed for reel-to-reel). It was recording both phone conversations and police radio. It also had a digital clock on it that looked like it was counting in SMPTE time codes, so I would guess it records time data as well as voice. I didn't ask how long they kept the tapes. Michel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 16:58 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Steve Forrette, forrette@cpry.berkeley.edu, talks about a beep at fifteen-second intervals. I remember hearing this on phoned-in radio news reports years ago (despite the California exemption for broadcasters), but the only time I've heard a tone line that recently was a year or so ago when I was interviewing a public relations person for Alberta Government Telephones. Presumably he was taping the conversation (and all other telephone interviews he did) so that he would be in a better position to complain if he felt that he was misquoted. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 03:12:04 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? Mike Miller asks about the legality of monitoring conversations between operators and customers at his companies. First, I definitely second the suggestion that you consult a lawyer familiar with such issues in your state before starting such a system. In addition to the questions of giving notice/getting permission from the employees involved, there is also the question of whether you need to provide some notice to your customers. The telco listings have a little symbol in the phone book that translates to "calls to this number may be monitored (but not recorded) by supervisory personnel." When I worked at Xerox ("Good morning, Xerox service, may I have your machine serial number please?") the supervisor could monitor, but only by plug-in at my station. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: Question -- when the supervisor *did* plug in at your station, did s/he have to ask your permission before doing so? Did s/he have to then notify the person you were speaking with that s/he was on the line listening? I thought not ... so why do some people seem to think if the supervisor chooses to listen from a distant location -- monitoring just the employees whose duty it is to answer the phones and serve the calling public -- that some invasion of privacy has occurred? The supervisor need not ever ask your permission -- or for that matter bother to notify you -- prior to reviewing your work, which may at times include listening to you speak with customers. Therefore, to listen *only* on the operator's talking path is not illegal, since it is not illegal to supervise the actions of your employees. Merely because their duties are concentrated on the phone does not make them something special. And the caller has no right to a *private* conversation with an employee whose duty is merely to switch phone calls. The caller is talking to the switch at that point -- not engaging in an actual, possibly confidential communication. But common courtesy -- and maybe the law -- dictate that you at least notify your employees you might be listening in. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 22:28:03 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > and a recently released CWA-sponsored study that purportedly found > higher incidence of stress and stress-related illness in monitored > employees. As a 17+ year member of CWA (and monitored in my job as Toll Operator and Service Representative), I NEVER experience added stress knowing I was occasionally monitored. I simply treated the customers politely and with respect and made sure I gave them accurate information! JR Copernicus V1.02 Origin: Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) [Moderator's Note: I've always felt the same way. I've never had any reason I did not want my supervisors to see or hear me at work. And yes, I do make personal phone calls from work. If they hear me, they hear me. If I want to be certain they don't hear me I use the payphones in the lunchroom. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 11:43:21 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Re: Secure Phones The discussion about Cliff Stoll's "secure line" phone call got me to thinking again about something which has always bothered me. Since secure phones work by performing some sort of "encryption" (encrypting digitized voice, switching and inverting frequency bands, etc.), and since such a phone isn't much use unless it can talk to many others like it, how is the key management performed? It can't be that all the phones use the same key, as compromising that key would render all the phones useless (and perhaps not even be noticed). I don't think it can be that the key is negotiated when the call is setup, as that would be subject to eavesdropping (although that could be done under a universal key, but that would be subject to compromise as above). Various compromises are possible, but they all seem to have either security or functional problems. Does anyone KNOW how this is done? The only actually feasible solution I know of involves a mutually trusted third party to communicate a key to both parties, but that's not consistent with use in phone networks. Peter Capek ------------------------------ From: daniel lance herrick Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates Date: 17 Jan 91 22:08:49 GMT In article <16105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: [detailed account of relations with phone company in New Zealand] > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not > desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have > appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is > DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or > even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems. A totally deregulated telecommunications environment would allow you to call one of the other phone companies and tell them you don't like the service from your current company, "please switch my phones to your company". Then we would find out what communications costs. Seven lines is approaching the fringe at which you should explore the cost of T1 service. If you can buy the wire service from someone other than the phone company, get surplus T1 hardware, and only buy phone numbers from the local company (maybe even taking the T1 to the long distance company's Point of Presence) you could end up with lower communications cost and spread it around among more suppliers. (T1 is enough digital bandwidth for 24 voice lines on two twisted pairs. The breakeven point for installing it depends on how long those twisted pairs have to be.) Dan Herrick Aricol Communications POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061 (216) 974-9637 herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: Kim Long Subject: Re: Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone Organization: Suranet, College Park, MD Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 23:31:36 GMT I had a similar experience while trying to receive a collect phone call. My touch tone phone either does not emit the correct frequency or the tone is not long enough to register with the telco's equipment. It would appear that this new service still needs a little work. klong@umd5.umd.edu ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: Concerted Action Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 20:32:58 GMT In article <16080@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: >What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the >planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same >instant and tried to make a *local* call? (Yes, anyone who got Depends on the type of switch. Some would handle this gracefully, others can't. DMS (NT) switches limit dial tone, so the switch can complete the calls it provides dial tone for. First come, first serve kind of thing. I'm not sure what would happen if the wait stack filled up. Presumably it would issue a SWERR (software error) and the call would die. Use up a lot of printer paper.... If the switch _did_ crash, it would take about four minutes to reload its software, and things would be hunky-dory unless everyone was still waiting for dial tone. In a worst case situation, current draw might be great enough to draw down batteries, and if all those phones stayed off hook, either the line modules would shut them down (auto recover when the line goes back on hook) or telco employees might start powering down line frames. I don't think ATT switches handle bounds conditions this well. It'd probably die, and they take longer to come back up. (I haven't worked directly with them, but I understand it is on the order of half an hour.) Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 21:21 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Concerted Action Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY Will Martin writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #40: >What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the >planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same >instant and tried to make a *local* call? >Pick a time, say 12 noon Eastern on 30 Jan, and everyone in the US, >across all the time zones, picks up their phones at that same moment. What do you think happens every second Sunday in May?! :+} Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others - klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest | Phone : (914) 578-3746 | All Disclaimers Apply P.S. to PAT: Thanks or mentioning my situation. IBMers from all over the country showed me the way to receive TELECOM Digest on the IBM system. I now receive it through IBM (as well as through Marist for postings) and once again have put my foot into it (and it certainly won't be the last time!):+} [Moderator's Note: You are quite welcome! There are numerous telecom-related newsgroups and mailing lists around the world which redistribute the Digest. IBM is just one example. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone Date: 17 Jan 91 14:38:44 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <16043@accuvax.nwu.edu> greg%turbo.atl.ga.us@mathcs. emory.edu (Greg Montgomery) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 36, Message 5 of 11 >I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I >am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and >I can hit a button to switch between lines. Radio Shack used to sell a >device that did this. It had two inputs for the phone lines, and one >for the telephone. You would hit a button to flip from line one to >line two and vice versa. However, they don't sell it anymore. Does >anyone know if anyone still sells one of these, or if they are pretty >easy to make, how to make one?? What you need is a Double Pole Double Throw switch (DPDT). You will also need Jacks and wire. You can also build the switch into the phone, this saves money on jacks. To build it into the phone, wire the wall jack for both lines, use a 4 conductor phone cord and place the switch between the jack in the phone and the hookswitch. Note that with this arrangement only the phone line currently switched to the phone will ring on that instrument. You may consider adding a second ringer for the second line. You can make this box as fancy as you want with hold buttons, LEDs, etc. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 22:27:04 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I > am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and > I can hit a button to switch between lines. I have seen them at the Omaha AT&T Phone Center store. JR Copernicus V1.02 Origin: Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 14:41 CST From: "John M. O'Shaughnessy" Subject: Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN And I thought you were responding to the Middle East Crisis (*grin*) John M. O'Shaughnessy osh@osa.com Open Systems Architects, Inc. Minneapolis, MN [Moderator's Note: *Smile* ... Thanks for your note, and to the several other Digest readers who have offered their thoughts on the events here of earlier this week I extend my thanks for writing. Sometime over the weekend I intend to publish a special issue clarifying some things regarding the autoreply, and posting guidlines here so that everyone will understand what to expect. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #46 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11852; 19 Jan 91 1:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27748; 18 Jan 91 22:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05633; 18 Jan 91 21:33 CST Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 20:59:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #45 BCC: Message-ID: <9101182059.ab03518@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Jan 91 20:59:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 45 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom and the Mideast Crisis [AT&T Press Releases, via Edward Hopper] Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Linc Madison] Re: The Deadline! What Now? [Daniel L. Herrick] CNN From Baghdad [Edward Hopper] Iraq Conflict Report [Ken Jongsma] AT&T Settles Suit With International Telecharge [AT&T, via J. P. Miller] The Status of X.25 in U.S.A. [Kari Hardarson] DTMF in Japan [Robert Trebor Woodhead] NTT Crossbar [John Higdon] New York Telephone Rate Changes [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 17 12:13:34 CST 1991 Subject: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis These are the AT&T releases on the war: AT&T ADVISORIES *** There was an extraordinary surge of calling to the Middle East during the first five hours after war erupted (7 p.m. to midnight EST). There was significant blocking of international calls last night, and some international calls are still being blocked to some countries. International calling volumes remain very heavy into andoutof the Middle East. From 7 p.m. to midnight EST last night, the domestic AT&T network experienced almost 25% increase in calling volume. Despite this, the network continued to function within normal ranges. There was no significant blocking. *** AT&T and other companies have received numerous bomb threats during the past few days. AT&T received several such threats yesterday. On investigation all such threats appear to be unfounded to date. *** 8 A.M. EST FLASH -- As of 8 a.m. this morning, the AT&T network is operating normally. We are experiencing no significant problems with domestic calling. Calling to and from Iraq ceased shortly after air attacks began there, and we have not been able to re-establish communications. International calling remains heavy. Calls are getting through. However, some customers may hear a recording that circuits are busy. Operators can assist if necessary, but we recommend at the present time that customers delay international calls to the Middle East region. There have been no reports of injury to AT&T employees or damage to any company property or equipment domestically or overseas. AT&T IN THE NEWS *** WAR WORDS -- Phone lines were jammed as people tried to make contact with loved ones. Domestic lines were busier, but nothing like international lines. Within 90 minutes, phone traffic had returned to normal, except one, said AT&T's Lynn Newman. "At 7:03 p.m., we lost all direct circuits to Iraq." [USA Today] *** At AT&T facilities in Kansas City and elsewhere, security manpower has been increased, spokesman Fran Anderson said. Employees have been briefed on new security procedures, she said, declining to discuss details. US Sprint also has reviewed security matters with employees and stepped up its security efforts, even though it has received no immediate threats. [KC Star] *** Long-distance lines in the U.S. are "particularly unprotected" and could be targets of terrorist attacks, a high ranking U.S. senator who serves on a Select Committee for Intelligence warned colleagues earlier this month. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is proposing a three-step plan to assess "key vulnerabilities" that could be targets for such international terrorists as Abu Nidal who, Hatch said, is in Baghdad and "ready to resume business." The Utah senator said that although the FBI has taken some "preliminary stop-gap measures" to warn private companies of the potential of terrorist attack, he favors a national plan that would first assess "vulnerable technologies," then establish protection standards and a plan to build "redundancy" into systems so that downtime would be eliminated should a terrorist attack be successful. James Messenger, an AT&T spokesman, said the company's Bell Labs have been working on network reliability features for its underground cables since 1984, but that the Jan. 4 break was "rather extraordinary." [Long-Distance Letter, 1/91] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 04:05:10 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage I, like most of the country, spent much of the last twelve hours glued to my television set. My local NBC affiliate, KRON-TV, is also affiliated with CNN, so they were switching back and forth between the two. I noticed several differences in the coverage from Baghdad. Of course, no video was going out live from Baghdad, but these two networks were giving audio coverage. NBC's audio was clearly just a plain telephone connection, with all the bandwidth limitations that implies. CNN's audio, though, sounded much clearer. Further, at one point NBC lost the phone connection and didn't regain it for some time, but CNN maintained its hookup and even piped it to NBC (at a cost that Tom Brokaw had to effusively speak of how wonderful CNN is). Brokaw, in fact, asked CNN how they did it, and the reporter was quite secretive. So how did they do it? My initial guess was some sort of multiplexed multiple phone lines, but it seems that all regular phone lines from Baghdad were disrupted. Any ideas? Of course, I hope that this experiment in telecommunications in crisis situations is as short-lived as possible. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu P.S. Plea to other contributors: *please* include your e-mail address in your signature line. My system doesn't reply well to moderated groups. ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) Subject: Re: The Deadline! What Now? Date: 17 Jan 91 17:29:35 EST In article <16090@accuvax.nwu.edu>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Can any of our readers with some background knowledge on telecom in > the military advise us on how telecom is handled in a battle > situation? I'm a little familiar with the old-fashioned battery > phones they used during World War II. What about now? And how is CNN maintaining two way voice from Baghdad?! Dan Herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com [Moderator's Note: It is (was, until the line was cut?) a 'four-wire' line to a transmitter elsewhere which in turned beamed it off to the United States. It was installed with the blessings of the Iraq government -- where other networks had failed to get permission -- because the Iraq goverment said they trusted CNN and had a lot of respect for the organization. They've since grown angry at some things CNN was reporting and cut the line, allowing transmission only under heavily censored conditions. (Sort of like the way this Digest is run, according to some folks ... yuk! yuk! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 17 10:40:56 CST 1991 Subject: CNN From Baghdad One of the little nagging questions last night was how CNN was getting audio out of Baghdad while everyone else was shutdown. In fact, when NBC was interviewing the CNN crew, CNN declined to say how. One Associated Press story this morning said that CNN was using a four-wire phone line (I assume a dedicated circuit). There were also references on CNN to "turning off the microphone so that we can hear Atlanta". Any speculation as to how this was done? Perhaps a leased loop to Amman, Jordan where CNN's "Fly-Away" satellite dish is located? Unfortunately, CNN apparently did not have the still frame video equipment with them that they had at Tianamen Square. Then they sent out still frame color video within a few hours over dial up lines. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 91 12:34:52 EST From: Ken Jongsma <73115.1041@compuserve.com> Subject: Iraq Conflict Report Those that have not seen the video shown this morning of this first bomb targets in Iraq should make an attempt to do so. Pay particular attention to the clip that shows a guided bomb landing on the roof of a large building in downtown Baghdad. Shortly after the bomb impacts, all four walls rather impressively explode outwards. The Digest connection? Wire service reports indicate that it was the former AT&T building. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: AT&T Settles Suit With International Telecharge Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 9:14:12 CST [Moderator's Note: Mr. Miller forwarded this AT&T press release to the Digest. PAT] BASKING RIDGE, NEW JERSEY, U.S.A., 1991 JAN 15 AT&T settled a lawsuit it filed against International Telecharge of Dallas last March. AT&T had alleged that long-distance service at public telephones had been switched from AT&T to ITI and to another company, National Telephone Services of Rockville, Maryland, without the knowledge or consent of the owners of premises where the phones are located. The agreement includes corrective measures intended to address unauthorized switching, plus payment by ITI of an undisclosed amount to AT&T. It is considered a victory by AT&T against alternative operator companies like ITI, which specialize in controlling long distance services from pay phones and marking them up. The case against NTS is continuing in the U.S. District Court for the district of New Jersey in Trenton. AT&T's claims against NTS are not affected by the agreement with ITI. NTS was bought by Telesphere last year, but the president of NTS, Ronald J. Haan, was recently named president and chief executive of Telesphere as part of a debt-restructuring agreement. Telesphere, with the acquisition of NTS, became the 4th largest long distance company in the U.S. For more information, contact: AT&T, Mark Siegel, 201/221-8413 J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Kari Hardarson Subject: The Status of X.25 in U.S.A. Date: 16 Jan 91 20:15:52 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill A previous posting made me think of this question: Is there a way to get from the Internet to the X.25 networks of Europe? When I lived in Iceland I used to access a mailbox service in the UK called 1-2-1. I accessed it by calling the local X.25 telephone number in Reykjavik and then entering the so called NUI number of 1-2-1, which was a ten or twelve digit number. I really miss that service since I had several contacts there which I can no longer communicate with. It seems that Telenet and Tymnet are both connected to the European X.25 networks (I know this because I could Access BIX from Iceland over the local X.25 via Tymnet) but this does not work the other way around since a private user cannot get an account on Tymnet or Telenet, or so I was led to believe. In Iceland you could get an X.25 account from the telephone company which then billed you for your data transmissions along with your telephone bill. Am I to believe that Americans are behind in the X.25 business or do they have a different solution to the data transmission problems of individuals? Kari Hardarson 217 Jackson Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27514 ------------------------------ From: Robert Trebor Woodhead Subject: DTMF in Japan Date: 17 Jan 91 07:08:53 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan In a recent message, John Higdon mentions the relative lack of DTMF in Japan. Having been telephonically bouncing around Tokyo on and off for some years (and now here for an indefinite sentence, until released for bad behavior, no doubt), I might be able to add some comments. Yes, there are a lot of Crossbar exchanges, especially in the areas outside the "Yamanote" loop (a railroad that circles central Tokyo). At least, they SEEM to be crossbar; in my experience they are invariably crisp and clean, with nary a "CLUNK" to be heard. Inside the loop, and in the new exchanges outside the loop, DTMF is the rule. The rule of thumb is, if your exchange now starts with a 3 (the old exchanges before the great year-of-the-sheep-number- expansion) you might have crossbar; otherwise, DTMF. In fact, my exchange didn't seem to appreciate pulse-dialing the one time I tried it. When dialing internationally from my girlfriend's house (3393 exchange) we dial 0062 in pulse to select our overseas carrier (actually it is 0061, but 0062 selects the same carrier, and asks them to call us back and tell us the time and cost of the call, a nice touch), then we can use pulse or DTMF to tell the carrier the overseas number. In general, Japanese CO equipment is seems to be superbly maintained. I've also yet to encounter a noisy line. With respect to Hotel equipment, venerable hotels seem to have venerable phone systems; it seems that the Japanese adhere to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it philosophy. I will preempt our estimable Moderator and note that a certain Judge should do the same... As for cheap phones, in Japan as anywhere else, you can get a junky phone real cheap. On the other hand, I just got a phone from Yodobashi Camera in Shinjuku with the following features: Main station; "100 meter" portable wireless extension; Answering machine with: Remote access; commanded by DTMF Toll Saver Priority Messages Remote memo record/playback Remote answering message record Auto-turn on (if you forget to turn it on, call it and let it ring 20 times to activate the answering machine) Pager forwarding (it will call your pager # when you get a message) The usual memory dialing, plus an emergency button. Price was about $220. I think I got it cheap because by Japanese standards, the feature set (some of which I am still deciphering) is considered puny and obsolete [even though it's operating system seems to be in some ways more complicated that UNIX ;^) ] Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: NTT Crossbar Date: 18 Jan 91 04:57:27 GMT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN In a previous article I had incorrectly indicated that crossbar switches used by NTT were incapable of DTMF operation. The confusion arose from the fact that in the same manner as their electronic switches, DTMF service is a class of service option. Unlike DTMF service in the US, however, Japanese tone service is exclusionary. If you have DTMF enabled, rotary dialing no longer works. In the US, rotary is universal and DTMF is sometimes optional. In Japan, it is "either -- or". ------------------------------ From: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (John Cowan) Subject: New York Telephone Rate Changes Date: 17 Jan 91 16:06:39 GMT New York Telephone has just gotten a large rate increase with consequent reorganization, although not as massive as the one they had originally requested from the PUC. (The NYPUC, I may say, has a good rep for refusing to roll over and play dead when telco approaches, unlike many others of its kind around the country.) Many rate restructurings are in effect. The two most interesting to c.d.t readers are probably the cut in the Touch-Tone service charge and the elimination of most of the classes of measured service. Residential customers in non-flat-rate areas (which includes all of New York City and many other New York localities) formerly had five possibilities for measured service (all money amounts rounded to nearest dollar and are monthly): Service Name Cost Credit Timed? Available to Untimed $8 $4 No All Timed $7 $4 Yes All Basic Budget $5 None No All LifeLine $1 None No Public-assistance clients Expanded L.L. $10 $10 No Public-assistance clients "Timed?" refers to whether immediate-area calls are timed and counted or merely counted (fixed charge per call regardless of length). For New York City, "immediate area" is the whole city. Under the new plan there are only two services: Residential Message Rate and Life Line. RMR costs $7, provides no credit, is untimed, and available to all. Life Line costs $1, provides a discount on the first $5 worth of calls, provides no credit, is untimed, and is for public-assistance clients only. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #45 ***************************** ISSUES 45 & 46 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 46 APPEARS AHEAD OF 45.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13592; 19 Jan 91 3:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24525; 19 Jan 91 1:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29182; 19 Jan 91 0:45 CST Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 23:54:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #47 BCC: Message-ID: <9101182354.ab06719@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Jan 91 23:54:16 CST Volume 11 : Issue 47 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How to Get a 900#'s Address [Linc Madison] Re: USA to UK Telco Link [Linc Madison] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Carl Moore] Re: CA Touchtone Surcharge [John Higdon] Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [Ben Burch] Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Linc Madison] How to Supoena Telephone Records [Rick Adams] Four-Wire Line [Tom Streeter] Call For Participation/Topics: INTEROP 91 [Ole J. Jacobsen] Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount [Jody Kravitz] Line Information Data Base [Carl Wright] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 02:30:05 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: How to Get a 900#'s Address Organization: University of California, Berkeley Doug Reuben wrote about getting addresses for 900 companies. I ain't no lawyer, so I can't say for sure if this applies, but... In California, it is illegal to advertise anything that asks you to send money to a P.O. Box without also giving a street address. This law as it stands probably doesn't apply to 900 companies, but a good argument could be made to your local legislator that it should be extended. (Of course, the better idea is to just outlaw ALL 900 and 976 service.) Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: The only money you send in this case goes to the telco, acting as collection agent for the information provider. Although telco typically uses a Lock Box / Remittance Box to receive money -- your monthly payment -- they have a street address also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 03:40:59 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link Seems to me the easiest method to assure compatibility is to get an inexpensive 2400-bps modem. My Supra Modem 2400 (available mail order for about $120) can also accept commands in the "AT" format to use the European standards for lower baud rates. From the reference card, ATB (or ATB0) selects CCITT V.22bis mode at 1200 baud ATB1 selects Bell 212A mode at 1200 baud That means that you may not even need to change modems! Try just changing your dialing string from ATDT011... to ATBDT011.... Just for completeness, AT&P (or AT&P0) selects US/Canada "make/break" ratio for pulse AT&P1 selects UK/etc. "make/break" ratio Be sure to reinitialize any settings you change on your international calls when you make a domestic call, of course! Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu Disclaimer: I have no connection to Supra, except being a VERY happy customer. These commands are presented as part of the "standard" AT command set, but are not guaranteed to work on other "AT" modems. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 9:14:41 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone My parents have a pushbutton phone which is set up for pulse dialing; if you try to "dial" a number with the switch set to touch-tone instead of pulse, the pushbutton tones sound but the dial tone is not broken (apparently what happens in your occasional cases). But if touch-tone input is needed after dialing the original number (such as punching in phone calling card number or credit card number), you can do that after you have changed the switch from pulse to touch-tone (don't forget to set it back to pulse when you are done). Obviously, my parents do not have a touch-tone line. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: CA Touchtone Surcharge Date: 18 Jan 91 12:19:45 GMT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN In article <16072@accuvax.nwu.edu> wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: >John Higdon and others from CA have been commenting about the pending >removal of touch tone charges from their bills. >Bottom line: GTE rates are going up 11% to compensate for the loss of >revenue. You didn't really think you were getting something for >nothing, did you? Nothing? Did you say nothing? Maybe it has been too long for you to remember: Pac*Bell and GTE won MAJOR concessions from the PUC in exchange (read that IN EXCHANGE) for the elimination of TT charges and the widening of the Zone 1 area to twelve miles. They also agreed to FREEZE residential rates for all of this giveaway deregulation. So now it has been nearly two years and the robber baron telcos are finally getting around to coughing up. But now the deal is changed, no? So now that Pac*Bell and GTE are being more than compensated monetarily for the TT and local calling baubles, what exactly did they give to get the Santa Claus regulations that they now do business under? Answer: Apparently nothing. And to answer your question specifically, Ken, I never think I get much of anything from Pac*Bell. Even when I pay through the nose for it. >Can't wait to see how Pac Bell handles this. In its usual "screw the public" fashion, that's how. The brain-dead PUCommissioners have a bureaucratic memory of about an hour, and that was what Pac*Bell was counting on. There were some of us who predicted all of this when it first came before the PUC. John Higdon | Kioityo 3-12 8F-B3 Tokyo 102 Japan john@bovine.ati.com | Mo-Mo ------------------------------ From: Ben Burch Subject: Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call Organization: Analysts International Corp, Chicago Branch Date: Fri, 18 Jan 1991 15:01:08 GMT In the US (and I imagine that the UK is similar since we can exchange hardware) many (not all) COs return a "disconnect pulse" when a call terminates. The width of this pulse varies from 100 ms to 500 ms depending on the type of switch you are connected to. The pulse is simply a loss of loop current. You can often tell if this happens with a lighted dial phone. If the light blinks after a caller hangs up, then you get the pulses. In the hardware I've worked on, we use an opto and a couple of diodes to detect both ringing and loop current. Ben Burch dbb@aicchi.chi.aic.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 22:25:56 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? Reply-to: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu > One of the recurring questions asked in this forum is "What number do > I dial to determine what number I am calling from?" The answer, of > course, is that it varies from location to location. The Moderator > has noted that the number changes all the time and that it should > change frequently. In the Omaha area, they changed the "958 code" to include an additional four digits, and that has changed a couple of time in the year or so since they initiated the seven digit line I.D. code. I'm not sure of the purpose behind this "improvement", but I am certainly grateful now for "butt sets" with memory dialers! Jim Redelfs Network Technician U S WEST Communications Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:38:49 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising There has been some recent discussion about AT&T ads talking about how other LD companies call you and try to get you to switch. Being a Sprint customer, I get unsolicited calls from *AT&T* asking me to switch back to them. A couple of months ago, the AT&T droid called and raved about their wonderful quality and how their rates are "comparable." I said, "Fine. Put it in writing." Specifically, I asked for a rate sheet -- you know, the standard interstate rates, 0-11 miles day/eve/night, etc. He told me that he couldn't send me one, because, well, it's "AGAINST POLICY." I told him that I wasn't terribly impressed by his refusal to "put it in writing," and placed the handset upon the switchhook in response to his continued protestations. The sequel: just over a month ago, another AT&T droid called me. I just immediately started in by saying, "Well, your people called me a few weeks ago and refused to 'put it in writing.' I need a rate sheet as a reference before I'll consider switching." She promised that she would send one right away. Well, AT&T, I'm *still* waiting for you to "put it in writing"! Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: The winners of the {Ad Age} advertising contest have been announced, and in the next issue of the Digest, I'll be printing the winning submissions as submitted by a reader. You'll love it, I'm sure! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 07:00:58 -0800 From: fico2!rca@apple.com Subject: How to Supoena Telephone Records Some time ago, I submitted a message to the TELECOM Digest briefly describing an upcoming small claims court suit I was filing against my ex-landlord. He didn't bother to show up to the trial, then later filed to have the trial thrown out because he was "sick in bed -- proof will be given -- no phone." I was pretty certain his phone was operational during that period, so I wanted to know exactly what records to supoena, and who exactly to get them from AT&T or whomever, so that I could prove that his phone was operational the date of the trial. The Moderator was on vacation at that time though, and I never saw my message posted ... which is a pity, but hey, I like to take vacations too. :-) Anyway, the hearing was held, and my landlord got the previous trial thrown out, even though he had no proof at all of any medical problem, and I told the judge that I had called his house ten days after the trial and it was working fine. (So we had a trial later that afternoon, and I'm now waiting for the judgment, but that's not related to telecom, sooooo... ;-) ) I'd still like to know the answer to my question anyway, though, just in case I run across a situation in which it'd be nice to know. Anyone? Rick Adams | work: ...!apple!fico2!rca Delphi: RICKADAMS | home: ...!apple!fico2!ccentral!rickadams [Moderator's Note: Mr. Adams' original message, entitled "Sick in Bed ... No Phone" appeared in TELECOM Digest volume 10, issue 903 on Sunday, December 23, 1990. It was handed off to comp.dcom.telecom via news@accuvax.nwu.edu _ or _ news@bu.edu that day. All Digest messages go automatically to comp.dcom.telecom, theoretically a moderated and controlled newsgroup, however as incidents of the past week have shown, my control over what happens to messages after I give them to Usenet is limited. I'm sorry it somehow got 'lost' or otherwise did not get a thorough circulation. To answer the question at hand, supoenas for telephone records are generally served on the security department at the responsible telco, or sometimes on the corporate attorney, but the attorney will invariably bounce the request back down the line through channels. In the original message, Mr. Adams mentioned that although he had sued his landlord, the landlord escaped by claiming to have been sick and had no phone available to notify the court of his inability to appear. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Streeter Subject: Four-Wire Line Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 16:48:51 GMT There has been lots of talk around the College of Journalism about how in the world CNN kept a phone line open during the bombing last night. News reports mention a "four wire line." Could anyone enlighten me? We've tried to pump some of our sources at CNN but have not gotten anything. Tom Streeter streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu [Moderator's Note: CNN is to be commended for *excellent* coverage in the Gulf -- far better than any of the other networks. They have a very elaborate setup involving a hardwired link to a transmitter which in turn beams a signal to the United States. It costs a small fortune: I've heard estimates of $15,000 - $20,000 per month for the link itself, and more depending on the amount of usage. Perhaps someone will post a more technical description of 'four wire' service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1991 10:41:27 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Call For Participation/Topics: INTEROP 91 We invite interested parties to suggest topics to be addressed at the next INTEROP (Oct 7-11, 1991). Your suggestions can take the form of session outlines, (two or three presentations), single presentations, BOFs, Tutorials, and "nifty demonstrations" on the exhibit floor. If you would like to volunteer as a speaker or simply suggest a topic, please send email with a brief description by February 1 to: ole@csli.stanford.edu Ole J Jacobsen INTEROP Program Manager Interop, Inc. 480 San Antonio Road Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 415-941-3399 1-800-INTEROP Fax: 415-949-1779 ------------------------------ From: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 10:00:33 PST Subject: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount Below is the article from the Ramona California Chamber of Commerce newsletter which prompted my previous article. This article was how I came to know of the service. When I called the Chamber office about this article, they told me that a presentation had been given at the last Chamber meeting by the United Wats people, and that a brochure was available. I went to the Chamber offices today to get the brochure. I think the salesman I talked to at the marketing company assumed that I had the brochure in hand when I called him, which was not the case. I might have considered him less evasive if I had had the brochure in hand when I talked with him. I will provide a digest of the brochure in a future article. I've blanked out the last four digits of the 800 number (all three instances were the same), as I don't wish to advertise their service on the net. I've not blanked out the "exchange" field of the 800 number, as I hope someone will look it up and see who the carrier is. AT&T DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE TO CHAMBER MEMBERS Ramona Chamber members can save up to 31 percent on AT&T long distance calling without changing anything on their current AT&T service and initiate the discounts by calling 1-800-233-****. The discounts apply to AT&T's regular direct dial long distance, PRO WATS, WATS and MEGACOM services. The discounts appear directly on your regular monthly bill and appear in the next month's billing round. There is no fee to initiate the discounts with the AT&T-United Wats Program, only a monthly membership fee which can be as low as $10, depending upon the particular AT&T service and the volume of calling. As a special service to Ramona Chamber members, each member who takes advantage of the AT&T United Wats plan can receive free telecommunications consultation via the 1-800-233-**** hotline. Members can call any time to receive answers to questions on telecommunications goods and services. For more information and to take advantage of the program, call the United Wats member number at 1-800-233-****. Please be sure to identify yourself as a member when signing up for the program. Below is the article from the Ramona CA Chamber of Commerce newsletter which prompted my previous article. [Moderator's Note: But the newsletter article did not show up. All I got was the brochure, as per above. However I think we get the point of it anyway. Thanks to Jody for typing it in. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Line Information Data Base Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 19:45:56 GMT Could someone tell me what is the contents of the LIDB (Line Information Data Base) in use with the SS7 (Switching System 7)? I'd even like to know the size of the fields and what are valid values. If there are several answers, I will integrate them into one answer for use by the Moderator. Thank You. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #47 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14822; 19 Jan 91 4:28 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20205; 19 Jan 91 2:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24525; 19 Jan 91 1:50 CST Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 1:30:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #48 BCC: Message-ID: <9101190130.ab15949@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Jan 91 01:30:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 48 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telemarketing Shuts Down For War [John Winslade] Telemarketing Experience [Paul Gauthier] Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [J. Eric Townsend] What's on AT&T Universal Calling Card; The Answer [Laird P. Broadfield] How the AT&T Accident Snowballed [New York Times via Peter G. Capek] Cable Cuts in The Netherlands [Dolf Grunbauer] E-911 Data Needed for Implementation Group [Wes Williams] Ad Age AT&T Ad Contest Winners [George R. Cross] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jan 91 23:22:00 CDT From: JOHN WINSLADE Subject: Telemarketing Shuts Down For War Two of the nation's leading outbound telemarketing firms have suspended sales calls because of the war in the Middle East, according to the {Omaha World-Herald} and other sources. According to a spokesperson for one of the firms, 'With this intense situation, we thought it would be best not to make any calls ... there are a lot of emotions about the war. People are thanking us for closing down.' In one of the firms, it was stated that the decision to shut down was a joint decision by the firm and its clients. The suspension will continue at least until Monday when the managers and clients will decide to terminate or extend the ban. Omaha, famous for its seemingly endless supply of complacent workers with 'Columbia School of Broadcasting' voices, is regarded by many as being the junk-phone-call capital of America. So, I guess we can safely answer our phones during the war, huh ?? I guess every cloud does have a silver lining. Good Day! JSW [Moderator's Note: Given my 'druthers, I would rather hear from the telemarketers. As I write this just after midnight CST, Saturday morning, there has been another attack on Israel. Where will all this stop? Or will it -- as I am beginning to fear -- eventually spread through much of the Middle East? How I wish this was all a nightmare and I would wake up soon! :( :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul Gauthier Subject: Telemarketing Experience Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 00:26:10 -0400 Living in Nova Scotia, Canada I find I'm not bothered nearly as often as many of the posters in more populous areas of the states claim. This evening I got a rare call from a telemarketer trying to sell me magazine subscriptions. It opened with "You have been selected _randomly_ to win a wonderful $30 prize ... (blah blah blah)" And then continued through the most boring mindless drivel I have ever heard. I let her talk for a minute since I wasn't all that busy. Eventually I told her I wasn't interested and she hung up. Just for something to do I dialed my phone-number plus 1. ie, say I'm 555-1212; I called 555-1213. Sure enough, it was busy. A minute later I called again and asked the woman who answered if she had been bothered by a telemarker just then. She confirmed so I eplained who I was and why I had called. She too was annoyed by the call. I should have tried to follow this person up the exchange for some fun :-) This is one of the first experiences I've had with a telemarketer who was so blatently pushing wares in so uncreative a fashion. Paul Gauthier | gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca President, Cerebral Computer Technologies | tyrant@dalac.bitnet Phone: (902)462-8217 Fax: (send email first) | tyrant@ac.dal.ca ------------------------------ From: jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 05:51:47 GMT In article <16147@accuvax.nwu.edu> linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: >Brokaw, in fact, asked CNN how they did it, >and the reporter was quite secretive. >So how did they do it? My initial guess was some sort of multiplexed >multiple phone lines, but it seems that all regular phone lines from >Baghdad were disrupted. Any ideas? Something called a "four-line" or "four-wire", according to CNN. It seems that only CNN was (pre-war) allowed to "lease" one of these from the Iraqi government. Best I can tell, they used it to transmit to Jordan, at which point they were patched into a phone network. I'm not a telephony guru, so I dunno... J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Mangler - UH Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 [Moderator's Note: I believe the link outbound from Jordan was via satellite to the United States, then into a wire-line once it got here. Hopefully we can have a couple of detailed responses on this over the weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Laird P. Broadfield Subject: What's on AT&T Universal Calling Card; The Answer Date: 17 Jan 91 19:34:46 GMT In <16074@accuvax.nwu.edu> heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes: >celoni@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jim Celoni) writes: >>A caveat about the Universal Card: the magnetic stripe has the credit >>card number, not calling card number, so if you swipe it into a public >>phone, your credit card will be billed *by whatever carrier the phone >>wants to use*, and even if it's AT&T you won't get the 10% off. >I don't think that this is accurate. I believe that the stripe >contains both numbers on it. I believe this because when traveling I was reading this thread, and realized I had the equipment available from a recent R&D to answer this. Here's the deal: Remember that the card is a credit card; it just happens to come with a calling card number. The stripe data looks perfectly normal for a credit card, with all the usual ISO7813 field info filled in on both track 1 (6 bit +1 parity alphanumeric) and track 2 (4 bit +1 parity numeric). The ISO standards allow for some "discretionary data" up to the capacity of the stripe, following the required stuff on each track. My U-card has no discretionary data on track 2, but has the letters "ZZA" followed by my calling card number (without the PIN) in the track 1 discretionary area. This may tie in with Jim's U-rep saying that "not all phones are programmed to read this yet"; maybe ZZA is a magic flag meaning "a phone card number follows" and the machines need to be told to look for it and use it if it's there. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 02:46:52 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: How the AT&T Accident Snowballed An article in the {New York Times}, Jan 14, 1991 gives some information about the cutting of the fiber cable in Newark on January 4. I'll outline the highlights: - Cable through Newark was one of AT&T's ten busiest. - Employee was in manhole removing an outdated (copper?) cable, but failed to read the label on the one he cut, so didn't realize it was the wrong one. His supervisor also failed to notice the error. Further, a second crew which was supposed to have marked the cable to be cut never arrived at the site. Had they been present, they presumably would have averted the error, and if not, at least realized promptly what happened. As it happened, the cut was not located for over an hour. (The article implies that it was not apparent that the cut cable was fiber rather than copper, because the cutter used tended to crimp the end, and because the "weak" laser light which was being transmitted was not visible to the naked eye.) - AT&T Operations Center in Bedminster, NJ was not notified that work was being done in the proximity of the cable, so when they discovered the failure, had no idea where to send repair trucks. So they had to resort to a time-domain reflectometer ("a sonar-like device") to find the point of the break, a procedure which took between 60 and 90 minutes. Apparently, the procedure of notifying the Operations Center about work in progress near its cables was routinely done, but is no longer done, in an effort to reduce costs. - The computers which reroute traffic in such situations had not been "programmed" to give priority to the air traffic control (leased circuits, I presume). So, even though routine voice traffic was being rerouted within fifteen minutes, New York's three airports lost contact with their long-range radar for 102 minutes, delaying and cancelling many flights. But the F.A.A. had not paid for any special rerouting service. - New York City accounts for 1/5 of AT&T's domestic calls and 1/3 of its international calls. - The problem occurred despite a warning of vulnerability it received on Nov 18, 1988, when a construction accident caused the same cable to be cut twenty miles to the south. - Following that, the traffic on the fiber was reduced, and constructed alternates. But there's still not enough alternate capacity to assume the load in the case of an outage such as this one. - 3/5 of all calls attempted to and from New York City during business hours on Jan 4 were not completed. (No statement is made about how much greater the number of attempts was than is usual for a Friday.) ATM lines and leased lines servicing the financial industry were also affected. - The cut occurred in a personhole at a point where a lot of traffic is funneled together to cross the Hudson River into New York. Unfortunately, the hole flooded and pumps had to be brought in. Further, there was so little slack in the cable that a new section had to be spliced in, thus doubling the number of connections to be made. - The incident made at least one customer look to Sprint for service. It isn't clear whether that unnamed "medium-sized business" will move to Sprint entirely, or use both carriers. - Donald E. Lively, a retired AT&T "expert on restoring service" couldn't understand why the problem wasn't fixed within half an hour or so. As it was, it took over seven hours. Peter Capek ------------------------------ Organization: Philips Information Systems, P.O. Box 245, From: Dolf Grunbauer Subject: Cable Cuts in the Netherlands Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 15:17:16 MET Patrick, In 'De Computable' of 11 January 1991, I read that the Dutch PTT has suffered last year a damage of at least fl. 25 million (about US$ 14 million) due to cable cuts. The PTT has the impression that this damage is increasing each year when fluctuations (e.g. construction of new roads) are removed from the calculations. There is a special office where the exact locations of the cables can be obtained (KLIC: Kabel en Leidingen Informatie Centrum), but the impression is that the contracters due to time pressure are not carefull enough when digging in the vicinity of cables. According to the PTT about 60% of all disturbances is cleared within sixteen hours or less. Also I read on 'Teletekst' (information pages which are broadcasted via the TV), that in Poland the women complained that getting a divorce has very serious impacts, as they would lose their telephone. Getting a new telephone line takes very long and may even take up to 25 years. This prevents divorces. Dolf Grunbauer Tel: +31 55 433233 Internet dolf@idca.tds.philips.nl Philips Information Systems UUCP ...!mcsun!philapd!dolf ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 14:47:45 CDT From: Wes Williams Subject: E-911 Data Needed For Implementation Group * Original to All @ 1:382/39 in FIRENET * Forwarded Wed Jan 16 1991 14:46:20 by William Degnan @ 1:382/39 This is Enhanced 911, not 911. I was informed today that I will be representing our Department in a group of our County's representatives from Massachusetts for the implementation of the new Mass E-911 system. For those of you unaware, MA has recently passed a State law to bring this into active state wide use over the next few years, where only some cities have been previously served by nonenhanced 911. With my primary job as administrator of the CPU operation for the Department, I suppose it was a logical choice. On the other hand, out of all the material that I've been able to lay my hands on, seminars included, I still do not have a feel for the pitfalls of such a project. (Hat in hand mode on) I would be more than thankful for suggested reading material, or any other sources of information that this fine group could supply. Those of you with past experience(s) in this area are invited to submit ascii, paper, 3.5", 5.25", 80 meg hard drives full of data, or file attach to this node number anything that may, in your opinion, be of importance to this project. A general discussion seems also appropriate in this echo if the Moderator will sanction same. A few primary thoughts: Is it more beneficial to utilize what hardware / software that the phone people are required to supply for a stand alone system, and hand off data to a dedicated dispatch system? (The dispatch system has not yet been obtained, although what is required before this came to pass has been well researched.) When looking at a regional approach, combining multiple cities in one central dispatch location for a few hundred thousand people, and other than the transitional learning curves, what are the problems/benefits with this method? How many (basic) different types of *E*911 are there in the country now, and who is better than who and why? In reference to the above, I have been informed (most likely incorrectly) that there were only two types. 1. A regional telephone company staffed system that passes off the information, and 2. a direct connect to the locality that will provide the service. Also, that there (in this case) can be only one split (hand off to police or fire) in the final configuration. I dislike the telco staff approach (old school) but there again, it's still phone equipment, so I'd like some comments there. Feel free to reach me in any of the following manners, and advanced thanks to all that reply or send material. Capt. E. W. Wiliams Wes Williams Fire Dept. HQ 33 Sweetser Ter 725 Western Ave. Lynn MA 01904 Lynn, MA 01905 617-593-6458 617-593-1234 (afternoons) (home) or net-mail NPI @ 101/192, 101,193 Wes Williams -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!Wes.Williams ARPA: Wes.Williams@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 91 14:30:05 From: George Cross Subject: Ad Age AT&T Ad Contest Winners From Advertising Age, January 7, 1991, p24 The contest was to predict the next, even nastier pitch for AT&T LD. The winners are quoted below. Frequent repeat entry prototype: "So I go to pick up Bobby from the daycare center and he's not there. I get home, the phone's ringing and it's them. The guy says, 'Lady, we've got your kid. Say something to mommy, Bob. (SCREAM). Please note, Mrs. Sanderson, the fiber-optic clarity of your son's ...'" First Prize: So the guy says, "Hi, I'm Willie Horton and MCI has given me this job as part of their new work-release program. Let's get together and talk about switching over." -- Randy Dumouchel, copywriter, Primm & Co., Norfolk, VA. Second Prize: I just wanted directory assistance for Montana and the next thing I know I'm talking to Mozambique. So call MCI for credit and I get a recording -- of Roseanne Barr singing. When the operator comes on I say, "AT&T never put me on hold." She says, "Sweetie, AT&T never had a nasty infection like the one I got." -- Eric Gutierrez, actor/copywriter, New York Third Prize: I hear this crash and I find a rock, wrapped in paper, next to my living room window. I open up the note and it says, "You want it in writing? You got it. Next time, take the call. MCI. We know where you live." -- Mary Hoppin, consumer services manager, Asian Sources Publications, Hong Kong Honorable Intention: So the guy says "Paul, if you don#213#t switch we're gonna have to fire-bomb your house." And I say, "Fire-bomb my house? AT&T never threatened me like that." And he says, "You're not dealing with AT&T." -- Paul Gosselin, free-lance copywriter, Nashville George R. Cross cross@ctc.contel.com Contel Technology Center Intelligent Systems Laboratory (703) 818-4504 15000 Conference Center Drive Chantilly, VA 22021-3808 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #48 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29086; 19 Jan 91 16:36 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20588; 19 Jan 91 15:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04979; 19 Jan 91 13:59 CST Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 13:59:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #49 BCC: Message-ID: <9101191359.ab00637@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Jan 91 13:58:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 49 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Bob Sherman] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Bob Sherman] Re: Iraq Conflict Report [Brian Crawford] Re: Concerted Action [Floyd Davidson] Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount [Mark Van Buskirk] Re: DTMF in Japan [Jon Sreekanth] Help Wanted With Four-Wire Phone [Dick Jackson] Correction: Error in Fax Phone Number [Sean Williams] Telesat Canada Winter Report, 1990-91 [TELECOM Moderator] CLID Compatibility Question [John Winslade] Sending/Receiving Telex Messages [SUNT@qucdn.queensu.ca] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 09:48:57 GMT In <16147@accuvax.nwu.edu> linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: [ stuff deleted] >NBC's audio was clearly just a plain telephone connection, with all >the bandwidth limitations that implies. CNN's audio, though, sounded >much clearer. Further, at one point NBC lost the phone connection and >didn't regain it for some time, but CNN maintained its hookup and even >piped it to NBC (at a cost that Tom Brokaw had to effusively speak of >how wonderful CNN is). Brokaw, in fact, asked CNN how they did it, >and the reporter was quite secretive. Bernie Shaw is no dummy. The CNN boys outdid the competition, and he was not going to tell them at this time, although he did promise to tell Brokaw over dinner sometime after he returns to the States. >So how did they do it? My initial guess was some sort of multiplexed >multiple phone lines, but it seems that all regular phone lines from >Baghdad were disrupted. Any ideas? Yes, without giving away their trade secrets before they wish to make them public, let me just say it was a device that is mainly used on large ocean vessels, oil rig towers in the middle of nowhere, etc and was rigged to operate off of either commercial voltage with a drop down device or battery power in the event that commercial power failed (which it did.) I am glad that I do not have to pay their bill, which costs several dollars per minute ... for all of the hours they were using it. They also had with them, a portable electric generator which they purchased in the Washington DC area before they went over there, along with tons of Tuna fish, etc. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 10:04:01 GMT In <16149@accuvax.nwu.edu> ehopper@attmail.com writes: >One of the little nagging questions last night was how CNN was getting >audio out of Baghdad while everyone else was shutdown. >In fact, when NBC was interviewing the CNN crew, CNN declined to say >how. One Associated Press story this morning said that CNN was using >a four-wire phone line (I assume a dedicated circuit). There were >also references on CNN to "turning off the microphone so that we can >hear Atlanta". The four-wire stuff was two lines, one in so they could hear the AFB line from Atlanta with incoming audio, and the other was for the outgoing audio which is what you heard. Once the phone lines and the electric were gone, they had outgoing audio only, and could not hear AFB at the same time. In fact for much of the time they had no idea if what they were saying was even being heard by anyone, let alone getting on the air, and much of the time they were broadcasting while lying under a table on the floor. Only one of them kept their head up to look out the window at a time. Shaw and Holliman are out of Iraq now and safely in Jordan. Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. But then he has covered many wars before (has won a Pulitzer Prize among other awards in the past) and is no doubt enjoying every minute of it. It was the first war for Holliman (and his wife who remained behind in Washington), and Shaw was not really there to cover the war, but it broke out while he was there. I was with Shaw some years ago in Jonestown, Guyana when hundreds of people went on a grape kool-aid drinking binge, and I can tell you that he has a very good head on his shoulders. He was not working for CNN at that time, but was with ABC. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: Iraq Conflict Report Date: 19 Jan 91 15:13:48 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article <16150@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 73115.1041@compuserve.com (Ken Jongsma) writes: > The Digest connection? Wire service reports indicate that it was the > former AT&T building. Are you speaking of the fighter jet footage? If so, I thought that was the Iraqi Air Force Command. Brian Crawford INTERNET: crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu PO Box 804 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 Amateur: KL7JDQ USA ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Concerted Action Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 12:30:05 GMT In article <16164@accuvax.nwu.edu> Heath Roberts writes: >In article <16080@accuvax.nwu.edu> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will >Martin) writes: >>What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the >>planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same >>instant and tried to make a *local* call? (Yes, anyone who got >Depends on the type of switch. Some would handle this gracefully, >others can't. DMS (NT) switches limit dial tone, so the switch can >complete the calls it provides dial tone for. First come, first serve >kind of thing. I'm not sure what would happen if the wait stack >filled up. Presumably it would issue a SWERR (software error) and the >call would die. Use up a lot of printer paper.... Each resource needed to complete a call (dialtone, tone receivers, call data blocks, etc.) has a que. I don't remember exactly what happens on an overflow (I think it just drops the call to an intercept), but ... the que is not a first come first serve! It is a last come first serve. The theory being that the call most likely to be able to complete is the last one taken in. SWER logs are not generated by dropped calls or que overflows. Operational Measurement counts are pegged though. SWER logs are created when the software finds itself in a state where it does not know what is supposed to happen next. (If you are actually printing every SWERR generated you are wasting paper! Half the time it takes going all the way back to BNR to figure out what causes them.) The real secret with DMS log reports is knowing which ones to NOT print out. For everyone who wonders what we are talking about, the DMS switches can empty a box of paper printing logs on more things than you can imagine and do it in almost the blink of an eye. The first jokes I ever heard about digital switches all had to do with how much stock we should buy in Weyerhouser and Moore Business Supply. >If the switch _did_ crash, it would take about four minutes to reload >its software, and things would be hunky-dory unless everyone was still DMS switches have various levels of "crash": Warm, cold, or reload restarts. The only time software is actuaally reloaded is a reload restart, and that is going to take a lot longer than four minutes (at least on an NT-40 front end, I don't know about Super-Node's). Warm or cold restarts may take a very short time and may not even drop calls (but none can be set up during that time either). >waiting for dial tone. In a worst case situation, current draw might >be great enough to draw down batteries, and if all those phones stayed >off hook, either the line modules would shut them down (auto recover >when the line goes back on hook) or telco employees might start >powering down line frames. I don't work on a line switcher, but that does not sound realistic. What I have seen is about 50% of all the trunks in a toll switch go offhook all at once. Last week a company whose name I won't mention did a minor adjustment of Alascom's satellite, and shot it right out of the box for 42 minutes. I bet that cost $200 just for the paper to print the logs on. But nothing crashed. >I don't think ATT switches handle bounds conditions this well. It'd >probably die, and they take longer to come back up. (I haven't worked >directly with them, but I understand it is on the order of half an >hour.) Well, could be, I don't know. But I did hear one good story about NTI doing a major software upgrade on what was at the time one of the largest DMS switches in operation: the line was "The Peripheral Modules will take less than one hour to reload this time, because we fixed that problem." If I remember right it took better than FIVE hours. Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions. ------------------------------ From: mvanbusk@bcm1a05.attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 18 08:38:47 CST 1991 Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount Organization: AT&T In response to the questions raised about aggregators the following information should be helpful. First, employees of an aggregator are NOT authorized to represent themselves as AT&T employees. Second, if you purchase service from an aggregator AT&T will still provide direct billing to you. AT&T does not share specific account information with aggregators. The only information they should have is that which is obtained from you. Mark Van Buskirk AT&T (800-544-1697) Rolling Meadows, Il [Moderator's Note: Mr. Van Buskirk, I was wondering what advantage there is to AT&T to work through aggregators in this way? Why do they do it? It seems like your company is losing money by allowing these artificial groupings to be billed at whatever lower rates apply. Shouldn't there at least be some sort of affinity between the individuals involved, i.e. all in the same organization; the same employer; or at least the same physical location such as a hotel or apartment complex reselling phone service, etc? Can you explain why AT&T is willing to allow such poorly defined collections of users to get reduced rates? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: DTMF in Japan Date: 19 Jan 91 10:21:39 In article <16153@accuvax.nwu.edu> news@accuvax.nwu.edu (USENET News System) writes: > In a recent message, John Higdon mentions the relative lack of DTMF in > Japan. Having been telephonically bouncing around Tokyo on and off I guess I started this thread some time ago, by asking why answering machines and voice mail services could not work by detecting pulse inputs. One of the responses was that the receiving phone does not see line current interruptions, just clicks. I knew this, but as I mentioned, one AT & T answering machine claimed to work with non-DTMF phones. Well, I finally investigated. The AT&T Answering System Telephone 1523 says on the box that remote operation is possible from pulse phones. This is technically correct, but somewhat misleading, because the user manual (which I read in the store) describes the operation: if after some time out period, you haven't entered your DTMF password, the answering machine starts prompting you by voice, and you respond _by speaking_. The manual says it does not do any speech recognition, just responds to audio energy. To enter your two digit password, you let it step through announcing digits, and when you hear the first digit, you say any random word, and then it steps through for the second digit. It's as easy as pulling teeth. Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: Help Wanted With Four-Wire Phone Date: 18 Jan 91 19:22:17 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica We have an echo cancellation system along with our compressed video gear that provides audio via a power amp and speaker. We want to add, as an option, a handset capability. The easiest way to do this, I think, is to attach a four-wire telephone via a matching transformer (10:1?). Note: we have to work from the existing system because it provides a delay which provides lip sync with the video. I would appreciate information about whether regular telephones are available with a four-wire interface (not operator headsets) and pointers to vendors. Thanks in advance, Dick Jackson ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 18 10:59:40 EST 1991 Subject: Correction: Error in Fax Phone Number This post is to point out an error in a letter I submitted to TELECOM Digest a few weeks ago. We were discussing devices which could detect the distinctive ringing patterns and direct the calls to a specific extension. I posted the address of Bell Atlantic Business Supplies, however, I incorrectly gave the fax number as (215)/534-5738. The correct number is (215)/524-5738. Two readers have pointed out this error to me, so I decided it was time to post a correction. Sincerely, Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 1:38:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telesat Canada Winter Report, 1990-91 A new file in the Telecom Archives is the Telesat Canada Winter Report, donated by David Leibold (woody). It will be available in a day or two, following some organization work I am doing in the archives this weekend. Thanks to woody for this latest addition to the archives, which are ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu (cd telecom-archives), with the usual anonymous login method. PAT ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 91 23:23:00 CDT From: JOHN WINSLADE Subject: CLID Compatibility Question At a local sysops' gathering tonight, the subject of Caller*ID came up and it was mentioned by one participant that he had heard that the Class- Mate would not work in US West territory, supposedly due to differences in the way US West sends the CLID data. Class-Mate is a widget that connects between a CLID-equipped phone line and a computer's line that converts the incoming CLID data to serial data that may be captured by the computer. It's is available from Bell Atlantic and possibly other sources. Is it >>REALLY<< the case that US West uses a different scheme for CLID?? I am now using a CLID box that I got from Hello Direct -- the same box that is sold to non-US West subscribers, as far as I know. The box works fine here, and I know the same model CLID box works in New Jersey as well. Also, I had the impression that the Class-Mate was more or less a passive device that demodulated the CLID data and converted it to RS-232 compatible levels, and did not really do any heavy-duty data conversion. Am I correct in assuming this. Thanks. Good Day! JSW [Moderator's Note: Since an ultimate goal is to make Caller-ID available to everyone on all calls throughout the USA I would think the individual systems throughout the country are compatible. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SUNT@qucdn.queensu.ca Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Saturday, 19 Jan 1991 01:14:36 EST Subject: Sending/Receiving Telex Messages I do not have telex, but my friend has it. What is the best way that I can receive his telex messages? Thanks! [Moderator's Note: There are numerous services which include telex sending and receiving capabilities. Three which come to mind here in the USA are MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and Sprintmail (we used to call it Telemail). All three are electronic mail services which will assign a telex number to a mailbox on request, and accept outgoing telexes. I think Compuserve may have a similar arrangement. Have you looked into accounts on any of these systems? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #49 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02030; 19 Jan 91 19:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05142; 19 Jan 91 18:10 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14183; 19 Jan 91 17:05 CST Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:51:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: A Special Notice About the Digest BCC: Message-ID: <9101191651.ab16557@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:52:00 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom WELCOME TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM AND THE ===================================================== This is a special posting to readers of comp.dcom.telecom and the TELECOM Digest, to tell you a little about the group, the procedures for posting here and my philosophy as Moderator. TELECOM Digest was started in August, 1981 by Jon Solomon as a mailing list on the old ARPA network. It was an offshoot of the Human Nets forum intended for discussion of telephones and related communications topics. I've been the Moderator/Editor/facilitator of the Digest since the fall of 1988; and I work from guest accounts provided to me at several sites, primarily Northwestern University in Evanston, IL, but also at Boston University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, MA and the University of California. TELECOM Digest is not strictly speaking part of Usenet. It is an official Internet mailing list publication. A decision was made at some point in the past to 'port' the Digest to the Usenet news group 'comp.dcom.telecom', in order that Usenet readers would be able to participate in the Digest. I became Moderator of comp.dcom.telecom in 1989 in addition to being Moderator of TELECOM Digest. For all practical purposes, the messages in comp.dcom.telecom are identical to tne messages which appear simultaneously in TELECOM Digest. Now the Digest goes to several Bitnet and Fidonet sites as well, in addition to being distributed on several other networks such as MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and Telenet, via the PC Pursuit Net Exchange BBS. Both comp.dcom.telecom and TELECOM Digest are *moderated*. This means that unlike many Usenet groups, messages must be channeled through the Moderator's mailbox to be considered for publication. Like other moderated groups on Usenet, the reason for this is to reduce the flow of traffic on the net; to reduce the number of postings which essentially say nothing new; and to group or collect the messages in a logical and convenient to read way. Moderators have the duty of weeding through duplicate messages; standardizing the output; making minor changes to correct spelling, grammar and punctuation; 'repairing' header information and subject title information as needed to cause messages to 'thread' correctly, and otherwise helping to maintain the flow of traffic on the net and the attractive appearance of their group. Moderators are entitled to have opinions of their own on the topics of discussion, but should make an effort to keep the discussion balanced with all sides permitted to express their opinion. In the event of such a heavy flow of traffic that not all -- or only a small portion -- of the messages received can be used, the Moderator is expected to balance the flow as evenly as possible. Quite obviously this is more of a judgment-call than anything else at times. In TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom my specific guidelines are these: We receive an average of 60-120 messages *each day* from readers. I try to print as many as possible, which basically means putting out two or three issues of the Digest each day. Some days I put out two issues; other days I put out five. The salary they pay me for doing this doesn't require me to work more than three hours per day on telecom discussions. :) :) I very rarely use anonymous messages. First, neither the sites which permit me to use their facilities or the Internet itself support anonymous postings. I'm a guest here -- not a policy maker. I do not pay the first nickle to move telecom traffic around the net. So I think it in my best interest to follow the rules others have made. Second, there are so many postings from *real, live people* received every day that I don't have to accept anonymous, maybe the person is, maybe the person isn't real messages. I believe Moderators must be held responsible for the messages in their groups; and I don't intend to be in the trick-bag for anyone here. I will withhold names on request when (in my discretion) I think the writer has a good reason for it. But I insist on at least having the backup information in my own files here. It comes down to the integrity of the net, in my opinion. As the person who has been given one small section of the net to operate in trust, that is the way I prefer to do it. There are exceptions to my personal standard of 'no anonymous messages', but they are few. When several messages appear from various people saying almost the same thing, that is intended to demonstrate the large volume of mail on the topic. In other words, if eighty percent of my mail on a given day is in response to some topic, it is likely two or three issues of the Digest will be exclusively or almost entirely devoted to the same topic -- even if that means many virtually identical messages. Each issue of the Digest is intended as a *random sampling* of the mail I received that day or the day before. A Moderator is not required to print all submissions recieved and is in fact encouraged not to do so. It comes down many times to simply a judgment call by the Moderator to accept one and not accept another. Based on the 30-40 messages per day I publish (depending on the time I can devote that day) versus the 60-120 I actually receive, I wind up publishing between a third and half of the submissions. The autoreply is, I think, unique to TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom. There is no way I could begin to personally respond to the mail I receive, and there will be times that messages won't get out for a day or two because of the backlog. I try to move new messages with timely and newsworthy content to the front of the queue. Sometimes this causes someone else to get shoved back still another issue. So the autoreply is my way of letting you know your article has been received. I owe you that much courtesy. Who gets autoreply / who does not receive it? We use MMDF here for the mail. A feature of this software is that all incoming mail is filtered through .maildelivery, a file which says how to handle each incoming item. The autoreply program looks at each piece of mail and takes the following actions: Is there a 'reply to' line in addition to a 'from' line? If so, then use 'reply to' to detirmine whether or not to send the reply. If no 'reply to' then use the 'from' line for this purpose, although 'from' is notoriously inaccurate by the time some mailers get finished with it! Look for these strings in the 'from'/'reply-to' line. If seen, then do NOT send an autoreply: daemon, postmaster, news@, uucp@, telecom, ptownson@, and others. Such letters either were written by daemons to bounce mail, are items forwarded by backbone sites found loose in comp.dcom.telecom (unapproved postings), or are inter-account transfers of mail by myself from one location to another. If we autoreply to these, a loop may get started with daemons replying back to autoreply, etc. Despite how carefully I try to define the limited instances where autoreply should not go out, there are a few users whose addresses contain characteristics so similar that their mail gets treated the same way. That is, I see it, but .maildelivery sorted it into a file silently as it would do with bounced mail, telecom-request stuff, etc. Over all, about 95 percent of the *actual, real people* who write me get an autoreply generated. To avoid the risk of starting a loop in the mail -- a war of the daemons as it were -- I prefer to err on the conservative side and skip a few of you. Individuals can be added to the 'do not reply' list: I routinely do not send autoreply to regular administrative email. For example the postmaster here at eecs, another user here who assists me with technical problems, etc do not like the autoreply. When a reader attempts to put an article direct into comp.dcom.telecom I will receive sometimes of copies of the article as sites all over the world forward it to me for handling. The user involved will wind up getting hundreds of autoreplies back from me if there was a 'reply to' in his header. I manually edit these in and out of the .maildelivery file as needed to turn off autoreply to that person if needed. Other individuals who send me threatening, harrassing or nonsensical mail on a frequent basis can and are also added. I see no reason to encourage them to continue writing. So ... about 95 percent of the 'real people' generate autoreply when they write me, give or take manual exceptions added to the list as needed. Do they all get the autoreply? No! Maybe five or ten percent of those folks had their 'from' line in the header so badly mangled (and there was no 'reply-to' to fall back on) that the autoreply itself bounces and returns to me as bounced mail. As an aside, that is one reason 'telecom' is in the exceptions list. Imagine the dilemma: a deamon bounces my autoreply and I autoreply right back ... and again, and again, and again. :) So over all, I estimate 85-90 percent of the people who write me will actually get the autoreply. If you are one of the ten or fifteen percent who do not then either I have been unable to write my code to include you, or you did not give me an unmolested 'reply-to' to reach you, or in rare cases, I specifically have added you to the exceptions if you were engaging in what I consider harrassing actions toward the Digest or myself. I do not guarentee I will answer personal mail on telecom issues. Sometimes I will take your letter and publish it in the Digest so others can answer better than I unless you **specifically** in the body of your letter say NOT FOR PUBLICATION. I rarely answer letters marked not for publication. If I do not wish to use your submission I attempt to do one of two things: If it is a lengthy piece and obviously required work to prepare it, I will attempt to return it. If it bounces once, then I will disgard it. If your article was a short piece -- just a few lines of response or similar -- I will often times simply disgard it and answer you with a note of my own. Again, if it bounces, I have no resources or time to track down your address ... not and publish three, four or five Digests per day as well. If you usually receive the autoreply, and for some specific submission do *not* receive it, before resubmitting the article, drop me a note asking if I received it. I'll tell you if I did or not. If your article is not time-sensitive (and most are not) then if possible watch the Digest for a couple days and see if it appears before you write me. After two or three days do please write to follow up if your item has not appeared, you did not get the autoreply AND you did not get a note from me declining publication for whatever reason. If you usually do not receive the autoreply due to the technical reasons specified above, and if your article has not been published or returned within two or three days contact me again. If you send a duplicate copy of your article, please note DUPLICATE near the top somewhere to catch my eye as I am editing it. Yes, I can lose things, but my record is pretty good for not losing submissions. Any large moderated group will have technical problems from time to time, but I am trying my best on this end to make the Digest and comp.dcom.telecom one of the best groups on the net. Some readers complain that I publish ** too much ** here -- that I should limit the output to one Digest per day; but that would mean tossing out a great deal of what I receive. I'd rather make the extra effort to publish as wide a variety of stuff as possible, from as many readers as possible. Perhaps I am too tolerant of many of your submissions, but I take this task very seriously and try to do it well. However I cannot -- will not -- publish messages which in my estimation are intended only as flames, deliberate attacks on myself or other users, or which are calculated to throw the Digest up for grabs and cause a big backlog of meta-discussions about the operation of the Digest itself. I trust none of the long-time readers here will ever claim that I refuse to publish all sides of an issue, or that I refuse to publish opinions contrary to my own. If anything, I permit too many rebuttal messages; but I want all sides to be aired here, save my few 'blind spots' if you wish to call them that: I won't publish phreak/cracker messages which jeopardize the security of this net or the telephone network; anonymous messages will be a rarity here; persons abusing network hospitality and/or lacking basic 'net etiquette' by sending messages with fake names and addresses or by forging the required headers to break into comp.dcom.telecom will find no kinship with me. I do not acknowledge or respond to the individuals who send such messages. The Digest is 'wide-open' for conversation on all aspects of telephony: there is no honest way these days to separate the technical aspects from the politics involved, or vice-versa. Both telecom 'heavyweights' and inexperienced users are welcome here subject to the few rules of courtesy which should apply in any forum. Comp.dcom.telecom is not 'just another Usenet group' ... it is intended to be one of the best, and I sincerely thank all of you who have helped to make it that way. TELECOM Digest supports two alternate mailing lists for discussions which have sprung from controversial topics here: Computer Underground Digest rk0jut2@niu.bitnet Discussion of the social and legal ramifications of computer 'hacking'; related activities. Telecom Privacy telecom-priv@pica.army.mil (moderator address: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil) Discussion of privacy topics relating to telecommunications, including Caller*ID, telemarketing data files, etc. Messages are frequently interchanged, or cross posted between the Digest and these two mailing lists, both of which also appear in their own 'alt' groups. ALL messages to comp.dcom.telecom and TELECOM Digest MUST be sent through the Moderator's address: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu. You cannot use the 'follow-up' feature of readnews with moderated groups. You can of course reply direct to the poster if desired. I apologize for the length of this special mailing, but many of you have epxressed concern in recent days asking for clarification on how the Digest is maintained. I hope this posting gives you some background information. Responses will not appear in the Digest, but I will try to answer questions and possibly summarize replies in the near future. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator / comp.dcom.telecom   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13560; 20 Jan 91 5:54 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05265; 20 Jan 91 4:20 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03699; 20 Jan 91 3:15 CST Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 2:40:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #50 BCC: Message-ID: <9101200240.ab30427@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jan 91 02:40:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 50 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [Douglas Scott Reuben] Living in America [David Leibold] Telephone Preference Service [Nigel Allen] 900 Number Blocking / Separation on Phone Bill [Sean Williams] MCI Won't Put it in Writing [Steve Forrette] What's a Reorder? [Steve Forrette] Extended Range Cordless [John S. DeVere] CNN Gulf Communications [Kevin Boyd] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Brian Crawford] Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Jeff M. Byrd] Re: Secure Phones [Frederick Roeber] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19-JAN-1991 04:01:55.73 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again I was speaking to a friend of mine today (before going over to visit her), and during our phone conversation, she mentioned that her "best friend" was in Isreal teaching English, and due to the hostilities in the area, was unable to get through. My friend was pretty anxious to call her teacher friend, so I tried it out from my own phone before leaving. I've only called that country once myself, so I looked up the country code, city code, etc., (to make sure that she had not made a mistake), and then dialed the number, and it worked fine, on the first try. So I figured that she was calling at a busy time, or SHE misdialed. When I went to her school to pick her up, I asked her to do EXACTLY what she did on her previous attempts. So she went to the dorm payphone, dialed 01-972-4-333-xxx-#, and got the AT&T "boing". I entered MY calling card to make sure that her card wasn't invalid or over the limit (she has one of those AT&T cards with no physical phone number). An AT&T operator came on, and said that one can NOT make Calling Card calls to that country. I asked why, and she said (incredible as this may sound) "The state on New Jersey doesn't have a credit card billing agreement with Israel". I told her that I really don't buy it, and she just asked if I wanted to talk to her supervisor. I told her "No, not really, I know they'll give me some story about fraud ... I'll just use MCI instead." I remember a few months ago we were discussing this very same thing, and if I recall correctly, a letter was sent to the chairman of AT&T via AT&T mail (or AT&T's in-house system, if not the same). What ever came of this? I'd be interested in knowing because I am considering writing to them letting them know how inconvenient it was not to be able to get through. Chances are that I'll never have to call there again, but that misses the point. If I WANT to call there, I, as a customer in good standing, should be allowed to. I am thoroughly upset by the attitude which a company I (generally) have a great deal of respect for seems to be willing to take, especially at a time like this when it is very important for some people to get through. I'm also interested in how legal this is ... I'm not up on common carrier law or administrative law, but if someone who knows could point me in the right direction maybe I could investigate this a bit. And YES, I am up at 4AM typing this, probably becuase I am quite upset with AT&T. (I feel like that guy in the AT&T ad at the payphone where he always gets connected to Fiji ... but in this case I *AM* dealing with AT&T!! :) ) Thanks for any info/help, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Don't you love the bogus and totally stupid stories the AT&T operators make up about these things? Don't waste time with them or their supervisors. I mean, 'a billing agreement between New Jersey and Israel' ... now really. When you get into a hassle trying to place an international call with your AT&T card tell the operator to connect you to the Pittsburgh IOC and that you don't want any backtalk from her about it. A lady in our office had the same problem from our *office* phone Thursday. About noon Thursday, recall that the air raid sirens went off accidentally, and the television said Israel had apparently been hit a second time. This lady is Jewish; some of her family live in Israel. Her trouble is she is super honest about the use of the office phones. We use several thousand dollars of AT&T international calling each month; she could have easily just dialed her family direct and the call would have passed unnoticed on the office phone bill. But oh no! She doesn't believe in that, and instead tried to dial it using her personal AT&T card so she would get the bill. Despite the fact that AT&T had a positively identified 'bill-back' number (our office number showed on the operator's tube) and despite the fact that our office does a large volume of business with AT&T, the operator and her supervisor refused to honor this lady's request! It made me sick to think this lady is upset about her family and AT&T wants to play games. I manage the phones in our office and I am tempted to pull all sixteen of our dial one plus lines, our T-1 and our tie lines away from AT&T and give them to Telecom*USA. Then when our AT&T rep comes around to ask what I did that for, I'll smile sweetly and say, "because your operator said there is no billing agreement between New Jersey and Israel ..." as I forcibly walk him out the door. I'm growing increasingly disenchanted with AT&T and their high-handed, and probably illegal discriminatory practices. PAT] ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Living in America Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 2:44:09 EST It's all but official ... I'll be spending much of 1991 in the U.S., getting out of the Great White North in March. This will be a half-to 3/4-year stint at the company branch office in Boca Raton, FL. Now the opportunity arrives to experience the U.S. dereg experience first-hand, equal access, COCOTS, LATAs and everything that has been shielded from sensitive Canadian eyes that haven't seen TELECOM Digest. There are a few things that could be set up before the big move, though ... (e-mail to djcl@contact.uucp, please don't flood the Moderator with mail). 1) I might be able to set up a UUCP link at the company; any UUCP feeds local to Boca Raton? If so, under what circumstances? 2) Are BBSs charged business rates down there? Boca Raton, I believe, is Bell South (the BOC there??) territory, but GTE and Centel are all over Florida as well. 3) Presumably, I wouldn't select ITI for a default carrier here... :-) 4) I have heard that AT&T and MCI have comparably good plans, particularly for dialing Canada. Any further advice, ideas on carriers other than the big three (AT&T, MCI, Sprint)? I've picked up much on how to access things like 10xxx, heard tales of FONcards and residential 800 service etc. but anything specific to FL would be appreciated (intra-LATA stuff, telco trivia, etc) 5) If all else fails, any tips on things like ATT Mail, MCI Mail, PC Pursuit? My thanks in advance for any and all information; looks like communications are really going to get interesting over the next several months in my case ... hopefully, I'll catch the Digest one way or another when I leave contact here. djcl@contact.uucp... soon djcl@attmail, djcl@mcimail, ... djcl@epcot.com ????!?!??! [Moderator's Note: Good luck. If nothing else, I'll send you the Digest via any email service you join. Just let me know where. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Telephone Preference Service Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 12:59:09 EST The Direct Marketing Association operates a Telephone Preference Service. If you would like your name and phone number added to a list of people who do not want to receive telemarketing calls, write to: Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Association 11 West 42 Street P.O. Box 3861 New York, N.Y. 10163-3861 This will only work to reduce calls from national companies that participate in the program. Local telemarketers and others who do not participate in the program don't see the list. When you write to the association, send them your name, full address, area code and telephone number. I assume that the list contains only U.S. names and addresses. People who live in other countries may want to ask their national direct marketing association whether it operates a similar program. ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Sat Jan 19 15:14:02 EST 1991 Subject: 900 Number Blocking / Separation on Phone Bill The current discussions about 900 numbers has prompted me to post this note which was received as an insert with my latest bill from United Telephone of Pennsylvania: | On September 5, 1990, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commision | ordered all telephone companies to bill and collect charges | for 900 premium calls as a part of non-basic service. United has | requested additional time to separate all 900 calls on a separate | non-basic part of your bill. United will not suspend local or | toll service for nonpayment of 900 charges. Failure to pay 900 | charges will result only in the blocking of non-basic service. In | many areas a 900 blocking service is available free of charge on | a first time basis to United customers. This block would stop | anyone from making a 900 call from your phone. If you are | interested in this service, call your business office. And, as a reference, nonbasic service was defined on a separate page: | ... Customer service items such as leased telephones, maintenance | plans, and custom-calling features are in non-basic... Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:04:23 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: MCI Won't Put it in Writing I to saw the recent television ads by MCI about the Golden Turkey award that AT&T "won" over its "put it in writing" ads. A couple of months ago, I called MCI to request information about their residential 800 service. I got verbal information from the rep, but also asked to have written information sent to me. The rep said that they had a brochure, and one would be on the way. About three weeks later, an envelope arrived from MCI, full of brochures, describing how happy I'd be if I switched my equal access default to them, along with rates, as well as international information. Nowhere was there a mention of their 800 service. The label on the envelope had "personal 800" at the bottom, so the rep had obviously entered the request properly. Maybe if MCI spent less money on promoting the Golden Turkey award, and more on making sure people get the information they requested, AT&T wouldn't be able to make fun of them. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:19:32 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: What's a Reorder? Well, I know what one is, but where did the term come from? It's not very self-explanatory. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 17:21 EST From: "John S. DeVere" Subject: Extended Range Cordless In a previous issue, someone asked about cordless phones with a range of about four miles. Since I have not yet seen a reply, I thought I would add my comments/questions. When I last visited New York, I was walking past one of the 9999 electronics stores and noticed the cordless phones marked "for export only". The range on the box was listed as 25 miles or more -- I don't remember. Obviously, these are not FCC approved, or everyone would be trying to use them as car phones. Does anyone know what frequency these phones use and if such phones will be approved by the FCC anytime soon? Do you have any other information regarding these phones? John DeVere DuPont Electronics Research Triangle Park, NC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 17:11 CST From: Kevin Boyd <8156BOYDK@vmsf.csd.mu.edu> Subject: CNN Gulf Communications >The four-wire stuff was two lines, one in so they could hear the AFB For the record, it's "IFB" as in "Interruptable FeedBack"... Essentially this allows the field reporter/anchor to hear the other "aircheck" audio(Studio anchor and taped segments)... Usually is fed "MixMinus" which is a state that has everything except the voice of the field reporter/anchor. This is because the satellite lag time for ones own voice is so distracting that it makes it almost impossible to continue talking. It also allows the field reporter/anchor to hear directions from the producer back in the control room. (Hence, "Interruptable") Regards, Kevin Boyd | BITNET 8156boydk@MUCSD.BITNET Marquette University | INTERNET 8156boydk@VMSD.CSD.MU.EDU Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. | Phone (414)223-4873 Broadcasting and Electronic Media & | FAX (414)288-3300 Computer Services Division | "All views expressed are my own..." ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: 20 Jan 91 00:25:19 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article <16192@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes: > Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists? I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion. Brian Crawford INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 Amateur: KL7JDQ USA ------------------------------ From: "Jeff M. Byrd" Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed Date: 18 Jan 91 17:23:56 GMT Reply-To: dnjmb@sunc.UUCP (Jeff M. Byrd) Organization: Racal-Milgo, Atlanta, GA There is another company that sells a line sharing device that uses the Bell Companies' "Distinctive Ringing" Service. The device is called "Fone Filter" and can route the call based on the ring pattern to one of 3 devices. It is telephone line powered and requires no power transformer. I have used one for over a year in two different parts of the country with no problem. The "Fone Filter" sells for $99.95 and can be ordered directly from the factory listed below. To Order the "Fone Filter": South Tech Instruments 1-800-999-FAXS (1-800-999-3297) ------------------------------ From: Frederick Roeber Subject: Re: Secure Phones Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 19 Jan 91 08:19:23 PST In article <16161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G. Capek) writes: > secure phones work by performing some sort of "encryption" (encrypting > digitized voice, switching and inverting frequency bands, etc.), and [digital encryption, actually] > since such a phone isn't much use unless it can talk to many others > like it, how is the key management performed? ... > ... The only actually feasible solution I know of involves > a mutually trusted third party to communicate a key to both parties, > but that's not consistent with use in phone networks. Yes, it is. When a call is made secure, both ends call the control computer, which issues them the digital key to use for their conversation. These calls to the computer are encrypted, of course. During each such call, the computer tells the phone what key to use the next time it calls the computer. So all you have to do is initialize each phone with the first key it'll need. This is done by putting the number in a chip, which is mounted in a key-shaped hunk of plastic. Carry the "key" to the phone in some secure manner, plug it in and turn. Periodically -- I think per annum -- this is repeated to re-initialize the phone. The encryption algorithm used is considered so safe that without the key, the phone equipment is unclassified. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch | phone: +41 22 767 3180 r-mail: CERN/PPE, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #50 *****************************