Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28626; 20 Jan 91 22:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26468; 20 Jan 91 20:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24392; 20 Jan 91 19:24 CST Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 18:40:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #51 BCC: Message-ID: <9101201840.ab06563@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jan 91 18:40:41 CST Volume 11 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson An Offering to Explain CNN - Baghdad [Donald E. Kimberlin] CNN Communications [John Keator, NPR, via John R. Covert] Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Charlie Lear] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Laird P. Broadfield] Administrivia: Issues 43-44 Lost in Transit? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: An Offering to Explain CNN - Baghdad Date: Sunday 20 January 1991 In recent Digest issues, readers have queried how CNN might have maintained its own broadcast quality audio lines back to the U.S., even when the "major powers" of network broadcasting could not. Others have raised issues about AT&T's presence in Baghdad, the use of "four-wire lines," and finding "four-wire" telephone subscriber sets. Here's my attempt to mingle practical background with recent news, in the hope it provides an accurate description of how such things are done. Along the way, I'll interject some oblique responses to the posts of several readers, in the hope it avoids a number of discontinuous postings. I hope those readers will catch the answers to their questions along the way: First, one must, if one does not already understand it, know that AT&T is *not* the powerhouse in foreign nations, particularly the Second and Third worlds that it is in North America. Each sovereign nation has its own national "telephone and telegraph" operation. These comprise the "Administrations" (notice the capital "A") of the CCITT; they are the only members of the CCITT with voting privilege. Even AT&T is not an "Administration" and does not get a vote. Any stockholder-owned communications company is merely a "Recognized Private Operating Agency," which can participate in discussion, but cannot vote on the standards. (In the case of the U.S., a delegate from the State Department casts *one* vote for the "Adminstration" of the U.S.; a vote that must represent the summed attitudes of all the *many* U.S. firms participating in discussion there. The point of all this is to make clear that the Iraqi PTT is *the* "phone company" in Iraq, and it has a stature equal to that of any other nation in the world, so far as the politics of telecommunications goes. Any circuits from other nations connected to Iraq's public telecommunications are simply "partners" from the distant end; the structure is virtually identical to railroads, in which each company owns half the track distance and splits the take with the other. How these splits are made is a significant part of the work of the CCITT. Thus, such communications channels as reach(ed) the U.S. from Iraq via AT&T, or MCI or Sprint or others, were simply "partner" deals along with the "partner" deals between the Iraqui PTT and perhaps dozens of other nations. In fact, it's doubtful that any U.S. carrier ever had enough traffic with Iraq to warrant owning its own "tracks" to Baghdad. In such cases, light dial traffic is simply switched via a third nation that does have its own facilities, in return for payment of a "transit fee" to that nation. Then, if traffic volume is sufficient, a deal will be struck with the third-party "transit" nation's common carrier to permanently wire through via tranmission channels of that nation, creating "direct" switched circuits (a great deal like the "direct" but non "non-stop" flights airlines like to tout). Thus, it is doubtful AT&T ever had a presence in Iraq to warrant having its own multi-story building in Baghdad to be bombed, as was posited in one post attributed by Ken Jongsma to wire service reports. Reporters have no better understanding of the structure of interna- tional communications than the general public, so calling the PTT building, "AT&T's building" is an understandable press error. Second, there's some need to understand somewhat how loose and cozy matters of importing and establishing telecommunications can be in some nations...when one is doing something desired by the politi- cal "powers that be." In this case, CNN had been doing something Saddam Hussein desired, for some time. They had been operating from Baghdad using fairly recent technology in what has been called "fly- away" transportable satellite earth stations. These have emerged in almost single (rather large) suitcase-sized earth stations, capable of both transmitting and receiving using rather small dishes. One reader mentioned that possibility, alluding to "maritime satellite" devices. In fact, Marisat, with its own globe-spanning fleet of transponder capacity up there in the sky, has been a leading promoter of sales for low-density (compared to public network needs) satellite communications to remote parts of the globe. (Yes, even Intelsat's "monopoly" is under competitive fire these days.) CNN had even previously used that technology in the Tienamen Square riots. What CNN had been doing in Baghdad was not only sending but re- ceiving its distribution program via satellite, much to Saddam Hus- sein's pleasure. I noticed a wire story just a day or so prior to the first attack on Baghdad describing how Hussein was enjoying seeing the U.S. news coverage and White House attitudes by way of CNN's "satellite station" in Baghdad. So, make up an equation of modern technology combined with some good old-fashioned politicking, and one can see how CNN was permitted to do so. No need to obtain rented facilities from "the phone company" in such a setting at all. So much for the surmises of rented transmission channels out to Amman or elsewhere. In a similar vein, there have also been ABC reports from Tel Aviv that seem to emanate from a similar privately-run earth station on the roof of ABC's location in that city. ABC seems to be somewhere down the road of making use of technology similar to CNN's. As to how CNN could have broadcast-quality audio and IFB from the stateside studio back (as you'll notice in those ABC feeds from Tel Aviv), a video link has typically two (and sometimes more) audio chan- nels multiplexed in with the video signal, so as long as CNN could keep its baseband on the satellite, even if there were no video being transmitted, they could maintain audio transmission of high quality, while, as several readers observed, the others were reduced to noisy, telephone-speech-quality circuits. It was possible to hear the early effects of bombing of the Iraqi PTT, as at first, the channels of the others, while limited to telephone channel bandwidth, were quite noise-free, then as facilities were destroyed, one could hear the connections made were coming via noisier and noisier facilities. This is consistent with the Iraqui PTT falling back to get transit connections via its nearby partner countries, perhaps Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the Emirates, and using its older, shorter-distance plant normally used for direct calls to those nations, and asking for transits to the U.S. In the Third World, such transits are not unusual and done (under permanent prearrangement) as a courtesy. "Courtesy? They're under attack from the world!" you say. But, one must bear in mind that getting a chance to hear anything juicy about what one of the belligerents is up to is something *every* gov- ernment (read "government PTT") wants to hear. Turn down a phone call from Iraq that just *might* tip off who Hussein is talking to; where he personally might be, is something nobody would miss the opportunity to intercept and report to their own government, in the hope of being remembered at salary review time! I personally found my calls to the U.S. from Zambia were tran- siting South Africa in a period when the South Africans were captur- ing guerillas from Zambia daily. It was obvious the wily South Af- ricans would extend that telecommunications courtesy in hopes some- thing of intelligence use might be intercepted. The history of intelligence intercepts must go back at least to the Romans learning to read smoke signals of the Picts in Britain. In the electrical era, an immediate action was to cut your enemy's submarine telegraph cable and pull it ashore to a friendly nation. The U.S. did this to Germany in both WWI and WWII, and the U.S. Army even had its own cableship into the Korean War era. Somehow, all the hype of today loses sight that the basic principles of telecommuni- cations signal intelligence (SIGINT) didn't wait for today's technology to be thought of. As to CNN reporters being "secretive" about their methods, it's more likely in my mind, they really didn't understand the techno- political methods that worked to their advantage any better than the average person, this they were much less secretive than unable to describe what CNN's "hit" had been. What was the "problem" of the other networks? More likely technology lag than anything else. You can bet there have been some hot meetings at NBC and CBS since the "CNN Baghdad event," and some flyaway earth station vendors probably already have orders with New York shipping addresses. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:56:06 PST From: "John R. Covert 20-Jan-1991 1858" Subject: CNN Communications From: John Keator, Telcom, National Public Radio, Washington Date: 20 Jan 91 Subject: CNN Communications A four-wire circuit is just that, two separate circuits for send and receive. It is very commonly used in broadcasting to connect a remote site to the main studio. Often several circuits will be set up: one for production use between the producer/director and another for engineering. Normally, the lines are connected to a so-called four-wire box, actually a small device made by Prospect Electronics in the UK, that allows the incoming line to be heard in a speaker/headphones and has a push to talk switch that allows the remote to talk to the studio. In addition, the box has a conferencing arrangement so that a second four-wire can be connected and the box can be optioned to allow the user to talk to either four-wire or both ... in the both position the two four-wires are linked together so everyone can hear and talk to everyone else. They are much in evidence on the recent shots from the middle east of technical setups in the various bureaus. They are about the size of half-a-loaf of bread, have a speaker and yellow and orange switches on the front and a gooseneck microphone on the top. In normal usage the program audio travels on a separate wide-band circuit to the studio either on a land line or satellite. The programing four-wire is normally used for IFB, interuptible feed back. This is fed to the small earpiece the reporter uses that allow him to hear the program on the air, less his own voice (due to satellite delay). In addition, the director at the studio can talk to the reporter telling him to cover a certain issue, throw it to another location or end his report. When not on the air the circuit is used for coordination and planning upcoming segments. In the CNN case, they had ordered the four-wire to Amman months ago for coordination on earlier satellite feeds. These feeds were not available, but the coordination connection was not disconnected and was put on the air for the famous broadcast. They did not use an Inmarsat portable uplink at the hotel; no one did that night, as they did not want to be sending radio waves in to the sky with all the missiles flying around ... who knows what they might home in on. The next day the BBC used one from the garden of the hotel, but I believe it was later confiscated. Legally, you need prior permission from the country to use an Inmarsat terminal for land mobile use, but many news companies had sneaked them in. John Keator NPR Work: 202 822 2800 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 20 Jan 91 16:58:17 NZD (Sun) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz In article <16147@accuvax.nwu.edu> linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu writes: >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? VSAT, or Very Small Aperture Terminal. Typically a 1.8m satellite dish, with associated electronics will sit happily on a single-axle trailer and be towed behind a car. They are used worldwide, with the highest concentration in Alaska, Yukon and North-West Territories. They are used by mining, timber, oil and exploration teams for semi-portable comms links between the camps and the outside world. Basically, the VSAT system provides one or more digital voice channels compressed and sent via FM to the satellite and back to any other earth station within the satellite's shadow. A typical scenario has a camp PABX, modem and fax all running into the VSAT terminal. Because the system does not interface with the PSTN until it leaves the earth station, miners in the Arctic can get local dialtone for Vancouver, Calgary, Seattle and anywhere else there is a compatible receiving system. Hence crystal clear voice communications when landlines are either nonexistent or very unreliable. I'd bet bucks that CNN used a VSAT to bypass the entire Iraqi PSTN and was getting Saudi or Israeli dialtone - maybe even further afield. One manufacturer / service provider is Infosat Telecommunications of Burnaby, Vancouver, BC. They are a subsidiary of Nexus and have supplied VSATs to a number of companies operating in the wilderness. Disclaimer: only association with Infosat was meeting with their people and looking over the factory as part of the Intercomm '90 conference. The technology impressed the hell out of me! 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: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: 20 Jan 91 06:21:24 GMT In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these days, combined with the small size of cellular equipment (and presumably Iridium equipment, when it comes out) once Iridium exists, there will no longer be communication-type barriers to ENG (electronic-news-gathering.) Think about it: Take the motors, gears, and so forth out of one of those tiny Sony 8mm vtr-cameras, and what's left isn't much. Add back the size of a handheld cellular, and you're back to the original. Factor in the R&D that professional ENG customers can afford to pay for, and you've got *at least* still-frame buffering, and possibly compression and multi-banding sufficient for full motion. If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter present. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 3:00:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Issues 43-44 Lost in Transit? I received three messages today from people who said issues 43-44 did not seem to make it through to their site in the news. A fourth person yesterday said he had seen nothing at his site for a couple days ... It looks like someone from Usenet 'graciously' dumped issues 43-44 of comp.dcom.telecom into the bit bucket for me. :) If either or both of those issues did not reach you, please let me know so they can be transmitted again. If comp.dcom.telecom is not reliable at your site for some reason you can always write and ask to be added to the mailing list version instead. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #51 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29555; 20 Jan 91 23:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29164; 20 Jan 91 21:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26468; 20 Jan 91 20:30 CST Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #52 BCC: Message-ID: <9101202014.ab01514@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 52 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Four-Wire Line [Bill Cerny] Re: Four-Wire Line [Richard Budd] Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount [John R. Levine] Re: CLID Compatibility Question [Dave Levenson] Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [Ravinder Bhumbla] Data Interruption by Operator [Christopher Ambler] Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: Four-Wire Line Date: 20 Jan 91 00:51:38 GMT streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu (Tom Streeter) writes: >News reports mention a "four wire line." Could anyone enlighten me? Terrestial 4W line? Nah; rather a Marisat terminal (country code 873). Unfold an antenna on the roof, drop a lead over the ledge to your hotel room, plug in and talk to anyone in the U.S. for $4.00/min. This was quite obvious to me; but the Iraqis figured it out after eight hours. ;-) Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | Wham, bam, T-LAM! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:38 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Four-Wire Line Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY Tom Streeter writes in TELECOM Digest V11 # 47: >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? and the Moderator commented: >[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] I cannot provide a technical description of their service, but I believe I caught a quick glimpse of it Thursday (1/17) night while watching CNN. While CNN was playing back B. Shaw, J. Holliman, and P. Arnett's bomb by bomb account of the beginning of the raid on Baghdad, CNN flashed a picture of their reporters standing in front of a box with a minature satellite dish sticking out from the upper front of it. CNN showed the picture for only five seconds so I could not examine it more in detail, but it appears to be the four-wire system mentioned by the Moderator. In fairness to the other networks, when Baghdad was hit on Wednesday night (Thursday morning Iraqi time), Iraqi security immediately herded journalists into the basement of the hotel where the latter were staying The security officers missed the CNN crew, who had hidden in their hotel room when the bombing started. The cost of telecommunications equipment and of continuous coverage of the Iraqi conflict was cited by {TV Guide} two weeks ago as the reason TV coverage of future hostilities would likely be dramatically reduced. It sounds like, from what I read in TELECOM Digest that the process is already beginning with the major networks obligated to receive information about the war from CNN. I may go as far to say that commercial television may go the way of radio, with a TV network (proba- bly CBS) becoming all news and other networks becoming more geared to certain profitable audiences. (This may not be directly a telecom issue but it demonstrates telecom's effect on what we will see on TV.) Incidentially, my news from the Persian Gulf has come exclusively from CNN and BBC World Services on short-wave. I almost never watch TV otherwise. MY {TV Guide} subscription comes from an incident four years ago when in a single month I had to ask somebody who Willard Scott and PeeWee Herman were. An embarrasing moment. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 19 Jan 91 21:07:20 EST (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16195@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Mr. Van Buskirk, I was wondering what advantage >there is to AT&T to work through aggregators in this way? According to an article in {Data Communications} (not a bad magazine, available free to qualified readers) the AT&T aggregator business exists because of tariff peculiarities. AT&T can't cut their prices other than via Tariff 12, a cumbersome scheme that they use to make special deals with very large customers. There are few enough Tariff 12 customers that they were listed in a table in the article, and are all Fortune 100 companies. Other than that, all you get is list price volume discounts. The aggregator business allows AT&T to compete with other LD carriers for smallish but still price-sensitive accounts, since the price charged through the aggregator reflects the total volume of calls the aggregator sells. The scheme they use is actually one that was intended for companies that have many locations and want each location to be billed for its own calls. The aggregators resell this service, so the effect is that each of the aggregator's customers get a bill straight from AT&T, but at a lower price than they'd pay if they went direct. I forget how the aggregator makes money, either it's a fee they charge their customers, or AT&T rebates part of the ultimate customers' bills. AT&T is apparently finding all of this a headache, both because it's hard to administer (aggregator customers come and go much faster than the companies for whom the deal was intended open and close offices,) there are credit problems (whom do they go after if the customer doesn't pay) and there is of course complaining from the competitors that AT&T is undercutting their published prices. They are extremely reluctant to sign up any new aggregators at this point. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: CLID Compatibility Question Date: 20 Jan 91 03:37:44 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16200@accuvax.nwu.edu>, winslade@zeus.unomaha.edu (JOHN WINSLADE) writes: > 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. The ClassMate appears to be a little more intelligent than that. When it is powered up, it outputs a four-line message in ASCII identifying itself, giving its firmware copyright notice and version information. It validates the checksum passed by the telco, but does not pass it along to the RS-232 port. It does pass a single character indicating the validity of each message. It appears to contain a modem (really, just a -dem) to demodulate the incoming caller id information, a buffer memory for one message, and a UART to talk to the RS-232 port. There is probably also a microprocessor that runs this stuff. It most-likely consists of a microcomputer -- one chip that contains ROM, RAM, and two serial ports. With such a device, one only needs the modem and the passive components to drive the serial port at RS-232 levels. 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 ax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again Date: 20 Jan 91 23:49:22 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego In article <16204@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: >[the usual call-blocking experience, followed by misinformation from >the operator about international call blocking >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? >[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. Some time back I had had the same trouble trying to call India and had been told the same answer - "the call-blocking is at the request of the country being called". At the advice of the Moderator and on receiving the e-mail address from another reader (I think it was reallen@attmail.com - correct me if I am wrong), I had sent e-mail to this address. I had protested the blocking and the fact that the operators were lying to me. I received a call from the local AT&T office a couple of days later. The lady apologized, said it was due to high rate of fraud, and said that if I had trouble in the future, I could mention her name and ask the operator/supervisor to override the call blocking. I was also told that I would be receiving written communication separately from Mr. Allen (which, by the way, I never did). I had posted all this in this newsgroup. Coincidentally, last week I had to dial India from a friend's home phone. I tried to use my AT&T Universal Card but after I entered the card number, the call was intercepted by an operator. She told me that her computer showed that this call was not permitted. I protested that this was not even a payphone, but she was unyielding. Then I remembered my previous experience and repeated the whole thing to her including the the name of the representative who had called me. I mentioned that the representative had advised me to ask the operator to override the blocking. To my surprise, the operator immediately agreed. However, it is impossible to get through to India on the first attempt and I had to call again. Again it was intercepted by an operator (I don't know if it was the same one), and she put the call through without any further questions. So, I would suggest that you send e-mail to the above address or contact the local AT&T office. That way you might be able to talk to the operator/supervisor and make an international call when you need to. I am sure that they'll not lift the call-blocking in general. Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Office Phone: (619) 534-7894 [Moderator's Note: Let me repeat that email address which flashed across your screen a second ago in case you missed it, or didn't have your pencil handy: reallen@attmail.com. I certainly do not condone long distance billing fraud, however this business of refusing service to all credit card users because of the acts of a few phreaks is wrong. Even if they refuse service to pay phones, why are they also refusing service to private phones where the responsible party can easily be identified? Bank cards and other credit cards rely on either the physical presence of the card when the transaction is going on *or* the PIN, as in the case of bank ATM cards, or both. Why can't AT&T rely on the PIN as a reasonable assurance the card is being used by its rightful owner unless they are otherwise notified it is stolen? When used with a card reader type phone, why can't the presence of the card and the PIN serve as adequate proof for AT&T? Instead of solving the fraud problem, AT&T is taking an easy way out: just blackball anyone calling several foreign countries. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones) Subject: Data Interruption by Operator Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:36 GMT Reply-To: cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones) This is realy starting to bug me. I have a data line that I use for calling into the University computer from home to do my work. I've given the number to some people, telling them that if my voice line is busy, try this number, if I'm not on the computer, I'll answer it. Apparently, some people who have needed to get in touch with me have used an "operator emergency break" to break onto the data line. Result: carrier lost, phone rings. I have talked to an operator supervisor, and she said that she's sorry, but a lot of the newer operators can't tell that it's a data call, so when they try to break in and ask if I'll release the line, they break the connection, and then, realizing that the line is now clear, ring through. HIGHLY ANNOYING! Is there any way to have my number permenantly barred from breakthroughs? (And yes, I know that this service is only supposed to be used in a real emergency, but I don't want to prosecute anyone for doing this, I just want to stop it). Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@erotica.fubarsys.com FSUUCP Mailing list: fsuucp@polyslo.calpoly.edu Requests to: fsuucp-request@polyslo.calpoly.edu [Moderator's Note: If you are served by one of the newer ESS offices, then your line can be fixed to disallow operator intercepts, out of order / busy verifications, etc. But you don't really want that. Instead, have the number on your second line changed to something non-pub, and have it hunted when the first line is busy. That way the busy first line will automatically forward a second call to the other line if it is not busy with a data call. And chances are, someone will ask you 'what is the new number for your second line ... I tried the one you gave me and it was disconnected.' ... you'll find out who was doing the emergency interupts on you in the process. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 19:47:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? I was wondering what effect the announcement of the start of the war had on local phone systems last week? I was down at the Chicago Public Library doing some production work for the Chicagoland Radio Information Service. (This is a closed circuit SCA radio station serving the visually handicapped residents in northern Illinois; I've done work for them for several years.) Someone came in my recording studio and told me we were at war ... I watched the television for a couple minutes then tried to call my home. The library centrex (312-269) was giving very slow dial tone, and the first few attempts I made were met with re-order or an 'all circuits are busy now' recording. I used my cell phone and had the call bounce a couple times also; but it went through on the third try. Other than for about fifteen minutes at the start of the war, connections here appear to be moving smoothly. What experiences did you have in other places? On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all with news? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #52 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01713; 21 Jan 91 1:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12973; 20 Jan 91 23:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25053; 20 Jan 91 22:36 CST Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 21:31:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Index to Telecom Archives, 1-20-91 BCC: Message-ID: <9101202131.ab22132@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Dear Readers of TELECOM Digest, I spent several hours over the weekend organizing and updating the Telecom Archives. With the help of several readers, many missing issues of the Digest from 1981 through 1988 were located and the back issues file is now virtually intact once again. Some of the early volumes are still a little mixed up in the way the issues were filed, but at least we now have them available. Generally speaking the only troublesome area is volume 5. You'll need to search that one sort of carefully to find specific issues. Below is the main directory and the various sub-directories in the Archives. These are printed here mainly as a convenience to readers who lack ftp-capability at their site and need to use an archives server. Internet readers can of course obtain these same directories while on line. To use the Telecom Archives: Internet: ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous password: yourname@yoursite cd telecom-archives then usual ftp commands UUCP / Fido / Bitnet / ATT-MCI Mail / others: (all except Bitnet) Send letter to 'bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu (Bitnet readers) Send letter to 'bitftp@pucc.bitnet' The subject does not matter. In the text of the letter, put FTP commands one after another down the left margin, followed by the appropriate argument; i.e. FTP lcs.mit.edu USER anonymous PASS yourname@yoursite ASCII CD telecom-archives GET (file names, using indexes below) GET (more file names, etc) BYE A help file is available giving detailed instructions for using the archives mail server at Princeton. Instead of the above commands, send a letter to the archives server address (bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu) and in the text of the letter, put the single word: HELP on the first line at the left hand margin. You will receive the detailed help file back by return mail. Warning to UUCP readers in particular: Some of the archives files are *huge*, especially the back issues files. Before you have something like this sent to you (they will come in several parts in the form of 'letters') be certain to talk to your sysadmin and get an okay since these large files may cause your UUCP neighbor to get angry with you. I've got a copy of the archives server help file, and will send it on request if you have a problem obtaining it from the source. Here is the updated directory as of Sunday night, 1-20-91: total 36192 drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 5120 Jan 20 18:38 ./ drwxrwxr-x 24 root wheel 1024 Jan 20 01:01 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 500 Sep 8 23:46 1981.intro.to.archives -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 423659 Dec 16 23:26 1981.vol1.most.issues -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 620814 Dec 16 23:29 1982.vol2.iss001-088 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 382277 Jan 14 1990 1982.vol2.iss089-141 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 619185 Jan 20 16:52 1983.vol3.iss001-083 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 364946 Jan 20 16:55 1983.vol3.iss084-128 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 618694 Jan 20 17:27 1984.vol4.iss001-075 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 411337 Dec 10 01:31 1984.vol4.iss064-118 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 169101 Dec 10 01:03 1984.vol4.iss119-140 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 127814 Dec 10 01:45 1985.vol4.iss142-154 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 357252 Dec 10 02:36 1985.vol4.iss155-208 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 658 Jan 27 1990 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 623292 Jan 27 1990 1985.vol5.iss001-076 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 74260 Jan 20 16:37 1985.vol5.misc.msgs -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 861286 Jan 27 1990 1986.vol5.iss077-161 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 639112 Jan 26 1990 1987.vol6.most.issues -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 274580 Jan 20 1990 1987.vol7.complete.set -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 371 Jan 20 17:55 1987.vol8.READ-ME-FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 577639 Jan 20 17:47 1987.vol8.iss001-071 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 73630 Jan 20 18:13 1988.misc.telecom.msgs -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 726882 Jan 20 15:56 1988.vol8.iss070-139 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 724832 Aug 1 1989 1988.vol8.iss140-189 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 227589 Aug 1 1989 1988.vol8.iss190-213 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 577173 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss001-049 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 564262 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss050-100 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 653097 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss101-150 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 637611 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss151-200 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 744800 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss201-250 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 787166 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss251-300 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 805328 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss301-350 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 780366 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss351-400 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 784366 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss401-450 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 758330 Jan 15 1990 1989.vol9.iss451-500 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 794183 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss501-550 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 856691 Jan 14 1990 1989.vol9.iss551-603 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 861272 Jan 28 1990 1990.vol10.iss001-050 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 820574 Feb 14 1990 1990.vol10.iss051-100 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 842877 Mar 8 1990 1990.vol10.iss101-150 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 855090 Mar 24 1990 1990.vol10.iss151-200 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 853551 Apr 13 1990 1990.vol10.iss201-250 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 908585 May 1 1990 1990.vol10.iss251-300 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 873608 May 16 1990 1990.vol10.iss301-350 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 858605 May 31 1990 1990.vol10.iss351-400 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 919538 Jun 23 1990 1990.vol10.iss401-450 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 885056 Jul 20 1990 1990.vol10.iss451-500 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 863414 Aug 8 23:06 1990.vol10.iss501-550 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 886042 Aug 29 00:59 1990.vol10.iss551-600 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 974899 Sep 17 01:25 1990.vol10.iss601-650 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 870218 Oct 1 01:51 1990.vol10.iss651-700 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 868902 Oct 22 02:49 1990.vol10.iss701-750 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 902018 Nov 10 16:03 1990.vol10.iss751-800 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 880896 Nov 28 19:05 1990.vol10.iss801-850 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 867675 Dec 23 13:07 1990.vol10.iss851-900 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 133082 Jan 1 05:10 1990.vol10.iss901-908 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 893021 Jan 20 16:24 1991.vol11.iss001-050 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 953 Jan 31 1990 READ.ME.FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 25799 Sep 12 19:47 abernathy.internet.story -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68224 Nov 20 10:26 aos-rules.procedures -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 18238 Nov 9 03:37 area.214-903.split -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21264 Apr 14 1990 area.code.script.new -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32645 May 31 1990 areacode.guide -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 8147 Aug 1 1989 areacode.program.in.c -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 474 Feb 11 1990 att.service.outage.1-90 -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 18937 Aug 1 1989 auto.coin.collection -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4788 Jun 10 1990 books.about.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21702 Nov 20 10:24 braux.bill.call.blocking -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 61504 Jul 30 01:56 caller-id-legal-decision -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39449 Dec 14 21:20 cellular.carrier.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17016 Aug 5 08:07 cellular.phones-iridium -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 15141 Aug 1 1989 cellular.sieve -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 298 May 31 1990 cellular.west.germany -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16292 Mar 18 1990 class.ss7.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15023 Sep 30 18:35 cocot-in-violation-label -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38981 Oct 12 00:09 cocot.complaint.sticker -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70477 Sep 5 22:02 computer.bbs.and.the.law -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 23944 Aug 1 1989 computer.state -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9150 Jan 31 1990 country.code.list -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11370 Feb 9 1990 country.codes.revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11267 Feb 25 1990 cpid-ani.developments -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 436 Feb 23 1990 deaf.communicate.on.tdd -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15877 Sep 1 21:14 dial.tone.monopoly -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28296 Sep 29 18:34 dialup.access.in.uk -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39319 Aug 1 1989 docket.87-215 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16367 Sep 1 21:20 e-series.recommendations -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 3422 Jan 20 1990 early.digital.ESS -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 1 1989 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 4 18:58 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39956 Jul 14 1990 electronic.frontier -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20660 Sep 5 22:02 email.privacy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 enterprise-funny-numbers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 19836 Nov 20 10:32 fax.products.for.pc -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 33239 Aug 1 1989 fcc.policy -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 19378 Aug 1 1989 fcc.threat -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 484 Jan 14 1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9052 Aug 1 1989 find.pair -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 47203 Aug 1 1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1998 Jan 27 1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 377 Jan 27 1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1247 Feb 10 1990 first.issue.cover -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14105 Nov 24 12:05 genie.star-service -rw-r--r-- 1 map telecom 52981 Jan 18 17:23 glossary.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 42188 Jan 14 1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67113 Jan 14 1990 glossary.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68804 Feb 2 1990 hi.perf.computing.net -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2337 Jan 27 1990 history.of.digest -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32625 Mar 29 1990 how.numbers.are.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15302 Jan 20 16:21 how.to.post.msgs.here -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1616 Nov 20 11:39 index-canada.npa.files -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 411 Nov 20 11:43 index-minitel.files -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Jan 20 18:39 index-telecom.archives -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1326 Jan 20 18:33 index-telecom.security -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12896 Nov 20 10:30 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4816 Aug 1 1989 lauren.song -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 801 Aug 1 1989 ldisc.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2271 Aug 1 1989 ldnotes.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 13675 Aug 1 1989 ldrates.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12260 Jan 20 1990 london.ac.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12069 Mar 5 1990 london.codes.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15604 Aug 1 1989 mass.lines -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 463 Aug 1 1989 measured-service drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Nov 20 11:41 minitel.info/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 36641 Aug 1 1989 mnp.protocol -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2450 Jan 20 1990 modems.and.call-waiting -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 7597 Feb 10 1990 named.exchanges -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16590 Oct 21 09:47 net.mail.guide -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3014 Jan 27 1990 newuser.letter -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32815 Mar 25 1990 nine.hundred.service -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 45467 Nov 20 10:29 npa.800-carriers.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13779 Sep 19 20:13 npa.800.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 33440 May 12 1990 npa.809.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15488 Nov 20 10:28 npa.900-carriers.assigned drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Dec 14 18:50 npa.exchange.list-canada/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16534 Feb 11 1990 nsa.original.charter-1952 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9886 Jan 23 1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8593 May 5 1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14354 Aug 12 14:10 octothorpe.gets.its.name -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 old.fashioned.coinphones -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2756 Jan 27 1990 old.hello.msg -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70153 Aug 1 1989 pc.pursuit -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 5492 Aug 1 1989 pearl.harbor.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38772 Aug 1 1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17950 Jan 14 1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9764 Jan 20 1990 starline.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 46738 Jan 18 1990 starlink.vrs.pcp -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 103069 Apr 26 1990 sysops.libel.liability -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3857 Aug 1 1989 tat-8.fiber.optic -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27533 Feb 9 1990 telco.name.list.formatted -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31487 Jan 28 1990 telco.name.listing -rw-rw-r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Jan 20 16:26 telecom-recent drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Dec 2 21:19 telecom.security.issues/ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21831 Jan 20 14:32 telsat-canada-report -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 11752 Aug 1 1989 telstar.txt drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Dec 10 02:49 tymnet.information/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 26614 May 29 1990 unitel-canada.ld.service -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 116 Oct 22 02:44 white.pages -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 37947 Aug 1 1989 wire-it-yourself -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4101 Aug 1 1989 wiring.diagram -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24541 Aug 1 1989 zum.debate Note: The 'telecom-recent' file contains the most recent issues of the Digest as they are delivered daily through the mail. If you have missed a recent issue, you will find it here. This file is flushed after every fifty issues with the contents renamed "YEAR.volX.issXXX-YYY'. The 51st, 101st, 151st, 201st, 251st, etc issues of each volume are the starting point in 'telecom-recent'. For example, it was cut off after the 50th issue of Volume 11 this weekend. Please report errors in filing or file-naming which come to your attention so they can be corrected. ------------------- Here are the sub directories referenced above: total 608 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Dec 2 21:19 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 5120 Jan 20 18:30 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13343 Feb 25 1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27395 Jun 23 1990 craig.neidorf.indictment -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9354 Jul 30 02:18 craig.not.guilty -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67190 Jun 23 1990 crime.and.puzzlement -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 12 14:29 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 12 14:32 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21918 Dec 2 21:20 illinois.computer.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28935 May 19 1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30751 Mar 7 1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43365 Jan 28 1990 kevin.polsen -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35612 Apr 1 1990 legion.of.doom -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20703 Aug 12 16:16 len.rose.indictment -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67099 Nov 4 01:11 telecom.usa.call.block-1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31995 Nov 20 10:34 telecom.usa.call.block-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10833 Nov 20 10:23 telecom.usa.call.block-3 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14821 Sep 12 19:19 war.on.computer.crime ---------------------- total 228 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Nov 20 11:39 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 4608 Nov 20 11:28 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Nov 20 11:39 index.to.canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1351 Feb 4 1990 introduction-canada.lists -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15019 Apr 22 1990 npa.204.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14708 Apr 22 1990 npa.306.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17978 Apr 14 1990 npa.403.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15907 Jul 20 22:31 npa.416.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15592 Feb 3 1990 npa.418.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10441 May 26 08:17 npa.506.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11647 Feb 2 1990 npa.514.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13538 Sep 12 18:55 npa.519.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16701 Jul 20 22:32 npa.604.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12444 Mar 29 1990 npa.613.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12016 Feb 2 1990 npa.705.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12899 May 3 1990 npa.709.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 5566 Feb 7 1990 npa.800.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10479 May 5 1990 npa.807.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15645 Feb 3 1990 npa.819.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12839 Mar 29 1990 npa.902.exchanges-canada -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1762 Apr 11 1990 updates.to.above.files ------------------- total 60 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Dec 10 02:49 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 5120 Jan 20 18:38 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 25098 Dec 2 21:23 inbound-outbound.rates -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 3979 Dec 2 21:23 tymdial-9.6-links -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24577 Dec 10 02:49 tymnet.outdials ------------------- total 241 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Nov 20 11:41 ./ drwxrwxr-x 6 telecom telecom 4608 Nov 20 11:42 ../ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11736 Apr 22 1990 dial-up.numbers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 95917 Apr 22 1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 94305 Apr 22 1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 22688 Apr 22 1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu3 ------------------- My special thanks go to Mike Patton and MIT for providing the space needed for the archives, and to the several of you who have contributed files there. Enjoy! Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08368; 21 Jan 91 6:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01787; 21 Jan 91 4:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29678; 21 Jan 91 3:47 CST Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 3:04:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #53 BCC: Message-ID: <9101210304.ab15318@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Jan 91 03:04:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Centel Sells Local Telcos to Rochester Telephone [TELECOM Moderator] CNN Straight story [Edward Hopper] Japanese Payphones [John Higdon] Hundreds of Subscribers Silenced by Rodent [Ralph Sims] AT&T ACUS Service [David R. Zinkin] What's This About AT&T and Int'l Calling? [David R. Zinkin] Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 22:27:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Centel Sells Local Telcos to Rochester Telephone Centel has turned over its local telephone company operations in Iowa and Minnesota to Rochester Telephone Corporation of Rochester, NY for $100 million in cash, ten percent of Rochester Tel's stock and minority ownership of Rochester Tel's cellular telephone franchises. The transaction, which affects 85,000 telephone lines in Minnesota and 50,000 in Iowa is in keeping with Centel's move away from local telephone service and into cellular service according to John P. Frazee, Jr., Centel's chairman and chief executive officer. Centel is acquiring a minority share in various cellular systems serving 630,000 subsribers in exchange for its local telcos. Rochester Telephone is the parent company of 33 telephone companies. The $100 million it is paying to Centel in the deal will help Centel pay its taxes and reduce its outstanding debts. The specific areas affected by the change of ownership are suburban Minneapolis, central and western Minnesota, and northern and western Iowa. Centel employees in those locations are being transferred to Rochester Telephone as part of their continued employment. The majority, but not all of the cellular systems Centel will acquire in the deal serve rural areas around the USA. Centel will continue to maintain its corporate headquarters in the northwest Chicago suburban area. Regulatory approval is being sought now, and the transition is expected to be complete by June, 1991. PAT ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Sun Jan 20 22:31:33 CST 1991 Subject: CNN Straight Story I spoke to a friend who works for CNN in Atlanta (he's been on 13 hour days since the outbreak of war). A couple of points: 1. The four-wire circuit was from Baghdad to Amman. This was definitely the method Shaw/Holliman/Arnett used to talk to the rest of the world. CNN had a fly-away in Amman, they did not have a fly-away in Baghdad. (A fly-away is a video-capable satellite earth station small enough to be shipped as luggage. Lots of luggage, but luggage on an airliner. 2. They may have had a MARISAT phone with them, but he does not believe they used it. A MARISAT phone is a radiotelephone with a VSAT type antenna for satellite communications. Also, there was some statements in Digest #51 that implied that the technology CNN had in Baghdad was how the Iraqi government was receiving CNN and by that method information on what is going on in Washington. In fact, CNN is a world wide network. Anyone with a TVRO anywhere in the world can pick up CNN. I don't know, but I doubt that CNN is scrambled in that part of the world. CNN is available in most first class hotels around the world. It is also monitored by most foreign (or to use Ted Turner's euphemism - international) ministries. Saddam Hussein, King Hussein, King Fahd and many others have been loyal CNN viewers for years. While this is straying farther and farther from the purpose of this forum, there was an "aiding the enemy" tone to one item that required correction. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Japanese Payphones Date: 20 Jan 91 20:52:30 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Here is a look at coin phones in the REALLY big city -- Tokyo. No one has as I recall mentioned these on the Digest lately. The standard issue phone is green. Not pale green, but a bright flourescent knock-out shade that seems to be popular in Japan. Pink phones are "dumb" COCOTs that are found in small stores and eating establishment. Yellow and blue phones are older, less capable units that are increasingly difficult to find. All green phones have one thing in common: a card reader that accepts a stored value card that can be obtained in various denominations, up to 500 "call units". A call unit is the equivalent of 10 yen, the minimum required to "start" a call. A "local" call will exhaust a unit within a few minutes, whereas an international call will require a number of units per minute. Calls throughout Japan fall anywhere in between. The cards are readily available, including at some vending machines attached to green phones themselves. In attition to cards, most (but not all) green phones will accept 10 and 100 yen coins. While it is much more convenient to place an expensive call with a phone card, it is still possible to use coins. Green phones with a gold faceplate will allow you to dial anywhere in the world, depositing coins as you go or with the ultra convenience of the stored value card. Physically, the instruments come in many shapes and sizes, with the largest comparable to a Las Vegas slot machine (other comparisons not intended), down to the smallest which is not much larger than a standard telephone. The smaller ones are usually incapable of accepting coins. The handsets sport a noise-cancelling transmitter, and as a result are wonderful to use in noisy locations such as street corners. All green phones appear to use DTMF back to the CO. One other small difference between the NTT coin phones and US utility phones is that coin return is a local operation. If the coin was not collected by the CO, it is returned instantly when the receiver is replaced on an incomplete call. This is almost disconcerting when one is used to the small delay on domestic phones which must wait for the DC signal from the CO to return the coins. With the exceptional convenience of Japanese coin phones, there is a downside. As others have reported, calls do not go through in Japan with the reliability of the US telephone network. The percentage of failure (silence, reorder, wrong number) is significant enough to be irritating to the US user. And this is true even on NTT's newest digital exchanges. No one could offer any explanation of this and some residents were even surprised that anyone would notice. Ironically, one of the major deficiencies of NTT (lack of itemized billing -- available now at extra cost) contributes to the convenience of the coin telephones. From gold-faceplate phones, it matters not where you call. The only thing that differentiates one call from another is how fast the meter pulses tick away (one per "unit" of 10 yen). Hence, it is irrelavent how the call is paid for. A display on the front of the phone shows how many units remain. If it gets low, you deposit more yen. If it runs out, you get cut off. There is no operator who comes on the line to ask for more money. A small criticism of the card system would be concerning the lack of a recall button. When making a series of calls, one must hang up after each one and remove the card (serenaded by the most strident "b'beep-b'beep" that goes on for several seconds), then re-insert it. Socially, this may be more of a feature than a bug, since there is usually some sort of line of folks waiting to use the phone and this cacophony of beeping would alert those patiently waiting to someone making an unacceptable number of calls or call attempts. My preferance would be for a recall button. I really liked the stored value card system. It is puzzling as to why it was never introduced here. But then, more than card readers would have to be installed; the rate structure would have to change drastically. In Japan, calls cost virtually the same whether placed from NTT coin phones or from standard business or residential phones. This is certainly not true in the US. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Hundreds of Subscribers Silenced by Rodent From: Ralph Sims Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 21:29:02 PST Organization: The 23:00 News An unknown number of US West subscribers were silenced in rural Mason County Washington today when all of a sudden their phones were dead. No dial, no nothing. Nothing coming in. Nothing going out. It is estimated a hundred subscribers were affected. Affected were not only residential subscribers, but a portion of a fire department's emergency dispatch center. Mason County does not have E-911, relying on the basic package. Our fire department maintains seven-digit emergency lines in addition to a ring-down cicruit to and from the 911 'center' (called a 4PLNT circuit). In all, seven circuits were lost, including one entire community's emergency line access, as we are the 911 Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) for them. All of the affected lines came into the fire department dispatch center via 'SLICK 96' (perhaps SLCC-96) equipment. This equipment is serviced by 600' of overhead secondary power lines and then about 300' of underground. Total length of downtime was about three hours. The cause? A squirrel had climbed the a power pole and shorted the power company's transformer, killing the electric feed to US West's equipment. Not much of the animal was left. The power outage had remained un-detected as US West was the only customer fed by that transformer. Batteries in the 'slick' had kept the unit operational until they died. It is not known when the squirrel was toasted. halcyon!ralphs@sumax.seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) ralphs@halcyon.uucp or ralphs@halcyon.wa.com The 23:00 News - Seattle, WA USA +1 206 292.9048 (a Waffle Iron) ------------------------------ From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: AT&T ACUS Service Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 04:56:08 GMT My school (Case Western Reserve University) is scheduled to use the AT&T ACUS Service for all long-distance calling beginning at the beginning of February. The alleged benefits of the service are: -- A private access code for each student (usable from any telephone on campus) -- Lower rates -- A credit limit of $150 (yes, that's listed as a "great benefit" of the service) Obviously AT&T wouldn't say anything about this, so I'm going to ask fellow net'ters: Does anyone know of any possible "gotchas" with this service? Has anyone used it extensively? I'd like to be prepared for when it's activated. Thanks... David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem. ------------------------------ From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: What's This About AT&T and Int'l Calling? Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 04:51:18 GMT I've been reading messages for the past couple of days about AT&T blocking calls to certain countries, supposedly to prevent the phone "phreakers" from completing their tasks. What purpose does this serve? I was under the impression that the vast majority of phone phreaking relates to calls *within* the country, not to foreign countries. Is AT&T going to tell me I can't call certain states? (Hope NY isn't one of them!) David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem. [Moderator's Note: It is doubtful they would block calls *to* any certain US destinations. Domestic calls are cheaper, the domestic telcos cooperate with one another investigating toll-fraud, and the recipient of the call most likely speaks English, making it easier for the Security Department to interogate the recipient. They do block calls *from* some domestic locations however -- the payphones at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City being one example. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again Date: 20 Jan 91 21:44:31 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Ravinder Bhumbla writes: > So, I would suggest that you send e-mail to the above address or > contact the local AT&T office. That way you might be able to talk to > the operator/supervisor and make an international call when you need > to. I am sure that they'll not lift the call-blocking in general. You will recall a short time back that GTE Mobilnet had blocked (and still does) IDDD from its mobile customers. A number of us who make such calls bitterly complained and each one of us had IDDD reinstated on our mobile units. Mobilnet did this quite readily without much of a stink. Obviously, this is a tactic used by some common carriers to deal with certain types of fraud: turn a service off to the general subscribership and then reinstate it on a need-to-have basis individually. Somehow this seems to be a cheap and dirty way to solve a problem. Rather than use creative means to improve security, the solution is to just inconvenience the customers. It is a trend that goes on in this country because we, the public, permit it. In telecommunications, as with everything else, service to the customer has become a meaningless concept. The customer is now expected to be grateful to receive any value at all for his dollar, the terms being dictated by the convenience and whim of the seller. The customer is always right? Wrong! The customer is some scum that whose sole purpose is to provide revenue to the company. You and I are guilty of allowing this to fester by our passive acceptance of this treatment. This is still the land of capitalism, and until everything is "run by the government" (another trend, suitable for discussion elsewhere), we the people are still able to vote and speak with our pocketbooks. Instead of worrying about the tastefulness or sensitivity of commercials, the politics of the company's philanthopic gestures, or other, irrelavent issues, let us be sure that we, the customers, are receiving product suitable to our needs, provided in a professional manner with noticable concern our satisfaction. I could not care one twit whether AT&T's spots are relavent, competent, or material. But being a user of international long distance, I care whether that service is available in a timely and convenient manner. If AT&T cannot provide it, then I (an otherwise heavy AT&T customer) will take that business elsewhere and will let AT&T know why. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I am coming <> to yanking my business from AT&T and giving it to some other carrier for this very reason and others. I go into the phone center store on Devon Avenue to buy a simple $50 phone over the weekend. Charge my AT&T equipment account, I ask them. The clerk spends ** fifteen minutes ** on the phone with 'credit' somewhere ... and they can't find my account, even when I read them the number from the bill for $20-plus they send me every three months for a two-line turn-button set I still lease. Finally I left and went down the street to Radio Shack and bought the phone. But you know the really sad thing, John? You could quit them, I could quit them, *everyone on this list could quit them* !! and they wouldn't know the difference. I get *five* monthly bills from AT&T: Two for my cellular phones' long distance because AT&T says they can't be combined; one from AT&T Mail; one for phone leasing; one long distance bill. That is only my personal accounts -- my office gets a few more. Had they figured out a way to sell me the phone in the store Saturday I'd start getting a sixth monthly bill for that. AT&T won't accept their own card for their store and forward service; for international calls to several countries or for *anywhere* if god forbid I should be standing at a payphone in the wrong place. I should give them the whole works back with 'thanks, but no thanks, let me know when you are in a position to serve customers without lying to them and wasting their time.' PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #53 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03187; 22 Jan 91 4:54 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05622; 22 Jan 91 3:13 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11618; 22 Jan 91 2:08 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 2:00:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #54 BCC: Message-ID: <9101220200.ab11470@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:00:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 54 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Retransmit of Issues 43-44 [TELECOM Moderator] CNN Live from Baghdad [Gary Segal] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Bob Sherman] War and the Net [Mark Steiger] Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Piet van Oostrum] Zimmermann Telegram (was: An Offering to Explain CNN) [Mark Brader] Foxhole Payphones? What Next? [Donald E. Kimberlin] 'AT&T Building' in Baghdad [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 0:51:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Retransmit of Issues 43-44 This is just a note to our Usenet readers to let you know that issues 43 and 44 were re-transmitted Monday night .... the 23 messages just prior to this one (assuming all got delivered in order) were the ones you missed last week. They carried dates of January 14-16, and all were redated to say January 21 so they would be retained for at least a day or two at your sites. To the folks who now got two copies of those messages: sorry!. But from the three dozen messages I got today saying those issues were not delivered, I'm of the impression most of the net didn't see them at all. A second mailing was NOT done to the mailing list -- just to the Usenet side. PAT ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: CNN Live from Baghdad Date: 21 Jan 91 04:21:58 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division The following article contains some information about the means used by CNN to maintain contact to Baghdad. While some of the information is not totally correct, there is still some usefull clues as to how CNN talked to Baghdad live; while the world listened. If you are new to telecom, please be aware that a two-wire phone line does not work by having "one going out and one going in," but "mixes" both the outgoing and incomming signals on the one pair, while a four-wire line uses one pair for each direction of communication. Also, two-wire lines are made of the exactly the same type copper as four-wire lines. ----------------- From "The Chicago Tribune," Friday, January 18, 1991 "Early Planning Helped CNN Register a Television Coup" Section 1, page 9 By James Warren Chicago Tribune Atlanta - The Cable News Network's dominating coverage of the Gulf War's opening was not luck. Although scens of reporters in gas masks in Israel on Thursday night give visual immediacy to coverage that was missing the night before, CNN's early coup Wednsesday was still memorable - and unexplained. It came from the four-wire, a private dedicated phone line that doesn't go through standard phone systems. The Iragi invasion of Kuwait began Aug 2. By September, CNN was gearing for possible war coverage from a besieged Baghdad. Richard Tauber, CNN's director of satellites and circuits, first went to Jordan and began dealings with its TV and radio ministry since CNN ultimately would have to transmit from Jordan to the U.S. He also talked to the Jordanian Telecommunications Corp., because the four-wire would have to run essentialy between Baghdad and Jordan. CNN's mission to Iraq was more difficult, and Iraqi approval did not come quickly. According to CNN executives, the Iraqi ministries of information and telecommunications were split on whether to permit it. But CNN's growing reputation won the day, and subsequent similar requests by other networks were spurned. "CNN is seen around the world," Tauber said. "Saddam [Hussein] knows that. When the Jordanians fianally put in the order [for the phone line], the Iraqis said O.K." "Did we lose the four-wire?" Richard Tauber called out Thursday morning amid the din at Cable News Netowrk here, alluding to a cutoff in contact with reporters in Baghdad. At 10 a.m. Chicago time Thursday, Tauber had learned that the Iraqi government had, at least for the moment, ended transmissions of CNN reporters Peter Arnett, John Holliman and Bernard Shaw from their 9th floor room in a Baghdad hotel. Eight hours later, Tauber's worry momentarily took a back seat to those of CNN colleagues in Israel. As fears of a nerve gas attack played out, viewers watched and listened while Larry Register, CNN's Jerusalem bureau cheif, was sternly ordered to close windows that had been opened in order to get a better view of the city. The reporters in the bureau room soon would don gas masks and talk to editors in Atlanta, giving firsthand reports on the frightening prospect of a nerve-gas attack just down the street. The four-wire constiuted expensive foresight critical to the Baghdad coverage of the initial allied assault. It explains why CNN could draw unpreccedented ratings and so humble its competition that CBS made a rather notable request Thursday to a ten-year old rival once ridiculed as "Chicken Noodle News." CBS' Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt, executive producer of "60 Minutes," called a top CNN executive to see if Arnett, Holliman and Shaw could be made available for Sundays' "60 Minutes." For sure, there was ample intrinsic merit in the generally unruffled, highly detailed performance by the trio, who were involuntarily dispatched with other journalists to the hotel basement for much of Thursday by Iraqi authorities. But they could have never recounted the bombings without both a bigh help of Tauber, a certifiable "techie," and the consent of Hussein's underlings. Normal American phones work on two lines, with one going out and one going in. If two people talk at the same time, they won't hear one another very well. The four-wire, made of copper, has two lines going each way. It was run from a speaker phone placed in the CNN hotel room to the local phone company office. A speaker's voice goes through the line to a nearby microwave transmitter. From there, it's bounced to a local phone company in Amman, Jordan. A microwave transmitter in Amman sends the signal via stellite to a ground staion in Etam, W. Va., and then via AT&T to two phone circuits in New York. The folks in Atlanta, headquarters of CNN, can "patch into" those circuits and talk to the hotel room from the newsroom (all in about one-quarter of a second). If you have trouble programming your VCR at home, that will all seem truly baffling. It's also a lot more expensive. The basic cost to CNN for just having the service has been $15,000 a month since October. But it was a prime reason CNN could transmit with faily good sound quality Thursday when others could not. Of course, there was another reason: The Iraqis didn't pull the plug. Indeed, the line sitll hasn't been pulled. If one ambled by CNN's foreign desk Thursday, one realized that the line was still working and open. The problem is that the government is barring CNN's trio from using it. By Thusday night, CNN officals could not be sure of their group's safety. CNN President Tom Hohnson indicated that he had discussed the matter of CNN's continuing presence in Baghdad with both Gen. Colin Powell, chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Marlin Fitzwater, White House press secretary. One specific topic was apparently a rumor, passed to CNN by an NBC executive, that the hotel was on a list Thursday night of allied bombing targets. That was untrue, Johnson was told. Meanwhile, CNN's Wednsday coverage resulted in a huge ratings leap. One can't fairly compare ratings of the broadcast networks with the different universe of cable. But CNN's Wednesday numbers smashed its pervious prime-time record (Tuesday night) by 150 percent and was 1,000 percent greater than its December average. One estimate gave CNN 11.2 million viewers, or a 19.1 rating in the cable system. But it didn't account for the many CNN radio and TV affiliates, like Chicago superstaion WGN-Ch. 9, which made ample use of the coverage. Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2348 Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004 The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue the opinions of Motorola INC. ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Organization: Not much! Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:12:30 GMT In <16212@accuvax.nwu.edu> crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: >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. My initial remark was posted the night before ALL journalists were expelled from Iraq. As best I know Peter left when ordered to by the government the next day. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:42:18 CST From: Mark Steiger Subject: War and the Net Will the war in the middle east be affecting the "allowed" net traffic or perhaps shutting it down completely?? [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS 218-262-3142 300-19.2K Baud (HST/Dual)] Internet: Penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com MCI Mail: MSteiger UUCP: ...crash!pro-igloo!penguin ATT Mail: MSteiger ProLine: Penguin@pro-igloo America Online: Goalie5 TELEX: 51623155 MSTEIGER [Moderator's Note: Let's certainly hope not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage Date: 21 Jan 91 12:11:18 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands This weekend I saw an interesting note in a newspaper about telecommunications used by some journalists. I don't know if it applies to CNN but it surely was interesting. They have two briefcases, one containing a portable satellite antenna (lloks like an upside down umbrella), and one with a computer. They rent a hotelroom with a window on the south side (or north on the southern hemisphere), and when they want to make a phone call, they direct the antenna to the satellite, type in their user number and password, and make the phone call. No dependency on local telephone companies, state censors, etc. The satellite used is Inmarsat (if I remember the name correctly), that is mainly used for maritime telephone traffic. They must have arranged a subscription on the satellite, of course. 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: iet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 1991 15:05:00 -0500 From: Mark Brader Subject: Zimmermann Telegram (was: An Offering to Explain CNN) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > The history of intelligence intercepts must go back at least to > the Romans learning to read smoke signals of the Picts in Britain. > In the electrical era, an immediate action was to cut your enemy's > submarine telegraph cable and pull it ashore to a friendly nation. > The U.S. did this to Germany in both WWI and WWII, and the U.S. Army > even had its own cableship into the Korean War era. ... My recollection of reading Barbara Tuchman's "The Zimmermann Telegram" says that the German cables were indeed cut very early in WWI -- by the British. The U.S. was, after all, neutral for the first 3/4 of the war! In fact, this action turned out in the end to lead to the U.S. entering the war. It seems that the Germans sent a telegram to Mexico, saying that in the event of the U.S. entering the war against them, they invited the Mexicans to enter the war on the German side and promised that if they did so then they would get back the territory now in the U.S. that they used to have. Now, because of the cut cables, the Germans were limited in how they could transmit an overseas message like this with security. They chose to route it (illegally) through a neutral country -- the U.S. itself! They thought it was safe because nobody could possible break their code, even if, say, the British had someone in a position to take a copy of it, which they did. But they also *did* know how to break the code, and cheerfully revealed the contents of the telegram, and the rest is history. (I'm working from memory, but I did read the book pretty recently.) Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:10 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Foxhole Payphones? What Next? Much is being said about "high technology" changing the way war is conducted. We're all hearing things about how generals and admirals have new tools for their conduct. But how about the individual soldier or sailor? The following press release from AT&T indicates the latest at the front ... almost a payphone in the foxhole: ************ PRESS ADVISORY: AT&T calling volumes MORRISTOWN, N.J., Jan. 18, 1991 -- Despite current hostilities in the Middle East, United States military personnel continue to use AT&T's USADirect(R) Service to call home at a rate of approximately 13,000 calls a day. Service people are making the same number of calls today as they were prior to the start of the conflict on Wednesday evening. Nearly 1,000 special USADirect phones are installed close to front-line troops in Saudi Arabia. Troops can use this service to call the United States or Germany to talk with their family and friends. AT&T installed these phones in November specifically for the use of Operation Desert Storm troops. AT&T will continue to offer USADirect Service throughout the conflict. # # # USADirect Service is a registered trademark of AT&T. ************ ...Wonder how Bill Mauldin's famous "Willie and Joe" of WWII would react to a direct USA payphone out there in Belgium or New Guinea? [Moderator's Note: Well, this war is high-tech in all respects, isn't it? I wonder how Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower would react? I bet they'd love every minute of it! Not the war per se, but the tremendous leaps in technology which have made war so much different than it was nearly a half-century ago. This is first war in history covered live on television from start to finish. In Eisenhower's era, one only saw what was presented in the theatre news reels. And yet some things never change: at a forum Sunday in the Chicago Temple auditorium Mayor Daley spoke of the sacrifices 'we may be called upon to make in the weeks and months to come' and the importance of supporting the troops. In addition to the Star Spangled Banner (*four* stanzas, mind you! -- I don't think anyone would remember the second and third stanzas if the words had not been printed in the program), the program closed with everyone singing "Eternal Father Strong To Save". It could have been 1941 as easily as 1991 except for the references to CNN and a short video which was included. :) PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:13 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: "AT&T" Building in Baghdad We had a post on here Sunday about how wire services had reported that the "AT&T Building in Baghdad" had been bombed. According to the following from AT&T's "Newsbriefs" for 21 January, it seems the source this error was a military officer on the spot: ******* ERROR -- The U.S. government and AT&T have been known to have some pretty heated wars, but nothing like this. Air Force Col. Alton Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad. Not so, says the telecommunications giant. "We don't even have a building in Baghdad," spokesman James Van Orden said. {Dallas Times- Herald}, D1, 1/20. ******* So, it seems even ranking military officers are confused with just how far AT&T's influence goes. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #54 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05754; 22 Jan 91 7:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17085; 22 Jan 91 5:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05286; 22 Jan 91 4:14 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 3:13:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #55 BCC: Message-ID: <9101220313.ab30020@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 03:13:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Milton D. Miller] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Bill Nickless] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Charlie Lear] Re: Concerted Action [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: Data Interruption by Operator [Mark Brader] Re: Japanese Payphones [Sandy Kyrish] Re: Multi-Location WATS [Mark Van Buskirk] Re: Line Information Data Base [Ronald T. Crocker] Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [Chris Johnson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Milton D Miller Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 18:00:47 GMT In article <16236@accuvax.nwu.edu> drz@po.cwru.edu (David R. Zinkin) writes: >My school (Case Western Reserve University) is scheduled to use the >AT&T ACUS Service for all long-distance calling beginning at the >beginning of February. The alleged benefits of the service are: > -- A private access code for each student (usable from any > telephone on campus) > -- Lower rates > -- A credit limit of $150 (yes, that's listed as a "great > benefit" of the service) >Obviously AT&T wouldn't say anything about this, so I'm going to ask >fellow netters: Does anyone know of any possible "gotchas" with this >service? Has anyone used it extensively? I'd like to be prepared for >when it's activated. Well, we have it here at Purdue, and I am generally pleased with the service (it is better than what we had with GTE, who had assigned all the pins in sequence ... care to guess how much fraud was around?) I personally don't make that many calls ... so my typical phone bill is somewhere around $.50 to 1.50 (I call home on a 800 number). Probably the biggest pain is sending in those little checks! They have a 800 number where you can call and get your balance anytime, and you can send in money before the bill is due to extend your $150.00. To check, all you need is your ten digit account number and nine digit Personal Security Code (PSC, aka pin). Also, you can get the rates from the computer, too (I haven't tried this, though). I think the discount is supposed to be 10%, but I haven't looked in a while. As far as dialing, we can call from any Residence hall phone, but the general campus phones are on a different switch and prefix, and can not be dialed from. 800 numbers do not require a card number, other long distance is 1 + A/C (if not ours) + seven digits, wait, then nine digit pin. This year, for other types of toll calls we dial 2+; before we had to ask the campus operator for a outside operator. Milton [Moderator's Note: At least in the division of AT&T which bills for calls from my cellular phones (Orlando, FL) we don't have to pay small balances less than $5.00 for ninety days or until the balance goes above that amount, whichever comes first. You might inquire if the same is true of the ACUS service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:41:08 CST From: Bill Nickless Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Andrews University of Berrien Springs, Michigan, has provided long distance service through various campus-sponsored programs such as AT&T ACUS (I think that's the one they're using now.) David R. Zinkin asked if there were any "gotchas" with the service his school was moving towards. The biggest complaint I have with the implementation of AT&T ACUS at Andrews is that for most residence (dorm, apartment) phones it is impossible to use most long distance calling cards directly -- not even AT&T's "Universal Card" works. I have ended up with Sprint and MCI cards that are accessed by 1-800 numbers. They work and avoid the ACUS system. Unfortunately I know of no way to reach an AT&T operator or have an AT&T operator reach me by calling a 1-800 number. A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to AT&T" responses, please. Bill Nickless nickless@andrews.edu or nickless@flash.ras.anl.gov (708) 972-7390 or (616) 927-0982 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 21 Jan 91 13:13:37 NZD (Mon) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz In article <16162@accuvax.nwu.edu> Dan Herrick writes: >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. Har! Sorry, my fault for not pointing it out. New Zealand has ONE telco. Telecom New Zealand Ltd. You like it or you go without. Otherwise I'd have given them the bird as soon as this "business" and "fraud" thing blew up. >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. Telecom NZ has been fighting a battle with the Commerce Commission for the last two years concerning their exorbitant T1 pricing. VAN service providers cannot lease T1 lines cheaply enough to provide lines that are competitive with either tolls or Telecom-leased voice lines. Every day that the situation drags on helps Telecom as it keeps any competition in check while Telecom firms its grip on the market. Note that the Commerce Commission is investigating restrictive business practices, not the actual tariff. We have had a firm set up called the Alternative Telecommunications Company but they are at this stage interested only in big-business leased- line operation between major cities. For this decade at least, the cost of providing dialtone to anyone out in the 'burbs will ensure Telecom retains a monopoly on the domestic market. That doesn't stop Telecom from hiking rentals and so forth to "allow us to retain a standard of service that enables us to compete effectively". Compete with who? Themselves. >(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.) In my case, around nine miles to the nearest Telecom T1 junction. I have access to a four-line PAD, so will probably get one 9600bps X25 line into cavebbs to give me four 2400bps dialups for out-of-town users. Telecom's X25 charging stinks too, but that's a different story... 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 20:36:14 -0500 From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: Concerted Action Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand We already know what happens when everyone takes their phone off-hook at about the same time: you have to wait, and wait for a long time, to have any chance of getting dial tone. A truck hit a major power distribution cable a few years ago. Everyone lost power. Everyone wanted to call the power company. No one could, of course. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 1991 15:22:00 -0500 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: Data Interruption by Operator Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > Apparently, some people who have needed to get in touch with me have > used an "operator emergency break" to break onto the data line. ... > I have talked to an operator supervisor, and she said that she's > sorry, but a lot of the newer operators can't tell that it's a data > call, so when they try to break in and ask if I'll release the line, > they break the connection, and then, realizing that the line is now > clear, ring through. This is exactly what I would *hope* would happen if someone did an emergency break when I was on a data line. Some time ago I asked in this forum what actually would happen, and nobody answered. > (And yes, I know that this service is only supposed to be used in a > real emergency, but I don't want to prosecute anyone for doing this, I > just want to stop it). What's the problem with identifying who's doing it? When the phone rings, answer it and find out who it is! (If there's no phone on the modem line, it should be easy enough to jack one in before it stops ringing.) My phone company is Bell Canada, which operates in Ontario and Quebec and part of the Northwest Territories. I received something from them recently, probably a phone bill insert. It quoted new fees for having the operator verify a busy line, and for having the operator break into the call. I think the fees were $1 for the verification and 1.50 to break in with or without verification. I was surprised to see that the notice did *not* say that breaking in was only permitted in an emergency; and indeed, introducing a fee tends to show that they feel otherwise. Perhaps the people at Bell decided that since everybody knows there is no way for the operator to really verify that it *is* an emergency call, there was no point in persisting with that requirement. In Bell Canada territory, then, a person could ask the operator to verify the line and in the way find it whether it was a data or voice call -- if the operator would reveal that much -- before deciding whether their business was urgent enough to break in. Not that I would approve of that. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 22:14 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones A souvenir shop in the Sydney, NSW airport sells time-cards for Japanese payphones. At first I was puzzled, but my guess is that returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their own country. ------------------------------ From: mvanbusk@bcm1a05.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 21 13:21:25 CST 1991 Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Organization: AT&T Dear Mr. Townson: Regarding multi-location WATS discounts Mr. Levine is correct; peculiarities in the tariff allow aggregators to operate. AT&T doesn't benefit directly from aggregator operations. Under current tariff AT&T cannot stop aggregators from operating. If the customer fails to pay their bill the aggregator becomes responsible for payment. Also, aggregators are selling services from other carriers such as MCI, Sprint, ect. I hope this answers your questions on multi-location WATS. P.S.: I'm very sorry to hear of the poor service you encountered while trying to call Israel. As a customer representative I try to treat every customer as I would like to be treated if I was calling. However, with 300,000 employees inevitably you will reach one that doesn't care about the people we are here to serve. I don't agree with many of the policies set by the company but as an employee I must follow them. (Being on the frontline we take the heat.) Finally,as an AT&T employee I feel terrible when I here about such treatment. I certainly hope someone in this large corporation can solve these problems to your satisfaction. Sincerely, Mark Van Buskirk AT&T Rolling Meadows Il 800-544-1697 [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your kind letter. You are an excellent example of a company -- any large company, really -- being as good as its best employees and as bad as its worst ones. Your attitude is to be commended. I wish more felt the same as yourself. But as another reader / AT&T employee pointed out to me in a private letter, employee morale has become very poor in many divisions of your company. Long time faithful employees are beginning to discover that nothing counts for anything these days, in the year -- what is it now? -- 6 PD. The old lady in the rocking chair smiling as she relates how AT&T has kept her housed, fed and clothed for many years as a result of her stock holdings (AT&T commercial, circa 1935) is no more. She went to telephone-heaven along with Ma several years ago. The idea that when you went to work for Ma you stayed for the rest of your working career is now very quaint. In 1939, a major fire in the Chicago Union Stockyards caused the evacuation of several city blocks in the vicinity of 43rd and Exchange Avenues ... except at the old YARds telephone exchange (now-a-days 312-927) where the operators sat at thier boards taking calls from frightened subscribers and relaying instructions from the fire department. Times change. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Ronald T. Crocker" Subject: Re: Line Information Data Base Date: 21 Jan 91 13:34:53 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL This information, though not on the tip of my tongue, is available from Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore) in Bellcore Technical Report TR-402 and Technical Advisory TA-460. I can't remember which describes the SCP (Service Control Point) and SSP (Service Switching Point [== switch]), but you should be able to get both from Bellcore. Ron Crocker Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Group (708) 632-4752 [FAX: (708) 632-4430] ...!uunet!motcid!crocker ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 19:51:54 GMT In article <16174@accuvax.nwu.edu> jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu writes: >> 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! Why should the number change all the time and frequently? It's a great help when it's really needed to track down how an office is wired, for example. At any rate, the number here in the Twin Cities is 511, and has been for the past 10 years for all U.S. West phones I've ever tried. That seems like a sensible service to me, and it's saved me many an hour trying to figure out where some extension is or was, or what number is in the cubicle I just moved into. ...Chris Johnson chris@c2s.mn.org ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris Com Squared Systems, Inc. St. Paul, MN USA +1 612 452 9522 [Moderator's Note: The thinking seems to be that people who wish to commit fraud using your telephone line will find it easier to do so if they can go to some area where the wires are available, for example in the basement of an apartment building, and use the code to detirmine the number of the pair they have illegally grabbed. In one way it makes sense, but I really don't approve of punishing everyone because of the actions of a few. Anyway, you can always find out the number of the phone you are using by placing a person to person call to John Smith at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York ... and when of course he is not there, ask your operator to 'leave word' for him to call you back at 'this number'. Without thinking about it, she will tell the hotel operator to have Mr. Smith call Operator 7 in Anytown, and ask for Mr. Jones at XXX-YYYY. You'll hear her say the number, so have your pencil handy, and be sure and thank her for assisting you, even if you don't tell her quite how she assisted. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #55 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25203; 23 Jan 91 0:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25804; 22 Jan 91 22:50 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16018; 22 Jan 91 21:45 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 20:57:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #56 BCC: Message-ID: <9101222057.ab30675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 20:57:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 56 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Bill Huttig] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Randy Borow] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [John Higdon] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Milton D. Miller] Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Jack Dominey What I Like Ahout Telecom*USA [TELECOM Moderator answers Ed Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Date: 21 Jan 91 15:44:03 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL PAT commented on the fact that he was thinking of changing from AT&T because of the international call blocking ... others metioned what would happen if AT&T blocked calling card calls to certain US areas. In a way TELECOM*USA did this to some BBS (They Blocked 1+ calls) ... Does anyone know if Telecom*USA is still doing this? [Moderator's Note: Maybe if Bruce Wilson is reading this, he can give us the latest update in a short summary message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 21-JAN-1991 15:07:08.29 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Thanks to everyone who responded to my post! I decided to write to Mr. Allen and let him know how I feel about AT&T's blocking of certain international calls from papyhones (non-coin calls, that is). Here is a copy of the letter which I sent: TO: reallen@attmail.com,dreuben@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU DATE: 21-JAN-1991 14:25:45.19 FROM: Douglas Scott Reuben SUBJECT: AT&T blocking of Int. Calls TO: reallen@attmail.com,dreuben@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU,usereafj@rpitsmts Dear Mr. Allen, Recently, I had a most unpleasant experience while using AT&T Long Distance Service. A friend of mine was rather anxious to call Israel, and was unable to get through from a payphone. She attends college in New Jersey, and continued to have difficulty after repeated attempts to get through. I tried to place the call myself, and was told by the operator that "[T]here is no agreement between the state of New Jersey and Israel for non-coin calls from payphones." She also asked if I would like to speak to her supervisor. I had read about this before in various forums, but never thought that it would affect me. Well, it has. As an AT&T customer who has NEVER used an alternate carrier, who encourages friends and associates to use AT&T, who has AT&T 800 service, AT&T residential service on seven lines (total for my houses in Connecticut and New York), business service on eight lines at my office in NY, and who subscribes to various AT&T call discount packages, I am infuriated by both the utter incompetence of your personnel as well as the inability to get through at a time when hearing a distant voice would well have put my friend at ease. How dare you insult me with such an idiotic response from your operator in New Jersey? Even if your operators had only a slight hint of the events which are presently occurring the world, that should suffice to compel them to realize the importance of hearing the voice of a friend or loved one at such a time. Therefore, I request that you explain to me why AT&T has instituted this policy of blocking, and why long-time AT&T customers must be so greatly inconvenienced in this manner. Moreover, I may very well need to call other "blocked" countries in the future, and would like to know how to do so and avoid dealing with untruthful and seemingly ignorant operators. I have been made aware that other long distance services DO provide access to these "blocked" countries. I am reluctant to switch to them, but should AT&T fail to provide me with a satisfactory resolution to this incident, I will be forced to change my business and residence services over to them as I feel that I can not countinue to support AT&T as long as you have such a callous disregard for some of your most loyal customers. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Very truly yours, Douglas Scott Reuben P.S. You may respond to: "dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu","dreuben@ wesleyan.bitnet" or FAX a response to (212) 481-1159. I am usually not around to take voice calls, and a written response would thus be appreciated. ------- Hopefully, I will get a response which will explain why AT&T continues to do this, yet after reading some of the other posts, I won't hold my breath! :( Thanks again for all the replies, Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 21 11:58:05 CST 1991 Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Both John Higdon and our esteemed Moderator understandably have become more than perturbed, shall I say, at AT&T. Apparently, several items of late have bothered these two gentlemen. Pat, I could easily -- as an AT&T employee -- say you're nuts, etc.; or, I can tout the greatness of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. However, allow me to say that I actually agree with you -- albeit to a certain extent. Many times I find myself asking how such a company as large, reputable, and old as AT&T can be so confused and confusing, technical, disorganized, etc. It seems like just when we have found the answer to something, we go ahead and change it, under the guise of "customer satisfaction," but ostensibly to do nothing to cut costs (read jobs). This company unfortunately does not believe in the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Ever since the break-up of the old Bell System (oh, how I yearn for the good ole days), AT&T has cut over 250,000 jobs, and it continues to do so at an unbelievable rate. As a result, morale throughout most of the company has sunk to a terrible low. What motivation is there for employees to truly serve or help a customer when management doesn't give a damn about its employees. After all, if someone's job will be eliminated shortly, there is no reason to go the extra mile for those who have cut your throat. I must, however, explain a few things. I don't want this to appear like a vendetta or angry diatribe against my employer AT&T. I am not ashamed to work for Ma Bell, and I have no regrets about accepting the job to begin with. Unlike some AT&T'ers Pat and John (and even I) have encountered, I try my best to out of the way to help someone. No, it's not the simple "the customer is always right" indoctrination. Instead, I am someone who -- believe it or not -- will make sure the person with whom I am dealing goes away convinced that AT&T at least CARES. Because I am only human, I occasionally fail, but it's not for lack of trying. Usually, it's because of some stupid company policy or the lack of proper personnel to assist me. I do not wish to sound like a disgruntled, bleeding liberal, but I must ask the upper echelon who runs this communications giant: Why continue to decimate your own ranks, and in so doing, leave the customers out in the cold? AT&T must first remember that in reality, the employees are its first customers. We who are on the lower end of the totem pole (and pay scale) are the foot soldiers who possess the common sense to see what is happening. If only the big executives would stop looking at everything through an accountant's kaleidoscope and realize what is truly going on. Only then will we truly be the best there is. We must never forget: a house divided will not stand. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Date: 22 Jan 91 08:54:50 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Bill Nickless writes: > A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way > of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to > AT&T" responses, please. Sorry, you are out of luck. There is no known 800 number, 950 number, or even 900 or POTS number that can reach an AT&T operator. AT&T is the easiest carrier on the planet to block because it arrogantly refuses to admit that such an august institution needs to stoop to "alternate access" the way the "other guys" do. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 16:32:27 -0500 From: Milton D Miller Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network In article <16273@accuvax.nwu.edu> The Moderator writes: [Regarding ACUS billing] >[Moderator's Note: At least in the division of AT&T which bills for >calls from my cellular phones (Orlando, FL) we don't have to pay small >balances less than $5.00 for ninety days or until the balance goes >above that amount, whichever comes first. You might inquire if the >same is true of the ACUS service. PAT] I know this is *NOT* the case, from personal expierence ... there is a 10% late payment charge, and after 15 days the bill date they they send a second notice, including a threat to turn it over to a colletion agency, and turn off the number ... all for a bill that was 73 cents with late charge (.66 orig, .07 late charge -> 10%)! (I was at home this time to look at the bill). milton [Moderator's Note: Isn't it interesting that two different divisions of the same general area of the company (both handling billing for long distance calls) don't even have a standard practice regarding small balances ... also note: On my 'regular' phone lines I have one each of Reach Out America / Reach Out World. Use either of my lines and the call is handled through the appropriate plan ... all my long distance traffic on both lines is combined on one plan to maximize benefits. But when I asked the cellular billing office in Orlando to combine my two cellular numbers on one long distance bill, or permit them to be included in the Reach Out plan applying to my other two lines, their answer was 'no can do'. So one division can consolidate your charges on one bill (admittedly it is IBT handling it for them) and the other division says they cannot. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Jan 22 14:21:47 EST 1991 Subject: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) In Vol 11, #55, Bill Nickless asks: >A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way >of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to >AT&T" responses, please. While I'm not familiar with ACUS (I deal with small businesses), I do know that Mr. Nickless is touching on a sore spot for AT&T. The issue of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too. AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to live with it. To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use 800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950 access are integral to their design. AT&T's network was always the default, so the other access methods were never included. I haven't seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now, but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy. Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Telemarketing, Tucker, GA. | 800 241-4285 | ATTMail !dominey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:11 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Telecom*USA Patrick, Can you discuss what you like about this service? edg [Moderator's Note: The thing about Teleconnect (their subsidiary) blocking calls to BBS lines they don't like has always disturbed me, but generally I find them very responsive and efficient. Of course, MCI just recently took over ... :) let's give MCI a chance! :) I have Telecom*USA as my back up carrier on my two residential lines, so I can use 10835 as needed. 10835 will *not* work unless you have registered with them first. Normally I push everything over AT&T using one-plus, but I feel comfortable having another carrier available. They were perfectly happy to give me 10835 access without slamming my lines or getting aggressive in their pitch. In fact, they gave me no pitch at all to go one-plus with them. The Telecom*USA Card is much more advanced than AT&T's and includes: A personal 800 number for accessing their switch. It is *my* number, and goes in DID-style to their switch where it identifies me. Then the seven-digit number on the card serves as a PIN. Once I call into their switch there are numerous helpful prompting messages which you can bypass by punching buttons at any time. A synthesized voice provides this menu: (the # key terminates what is going on and returns to menu) Dial the desired domestic or international long distance number, or -- *1 for the Voice News Network (news, weather, sports, business, etc) updated continually around the clock from CNN. Dozens of sub-categories are available. *2 for conference calling with unlimited parties. A Telecom*USA operator answers and takes all the information then connects the parties. *3 for voicemail maintainence. I have a personal 800 voicemail number which takes my callers direct to voicemail. Callers would dial that 800 number to reach my box, but I would use *3 from within the switch to reach the box to get messages, do maintainence, etc. *4 for Message Store and Forward service. Record a message of any length, and specify 'person' or 'station' delivery. Attempts will begin in fifteen minutes and be made up to eight times in the first hour, then once hourly for the next eight hours. A Telecom*USA operator will announce 'person' calls and get the person on the line. *9 + for my ten-number speed dial directory. *91 through *99 automatically dials the number stored, domestic or international. *90 is used to program the speed dialing and review the directory. This is provided at no additional charge to Telecom*USA card customers. *0 for the Telecom*USA operator who will provide free directory assistance and help in placing calls. In addition to serving as my backup carrier and using the card to access voice mail, voice news, store and forward, etc I have two 800 'hotline' numbers from Telecom*USA. These two numbers terminate on my home phone, but make use of IBT's 'distinctive ringing' service to tip me off that the incoming call is via the 800 number(s). The personal 800 numbers cost $2.75 each per month plus calls, billed in six-second increments. The (third) 800 number used for voicemail costs $2.75 per month. There is no charge for voicemail, except for 29 cents per call/minute and the same rate for maintainence/minute. The (fourth) 800 number -- used to access the switch itself in Cedar Rapids, IA -- is free. Telecom*USA does not charge a surcharge for calls made on the card ... just the cost of the call itself. The rates are 'competitive'. They installed my 800 numbers the same day I ordered them and changed the outdialing on each to my distinctive ringing number within hours of my request. It is rare you wait in a queue to reach their customer service. I get *one bill* monthly for *everything* from them, all nicely detailed, with ANI on the 800 numbers, time of day and ANI on callers in voicemail, etc. They seem to have full international service and are willing to bill it in on their card, should I be at a payphone, etc. I think I will call them tomorrow and ask them to give me an 800 number for each of my cell phones also. At $2.75 per number, the price is certainly right! I'd say my average bill from Telecom*USA for the 800 numbers, voicemail, voicenews, etc is about $60 per month and they are not handling any of my outgoing long distance yet since I still give all that to AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #56 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26257; 23 Jan 91 1:28 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18769; 22 Jan 91 23:55 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25804; 22 Jan 91 22:50 CST Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 21:58:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #57 BCC: Message-ID: <9101222158.ab14745@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jan 91 21:58:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 57 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Northern Telecom Sells ISDN Switch in Japan [Henry Troup] Hello From Las Vegas [Ed Greenberg] What the 911 Operator Knows [David A. Smallberg] Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request [Howard Pierpont Fax Sharing a Line With Voice; Distinctive Ringing [Nigel Allen] MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [Bill Huttig] The Pac*Bell Plan [John Higdon] Curtis NAMFAX Book Wanted [Lewis De Payne] GSM Channel Codec [Jorge Costa] Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Joseph Chan] Fujitsu PBX Help Needed [Hobbit@ftp.com] When PC is the Reason For a Second Line [J. Philip Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 91 10:45:00 EST From: Henry Troup Subject: Northern Telecom Sells ISDN Switch in Japan You may be interested in the following NT News Release: Tokyo, January 14, 1991 -- Northern Telecom announced today that it will supply the first Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) network for a Type II telecommunications service company in Japan, based on eight new DMS-300 SuperNode switches and additional Northern Telecom equipment. The contract is worth more than US $20 million. INTEC, a corporation which offers packet switched network services, has ordered the Northern Telecom DMS-SuperNode switches to support a new nationwide network providing integrated, multi-media services for data, voice and image transmission. The network will offer high value-added services to major corporations around the country. Northern Telecom will provide full support to assist INTEC in deployment of the network to meet INTEC's in-service milestones. INTEC is a pioneer in new Value Added Network (VAN) services for Japanese Type II carriers. Since 1989, the company has been Northern Telecom's distributor of the Meridian PBX range of products in Japan. This experience with Northern Telecom products, together with the development of the DMS-SuperNode backbone network, will allow INTEC to offer complete turn-key network integration services for its corporate ISDN customers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:10 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Hello From Las Vegas Well, not really, I'm back now :-) I spent a long weekend in Las Vegas for CES a week or so back, and thought I'd comment on the phone service, both coin and cellular that I encountered. Hotel Service: Ballys is charging $.50 for local, 800 and credit card calls. 9+10288+0+ works fine, although 9+0+ goes by a more "creative and profitable" method. Centel coin service: Centel is the local operating company, and they have very odd coin phones. I think they're Northern Telecom. They have a single slot and a tough plastic coating over the metal jacket of the phone. They take an abysmally long time to put up a calling card or local call, and to recover for the next one. They charge a quarter. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't remember whether I had to dial 10288 to get AT&T. It all runs together :-) COCOT service: Bally's, Caesar's and The Mirage all are completely COCOTted. The COCOT's look like Bell coin phones, rather than Centel ones, so they're easy to spot. All I tried do not permit 10xxx dialing, and route long distance calls via the "creative and profitable" method. You can't even get the Centel operator. None of them muted the TT pad after a local call was connected, allowing me to use the roamer port of the local Cellular carrier, which brings me to .... Cellular Service: I had a Mitsubishi transportable phone with me when I went to Vegas. My brother brought this, along with his Motorola portable, in order for us to keep in touch at the show. On arrival, his phone worked, including roaming, but my phone told me that "This phone is not authorized for use in Las Vegas." Centel (the B cellular carrier) told me that the phone did not appear on the authorized list. My assumption is that they couldn't authorize it through the database. A call to Pac*Tel Cellular in Sacramento on Thursday at 5:30 PM resulted in working service (and follow-me roaming) by Friday at 8:00 AM. Cellular coverage and capacity seemed excellent. The set I had has a signal strength meter, and strength rarely dropped below half scale (three out of six segments.) Full scale readings were obtained out of doors, even in "building canyons" and on upper floors, as would be expected. I drove out to the Hoover Dam, and lost cellular service about the time I passed Boulder City. One interesting point. It was not possible to dial from one roaming cellular phone to another. The result was a reorder (fast busy.) Calls were easily placed through the roamer port, so this was not a problem. Note that the roamer port returns supervision on answer, whether you complete (or even dial) a call or not. Centel does not provide *611 service after hours, so we never got a satisfactory answer to our question of why we couldn't call each other direct. CES was interesting, and there were some VERY SMALL handheld phones available. OKI and Panasonic come to mind. ed_greenberg@hq.3mail.3com.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:32:51 PST From: David A Smallberg Subject: What the 911 Operator Knows Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to the Middle East (there's no such flight on any airline from the L.A. area, as it turns out). He called from a private home, and was still there when the police arrived! I wonder what percentage of the population does not know how much the 911 operator knows. For that matter, in areas where Caller ID has been available for a while, have there been any surveys of how many people ignored all the advertising and are still unaware that the number they're calling from is available to the callee? How long will it take for this knowledge to spread to, say, 95% of the people? I suppose this is similar to the time when automatic exchanges started appearing. How long did it take for 95% of the population in those areas to realize that you could call someone without their being able to readily check where you're calling from, since there was no operator to ask? David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das [Moderator's Note: When 911 service first started here in Chicago many years ago, replacing POLice 5 1313 and FIRe 7 1313 as the emergency numbers, considerable publicity was given to the fact that the dispatchers would know who you were and where you were calling from. A suit by the ACLU to stop 911 service here (as an invasion of the privacy of the caller to the police) failed, and in the process, the publicity went on for so long you'd have thought *everyone* would know ... yet on opening day a mousy little man turned in a phalse alarm and when the police knocked on his door he was surprised, to say the least. In court, he wrung his hands and said he didn't know those calls could be 'traced' ... "well you do now," bellowed the judge as he handed him a $500 fine. 911 here has cut phalse fire and police calls down to almost nothing. Prior to 911 firemen were getting a couple dozen 'mistaken citizen trying to help' (their euphemism) calls daily. Despite the extensive PR, most folks do not know about Caller ID yet or 'call screening', the service I find very useful. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 12:33:22 PST From: HOWARD PIERPONT Subject: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request As part of a project at work I have been asked to configure a van with the following hardware: 2 way radio [typical 2 way radio system] Scanner Cell Phone Computer System #1 Cell Phone Computer System #2 Cell Phone Voice System #1 Cell Phone Voice System #2 Cell Phone FAX System #1 Cell Phone Spare [FAX, Voice,Computer] System OK that means eight antennas on the roof of a van [could be full size or mini]. What should the placement be for the cell antennas? I presume that I need six. I can mount anything anywhere on this vehicle, so optimize. Also, I'm looking for either a laptop with cellular modem or a good source cellular modem. Thanks, Howard Pierpont Digital Equipment Corp. 77 Reed Road Hudson, MA 01749 508.568.6165 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 14:36 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Fax Sharing a Line With Voice; Distinctive Ringing Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada A while ago, someone asked whether there was a device that could switch incoming calls (perhaps to a fax machine or voice) based on the distinctive ringing service offered by many telephone companies. I have received some sales literature from a Canadian company that offers Ring ReaderTM, which does exactly that. I have not seen the device in use, and I know nothing about the company beyond the sales literature. For more information about Ring Reader, contact: TEO Technologies Inc. 30 West Beaver Creek Road, Unit 2 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3K1 Canada Telephone (416) 882-6082 FAX (416) 882-5982 The literature says it is FCC registered and DOC (Canada's Department of Communications) certified. Dimensions are given as 89 mm x 152 mm x 32 mm, and power as 12 volt DC at 300 mA. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues Date: 21 Jan 91 15:47:50 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Well, I am still having billing problem with my 800 account. They finally admited that I was right and that the 1+ was billing at Telecom*USA rates. That was about one week ago. It is now three weeks and one day since I first called after receiving the invoice ... no credit yet. I still have not recive the invoice date 1/1/91. They will have to rerate it and the bill for Jan 91 (2/1/91). Bill [Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: The Pac*Bell Plan Date: 22 Jan 91 01:35:02 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Last week mention was made of GTE raising its rates to offset the loss of revenue from touch tone charges that would no longer be leavied. I responded with a condemnation of the whole rotten deal with the PUC, but did not answer a question posed in the original article: how will Pac*Bell handle it. My general answer was that it would be a "screw the public" arrangement. Now that I am in my warm, fuzzy environment again I have dug up the details: First, Pac*Bell has cleverly "included" touch tone with a number of its classes of service, e.g. COCOT, Commstar, and Centrex. None of these services will experience any rate reduction as a result of the change. This means that the rate reduction exposure to Pac*Bell is considerably minimized. To compensate for the remaining customers that will have the charge removed, Pac*Bell will increase everyone's bill in a sneaky slight-of-hand maneuver. For many years there has been an item on Pac*Bell bills called the "Rate Surcharge". The amount in this column ranges anywhere from a few cents to many dollars, positive or negative. It was a scheme used by Pac*Bell to change rates without changing rates. The monthly charge on customers' bills is almost a constant figure. When Pac*Bell is granted small rate increases, the "rate surcharge" is adjusted upward. If Pac*Bell is ordered to reduce rates it is adjusted downward. At the moment, the rate surcharge is a negative number meaning it is a credit every month. Bill insert: "The California Public Utilities Commission has allowed Pacific Bell to reduce this monthly credit by 4.96 percentage points to offset the revenues lost by eliminating the monthly 'Touch-Tone' charge." So there you have it. After convincing the PUC to give Pac*Bell rubber stamp "streamlined" regulations by, among other things, giving up touch tone charges and expanding the Zone 1 calling, it turns out that Pac*Bell gave us nothing at all except a shell game. Instead of charging Touch Tone customers more than rotary customers, it will just charge everyone more. And the people who really get the shaft are the Centrex and Commstar customers (COCOT slime doesn't count) who were conned with the line that "the service includes Touch Tone". Well, not anymore, sucker! It's extra and NOT optional. Does anyone still wonder why I foam at the mouth over the antics of Pac*Bell? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Lewis De Payne Subject: Curtis NAMFAX Book Wanted Date: 22 Jan 91 06:46:39 GMT Organization: Albedo Communications I would like to know if anyone has an older edition of the Curtis NAMFAX book, either loose-leaf or mini-binder, for sale. The new book goes for $159, the mini-binder for $125. Your used book is still useful to us. Since this newsgroup is not being received on my node, please send all replies directly to me. Thank you. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 01:51 GMT From: COSTAJ@ul.ie Subject: GSM Channel Codec I'm implementing a GSM channel codec for the Pan-European Mobile Radio system. Any information concerning this subject would be very welcome. I'm specially looking for data to test my IC implementation. Jorge Costa : costaj@ul.ie ------------------------------ From: Joseph Chan Subject: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries Date: 22 Jan 91 19:38:03 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle I understand that the ring voltage is not internationally standardized. My specific question is that what is the phone line voltage provided by each Asia countries? (I am interested to find out the phone line voltage for Hong Kong and Indonesia). If I bring a phone/fax (based on CNG tone, I assume that there is no distinctive-ring service provided by any Asia country) to Indonesia or Hong Kong, will it work? (Of cause I would need a 220v power supply for this device) Thank you for any information. Please reply by e-mail to joseph@bofur.bioeng.washington.edu. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:50:37 -0500 From: *Hobbit* Subject: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed Does anyone else have a Fujitsu Starlog series PBX at their site? Have you tried programming it, or getting any support for same from your local Fujitsu reps? I'm getting really sick of diddling this lame-o piece of junk we have over here. Comments and past experience welcome. Recommendations of an AT&T system 75 won't surprise me. Please reply directly; I don't catch up on telecom that often. _H* ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: When PC is the Reason For a Second Line Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 19:59:10 CST Like many other readers of this Digest, I always like to read the front matter in the phone book - both locally and when traveling. The new St. Louis White pages just arrived today and one of the things that I found interesting was where SWBT lists the "Optional Services" they suggest that you might want additional lines - "A separate telephone line with a different number for your teenager or personal computer." Clearly they understand that there is additional revenue to be achieved from folks like many of the readers here. Note also, that they don't say anything about charging you business rates if you get too many additional 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #57 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28646; 23 Jan 91 3:38 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01724; 23 Jan 91 2:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19375; 23 Jan 91 0:56 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 0:13:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #58 BCC: Message-ID: <9101230013.ac05387@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 00:13:39 CST Volume 11 : Issue 58 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Ken Abrams] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Jon Sreekanth] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Dave Levenson] Re: Japanese Payphones [Ted Marshall] Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bob Vaughan] Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Scott R. Myers] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Donald E. Kimberlin] Thanks for the Help, re: Dial-less Phones [Paul Schleck] Bugging (was: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?) [Barry Margolin] Re: More AT&T / MCI Advertising [Charles Bryant] Assignment of 800-233 [Randy Borow] Service Without Paying For It? [J. Philip Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22-JAN-1991 23:44:42.63 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone I've had that problem on my 5XBar as well. All customers get tone, whether they pay or not. I've never known the telco to go after people or turn off tone on this exchange even if they don't pay for it. Anyhow, I normally don't have trouble dialing with Touch Tone, but once in a while, especially after I just hung up on another call, when I try to dial with tone, I can't seem to GENERATE the tones. For example, it seems like at times (maybe 5% all calls), the exchange reverses polarity, and all my old "Bell System" phones won't generate a tone. If, however, I pick up a Panasonic phone (at the same time), the Panasonic has no trouble generating the tone, and the exchange responds by breaking the dial tone. I'm not sure if this was the nature of the problem that was posted. It may have been that the phone COULD generate tones, but that the exchange just didn't respond, which would not be the same thing as the problem that I have described. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 22 Jan 91 19:55:10 GMT Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <16253@accuvax.nwu.edu> SINGER@ibm.com (David Singer) writes: >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? You provide a fairly complete picture of the symptoms. It is HIGHLY likely that GTE has a defective DTMF receiver in your CO. They are probably getting a few other similar complaints but haven't seen a pattern yet. I would suggest that they have a reversed link in the switch but most modems don't depend on the line polarity to make the tones. This kind of a problem is difficult to find but not impossible. It takes a little time for them to test all the receivers but usually takes longer to convince them that they need to do it! All of the above only applies if your CO is of the analog variety. If it is a digital switch, all bets are off. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 22 Jan 91 09:16:43 In article <16253@accuvax.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderater noted: > would work correctly. One of the improvements in telephony in recent > years is the ability of telco to deny tone service to people not .... > 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 I'm not looking for 'dangerous hacker information', but are you saying that the dial tone contains some encoded information ? That is, other than the 350 - 440Hz pair, are there some other signals, or frequencies out there in the dial tone? (I ask because my designs use standard assumptions to detect on/off hook, dial tone, ringing, CPC, etc.) Thanks, 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: My phraseology was not the best in that message. I'll let Dave Levenson clarify it in the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 23 Jan 91 03:00:27 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16253@accuvax.nwu.edu>, SINGER@ibm.com (David Singer) writes: > 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. Perhaps your central office has one or two bad touch-tone receivers. When I lived in Summit, NJ, we had an old 5-crossbar central office until about 1980 or so (201-273, but now it's 908-273). We had touchtone service, bought and paid for, on both lines, but on about one call in 30 or so we'd get a dial tone which did not react to tone dialing. When I reported this to 611 repair service, they told me it was my instrument. When I mentioned it to a NJ Bell craftsperson familiar with the Summit CO, he remarked that there were 29 originating registers in the office ... and that usually one or more were out for maintenance. He thought that perhaps the class-of-service register within one of those registers had a dirty relay contact or something, which caused it to fail to latch up the fact that we had touchtone service. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 17:38:31 PST From: Ted Marshall Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones I visited Japan about a year ago and, like John, was generally impressed with the Japanese payphones. One more interesting thing about about the green phones is that when using coins, they are collected from the holding chamber as required and excess coins are returned at the end of the call. It does not give change as such: if you put in a 100 yen coin and spend 30 yen, you get nothing back but if you had put in ten 10 yen coins, you would the seven unused coins back. If you put in a mixture of 10 and 100 yen coins in, the smaller coins are used first. Thus, on making a long-distance call with coins, the optimum method is to start with a bunch of 10 yen coins, just in case someone answers but the person you want to talk to isn't available. Once you do get that person, you feed in 100 yen coins to keep it going without having to feed gobs and gobs of coins. As you near the end of the call, you switch back to 10 yen coins so you get a much back at the end as possible. The pre-paid cards are clearly easier, but the coins do work well! BTW, US$1.00 = ~ 130 yen, last time I checked. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. ------------------------------ From: Bob Vaughan Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted Date: 22 Jan 91 10:05:51 GMT Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA 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. Security type Torx bits are available from: Time Motion Tools 410 South Douglas St El Segundo, CA 90245 1-800-779-0609 - customer service 1-619-689-7272 - orders 1-213-772-8170 - export department 1-619-578-2608 - fax - 24 hours TELEX 910-250-6581 answer back: TIMEMOT ELSG They have sets of removable bits for multi-bit drivers, power screwdrivers, etc. I did not see individual security type Torx drivers, but they may be added at any time. Bob Vaughan - techie@well.sf.ca.us {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!techie 1-415-856-8025 - techie@btr.com {fernwood,decwrl,mips,sgi}!btr!techie ------------------------------ From: "Scott R. Myers" Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? Date: 22 Jan 91 19:30:26 GMT Organization: Rutgers University On the same note I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me with programming information for the Panasonic TP500. Also, why does it seem that this type of information is not intended for the end user? Case in point: I purchased a Novatel hand-held a year ago and the Sears representative knew nothing about programming it. I convinced him to give me the programming instructions and the info that Bell Atlantic provides. I took it home and got it running in fifteen minutes. Why was it necessary for me to convince the representative to give up the programming info? Thanks in advance. Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(201)352-4162 Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07208 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm [Moderator's Note: It was 'necessary to convince him' because over the years the cellular companies and their sales agents have developed an attitude which says the less you know about cellular service the more money there is in it for them. As W. C. Fields once said (admittedly he was talking about the young women he liked to date), "the dumber they are, the better I like them." :) If you had to take the phone to an agent everytime you wanted to make some change in the configuration ... well, you get my point, I'm sure. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:15 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Perhaps the following from AT&T's Newsbriefs for 21 January indicates some reason why carriers act as they do. Looks as though they do have a fraud problem on their hands..albeit one they handle roughly, as postings here indicate: ****************** SCAM -- A visitor from Israel rented apartments in Ohio last summer and set up a telephone exchange that placed more than 5,000 calls between Israel and Arab countries without paying the bill. AT&T has been involved in an investigation of Middle East calling setups in various parts of the country since early 1990. ... AP, 1/20. [Moderator's Note: The Tribune talked about this guy the other day. Because of restrictions on phone calls between countries 'over there', this chap was operating a call forwarding service in his apartment here. Calls would come from various places in the Middle East; he would flash and set up a three-way call back to Israel (or wherever) for the calling party since the good ole USA allows calls everywhere. The only thing is he forgot to pay the bill. He skipped out of one apartment owing AT&T some $50,000 in *one month* and got a new apartment elsewhere where he did the same scam a second month to the tune of $45,000. When police broke into his apartment to arrest him, he was sitting there handling two conference calls at once on two lines, each with three-way calling. I know AT&T has some horrendous fraud problems, but this is an outragous case which did not even involve Calling Cards. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 22:14:19 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Thanks for the Help, re: Dial-less phones Reply-to: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu Thanks to all who sent information. One of the companies, Telephone Outlet, had a supply of "courtesy" phones in four colors. The asking price ($20 apiece) was pretty good for sturdy refurbished Western Electrics. Try getting anything decent for $20 at the local Ripemoff Appliances. Incidentally, Telephone Outlet got my business because of their 1-800 number (782-9701) and the fact I talked to a person and not an answering machine. Paul Schleck Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Bugging (was: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?) Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 18:25:54 GMT In article <16246@accuvax.nwu.edu> IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) writes: > 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. I thought it was well known that the CIA routinely monitors calls to certain foreign nations, for purposes of national defense. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ From: Charles Bryant Subject: Re: More on AT&T / MCI Advertising Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 13:46:22 GMT In article <16078@accuvax.nwu.edu> judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Peripheral Visionary 14-Jan-1991 1326) writes: >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". But who buys advertising from AT&T? I thought they were a phone company :-) Charles Bryant ch@dce.ie ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 21 09:40:37 CST 1991 Subject: Assignment of 800-233 In response to Mr. Kravitz's query on which carrier has the 800 prefix 233: this belongs to AT&T. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Service Without Paying For It? Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 7:21:58 CST Our esteemed Moderator recently suggested: > Anyway, you can always find out the number > of the phone you are using by placing a person to person call to John > Smith at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York ... and when of course > he is not there, ask your operator to 'leave word' for him to call you > back at 'this number'. Without thinking about it, she will tell the > hotel operator to have Mr. Smith call Operator 7 in Anytown, and ask > for Mr. Jones at XXX-YYYY. You'll hear her say the number, so have > your pencil handy, and be sure and thank her for assisting you, even > if you don't tell her quite how she assisted. :) PAT] Is it now time to start another round of debate about whether this type of action is legal/ethical or not? You are obtaining a service without paying for it by misrepresenting your actions. Or is it justified in this case because the phone company (local) should provide number identification but since they will not you will trick a long distance company into providing it for you? 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 [Moderator's Note: No, it is not legal, for the reason you mentioned and another one: What business have you being on the phone line not assigned to you in the first place? If you are not paying for the line and have not been given permission to use it then you should not be on it. So there you are in possession of stolen property, in the act of committing a petty fraud against telco for the purpose of finding out information which is none of your business anyway. Sounds like a winner to me! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #58 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22295; 23 Jan 91 23:06 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28374; 23 Jan 91 21:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26355; 23 Jan 91 20:13 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 19:52:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #59 BCC: Message-ID: <9101231952.ab01531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 19:51:35 CST Volume 11 : Issue 59 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits [Steve L. Rhoades] Israel Connectivity Status [Hank Nussbacher] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Daniel Lance Herrick] Re: CNN's Phone Link in Baghdad [Steve Thornton] Satellite Telephones in Iraq - Clarification? [wegeng@arisia.xerox.com] Re: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis [Andrew Morley] CNN Reception [Paolo Bellutta] Qatar War Panic: Phone System Goes Down [Nagi Nagendra] USA - Israel Phone Calling [Hank Nussbacher] NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) [D. Eastick] Re: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount [Daniel Lance Herrick] Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator [Syd Weinstein] Request For List of UK STD Codes [Gerald Pearse] Payphone Access / Installation Information Needed [Doug Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 06:30:59 GMT Has anyone else noticed the high-pitched series of tones on some of the phoned in news reports from the Middle East? These tones are in the 10 - 20 Khz range and are barely audible. There doesn't seem to be a set pattern, but they seem to occur about once every sixty seconds. It's a series of about four different tones, all high-pitched, lasting about a second each. Thoughts, anyone? Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 12:45:17 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Israel Connectivity Status TELECOM Moderator asked, >On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being >maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all >with news? We have two 9.6kb lines. One goes to Nysernet in the USA and is an IP link (which was supposed to be upgraded to 64kb on Jan 15th but our PTT is busy with other things these days). The other link is an RSCS (Bitnet) link to France. The Israeli termination spot for these two links is in separate spots in the country, specifically for such emergencies. One missile missed one of our Cisco routers by about 500 meters. Our PTT has also started using its new fiber optic cable - AMOS - ahead of schedule. This links into TAT8. The fiber optic cable is a joint venture among all Med. countries, including Greece, Cyprus, Italy as well as others. Hank Nussbacher Israel [Moderator's Note: Thanks for writing, and do take care of yourself. Please stay in touch with us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: 22 Jan 91 13:14:18 EST In article <16221@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the > other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these [discussion of miniaturization possibilities] > If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to > take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter > present. Yes, it is possible to smuggle information out. Let the record acknowledge that that is not the way CNN did it in Baghdad. They were persistent in asking for permission (I think he said "three calls per day"), they were scrupulous in their treatment of the story - not bashing their host. Then, when the big story broke, they avoided attracting attention (this is funny, in the light of the whole context, but it took climbing five flights of stairs and searching the wing to find them and they avoided it a few times). Eventually they sounded too much like forward bomb spotters and the government sent someone to silence them. The messenger said "Stop, now", apologetically, and the senior CNN official on the scene said "Yes, SIR". Some of what CNN did that night was accomplished because they were overlooked during the excitement, but it was possible because of hard negotiations in advance and scrupulous care to report the story, not broadcast editorials. I'm reminded of Jesus' parable of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. Dan Herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:56:29 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: CNN's Phone link in Baghdad I'm confused by the {Chicago Tribune} article -- in one place it is stated that the four-wire link runs all the way from Baghdad to Amman, but, further on, the article says the link is to the local phone office in Baghdad, with the link to Amman being microwave, apparently Iraqi-owned equipment. Which is (was) it? steve thornton / harvard university library / 617.495.3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 15:17:13 PST From: wegeng@arisia.xerox.com Subject: Satellite Telephones in Iraq - Clarification? I'm just a little bit confused about how the news media is getting their reports out of Iraq (I'm not talking about the CNN four-wire, but the media in general). I've heard a couple news reports that mentioned satellite telephones in the lobby of the hotel (one BBC report mentioned that every time a bombing raid started the satellite telephone went out - perhaps the electronic countermeasures may be affecting them). Are these the same devices that have been mentioned previously here in TELECOM, such as MARISAT phones? How much do these devices cost? Reply via e-mail or the TELECOM Digest, as you see fit. BTW, I also heard a network commentator in Saudi Arabia mention that their satellite uplink went out whenever an AWACS plane took off or landed. Sounds like someone is generating some nasty interference (perhaps intentionally). Don wegeng@arisia.xerox.com ------------------------------ From: abm88@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Morley A.B.) Subject: Re: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis Date: 21 Jan 91 13:55:40 GMT In <16146@accuvax.nwu.edu> ehopper@attmail.com writes: >*** AT&T and other companies have received numerous bomb threats >during the past few days. AT&T received several such threats Can anyone tell me whay anyone would wish to bomb telecommunications sites? Is it AT&T in particular or all telecom companies? Andrew Morley, abm88@uk.ac.soton.ecs [Moderator's Note: The same people who propose these 'solutions' are the same ones who propose terrorizing the post office. For the past week, the post office I use has had *no* wastebaskets; *no* mail receptacles inside the building; *no* convenience lockers where you insert a few coins to rent a little locked compartment for a few hours. All but one entrance is locked, at a location of the building which is inconvenient to me. Many of the banks have their night deposit slots blocked off. All the federal building toilet facilities are closed to the public. Something tells me I am going to be tired of this war in more ways than one before it is over ... and just now on the television President Bush said 'everything is right on schedule'. Ha! and double ha! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY Subject: CNN Reception Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 9:13:16 MET DST Ed Hopper pointed out that CNN is available almost everywhere, and that it is possible that the CNN transponder is not scrambled in that part of the earth. I live in northern Italy, and a 90cm dish is enough to receive CNN which is on Intelsat VAF11, (27.5 W) 11.155 Ghz Vertical Polarization. There are rumors that CNN is going to have a transponder on the new Astra 1B DBS satellite (19 E). I do have a tvro but a buiding is blocking the view of the Intelsat satellite. In Iraq, being so eastbound, Saddam my need a larger dish (4-10m) but anyway at least 50-70% of the news programs rely on CNN (which, sometimes, it is just dubbed) for first hand news. On one of the reports from Amman, CNN reporters were on the roof of the hotel and in the background it was clearly visible the fly-away station. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 09:23:05 -0600 From: "Nagendra(\"Nagi\"" Subject: Qatar War Panic: Phone System Shuts Down Hi, For all those who have been writing about all Americans picking up their phones at 12:00 noon, and messing up the phone system, here's an interesting piece of information. My sister lives in Doha, Qatar which is 100 kms south of Bahrain and 400 kms east of Riyadh (see your local newspaper for the map, they should have one these days). Qatar is not directly involved in the hostilities, but has a large airforce base being used by the French. On Saturday morning, 6AM Qatar time, Friday evening here in the US, it seems a French fighter plane flew a li'l too low and the ensuing sonic boom cause everyone to try calling anyone and everyone for information. The Qatar phone system is now partially down. According to her, about 20 percent of the phone system is inoperable as of Monday morning. The normally secretive state owned TV immediately interrupted their regularly scheduled world cup soccer replay, and asked people not to get on the phone in case of an emergency. Side effect: the local TV has more reports on the war now and they can watch CNN live too. Well, picking up the phone did achieve something didn't it? I'll post the technical details when they become available. My sister works for the phone company. Cheers, Nagi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 11:12:23 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: USA - Israel Phone Calling During the first hour after the initial missile attack on Israel last week, a record 750,000 phone calls were recorded from the USA to Israel. Hank Nussbacher Israel [Moderator's Note: By the way, I tested calling Israel today with my AT&T card and the call went through ... wonder of wonders ... I got blocked due to the heavy calling, but not a word about using my card. They must turn that feature of their security system off and on as desired (or badgered by the public). ------------------------------ From: Doug Eastick Subject: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) Organization: University of Toronto, Department of Mechanical Engineering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 12:17:41 EST >Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media >Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb >dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad. > Not so, says the telecommunications giant. "We don't even have a >building in Baghdad," spokesman James Van Orden said. {Dallas Times- >Herald}, D1, 1/20. I heard (on the CBC, I think) that it was a "PTT" building. I can't remember what the letters stood for, though. I also heard (thru the Northern Telecom grapevine) that one of the NT US switching divisions received an order from the US Military for a portable switch to fit into a transport trailer, ready to deliver by this Friday (Jan 25th). The switch should handle as many lines a possible. Plan is to ship it to middle east to "replace damaged telecom lines". Dunno if it is a DMS or SuperNode but my guess is it will be brown in color. [Moderator's Note: PTT frequently means "Post, Telephone, Telegraph" since in many countries the government agency which operates the post office also manages the telephone system. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) Subject: Re: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount Date: 22 Jan 91 14:28:25 EST In article <16179@accuvax.nwu.edu>, foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu writes: > 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 [story and quotation of brochure truncated] It is a reasonably ordinary aggregation. The WATS (outgoing) tariffs allow volume discounts going up to 21% the first year and 22% after that. The discounts start at 17.5%. There is an additional discount of 4.5% or 5.something % on top of the base discount. These all have clever AT&T marketing names. I have understood the details three different times while I was looking at Dr. Self's newsletter about the AT&T tariffs. (Never five minutes later.) If you are spending between $2000 or $5000 on the low end and $10,000 or $15,000 per month on long distance, The Watts Association, another aggregator, can reduce that bill by giving you access to their discounts for a membership fee. The Watts Association is at 22% and 5.3% (I think the second one is). The membership fee is intended to be a third to a half of your savings, and is a fixed amount agreed at signup. The limits come because 1) the minimum membership fee is $25 per month and the savings have to be big enough to justify it, 2) at the high end you can get the same discounts direct from AT&T without the membership fee. Why do I know anything about this? I sell it. dan herrick Aricol Communications POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061 (216)974-9637 herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 23:48:29 EST Reply-To: syd@dsi.com [to telecom readers, this message is also being forwarded by myself to reallen@attmail.com] Well, tonight I got blitzed. A series of persistent calls from one of those computer outdial machines blitzed our exchange trying all of our inbound numbers in order, including the modem lines. The pitch, save money on AT&T long distance from AT&T by a marketing group which barely stayed over the line of misrepresentation of saying they were AT&T. If I wasn't a comp.dcom.telecom reader, I would have thought they were AT&T. The message did not identify the group, just gave a rather long speil (I listened to it once to see if it ever gave a company name) then asked for name, address, average monthly phone bill and telephone number. It was also persistent, if you didn't listen long enough to get to the prompts for the info (ie the entire speil) it called you back. I was not pleased that our entire bank of lines got hit, needless to say in number order. I am sure that AT&T operators got the bad end of this by people telling them to stop calling. Perhaps AT&T can force the aggregrators to identify themselves as that more clearly. It doesn't help AT&T's image any when this happens, it makes the telemarketers look good. At least those you can tell your bank of lines and they skip them, they don't want to waste their time either. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: "G.A.Pearse" Subject: Request for List of UK STD Codes Date: 23 Jan 91 14:25:19 GMT Reply-To: "G.A.Pearse" Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK Has any one got a list of the UK telephone dialing codes together with the town they are for? In the case of the london 071/081 numbers I would like the exchange districts. Regards, Gerald Pearse (gap@stl ...!mcvax!ukc!stl!gap +44-279-29531 x 2507) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:45:57 CST From: Doug Jacobson Subject: Payphone Access / Installation Information Needed I would like information about access methods for pay phones as well as any regulations that may affect the installation of pay phones in several countries. Countries of most interest are Mexico, South America, Greece, Czechoslovakia. Other countries are of interest and any information would be helpful. Other information of interest would be switch gear manufactures and Goverment regulations. Please E-mail any responses to: doug@isuee1.ee.iastate.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #59 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24460; 24 Jan 91 1:15 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17761; 23 Jan 91 23:28 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00392; 23 Jan 91 22:22 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 21:44:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #60 BCC: Message-ID: <9101232144.ab00843@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 21:43:52 CST Volume 11 : Issue 60 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Dennis Pratt] New Law: AOS COCOTS in NY Must Identify Themselves [Wm. Randolph Franklin] Voicemail Evaluation Wanted [John A. Pham] Voice Mail Suggestions? [Dean Sirakides] ATC Creates New Billing System [Bill Huttig] RingDirector vs. RingLeader [Charles "Chip" Roberson] Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Thomas Lowe] Videos by Phone [David Leibold] ISDN Links in UK [Olly Morgan] Cellular Phone Roaming Questions [Nancy J. Airey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dennis Pratt Subject: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 15:10:58 EST Organization: GTE Labs, Inc. In article <16189@accuvax.nwu.edu> Wes.Williams@f39.n382.z1. fidonet.org (Wes Williams) writes: > 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. I have found it interesting that there has been little discussion of NYNEX's political success pushing the payment of Enhanced 911 onto Directories Assistance users. Enhanced 911 is an important system; it allows police to identify where the call is coming from and it allows correct routing of the call to the emergency unit most able geographically to respond. Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for E-911. Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 users, pay for this system. I haven't heard what happens if the revenues generated by over-charging 411 users is greater than the costs of E-911. My guess is that NYNEX has adequate accounting proceedures to ensure there will be no excess. I further fear this is simply a wedge with which NYNEX can add on additional charges to Directory Assistance (basically rewarding them for keeping their White Pages out-of-date.) If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop people from using the system. I'm not clear why the politicians want to hide the costs of this service. Other alternative payment schemes are possible. Take directly out of taxes. Take up a state-wide collection for this worthwhile charity. Provide "income assistance" for those who use E-911 but who cannot pay the higher price of the enhanced service. But why tax Directory users to transfer the money to E-911 users? What I do not like is the separation of the user and the payment. I guess I do not trust either NYNEX or MA politicians. But given recent history, should I? Dennis Pratt Disclaimer: My company doesn't know anything about this. ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: New Law: AOS COCOTS in NY Must Identify Themselves Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 23 Jan 91 19:58:05 GMT According to the {Albany Times Union} 1-23-90, since Friday it is now the law in New York that COCOTS with AOSs must: - identify the carrier, - provide a free number for reaching him, - allow, and give instructions for, reaching alternative long distance carriers. However they are not required to post rates, possibly because of the length of the rate tables. The penalty for not identifying themselves is $500, and a customer who mistakenly places a call because of a lack of id can sue to $2000. (I'm not sure what this means. Can you sue for $2000, or the cost of your overpriced call, possibly times 3, up to $2000, or what? Where do you sue?) Also, awhile ago NYS got a big judgement against a 900 and 540 ripoff artist advertising a "gold card" if you called his $50 number. I'll post details later. Q: what percentage of the public is even aware of 900 numbers? I'd guess randomly about 25%, even among "educated" professionals. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_A_Pham@uunet.uu.net Subject: Voicemail Evaluation Wanted Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 07:36:10 PST Our company is looking into buying a voicemail system. Does anyone have any recommendation on any particular voicemail system? I have been looking at Centigram Voicememo, and would like to hear comments about Centigram and any other systems. John ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Voice Mail Suggestions? Date: 23 Jan 91 17:47:09 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Perhaps some of you have heard of the latest rage among our educators: voice-mail! The idea is to set up a system where each teacher can record a daily message reviewing homework, class topics, upcoming events, etc. The parent and or child can then call the central number, key in the proper extension and voila! The programs have been getting a lot of positive press from all concerned. Anyway, I would like to help a teacher friend set up such a system for her school or possibly district. I would greatly appreciate some suggestions for systems. The system doesn't need all the neat features of the big voice mail systems -- there will be no messages left for the teachers. It is purely an announcement system for fifty or so accounts. I would like to keep price to a minimum. A PC might be available if PC systems are the way to go. The district in question is not supported by a large tax base (read: low budget, no money for such "extravagance"). For this reason I was toying with the idea of appealing to the local phone company (Illinois Bell) for monetary help. Does anyone think this would get very far? I figure the phone company gets wonderful press in the local papers and school bulletins, and maybe even a mention in the opening announcement ( "You have reached the xxx district voice bulletin board made possible by a grant by the wonderful, concerned people at Illinois Bell." ) I doubt the increase in local calls to the system would be much of a consequence, but it might count for something (every unit counts!). Any comments on hardware or telco philanthropy would be appreciated. (I also wouldn't mind any good contacts at Illinois Bell!) Thanks, Dean Sirakides | Motorola Cellular Group ...uunet!motcid!sirakide | Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... [Moderator's Note: A good place to start would be by renting a few voicemail boxes on a temporary basis to see how well it works out and how well it is received by parents. I would *not* recommend purchasing a voicemail system until you have at least experimented with the concept of teachers making recorded announcements to students. And you are in luck! Right in your area is an operating system you can discuss with its users: The Iroquois Junior High School, 1836 East Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, IL operates the '7th and 8th Grade Homework Hotline' using public voicemail facilities provided by Centel, the local phone company in that suburb. (I think Centel may even serve a few spots in Arlington Heights -- I'm not sure.) The school has a 'front end' box on a DID phone number (708-518-XXXX) which serves like a directory: press 1 for Teacher Smith; press 2 for Teacher Jones, etc. Parents are encouraged to call and listen to what the students are supposed to be doing that night. As far as I know, Illinois Bell is not yet offering voicemail to anyone except their cellular subscribers, but Centel is renting theirs to anyone, Centel and IBT customer alike. Phone Iroquois JHS (708-824-1308) and ask how their system is working out. Renting from a public voicemail service might be the best deal for you. To get details on Centel Voicemail, 708-518-6000 anytime. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: ATC Creates New Billing System Date: 23 Jan 91 18:23:12 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In the January 21 issue of {Communications Week} (page 26) there is an article which states that ATC has contracted with Electronic Data Systems Corp. in Dallas to create a new billing system for their eight state region. They currently have five different systems (due to a bunch of mergers). They also will introduce a new calling card service with voice mail, etc, like the Telecom*USA card. (ATC stands for Advanced Telecommunications Corp.) (This should be interesting since I have had accounts with three of the companies they bought). ------------------------------ From: Charles "Chip" Roberson Subject: RingDirector vs. RingLeader Date: 22 Jan 91 16:06:15 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC I just called Bell Atlantic Business Supplies to find out about their RingLeader product ($54.95). The person on the other end wanted to ask me a few questions beforehand to make sure the product would work for my situation. He said that there had been problems with some applications of the product. After talking to him, I decided it was worth gamble to save $40 and go with their product. I later found out that they are "9 in the hole" and that the RingLeader was backordered until early February. At that point I decided I would wait. Hello Direct has the Lynx Automation RingDirector/2 in the catalog for $99.95, but a previous posting said you can get it for $89.95 directly from Lynx. Both appear to have privacy switches but I'm trying to figure out why is there a $35-45 difference in the two products? Is there some reason why I should pay the extra money for the RingDirector/2 or should I just save my money and wait for the RingLeader? Jack Winslade gave some good info on the RingDirector in a recent posting. Can anybody provide the same for the RingLeader? Are there any other models out there? Hello Direct says they only package in paper -- ``no styrofoam mess or ozone hazard''. Does Lynx do this? Thanks, Chip Work: 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 850-5011 (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || (roberson%aurgate@mcnc.org) || (71500.2056@CompuServe.com) || (Chip.Roberson@f112.n151.z1.fidonet.org) #include [Moderator's Note: I always enjoy reading each issue of the Hello Direct catalog; but it seems to me some of their products are a bit overpriced. For example their headsets are good quality, but two or three times more expensive than those at Radio Shack, or even the local AT&T Phone Center for that matter. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:58 EST Subject: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into. It also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. There is a label on the box that reads exactly as follows: Armiger & Associates, Inc. Fort Worth Texas USA Data Conn. Blk. Model No. AS-97A (1-9) For use as USOC RJ- 41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M, RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A) Complies with Part 68, FCC Rules My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have no idea. They are just told to give them to the customer. I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes. Is that just a ploy to make money or are they useful? Thanks for any responses. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel NJ tel@hound.ATT.COM 908-949-0428 ------------------------------ From: woody Subject: Videos by Phone Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 0:31:04 EST A recent article from the Reuters news service mentioned a company called Explore Technology Inc. which apparently is about to deliver the first video-on-demand service, Instant Video. This product was demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). Or perhaps they mean that the movie itself is transmitted real-time, but the ordering of the movie only takes 15 seconds. A receiver would store the movie for playback when the customer wishes. The system could be on the market as early as 1995. ------------------------------ From: O Morgan Subject: ISDN Links in UK Date: 23 Jan 91 17:13:52 GMT Organization: Edinburgh School of Agriculture I have a question about ISDN, sparked of by the recent anouncements of BT providing ISDN links in the UK (albeit a low performance system) and Gandalf having some ISDN equipment approved. Will you need any special lines for ISDN transmission, or will this system work on any phone line? If the later applies this is pretty amazing when considering current modem speeds. (64k/sec is promised?) What is it about ISDN that allows such greater performances? Olly Morgan @ Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh EH9 2HH, Scotland Tel: (+44 31) 662 4395 E.Mail: O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 12:43:03 EST From: Nancy J Airey Subject: Cellular Phone Roaming Questions Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Well, I thought I had talked my husband out of wanting a car phone -- but he came home last night with one that he got through our son. I am just waiting for him to see the first bill :-) [Moderator: The first bill will be a little higher because he will play with his new toy. After that, it really won't be bad.] Since I have ignored the previous discussions on "roaming" I'd like to ask the readers (and Moderator) of this group a question(s): I believe that the term "roaming" means the ability to continue to use ones car phone as one travels through different areas of cellular companies. Right/wrong? [Moderator: This is correct.] He has been told that he pays 24 cents a minute for a call. Is this good/bad/average? [Moderator: It depends on his overall calling patterns. I've seen lower rates at night and much higher rates during the day. When does he plan to make most calls? Under what conditions?] He has been told that he can go "anywhere" and he will be able to make his calls on the phone. This is not backed up in the documentation. I am assuming they are talking domestic US, as is he. I think. Is this likely? I got the impression that one had to pay for certain roaming privileges, and that one paid based on where one expected to roam. Right/Wrong? [Moderator: He can go anywhere cellular service exists *and* there is an inter-company agreement between cellular carriers -- which means almost anywhere in the USA. He will have to pay the going rate in the place where he happens to be roaming, plus a daily surcharge in many cases.] I've told him that if he does go into neighboring states (we're in IL, he expects to drive in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio) and *if* the thing does work (I assume there are "blind" spots in states?) he will be paying his 24 cents/minute plus some long distance charge if he calls "home." Right/Wrong? [Moderator: Yes, there are blind spots, but they are growing fewer in number. He will pay the rate charged for 'guest users' in the area where he is roaming and the cost of a long distance call back to his home area. But in my estimation, unless one roams a great deal, the 'airtime plus long distance plus guest surcharge' rates he will pay when out of town are more than offset by the very large local service area in northern Illinois where he will pay *nothing* except airtime, at (the rate you quote of) 24 cents per minute.] Information -- and advice appreciated. att!hrcca!jean Jean Airey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #60 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27079; 24 Jan 91 3:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07053; 24 Jan 91 1:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03006; 24 Jan 91 0:29 CST Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 23:37:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #61 BCC: Message-ID: <9101232337.ac25145@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jan 91 23:37:38 CST Volume 11 : Issue 61 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Dell H. Ellison] Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Peter M. Weiss] Re: Secure Phones [Nelson Bolyard] Re: CLID Compatibility Question [David O'Heare] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [David Singer] Re: Japanese Payphones [Craig R. Watkins] Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Timothy Newsham] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Peter M. Weiss] MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Paul Wilczynski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dell H. Ellison" Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows Date: 23 Jan 91 16:39:41 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <16299@accuvax.nwu.edu>, das@cs.ucla.edu (David A. Smallberg) writes: > Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where > you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando > Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to ... > there when the police arrived! I wonder what percentage of the > population does not know how much the 911 operator knows. > [Moderator's Note: When 911 service first started here in Chicago many ... > suit by the ACLU to stop 911 service here (as an invasion of the > privacy of the caller to the police) failed, and in the process, the ... > daily. Despite the extensive PR, most folks do not know about Caller > ID yet or 'call screening', the service I find very useful. PAT] Actually, I find it very interesting that most people don't know that there are two flavors of "911" service: 1. 911 (basic) service provides a central location where all emergency calls (dialing `911') are sent where they are answered and the necessary organization is notified (e.g. police dept., fire dept., etc...). The callers phone number and address are NOT known. 2. E911 (Extended 911) service is essentially the same thing, except the operator IS provided information about where the call is coming from. As a side note, in the Chicago suburb where I live, I don't have any 911 service, yet I am charged $0.75 on every phone bill for that service. I guess they have to get enough money before they can install it. (Which should be just about the time that I move away.) To the Moderator: By the way, how wide spread is Caller ID available in the Chicago suburbs? I would be very interested in getting it. I think it would be great! [Moderator's Note: Our 911 service here was the 'E' version almost from the beginning, back in the mid-1970's. A state law here requires all communities to have 911 service but many of the suburbs do not have it because they share phone exchanges in common with other small suburbs and few of them can agree on *which* suburb (on the same exchange) should handle the incoming call. None of them want some other suburb exercising any control over their police, etc. We had a very crude version of '911' for thirty years before calling it such. Under the old system, 'POLice 5-1313' was translated by each CO into some other number and then forwarded to the police, who received the call on (various)-1313; i.e. Wabash 2-1313, Haymarket 1-1313, and a dozen others. A big wall map had minature lights which would flash off and on showing the CO placing the call to give the police a good idea where to start looking for the victim/criminal, etc. As for Caller*ID in northern Illinois: there is no such animal, yet. 'They' say it would be violate the privacy rights of callers. Area 312/708 is about 75% fully CLASS equipped at this point; more COs are coming on line almost daily. Caller*ID is there, but not being offered at present. IBT/GTE/Centel have filed tariffs but expect it to be several months before approval is granted. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 23 Jan 1991 08:09:48 EST From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows In article <16299@accuvax.nwu.edu>, das@cs.ucla.edu (David A. Smallberg) says: >Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where >you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando >Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to >the Middle East (there's no such flight on any airline from the L.A. >area, as it turns out). (deleted for brevity.) Isn't the system you're describing denoted as 'E911'? It is _my_ understanding the we have plain old 911 i.e., no location database in the 814-86x and 814-23x (central PA) exchanges. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | vm.psu.edu | psuvm 31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM University Park, PA USA 16802 ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Re: Secure Phones Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 03:30:34 GMT In article <16161@accuvax.nwu.edu> CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter G. Capek) writes: >[...] 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). >Does anyone KNOW how this is done? Yes, Whitfield Diffie wrote a wonderful paper entitled "The First Ten Years of Public-Key Cryptography", published in the Proceedings of the IEEE, Volume 76, Number 5, May 1988, pages 560-577, in which he answers questions such as yours about the STU-III and the Racal-Milgo Datacryptor II, in some detail. Dr. Diffie, together with Martin E. Hellman, developed and patented the Diffie-Hellman Public Key distribution system, which was a forerunner of the public key encryption systems that followed. Their algorithm was first published in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Volume IT-22, Number 6, November 1976, pages 644-654. The patent for this algorithm is now held by Public Key Partners, who also hold the RSA patent, among others. The Diffie-Hellman algorithm permits two communicants to exchange one pair of messages, after which both have knowledge of a secret which may be used for a symmetric key or an initialization vector (e.g. for DES). Prior to communicating, both communicants share a common piece of information, but that is not secret, and may be published. Your nearby university library should have these issues available in bound volumes or on microfilm. Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. ------------------------------ From: David O'Heare Subject: Re: CLID Compatibility Question Date: 23 Jan 91 21:17:44 GMT In article <16200@accuvax.nwu.edu>, the Moderator notes: > [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] Well, the scheme used in Canada is explicitly NOT the same as that used in the U.S., in spite of the close coupling of our phone systems. The gadgets supplied by Bell Canada will understand the sceme used by most, though not all, of the U.S. RBOCs. The gadgets supplied by most U.S. RBOCs and third party vendors understand only a subset of the data stream that Bell Canada puts out; usually just enough to get confused. On a similar note: does anybody out there know WHY Bell Canada chooses to send the particular phone number that it does? I would have thought that they'd send the pilot number of a hunt group, for example, rather than the explicit number within the group. Any ideas? Dave O'Heare oheare@gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:46:12 -0800 From: David Singer Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center In article <16311@accuvax.nwu.edu> pallas!kabra437@uunet.uu.net (Ken Abrams) writes: >You provide a fairly complete picture of the symptoms. It is HIGHLY >likely that GTE has a defective DTMF receiver in your CO. They are >probably getting a few other similar complaints but haven't seen a >pattern yet. I would suggest that they have a reversed link in the >switch but most modems don't depend on the line polarity to make the >tones. This kind of a problem is difficult to find but not >impossible. It takes a little time for them to test all the receivers >but usually takes longer to convince them that they need to do it! >All of the above only applies if your CO is of the analog variety. If >it is a digital switch, all bets are off. I just called GTE and they confirmed that I'm on a digital CO (GTD-5). (I'm actually impressed -- the Business Office got me that information without asking why I needed to know!) I should have mentioned in my first posting that my equipment always generates tones when I push the buttons (or ask the modem to dial), and that they sound good to my ears. David Singer -- Internet: singer@ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (amusing disclaimer du jour goes here) ------------------------------ From: crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Date: 23 Jan 91 17:02:43 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16278@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: > A souvenir shop in the Sydney, NSW airport sells time-cards for > Japanese payphones. At first I was puzzled, but my guess is that > returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no > Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their > own country. I saw them being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the Polynesian Cultural Center). I seem to remember a big display with interesting pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't recall the exact content of the pictures). I was certainly interested in them, but they cost in the $15-$20 range and that was a bit much for simple curiosity. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: 22-JAN-1991 23:44:42.63 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? I think the idea of a list of "Cellular Codes" for programming your own cell phone (rather than pay the dealer $25 to do this SIMPLE procedure) makes a LOT of sense. Easy reference to this info will encourage people to reprogram their phones in the correct manner, which hopefully will show some of the (cheaper) Cell Co's that their customers object to being continuously "nickled and dimed" for every little "change of service" or by paying excessive roam and "daily roam" charges. I typed up a list of Audiovox CMT-450 (and 400/500 series in general) programming codes a while back. I think I may have even posted it here. If there is any interest in an "archive" of codes, I'll repost it or submit it to the "archives". Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Yes please, it is about time to print your article once again here for those who missed it the first time. Send it in. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 22:24:28 hst From: Timothy Newsham Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? It is my interpretation that the cellular industry restricts the dissemination of cellular phone programming information on the basis that such info could be used to commit widespread fraud. A person armed with a scanner (modified to monitor cellular frequencies) or other similar device could easily read the ESN (Electronic Serial Number [of the cellular phone]) and PIN (PIN for that phone, not the real technical acronym for it, I can't recall the actual name) off the air and program this information into their cellular phone. Thus, all further use of the cellular phone will be billed to a random victim who's billing information was read with ease right off the air. The mobil nature of the cellular phone adds to the appeal of this crime to new wave phreakers. It's an almost perfect way for phreakers to do their thing. Sure, anyone who really wanted to commit this fraud would find out sooner or later how to program their phone ... but why make it that much easier for them? There's an article in Phrack magazine Issue 11, File 9 that tells of the potential problem that making programming information public would be. It was written by a few engineers in the cellular industry. It isn't an article written by a hacker. Good reading for the comp.dcom.telecom type, check it out. [Moderator's Note: There were also people who said that when the telco switched from 'permanent' jacks in residences to modular plug-in phones and permitted people to do their own wiring the amount of fraud against telco would increase when people figured out how to steal pairs from their neighbors. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, but everyone now moves their phone and wiring around as they see fit without asking telco for permission to do so. There are people around now who hack cellular service by listening on their Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner to the cellular frequencies (take the diode from D-4 and solder it at D-3 to bring in full coverage at 800 megs), then set dip switches on their home-brew cellular transmitter to do what you mention. What is the solution? Should we punish everyone, or conduct seminars on 'ethics and modern technology'? PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 23 Jan 1991 07:58:01 EST From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service In article <16293@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) says: >Bill Nickless writes: >> A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way >> of a 1-800 number? No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to >> AT&T" responses, please. >Sorry, you are out of luck. There is no known 800 number, 950 number, >or even 900 or POTS number that can reach an AT&T operator. Now I'm going to show my ignorance - what is the position and company affiliation of the person who answers 1-800-555-1212? Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN | vm.psu.edu | psuvm 31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM University Park, PA USA 16802 [Moderator's Note: The last I heard, 800-555-1212 was maintained and operated by Southwestern Bell. The physical location of 'Toll Free Directory Assistance' was (is?) in southern Illinois in the LATA covering the St. Louis, MO area. The various other 555-1212 services are maintained by the BOC serving the area. Independent telcos then either contract with the BOC to handle their directory calls or else when you call the answering operator passes you to the independent telco if they choose to handle their own directory enquiries. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:13 GMT From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically Our esteemed Moderator comments .... >[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. Just a small technical correction ... MCI Mail subscribers don't have to request a telex number - they get one automatically. It's 650 + the seven-digit MCI ID. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services MCI Mail Agency ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #61 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28031; 24 Jan 91 4:40 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31900; 24 Jan 91 2:40 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07053; 24 Jan 91 1:36 CST Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 1:08:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #62 BCC: Message-ID: <9101240108.ab09347@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jan 91 01:07:52 CST Volume 11 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Thomas Farmer] Re: Bugging (was: Employer Monitoring) [Peter Marshall] Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA [Ed Greenberg] Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA [Bill Huttig] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Heath Roberts] Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Lars Poulsen] Re: Israel Connectivity Status [David Lemson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sleeping Beagle Subject: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 14:55:42 NZD Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > In article <16105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: > > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not > > desirable except in economics textbooks, ... > Au contraire; in a *totally* deregulated telecommunications > environment, you wouldn't be forced into the arms of a single telco. ... > 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. Wrong. There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up (up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two companies have tried but have got nowhere. People in New Zealand cannot shop elsewhere, there may be no legal problems with setting up another shop, it's just that no one can afford to! sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Bugging (was: Employer Monitoring) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 08:24:21 PST Organization: The 23:00 News Re: What we assume is "well known" in this area -- as Mr. Margolin says -- and what can be done "outside of the scope of simple law enforcement" -- as Mr. Jacobson had said: perhaps not so much is so well known, and the scope of simple law enforcement re: this topic seems neither narrow nor exactly "simple." In this regard, it can be instructive to examine some of the statutes that govern this area. For example, in Washington State, there is currently a legislative effort to perform not-so-minor further surgery on the state's "wiretap" statute for law enforcement use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. This would expand the use of the latter in general, and broaden use of the former to cover any and all "crimes." The "further surgery" involved refers to what was a fairly restrictive law that generally required consent of all parties for interception or recording. Peter Marshall halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Peter Marshall) peterm@halcyon.uucp or peterm@halcyon.wa.com The 23:00 News - Seattle, WA USA +1 206 292.9048 (a Waffle Iron) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 08:49 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA Patrick, Thanks for your comments on Teleconnect (Telecom*USA). I have a few followup questions: 1. You mention a rate of .29/minute for voicemail. Is that also the rate for Voicenews? [Moderator: Yes, I think it is. You can also get Voice News on a 700 number if you are registered with Telecom*USA for 1+ or 10835.] 2. What's the timed rate for incoming 800 service? Is it distance sensitive or flat? Does it work instate? [Moderator: It is flat rate; I think 29 cents per minute during the day and 21 cents at night. The 800 caller reaches the switch in Iowa; it in turn outdials to the appropriate number.] 3. How are the rates for LD calls placed on your personal DID 800 number (let's call this a payphone call.) Do they reflect the .29/ minute inbound to the switch, or are they competitive to other direct dialed point-to-point service? [Moderator: All they charge for calls to my 800 number is the 29 cent or 21 cent rate. For outgoing calls I make through them the rates are much less; whatever they charge; competitive with others.] 4. On a payphone call, can you reorder the switch after your called party disconnects, thus saving a second hotel charge for an 800 number call? (Press # and "dial another call"?) [Moderator: On any call I make to their switch (for voicenews, outbound on a long distance call, etc, the # will reorder the switch. In voicemail / voicenews it has another meaning at some levels, but once back at the main menu then it reorders the switch there also.] 5. If you don't have tone available, will the payphone service time out to the Teleconnect operator? [Moderator: Yes. I think if you are noted in their records as having rotary dial then once you dial your 800 access number to the switch it immediatly shunts you to the operator. Otherwise it will eventually time out to the operator anyway, whence she will first ask for your card number, then take your request. However to use the enhanced features such as voicenews or voicemail, you obviously have to have tone to work through the menus. The operator won't stay on the line to help with that stuff.] 6. You state that MCI took over. Have you experienced any changes in service as a result of this? I'm skittish -- my SBS service was once taken over by MCI (or was it Sprint) then disappeared and turned into the surviving company's generic service. [Moderator: So far I have noticed nothing except that customer service now answers the phone 'Telecom/MCI, may I help you'. Skyline merged with SBS, then SBS went into MCI. One reason I am not yet dropping my AT&T account (or converting Telecom*USA to one-plus is I want to wait and see what happens when MCI digs in in earnest. If they screw it up too badly I can bail out in a hurry.] Thanks for your comments. It sounds neat. An 800 number to call home on (and check messages) sounds worthwhile. Of course, Pathetic*Bell doesn't have distinctive ringing yet... Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM [Moderator's Note: You are welcome. IBT has distinctive ringing and all the CLASS features now in about seventy percent of the offices. They expect to be fully converted within a few months. We've always been first here. We had the first ESS in the late 1960's in Morris, IL. Downtown Chicago had ESS in 1974. The entire area was all ESS as of about 1986. IBT has always been a leader in new telephone technology. The only exception to full CLASS service is Caller*ID and that should be in place throughout 312/708 within a year or so. You'll recall we were also first with cellular service in the early 1980's. We had E-911 in the middle-1970's, and TSPS in all offices about the same time. We had Centrex here in 1967. Yes, they had Centrex in the old #5 crossbar offices as well as TSPS. Truly amazing, the folks from IBT. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA Date: 23 Jan 91 18:03:32 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL >[Moderator's Note: The thing about Teleconnect (their subsidiary) ... >MCI just recently took over ... :) let's give MCI a chance! :) Let's not (after my billing problem). [stuff deleted] >The Telecom*USA Card is much more advanced than AT&T's and includes: True >A personal 800 number for accessing their switch. It is *my* number, >and goes in DID-style to their switch where it identifies me. Then the >seven-digit number on the card serves as a PIN. Once I call into their From what I've been told is that there are several users per 800 number. [stuff about calling cards deleted] The Telecom*USA card is surcharged $.40 (at least in their southern region ). I still have a card that was a SouthLand calling card. (They were bought by SouthernNet which merged into Telecom*USA.) There is no surcharge on this card when dialing via 950. [stuff about 800 numbers deleted] >me off that the incoming call is via the 800 number(s). The personal >800 numbers cost $2.75 each per month plus calls, billed in six-second >increments. The (third) 800 number used for voicemail costs $2.75 per Telecom*USA is not offering the Hotline 800 service since the merger with MCI. The Personal 800 service is the new one ... there are two rates for it. The non PrimeTime rate of $5/mo and something around $.25/min billed in full minutes. PrimeTime rates (in addition to the normal primetime rates) is $2/mo and $.225/min day and $.1083/min evnings/night/weekend (PrimeTime Hours). [stuff deleted] >800 number -- used to access the switch itself in Cedar Rapids, IA -- >is free. Telecom*USA does not charge a surcharge for calls made on the >card ... just the cost of the call itself. The rates are 'competitive'. See above. >service. I get *one bill* monthly for *everything* from them, all >nicely detailed, with ANI on the 800 numbers, time of day and ANI on >callers in voicemail, etc. They seem to have full international >service and are willing to bill it in on their card, should I be at a >payphone, etc. I think I will call them tomorrow and ask them to give >me an 800 number for each of my cell phones also. At $2.75 per number, >the price is certainly right! I dont think they will add the hotline 800 numbers anymore. The ANI is also done with the Personal 800 service ... But with the Telecom*USA card and MCI Card (which looks like the Telecom*USA card but as a 14 digit PIN) and the SoutherNet/SouthLand card they only give origninating city. You can probbly add Personal 800 numbers to a Telecom*USA/Teleconect account. Telecom*USA/MCI summary of rates: Telecom*USA card surcharge $.40 + regular rates. MCI*CARD surcharge $.80 + regular rates. SouthLand/SouthernNet no surcharge on 950; same as Telecom*USA dial one. PrimeTime $7.50/mo $.1083/min during plan hours. PrimteTime 800 $2/mo additional $.225/min day and $.1083 other times. >I'd say my average bill from Telecom*USA for the 800 numbers, >voicemail, voicenews, etc is about $60 per month and they are not >handling any of my outgoing long distance yet since I still give all >that to AT&T. PAT] Wow, and I thought my bills were high ... Bill [Moderator's Note: My total LD bill from AT&T and TelecomUSA for *personal* calls is about $100-120 per month, not including the voicenews and voicemail stuff from Telecom*USA. The bill is higher than that, but I get my office to pay for their share of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 18:25:35 GMT Pat writes: >The only thing is he forgot to pay the bill. He skipped out of one >apartment owing AT&T some $50,000 in *one month* and got a new >apartment elsewhere where he did the same scam a second month to the >tune of $45,000. PAT I have a hard time believing this: a year or so ago, Southern Bell sent me a notice saying that I was over my $250 long distance credit limit about halfway through the billing month. Once I called the business office to check on the situation, they said it wasn't a problem to increase the limit, but that all accounts have some limit to prevent large losses due to fraud. My carrier was also AT&T. It seems that someone would question a phone bill to an _apartment_ of more than a few thousand dollars. Did the {Tribune} cite a source for these figures? Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu [Moderator's Note: I suspect the {Tribune} just worked from the same AT&T press release as everyone else who received it including me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 18:41:55 GMT In article <16295@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack Dominey writes to address the complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance service via 950-0288 or an 800-number: > The issue > of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought > by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming > their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow > free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too. > AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon > universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to > live with it. To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use > 800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their > networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950 > access are integral to their design. AT&T's network was always the > default, so the other access methods were never included. I haven't > seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now, > but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy. While this is a nice try from the PR department, it just does not cut it. The argument is technically flawed, two ways: (1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power in the POP to manage this). (2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this solution. It would be more elegant for ATT to push for the second solution, thus putting the burden of software changes nominally on the LECs. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Israel Connectivity Status Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 24 Jan 1991 05:34:22 GMT TELECOM Moderator asked, >>On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being >>maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all >>with news? I have been trying to get in touch with some friends in Rehovot, Israel, who have an account on BITNET. (A machine called VOLCANI) Ironically, I received a "PATH LOST TO VOLCANI" for the past week until about two days ago, when I received an "all is well" response from my friends. The Israeli government is urging people to return to work and not give Hussein a victory. The net appears to be up. David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana [Moderator's Note: I understand however that large gatherings of people are still discouraged (perhaps forbidden under the emergency laws) for the time being until further notice. Zubin Meta was to conduct the symphony on Wednesday night; it had to be cancelled. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #62 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24771; 25 Jan 91 4:49 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04519; 25 Jan 91 2:59 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05877; 25 Jan 91 1:52 CST Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 1:25:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #63 BCC: Message-ID: <9101250125.ab00814@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jan 91 01:24:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 63 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Lotus Cancels Development of 'Marketplace' [Toby Nixon] Lotus Database Killed [John Higdon] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Syd Weinstein] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Roy Smith] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [John R. Levine] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order ("AT&T" Building in Baghdad) [H. Roberts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Lotus Cancels Development of 'Marketplace' Date: 24 Jan 91 12:57:26 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA (From CompuServe Online Today Electronic Edition, January 23, 1990) LOTUS PULLS MARKETPLACE Lotus Development Corp. has decided to cancel work on Lotus MarketPlace: Households, a CD-ROM database product of names, addresses, and marketing information on 120 million US households. The company also said it will discontinue Lotus MarketPlace: Business, a database of information on seven million US businesses that began shipping in October 1990. Lotus MarketPlace: Households was scheduled for shipment in March. Lotus and Equifax, which provided the data in MarketPlace, said the decision to cancel the two products came after an assessment of the public concerns and misunderstanding of the product, and the substantial, unexpected additional costs required to fully address consumer privacy issues. "Unfortunately, Lotus MarketPlace: Households is at the apex of an emotional firestorm of public concern about consumer privacy. While we believe that the actual data content and controls built into the product preserved consumer privacy, we couldn't ignore the high level of consumer concern," said Jim Manzi, Lotus' president and chief executive officer. "After examining all of the issues we have decided that the cost and complexity of educating consumers about the issue is beyond the scope of Lotus as a software provider." 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: Lotus Database Killed Date: 24 Jan 91 13:28:58 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Never underestimate the power of the "vox populi". After receiving thirty thousand complaints against the database to be delivered on CD-ROM starting in March, Dan Shimmel of Lotus announced that the product would be scrapped. "Much of the criticism [of the product] came from sophisticated computer users on the nationwide Usenet computer network, who began a grass-roots campaign against the product that spread quickly", according to the story in the {San Jose Mercury}. What more need be said? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Most of you know I did not have the objection to the product expressed by many of you in this forum and elsewhere on the net. I could have lived with it or not ... but I am *very pleased* to see the way organizations and institutions are beginning to respect and recognize the power of this net. I've said it before: email, in all its variations, both as individual correspondence and as a newsgroup is an extremely potent tool. The situation with Lotus proves it. Do *not* hesitate to write letters to people who can make changes in things which need changing. Do not hesitate for a minute to use this net just like the newspapers have been used for years: as a forum -- and a powerful one at that -- to get your message across. And to those who say we mustn't 'annoy' certain companies, organizations or individuals with too much mail because they might grow angry and pull the plug on mail/news, I say let them go ahead and pull it. If *they* can't deal with it in a responsible and forthright manner then they have no ethical or moral right to be part of the international email network anyway. I do not promote or advocate obscene or harassing mail. But if you have something to say, feel perfectly free to say it in email. Your messages can make a difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Thu, 24 Jan 1991 05:15:51 GMT tel@cdsdb1.att.com writes: >Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a >device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a >box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into >the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into. It >also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. >My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and >PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have >no idea. They are just told to give them to the customer. The box is a two wire to eight wire adapter. Now don't panic, it doesn't touch the two wires themselves, but adds some other signals. It leaves tip, ring, A and A-1 alone (the center four). It does add a programming resistor -- more in a second -- and a pad optionally to the loop. In a true data circuit, you want the outgoing carrier to arrive at the CO at -10dbm. However, the loss in your loop varies by condition, length, and other factors. What the traditional modems did was output their signal at a higher level, and have the phone company measure the loss in the line and add a pad. The RJ-42,3,4,5 series eight wire jacks offer this ability by coming in flavors (values of the pad) to match possible line losses. These flavors have a resistor that an appropriate modem can use to adjust its output to the correct value to get the best signal at the CO. This is the PROG position. No pad is placed on the line itself, and the modem does the work via a resistor on two of the unused positions. In the FLL, or Fixed Loss Loop, position, a pad is placed to drop the output volume by a fixed amount, and the line is not measured. I have Bell of PA put these on all our modem lines, and they call them RJ45's. Note there are other ways of wiring the boxes, and then they have different numbers, but all the same purpose. Other numbers indicate if they support exclusion key wiring, automatic jumpering, etc. Are they worth it? Most interactive modems don't use them, if your modem has a four wire (six positions, four used) mod plug, it doesn't use them. If the modem has an eight wire modular plug, it probably does. However, some modems are loud on purpose, to compensate for long loops and the loss. These sometimes need a pad, and the FLL position provides that. However, what I like better, is if you have Bell of PA put this jack in, the line is assigned a 3NDDA number (3NDDA XXX-XXXX where x's are the phone number) Then you get Data Repair service to call instead of the usual repair service, (Yea, no more is the line ok questions, just a knowledgable person on a test board actually answering the phone) and here in Phila, a two hour response time guarantee. (And I mean that 24 hours a day. I have gotten things fixed at 3 AM). And all of that for no more per month that without the jack, only a one time charge up front. And that charge, here, used to be reasonable. I haven't done it in a while, but it was about twice the charge without the special jack. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 13:38:53 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a > device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack [...] It also > has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. There is a label on the box that > reads exactly as follows: > For use as USOC RJ- > 41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M, > RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A) Personally, I think it's a crock, but anyway, here's what it all means. FLL is Fixed Loss Loop and PROG is for Programmed Loss Loop. What all that means is that you have a loop of copper wire running from the central office (CO) to your jack. Depending on the length of the loop (i.e. the distance from your building to the CO) the resistance, and hence the loop loss, will vary. In the programmed mode, inside the little box is a resistor which is used to compensate for the loop loss; the box should have come with a little package of fixed resistors; the tech who installed the box was supposed to have measured the loop loss and installed the proper resistor based on the results of his measurement. USOC is just an acronym which stands for Universal Service Ordering Code. It's telephone-speak for "part number", more or less. All of the RJ-4X-Y jacks are variations on an 8-pin data jack. According to the documentation I have, "Data configurations use jacks which incorporate components to limit signal power levels of data equipment. Data equipment with a maximum signal power output of -9dBm are not limited to data configurations."; I interpret that last part as "any modem you buy today can just be plugged into a plain old ordinary RJ-11 voice jack". I have the wiring diagrams for both the RJ-41S and RJ-41M jacks in front of me right now and can't find any differences; both have tip and ring on pins 4/5 (prog mode) and also on pins 1/2 under control of a switch and through what's called a "Pad" (FLL mode), and the programming resistor on pins 7/8; the resistor has no internal connections; I guess it's up to whatever is plugged into the jack to put it in series with some part of the modem circuitry if it wants. The note on the 41M says it's for use in multiple installations, but I don't see how it's any different from the 41S. A RJ-36X is a fancy jack with shorting bars, apparantly used for putting multiple series-connected modems on a single line; if you unplug the plug, the shorting bars just pass the signal through the jack, but somehow I'd be surprised if that's what you really have. The bottom line is that if you are using any sort of standard off-the-shelf dialup modem (212A, V.22bis, PEP, HST, etc, etc, etc) you don't need the fancy RJ-4X jack; just have them put in a plain old RJ-11 voice jack and that's it. Even better, don't even tell the installer that it's a data line, that usually just gets them confused. Come to think of it, even our four-wire LAD circuits that we run 128 kbps over using special leased-line modems are terminated in plain old RJ-11's (although, they probably have some other RJ code in that case). 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 24 Jan 91 12:54:50 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16347@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and >PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have >no idea. They are just told to give them to the customer. >I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes. Is >that just a ploy to make money or are they useful? They are useful in some circumstances. The signal loss from the CO to the customer premises varies a lot depending on the distance, condition of the wire and such. Some data communication equipment, particularly older stuff, depends on knowing the amount of the signal loss. There are two ways to handle this: Fixed Loss Loop (FLL) puts a PAD circuit in the connector block to make the total loss between 8 and 9 DB. The installer measures the loss from the CO (by calling a test number that produces a known signal) which is usually less than 8 dB and puts in a block with an appropriate PAD to bring the total loss up to spec. Programmable (P or PROG) puts a resistor into the connector block whose value depends on the measured loss. The resistor is not directly connected to the phone line but is connected to pins PR and PC (7 and 8) of the jack for the use of a PAD in the equipment plugged into it. The FLL/PROG switch unhooks the connector block PAD in PROG mode, since equipment that uses the programming resistor doesn't want its signal pre-attenuated. When the jack has both FLL and PROG with a switch, it's called an RJ41S. With the programming resistor only, it's a RJ45S. With various obsolescent arrangements that involve a telephone with a DATA button, its an RJ42S, RJ43S, RJ46S, or RJ47S. These are all the same physical data jack, but wired in different ways. If you are using something like a V.32 or Telebit modem, the data line is overkill since these modems have their own compensating circuits. Also, be sure that the installers are measuring the loss and setting the PAD and programming resistor appropriately. If they aren't, the jack is no better than a regular voice RJ-11 and, in all likelihood, the signal quality on the line isn't any better than a POTS line, either. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 07:39:40 GMT In article <16336@accuvax.nwu.edu> eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) writes: >I also heard (thru the Northern Telecom grapevine) that one of the NT >US switching divisions received an order from the US Military for a >portable switch to fit into a transport trailer, ready to deliver by >this Friday (Jan 25th). The switch should handle as many lines a >possible. Plan is to ship it to middle east to "replace damaged >telecom lines". >Dunno if it is a DMS or SuperNode but my guess is it will be brown in >color. Probably a containerized DMS-10, which is actually brown and green. NT keeps several at its RTP facility ready to ship in case of a service affecting emergency somewhere. One of these will handle about 10,000 lines in the standard package (not a full-sized trailer) which can be air-dropped. There is also a containerized version of the DMS-100, that is four full-size trailers, and can handle about 50,000 lines. This one's a little more expensive and not designed to be airlifted. But if we can ship an Abrams tank, why not? If your Supernode front end dies but peripherials are still OK, NT can ship you one in four man-portable boxes on any airline. They snap together and have fiber cables between the modules. The Supernode actually is a DMS-100, just with a different front end. The older version DMS-100 uses a proprietary processor called the NT-40, the Supernode uses either a Motorola 68020 (most common), a 68030 (in the field) or an 88000 (still in the works) as its main CPU. The peripherial modules are the same, and all the software runs on either verison. The Supernode can handle more messages per time than the NT-40, and the NT-40 is gradually being phased out. Within a year or two, new versions of software (called BCS for batch change supplement) won't run on the NT-40. Northern doesn't require you to buy new versions when they are released, so there will be some NT-40's around for quite a while -- Northern Telecom will provide pack repairs for twenty years from the date it's officially discontinued. There's a newer switch, the S/DMS-100, which is designed to have the horsepower for higher speed direct digital communications. Its market niche is for telcos that want to implement FiberWorld, which is a really cool concept in telecommunciations. NT has some marketing videos that are pretty interesting. I'll find out if they're available to the public and let everyone know ... I think you can borrow them for a couple of weeks without charge, but there is a deposit. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #63 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26849; 25 Jan 91 6:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08112; 25 Jan 91 4:05 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04519; 25 Jan 91 2:59 CST Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 1:54:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #64 BCC: Message-ID: <9101250154.ab06988@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jan 91 01:54:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 64 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Ted Marshall] Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Peter Marshall] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (AT&T Building in Baghdad) [S. Mitchell] Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Julian Macassey] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Bob Goudreau] Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts [Louis J. Judice] Re: Device Given to me With 'Data Lines' [Roger Fajman] Re: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed [Macy Hallock] Re: Japanese Payphones [Steve Wolfson] Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 16:16:18 PST From: Ted Marshall Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme In article <16341@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dgp0@bunny.gte.com (Dennis Pratt) writes: > Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for > E-911. Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the > system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has > convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 > users, pay for this system. I believe that most area do some sort of ganeral charge for 911 procurement and support. Most areas, including No. California, put a general surcharge on the phone bills. I hadn't heard of a 411 surcharge. > If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop > people from using the system. [...] I disagree. If I look out my window and see a fire across the street and I know that I'll get charged $5.00 for calling 911, I'll call the fire department directly or figure that someone else will call it in. 911 should be designed so that if you are reporting what truly looks like an emergency, you have no reason not to call it in. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. [Moderator's Note: That was precisely the argument made here when there was discussion of who should pay for 911 service. The City of Chicago took the position that nothing should stand in the way of someone making a legitimate call for emergency help; and certainly not the fear that they would not be able to pay for it later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 19:01:17 PST Dennis Pratt's 1/22 post on financing statewide E911 in MA presents some interesting questions that are likely not limited to the MA example. At the same time, this look at experience in one state does not address other issues in E911 statewide system development that have been noticed in other states. To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a national level? Peter Marshall ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:33:28 PST From: Steve Mitchell Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) wrote: >>Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media >>Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb >>dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad. > I heard (on the CBC, I think) that it was a "PTT" building. I can't > remember what the letters stood for, though. According to a report on National Public Radio's morning news program "Morning Edition" (1/23), the building being shown bombed by a F-117A Stealth Fighter/Bomber was the Baghdad "Public Telephone & Telegraph" building. This building, according to telecom professionals in Saudi Arabia, should have been staffed by 10 to 20 civilian technicians and operators at the time of the attack (pre-dawn/early morning). Because of the F-117's stealth capabilities, it is not believed that the occupants of the building would have heard or seen any signs of warning until the 2,000 bound bomb struck the building. They did not mention whether military personnel would have been staffing the building in part. However, they did report that the Iraqi's most valuable lines of military communication and switching would have been located under the building and immune to the effects of the attack which, apparently, was meant to decapitate it's top two of twelve stories in order to render the microwave equipment on the roof useless. Professional Comment: Unquestionably, civilian telecom equipment can be a valuable military asset to any country. The fact that redundant military communications systems were, undoubtably, in place and are possibly still operational does not make civilian telecom facilities any less of a valuable channel of command and control to the enemy's military infrastructure. Personal Comment: I find it ironic that, in our humanitarian gesture towards the people of the Arabian Peninsula, the first casualties in the conflict may have been civilian professionals like you and I. The contradictions in the philosophies of modern warfare, in terms of their goals and their means, abound. Steve_Mitchell@csufresno.edu ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries Date: 25 Jan 91 05:17:40 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <16306@accuvax.nwu.edu>, joseph@milton.u.washington.edu (Joseph Chan) writes: > I understand that the ring voltage is not internationally > standardized. The ringing voltage on telephone lines varies between 150 and 40 Volts. The voltage depends upon, the local standard ringing voltage at the CO, the length of the loop (phone line) between the CO and the subscriber, the current pulled by the ringer (called REN in the US) and lastly the number of ringers attached to the line. So, you can consider that the standard voltage is about 90-100 Volts. What does vary is the frequency of the voltage. In the the U.S. the frequency is usually 20 Hz, it can be other frequencies. In other parts it is often 50 Hz. So, briefly, a gong (bell) type ringer from the U.S. may not work in other countries because they are picky about the ringing frequency. Cheap and sleezy gong ringers will ring with any type of AC applied. Also "warble" ringers, the ones that sound like sick birds or crickets in heat are usually "FCC Type B" ringers and will respond to frequencies between 15 and 68 Hz - the truth is they will respond up to a 150Hz most of the time. So, a warble ringer should work anywhere. > My specific question is that what is the phone line > voltage provided by each Asia countries? (I am interested to find out > the phone line voltage for Hong Kong and Indonesia). I thought the specific question was ringing voltage, now it is line voltage. OK, I'll play along. Hong Kong is mostly UK gear so the line voltage will be around 50 - 52 Volts. I am not familiar with Indonesia, but you will find that the line voltage for most of the world is 48V, give or take a few. The exception being Western Germany which is 60V. Some parts of Italy used to be 60V too. The Phillipines have a ton of Seimens gear, so they may be 60V. But in short, assuming the dialing system of the phone/fax is compatible be it pulse or DTMF, and assuming the ringer is a class B, it will work anywhere in the world. 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, 24 Jan 91 17:14:39 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates In article <16362@accuvax.nwu.edu>, sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: > > 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. > Wrong. > There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New > Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up > (up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful > companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two > companies have tried but have got nowhere. When you say "there is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in NZ", are you talking about *local* service as well as long distance? The original poster mentioned that NZ's new ROCs (regional operating companies) were analogous to the RBOCs that exist in the US. I therefore inferred that the ROCs (like the RBOCs) held legal monopolies for providing local service within their respective regions. (Note the distinction between local service, which even in the US is still a regulated monopoly, and competitive long-distance service). When I said "there is still a regulation giving the telco a legal monopoly", I was referring to local service. Is it indeed the case that NZ has opened even *local* telephone service to competition? If so, what measures exist to ensure fair dealings in setting up inter-connectivity between competing carriers, use of rights-of-way for land lines, telephone number assignment, etc? Or are you merely asserting that only long-distance service has been deregulated, but that no new competitor has yet been able to gain significant market share? In the US this was less of a problem, since new LD companies were already waiting in the wings when AT&T lost its monopoly on LD service. But in NZ it sounds like the problem is that the government deregulated the LD industry without bothering to break up the old monopoly. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:46:49 PST From: "Louis J. Judice 24-Jan-1991 1042" Subject: Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts I haven't noticed the tones you mention on telephone conversations, but on CNN and NBC I'm driven absolutely crazy by the "bleeps" from the DEC VT-xxx terminals scattered through the newsroom. Having used these devices for the past twelve years or so, whenever I hear it, I instinctively look back towards my home PC to see if a mail message was just received. Drives me nuts! ljj ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 18:35:57 EST Subject: Re: Device Given to me With 'Data Lines' > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a > device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a > box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into > the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into. It > also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG. Sounds like an RJ-41S jack, or some sort of adapter to make a regular RJ-11 type jack look to the modem like an RJ-41S jack. FLL means something like Fixed Loss Level. When the RJ-41S jack is installed, the loss is supposed to be measured to the central office. The jack contains a resistor to attenuate the rather high level signal put out by the modem just enough so that it arrives at the central office at the maximum permitted strength. This requires a modem with an 8-wire connector intended for use with FLL. AT&T sells modems, such as the 2224B, 2224CEO, and DL424, that can use this arrangement. With the PROG setting, the modem actually senses from the jack what the transmit level should be and sets itself accordingly. This again requires the 8-wire cable with a modem designed for that. If you plug a modem designed for FLL into the RJ-41S jack with an 8-wire cable and set the switch to PROG, it will not work at all. A regular RJ-11 type cable can also be used with an RJ-41S jack by plugging it into the center. The switch should be set to PROG, so that the transmit level is not unnecessarily reduced by the jack. With an RJ-11 (permissive) connection the modem transmits at a standard level with no compensation for the loss to the central office. This standard level is less than is used with the FLL arrangement. I'm trying to remember what that level is: -11 dBm sticks in my mind, but I'm not certain. Many AT&T modems can be used with either four-wire cable or eight-wire cable. The modular plug on the eight-wire cable has a key on it that forces the modem into the right mode. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 22:09 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed Organization: F M Systems, Inc. Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 723-3000 In article <16307@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >Does anyone else have a Fujitsu Starlog series PBX at their site? >Have you tried programming it, or getting any support for same from >your local Fujitsu reps? I'm getting really sick of diddling this >lame-o piece of junk we have over here. Comments and past experience >welcome. I am a former owner of an interconnect telphone company. I have twenty years of telecom engineering experience. I am also a certified Starlog technician (among other things). (Other references on request ) The Starlog is a fine system. Like any programmable system, it's only as good as the people who set it up. Most disgruntled Starlog users only need proper assistance in getting the system configured and the system performs well. I also know the factory engineering team quite well and can assist with getting your local Starlog dealer to be properly attentive. I would be happy to offer some suggestions ... you have a sound product there and maybe we can get it to work to your satisfaction. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:41:36 CST From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Craig R. Watkins writes: > Sandy Kyrish writes: >In article <16278@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy >Kyrish) writes: >> returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no >> Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their >> own country. >I saw them being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the Polynesian >Cultural Center). I seem to remember a big display with interesting >pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't >recall the exact content of the pictures). Actually they may be selling them as souveniers. There was a recent article in {Business Week} (I can't find the exact issue) about the Japanese use of calling cards. A collectors market has sprung up for these cards and NTT has managed to end with with a fairly hefty hunk of change from cards that are purchased but not used. The article also mentioned that these type of cards may become used for items other than payphones. Like everywhere else there is talk of standardization of these cards and concerns that this would create a new alternative "electronic" currency that doesn't fit within standard banking laws. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:41:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code The area codes 310 and 510 (both in California) and 410 (Maryland) will be the first of the N10 form. When they come on line, they also will be the first that can be formed by transposing two digits in a previously-existing area code, so beware of people trying to "correct" them by changing 10 to 01. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #64 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27361; 25 Jan 91 7:13 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04937; 25 Jan 91 5:23 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08112; 25 Jan 91 4:01 CST Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 2:55:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #65 BCC: Message-ID: <9101250255.ab16477@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jan 91 02:55:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 65 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [John R. Levine] Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Ed Greenberg] Re: How do you Program This Phone? [Jerry Durand] Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Larry Svec] Re: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator [Dave Levenson] Re: Japanese Payphones [Bob Schultz] Re: Videos by Phone [barj] Re: ISDN Links in UK [Richard Jennings] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Barton F. Bruce] Panasonic Cordless 3910-R Comments [Ben Singer] Fiber Optics Standards Request [Adeola Osinuga] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 23 Jan 91 14:36:49 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16302@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >[Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping >that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they >have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask. PAT] As a former SBS customer inherited by MCI, my experience is that it's far too much to ask from MCI. For a few weeks, the local telco crossed my wires with some business and several hundred dollars of their phone calls appeared on my bill. Clearing it up with New England Tel took about five minutes, but MCI was completely inept. Despite repeated letters and phone calls, they were unable to understand what the problem was, even though I even provided them with the correct number to bill and a reference at NET to verify it. Over a year later, long after I had switched to another LD company in disgust (don't worry, Pat, I paid for all the calls I actually made) they started pestering me with collection agencies. I had to have the state DPU yell at them before they went away. Good luck. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: Thanks for the tipoff. I'll keep my eyes open and see what happens over the next month or two. Collection agencies never concern me; but having to explain something over and over to customer service is annoying. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 08:54 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) Lars Poulsen writes: > The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is not to make > trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized calls. I am > sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class of service > for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls without third- > party billing. (I think there is enough processing power in the POP > to manage this). Actually, 10xxx processing takes place at the RBOC (or other operating company) facility. There already _is_ a class of service that would allow this ... a coinless public phone, for example. There are other classes of service, including a predefined hotel/motel class of service that allowed the hotel industry to serve the travelling community for years. The hotel switches could also be programmed to allow 10xxx+0+ dialing, but not 10xxx+1+ dialing. Bally's in Las Vegas has this programming. They charge .50/call for access of this nature. It may be expensive, considering what you're paying for the room, but at least you know how much it will be, and can reorder the line with '#' afterwards for another call. It should also be remembered that the hotel isn't sunk if a call gets ticketed on AT&T. After all, they have a record of the call on their call detail recorder, and can add it to your hotel bill. The reason (IMHO) that hotels won't allow this sort of dialing is that they'd rather route the calls through their contracted Alternative Operator Service (AOS) which will (a) rape the customer and (b) kick back a significant portion of the proceeds to the hotel. Occasionally I find a hotel that has dial tone in their pairs, rather than sleeze tone. In fact, the number of such hotels is increasing. The majority I've experienced however, treat the phone as a profit center, and have jumped firmly on the newest telecom bandwagon -- "caveat emptor as long as we can get away with it." In my post about Las Vegas, I neglected to mention (so will mention here) that the sets in the hotel had RJ-11's in them marked Data port. A nice touch. Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: How do you Program This Phone? Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:28:20 PST Since there have been several questions lately about programming cell-phones, I'll repeat an offer I made last year. I have a copy of the Motorola `Programming Your Personal or Portable Cellular Telephone' `Programming Manual' part #68P81155E16-D, 6/15/89. If you didn't get a copy when you purchased your phone, please send me your name & address and I'll mail you a copy. Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. jdurand@cup.portal.com FAX: 408 356-4659 (requires CNG) ------------------------------ From: Larry Svec Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows Date: 24 Jan 91 19:05:09 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL My town (Wauconda, IL) has 911. It shares the same dispatch with a number of surrounding towns. When you call 911, they use the national police point to point frequency of 155.37 Mhz to relay to the proper local town or if it is unincorporated area (such as where I live), they call the Lake County PD. Typical scenario ... I once called 911 for a car fire, then heard the same person that answered the phone call Wauconda Township Fire on their point to point 155.37. Wauconda FD dispatched on their frequencies of 153.89. The 911 dispatcher called Lake County PD also on 155.37 about it. Lake County PD dispatched on their 155.655 repeater. My conclusion is based on extensive 'scanner' monitoring ... some of the towns in the US with 911 serving a few towns seem to then further dispatch to the proper town via the 155.37 point to point frequencies. Larry Svec - KD9OF home: 708-526-1256 e-mail: uunet!motcid!svecl VHF: 145.150- work: 708-632-5259 fax: 708-632-2413, -3741 UHF: 443.575+ [Moderator's Note: I frequently scan the twenty or so frequencies of the Chicago PD. (460.050 --> 460.600 megs). The suburbs which touch the city seem to monitor the city frequency for the area bordering them, while maintaining their own frequencies, usually at 470 megs. The suburbs which touch us all have their own 911, except I think Lincolnwood shares with Skokie. It is not uncommon to hear the Evanston dispatcher come on 460.375 (Chicago Districts 20 / 24) with a message saying the Evanston PD is on a chase and asking Chicago to help, or vice-versa. For fires, when Chicago Emergency answers, the default is the PD, but the dispatcher merely tap a button on the console and the call is patched right over to Fire in a matter of two seconds or less. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator Date: 25 Jan 91 00:05:41 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16338@accuvax.nwu.edu>, syd@dsinc.dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) writes: [ an article describing a telemarketing machine selling AT&T-agregator toll service] > It doesn't help AT&T's image any when this happens, it makes the > telemarketers look good. At least those you can tell your bank of > lines and they skip them, they don't want to waste their time either. Here in central NJ, we have been blitzed by a local dealer selling AT&T's home-security systems. Their systems have called our lines, in number sequence, three or four times over the past three weeks. The recording mentions AT&T several times before identifying the local dealer in an almost parenthetical tone. I called the local dealer and told them that if their machine continued calling the same numbers, I would consider it harassment, and would report it as such to local law-enforcement authorities. I have just subscribed to Call*Block service from NJ Bell. My intention is to use this service to prevent inbound calls from a certain telemarketing company in Bound Brook. They call almost every day, with a different advertising message, from a different local business, each time. The Caller*ID indicates that it's from the same number every time. That number is now the first one on the list of callers I don't want to hear from. 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: Over here it is known as 'call screening'. Isn't it a wonderful thing! *60 #01# adds the 'last call received' to the list of numbers blocked whether you know the number or not. *69 calls back the last call you received so you can give them a taste of their own medicine if you feel like it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Schultz Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Date: 25 Jan 91 05:04:16 GMT Organization: Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd., Osaka, Japan In article <16357@accuvax.nwu.edu> crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) writes: > I saw them [phone cards] being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the > Polynesian Cultural Center). I remember a big display with interesting > pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't > recall the exact content of the pictures). I was certainly interested > in them, but they cost in the $15-$20 range and that was a bit much > for simple curiosity. 1000 yen cards are popular here (~$7.50, Y132~$1), with hundreds of different pictures available. NTT's most popular card last year had a picture of a cat on the front. Usually a small bonus is given when purchasing the cards; 1000 yen will get you 105 units (1050 yen). 10 yen (7.5 cents) will get you a three minute local call, one of the last remaining bargains in Japan! Robert J. Schultz Artificial Intelligence Research Lab telephone: (81) 06-908-6835 Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd. facsimile: (81) 06-906-6052 1048, Kadoma, Kadoma-shi e-mail: schultz@mew.mei.co.jp Osaka 571, Japan ------------------------------ From: barj Subject: Re: Videos by Phone Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 17:50:05 GMT In article <16348@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be > something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get > excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). If this is the case, you're going to need well over 300,000 telephones. And a mailman who will be prepared to deliver the 3500+ bills a day. :-) The Sonet/SDH intercontinental level is only going to use a bit-rate of 2.4Gbps and I doubt that _that_ will be anywhere near the market place by 1995. >Or perhaps they mean that the movie itself is transmitted real-time, Well I recently saw a audio/video link of an ISDN 64kbps link. Using some neat compression techniques, the quality was good - but not good enough to watch a movie. Anyway, if it takes two hours, isn't your phone bill going to be huge? You may as well rent the video ... All I can think is that it is some sort of order-by-phone cable service. Although I would be interested to be proven wrong. esupg@uk.ac.warwick.cu Andrew University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. Bargery 154 Brunswick St, Leamington, CV31 2ER, UK. vox : +44 926 881264 DISCLAIMER: I am doubting Reuters, not the poster... ------------------------------ From: Richard Jennings Subject: Re: ISDN Links in UK Date: 24 Jan 91 13:52:19 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard CCG-PWD, UK. Olly Morgan writes: > Will you need any special lines for ISDN transmission, or will this > system work on any phone line? If the later applies this is pretty > amazing when considering current modem speeds. (64k/sec is promised?) > What is it about ISDN that allows such greater performances? ISDN is completely digital - it will run over the existing copper pair from the switch to the subscriber - subject to the PTT (BT in this case) approving the results of a BERT (Bit Error Rate Test). Of course, you must be on a digital exchange. Hope this helps, Richard Jennings, Software Development Engineer Pinewood Information Systems Division, the home of HP's Advanced Image Management System (HP AIMS), AdvanceLink, OpenMail and Multi-media communications Hewlett-Packard Nine Mile Ride Voice: (+44)/(0) 344 763738 ADMD=GOLD 400 C=GB Wokingham Fax: (+44)/(0) 344 763526 OU1=Pinewood ORG=hp Berkshire RG11 3LL E-mail: richi@hpopd.pwd.hp.com GN=Richard PRMD=hp England or: richi@hpopd.pwd.hp.co.uk SN=Jennings ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Date: 25 Jan 91 02:47:11 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16291@accuvax.nwu.edu>, DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > Hopefully, I will get a response which will explain why AT&T continues > to do this, yet after reading some of the other posts, I won't hold my > breath! :( Buy a share of AT&T stock, and ask him at a stockholder's meeting. If you prefer, write to shareholder relations and explain your frustration and intended action, and ask for whatever info you are entitled to to be sure you will be heard at the meeting. I bet your message will not be ignored, but the lesson you get from their PR types may make you sick. [Moderator's Note: That is the reason why I can't recommend that people send letters to customer service or public relations departments. Those folks are NOT in a position to make the changes you request. Their job is merely to buffer your calls and letters so the people at the top don't have to read them or think about anything much. If you are going to write email, send it to the places it will do the most good -- to the chairmen and managers of companies. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ben Singer Subject: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments Date: 24 Jan 91 09:46:25 EST A member of this group suggested I post my comments on the new Panasonic 3910R cordless phone. I had tried several GE models, and then two Sanyos. All ranged from terrible to mediocre on reception; noise, poor voice quality, etc. While AT&T seemed to be getting good ratings in {Consumer Reports}, AT&T's distribution and promotion operation in Canada is incompetent and it was impossible to find one many months after they arrived, so I purchased the Panasonic. It is clearly superior to all others I tried; the voice quality (recept) is very good, still not as good as corded phones (volume) but discernibility is much better than Sanyo; the base station is excellent. The unit is light; there is little static upon angling the portable unit. For the price, it seems like the best buy around. NB: the model, 3910R (R) seems to be the Sound Charger model; this may be the same as AT&T's "Crystal Clarity" etc. Ben Singer Department of Sociology University of Western Ontario Singer@uwo.ca Singer@uwovax.bitnet N6A 5C2 (519) 660-0671 (home) (519) 679-2111 Ext 5137 ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 24 Jan 1991 16:37:15 EST From: LABXU@cunyvm.bitnet Subject: Fiber Optics Standards Request Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center I would like anyone that knows about references to standards in Fiber Optic cables to mail some ideas into my mailbox. Specifically, if you were at an installation and were going to connect some fibers together, what standards would you adhere to? RS-232 for example, is an interface standard. Thanks, Adeola Osinuga ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #65 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20445; 27 Jan 91 1:27 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05281; 26 Jan 91 23:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01642; 26 Jan 91 22:38 CST Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:15:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #66 BCC: Message-ID: <9101262215.ab09844@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:15:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 66 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson All Operators Were Not Created Equal [Steve Forrette] Re: Telecom*USA [W.L. Lance] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Hank Nussbacher] New, Very Simple Phone Scam [Jerry Leichter] OSPS [Mark Van Buskirk] UK Caller Identification [Andrew Bargery] Re: Accessing AT&T [Jack Dominey] Re: CNN/Baghdad [Louis J. Judice] Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid & High Frequency Loss [S. Forrette] 10835 by Request Only? [John C. Fowler] Flashing Got an AT&T Operator [John C. Fowler] Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Steven A. Minneman] Person Numbers [Ben Stoltz] What is 'Hello Direct'? [Marc A. Smith] Tariff Information Needed [Donald Yett] 301/410 at Chesapeake Bay in Maryland [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 21:35:44 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: All Operators Were Not Created Equal MCI and Sprint may claim to have operators that are "just as good," but time after time, they prove themsevles wrong. I had misdialed a number today, and here's Sprint's version of "immediate credit": >> "Sprint operator" > "I need credit for a wrong number." >> "What did you dial to get me?" > (She doesn't know this already?) "Zero-Zero" >> "And what number are you calling me from?" > (Boy, she doesn't know much) "xxx-xxx-xxxx" Just what sort of equipment do they have anyway? They don't know who I am or how I got there. A few months ago, I read an article about the AOS sleaze. They had a picture of several people sitting in a room, with headsets on, with each operator sitting in front of a PC clone. The wrong choice, definitely! ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Lance" Subject: Re: Telecom*USA Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 03:48:47 GMT Pat, Does Telecom*USA's 800 service cost only $2.75 per month even for one line? Lance Ware Mac and IBM Reseller Try here first:lance@spud.img.rit.edu | Then here:wlw2286@ultb.rit.isc.edu Last Resort:wlw2286@ultb.UUCP [Moderator's Note: They are just $2.75 each. Of course, I am grandfathered under the old arrangements. Others here have written that Telecom*USA is now operating under MCI rates. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:31:27 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again > SCAM -- A visitor from Israel rented apartments in Ohio last >summer and set up a telephone exchange that placed more than 5,000 >calls between Israel and Arab countries without paying the bill. > AT&T has been involved in an investigation of Middle East calling >setups in various parts of the country since early 1990. I would appreciate that in the future full details be described. I have been aware of this phenomena for over two years now. It is not Jews who are setting up this scam, but rather Arabs mainly from the West Bank. Hank Nussbacher Israel [Moderator's Note: I was going to post this myself but did not do so when the other submission arrived. The {Chicago Tribune} version of this made reference to the person involved being from the Gaza Strip. Neither of the versions were very complete. I do not know if he was identified as a Jew or Arab. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 08:17:23 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: New, Very Simple Phone Scam The {New York Times} a couple of days ago reported on a return to good old American values: No complicated high tech for these phone scammers, just simple fast talking. What they do is pick a number at random, dial it, and tell whoever answers that they are with telephone security and in the midst of some kind of test. As part of the test, the victim will shortly receive a call from an operator asking whether they approve of a third-party charge. The victim is to cooperate with the investigators and say "yes". If the victim agrees ... well, it doesn't take much guessing to fill in what happens next. If the victim disagrees, the scammers will often threaten to cut off phone service. Apparently they have little trouble convincing enough people to go along to make this a going business. Jerry ------------------------------ From: mvanbusk@bcm1a05.attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 24 09:58:31 CST 1991 Subject: OSPS Organization: AT&T Can anyone provide information on OSPS service? Several questions come to mind. What features will OSPS provide that TSPS doesn't? I'm aware of only one called " MECH. " I've heard that customers don't like this feature. Also, are LEC's using OSPS or is it just AT&T? It has been several years since I've worked with TSPS equipment. I believe all of the TSPS equipment has been replaced since then. Any comments? Mark Van Buskirk Rolling Meadows, Il ------------------------------ From: barj Subject: UK Caller Identification Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 17:58:29 GMT Recently, I have seen some equipment for sale in the UK that displays the caller's telephone number before you answer the phone. How is this done? I think I read in this group a little while ago that in the US, the caller's phone number comes down the line (in DTMF) between rings. Is this true? Is a similar system used here? Is it automatic or (more likely) do you have to pay BT (or Mercury) lots of money to get it? Any information - please email or post. Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I haven't seen it here. Thanks in advance. esupg@uk.ac.warwick.cu Andrew University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. Bargery 154 Brunswick St, Leamington, CV31 2ER, UK. vox : +44 926 881264 [Moderator's Note: Where Caller*ID is available here, it is transmitted between the first and second ring. If you were monitoring or tapping the line when a call arrived, you would hear the data as it arrived on your end. I do not know precisely what system you have there, but I know enough about British Telecom to know they don't send it to you for free. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 24 10:07:01 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T Responding to Lars Poulsen in Digest V11, #62. >(1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be >no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the >originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is >not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized >calls. You can certainly make third-party billed calls using 10288-0. I've done it from COCOT's on several occassions. Why can't hotels block 10XXX-1 and allow 10XXX-0? Hotel lines can be identified to the operator, who would not allow calls to be billed directly. Better still, hotels could allow 10XXX-1 calls and charge them directly to the room. Maybe I'm too honest by nature, but I really don't understand where the unauthorized billing problem comes from. >(2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX >calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate >type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in >the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the >last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX >selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this >solution. I'm probably wading in over my head here, but ... isn't there a difference in the class of access between 950-YXXX and 10XXX? I refer to the access the LD carrier purchases from the local exchange company. The LEC's would probably be more than happy to provide 950 access for AT&T - as long as AT&T pays for it. If I'm right - please correct me otherwise - then AT&T winds up paying for extra access capacity specifically for this purpose. My own opinion is that AT&T should provide as many methods to reach the network as possible, including 950 and 800 access. As a lowly salesdrone, I have only a hazy comprehension of all the issues involved, I admit. But aren't we talking about software changes throughout the routing system and large-scale changes to billing systems (both AT&T's and the LEC's - AT&T would pay for both)? I still maintain that it wouldn't be cheap or easy, however desirable. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:47:32 PST From: "Louis J. Judice 23-Jan-1991 1634" Subject: Re: CNN/Baghdad I was just listening to an interview with Ed Turner, VP News for CNN. (No relation to Ted Turner, BTW). He indicated the four-wire circuit has indeed been out for days, and that Inmarsat is currently being used (in his words, "Arnet sets it up in the hotel lobby and puts $4000 in quarters in it" :) ) Iraqi Ministry of Information people are there to kill the connection if he deviates from the pre-approved report he's sending. He also indicated that while CNN would definitely never offer to have shared the four-wire line, that the story about Iraq demanding it be shared or cut is not true. ljj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:04:36 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article <16264@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andy Jacobson writes: >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. People outside the bay area can feel free to try this, as the call never supervises. (The downside of this is that you can't use it to haze people with three-way calling! :-) :-) ) Steve Forrette, forrette@eccs.nwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:31:22 PST From: "John C. Fowler" Subject: 10835 by Request Only? Pat, you mentioned in a couple of past articles that Telecom*USA's carrier access code, 10835, as available on a line by request only. Just out of curiosity, I tried dialing 10835-1-700-555-4141 from my home phone in the San Diego area (619-546). I got the carrier ID message, even though I have never spoken with Telecom*USA. Perhaps they changed their minds about spontaneous public access? At any rate, if I were to try dialing a "real" number using 10835, and it went through, would the call show up on my phone company bill, or would Telecom*USA attempt to bill me themselves? John C. Fowler, jfowler@ucsd.edu [Moderator's Note: I don't think 700-555-4141 counts for the purpose of making calls via 10835. After I had one of my numbers changed recently I tried using 10835 on that line and the call bounced because the ANI sent by Illinois Bell did not match anything in Telecom*USA's data base. Try it on some simple, inexpensive call and see what you get. I don't think you will get through. *If* you did get through then you would probably be billed at some point in the future by Telecom*USA. When they could not identify you, they would ask your local telco where to send the bill. Part of the rules regarding 10xxx style calling is that your local telco **MUST** supply billing information about you on request to the OCC. The fact that your number is non-pub does not matter. The OCC can have the information under the new rules. 'Casual callers' are a nuisance to many OCC's which is why some such as Telecom*USA disallow those calls until they at least have your name and address in their computer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:40:15 PST From: "John C. Fowler" Subject: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator An interesting experience happened to me today. I was dialing a long distance call from a pay phone (true Pacific Bell) via AT&T. After dialing my card number, the call went through as usual, but there was no answer. I decided to try calling another number, so I pressed the switchhook for about half a second and released it, expecting a dial tone. (Using "#" hadn't occured to me at the time.) Instead, an AT&T operator came on the line. I asked how she got there, and she said she didn't know; my call had just come through as usual. After I explained what had happened, she just advised me to hold down the switchhook longer in the future. Now I wonder, on phones with no three-way calling, is flashing the switchhook designed so that rotary users can place additional calls in the same way tone users can press "#"? John C. Fowler, jfowler@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:07:06-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article <15921@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > ...as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by > removing the 1+ from toll calls within it And in the 415 area, we have never had to use 1+7D. [Moderator's Note: Nor did we in Chicago until a few years ago. For however long we dialed seven digits for anything in the old 312 area, and ten digits for anything else. In order to allow the use of prefixes which 'look like area codes' they started using 1+ here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 18:48:51 PST From: Ben Stoltz Subject: Person Numbers I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers". In the brave new world, people may have the option of calling me instead of my phone. Or, they may want to call my fax, even if that means the fax in the hotel where I am staying instead of the fax machine where I work. To make this scheme work, the calling party dials a person number. I would like the person number to use a different dialing plan than the North American dialing plan (1-AAA-XXX-XXXX). Maybe 012-PPPPPPPPPP? New dial plan, everybody gets a whole bunch of phone numbers. To differentiate different addressable things, such as fax or answering machine or me, a sub-address is also required: 012-PPPPPPPPPP,SS. How does a person specify the subaddress? If you were going to implement this today, without TPC help, how would you do it? Maybe dial an 800 number computer answers dial more digits computer resolves number to a NA dial plan number and then computer transfers the call. Does ISDN make any of this any easier? How does the computer know where to route calls? Ben Stoltz stoltz@Eng.Sun.COM Sun Microsystems, Inc. (415)336-1733 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 22:43:32 EST From: Marc Subject: What is 'Hello Direct'? Hello Direct has been mentioned a number of times in Telecom. As a new subscriber I am interested but lack any information about this catalog. Could you enlighten me? Marc A. Smith UCLA - Sociology [Moderator's Note: 'Hello Direct' is a mail order firm specializing in a variety of telecom-related items such as telephone sets, headsets, autodialers and the like. They are located on the west coast. To be placed on their mailing list and receive a free subscription to their catalog phone 1-800-HI-HELLO. I think their prices are a bit high on some of their things. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Donald Yett Subject: Tariff Information Needed Date: 24 Jan 91 07:51:00 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Where would I contact to get tariff information for inclusion in a billing system ? [Moderator's Note: The issuer of the tariff, i.e. local telco or LD carrier, is the best place to start. They are required to show them to you (or send a copy for a reasonable copying fee). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 12:24:57 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 301/410 at Chesapeake Bay in Maryland In Maryland, currently served only by area code 301: The entire eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay will go into 410. Along the western shore, 410 will reach as far south as Solomons (326 exchange). Lexington Park-Great Mills (I checked the 863 exchange) will stay in 301. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #66 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25894; 27 Jan 91 4:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04513; 27 Jan 91 2:51 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac21364; 27 Jan 91 1:46 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 1:25:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #67 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270125.ab28028@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 01:25:39 CST Volume 11 : Issue 67 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom*USA (was: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues) [Phydeaux] New Jersey Bell is Also a 'Pioneer' [Dave Levenson] Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits [Rolf Meier] Re: Videos by Phone [Robert Virzi] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Jack Dominey] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order [Louis J. Judice] Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Dave Levenson] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Jeff Carroll] Re: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? [Jeff Carroll] Voice-Image Phone Information Wanted [Edgardo Richards] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 10:53:51 PST Subject: Re: Telecom*USA (was: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues) Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!reb@uunet.uu.net From: Phydeaux In article <16302@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Huttig writes: >Well, I am still having billing problem with my 800 account. They >finally admited that I was right and that the 1+ was billing at >Telecom*USA rates. That was about one week ago. It is now three weeks >[Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping >that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they >have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask. PAT] I just called Telecom*USA and was told to call MCI if I wanted to inquire about service, so it would seem that MCI is *not* going to just leave them alone. The person I spoke with called it a "merger" but it sounds like they were just swallowed whole and are in the process of being digested ... Last time I called MCI to ask about their "personal 800" service I had the feeling I was going to be slammed, and they didn't have any info they could send me on it anyway. Are MCI's services the same as Telecom*USA's were and what exactly did Telecom offer? reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60057 312-549-8365 [Moderator's Note: Their services were similar (as are all OCC's), but I always thought Telecom*USA did things more efficiently, and that their charges were less than MCI's. When I call customer service, I still talk to *them* -- not MCI -- but that is probably because I am already their customer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: New Jersey Bell is Also a 'Pioneer' Date: 25 Jan 91 00:30:42 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16364@accuvax.nwu.edu>, our Moderator adds, in part: > [Moderator's Note: You are welcome. IBT has distinctive ringing and > all the CLASS features now in about seventy percent of the offices. > They expect to be fully converted within a few months. We've always > been first here. We had the first ESS in the late 1960's in Morris, > IL. Downtown Chicago had ESS in 1974. The entire area was all ESS as A New Jerseyan wants to toot his horn, too: Morris, IL, did have an experimental ESS, using a technology never put into production, and it was before the late 1960's. The first 1ESS switch, the one that became the standard analog local central office technology, was trialed in the early 1960's in Succasunna, NJ. This was after the Morris trial, and before anybody else got production ESS. CLASS, including Caller*ID, was first offered in NJ. 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: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) Date: 25 Jan 91 06:19:16 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16367@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > In article <16295@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jack Dominey writes to address the > complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance > service via 950-0288 or an 800-number: >> The issue >> of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought >> by the lodging industry. Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming >> their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access. They (generally) allow > (1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be > no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the > originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is > not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized > calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class > of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls > without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power > in the POP to manage this). There ARE standard types of screening available that only allow calls to be billed to credit cards, third party or collect, but NEVER to the calling line. This kind of screening typically allows 1+ dialing anywhere, but kicks in on 0+ because local call accounting equipment can't tell what service the operator will be asked to provide. This sort of screening comes in several variations and has been available for a LONG time. This whole mess the hotels were fighting could have been simplified IF the LECs would have provided a modification to that standard screening that would do the following. As before, 1+ could do anything. 0+ would go to the presubscribed IXC and be screened. 10xxx1+ would be blocked because the hotel customer has NO business rerouting 1+ calls. 10xxx0+ calls would be screened and would be allowed only to IXCs that honored the screening class mark. I assume the FCC should tolerate blocking calls to IXCs not honoring the screening. The hotel's modifications would be minimal. ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits Date: 24 Jan 91 20:12:37 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <16327@accuvax.nwu.edu> slr@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve L. Rhoades) writes: >These tones are in the 10 - 20 Khz range and are barely audible. >There doesn't seem to be a set pattern, but they seem to occur about >once every sixty seconds. It's a series of about four different >tones, all high-pitched, lasting about a second each. How did you determine that they were in the 10-20 khz range? I suspect anything higher than 3.4 khz originates on this side. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 09:24:38 -0500 From: Robert Virzi Subject: Re: Videos By Phone In article <16348@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be > something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get > excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). I called Explore Technology and they sent me out a fairly uniformative fax. They *do* claim to be able to send a two hour movie in fifteen seconds, but they are unclear as to the technology involved. They seem to be claiming this rate is possible over fiber, coax, and satellite links, not twisted pair. The technology does not use "cassette catridges", so some other form of local storage is required. They mention something called an "Instant Video Reciever", so the download is not to tape format. Some speculations. They are using compression technology and possibly (as some folks around here believe) a board set that allows storage and decompression. They are not very willing to give information without a non-disclosure agreement. Apparently they have legal staff. If anyone else wants to try, the phone number and address of the company is: Explore Technology Inc 7950 E. Acoma Dr. Suite 211 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (602) 991-3224 Apparently the techies there are Richard Lang and Peter Spiess, among others. If anyone else finds out more about what it is they do, please keep me posted eitehr through the net or email. Bob Virzi rv01@gte.com ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 25 08:42:16 EST 1991 Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" I have a two-year old message sent out to AT&T sales regarding the proper termination for analog data lines. According to this message, "The JM8 is intended to be the standard termination for analog data services." I've also heard the JM8 described as an 'eight-pin mini-modular jack'. An accompanying list shows all the RBOCs accepting specification of "JM8" or "8MMJ". Some of the other independents - Centel, GTE, and Southern New England Tel - were still using the 42A Connect Block. This is apparently an older standard, and since the message is so old, they may well have changed since then. As a telemarketing type, I don't get to go out and see my customers. (They're mostly 500-600 miles away!) But I'm told that Bell South installers usually terminate analog dedicated circuits in a device called a 'Teleport', which provides the JM8 as well as some other options. Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker, GA | 800-241-4285 | AT&T Mail !dominey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 08:41:00 PST From: "Louis J. Judice 25-Jan-1991 1110" Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order I don't think there's anything ironic about telecom professionals being blown up in our first attacks on Bagdad. Telecommunications, railroads, police and fire departments are all civilian staffed organizations that are an integral part of a country's infrastructure. This infrastructure is the first target of an attack. Rather than being ironic, I'd consider it to be almost a "compliment" to be part of a profession that is so important to a nation's security. People working in high profile locations are doubtlessly aware that they are at greater risk of attack than other locations. Believe me, living less than a mile from the AT&T network operations center, I know full well that there are several Soviet warheads aimed at me all the time! I don't really think this is an appropriate place to start or continue any kind of discussion of the MERITS of attacking any particular country, but I certainly accept the idea that if you're going to attack and win, you do things like target telephone switching centers and microwave towers. ljj ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme Date: 25 Jan 91 17:35:41 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16377@accuvax.nwu.edu>, halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Peter Marshall) writes: > To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues > or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going > statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a > national level? In New Jersey, for reasons never explained to me, the 7% state sales tax did not apply to telephones. As of three years ago, it suddenly did. The state justified taxing telephones by stating that the revenue derived from this tax would finance the state-wide implementation of E911 service. Like the Massachusetts directory assistance charge, this causes all telephone users (really, all telephone owners) to subsidize the emergency service. Is this fair? A visitor from out of state who never bought a telephone in New Jersey may still call 911 from a public telephone in the state. But somehow, I prefer not to have to worry about payment (finding coins, etc) in a time of emergency. Directory assistance is (and was already) charged for, so that's going somewhere else. 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: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Date: 24 Jan 91 21:02:51 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article <16212@accuvax.nwu.edu> crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: >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. My understanding is that Arnett was specifically exempted from the expulsion. The Iraqis are not as dumb as we would like to think, and this is ample evidence of that. Whereas there was no possibility of amply censoring *all* the news stories going out on *all* the news services while everyone was there, it's very easy for them to censor *one* reporter - who just happens to work for the news service that everyone in the world - including the BBC has been relying on through the crisis. (It was strange to hear the Beeb playing tapes of Shaw, Arnett, and Holliman through the first couple days of the war. On the other hand, I was able to hear the BBC even without my shortwave set through our local NPR affiliate, who broadcast BBC World Service instead of the usual classical music.) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? Date: 25 Jan 91 01:38:14 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article <16229@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Other than for about fifteen minutes at the start of the war, >connections here appear to be moving smoothly. What experiences did >you have in other places? I imagine that here at Boeing our leased lines were probably tied up all over the metro area, but that happens every time it snows :^). >On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being >maintained at this time? Are any sites able to get through at all >with news? I just fingered vms.huji.ac.il, a VAX at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; it responded promptly with the following: [128.139.4.3] Friday, January 25, 1991 3:30AM-GMT Up 10 03:52:57 4+4 Jobs Load ave 3.04 3.02 3.06 User Personal Name Job Subsys Idle TTY Console Location DEKEL Avishai Dekel 204001DB *DCL* 1:49.nty26 TCP: galaxy.huji.ac. SERAN Eran Megido 20402D7C BMAIL nty1 TCP: ls2.huji.ac.il SIMON Simon Shickman 20400144 *DCL* 6:41.nty13 TCP: horizon.huji.ac TZVI1 Tsvi Kidron 204006B7 *DCL* 9:40.nty8 TCP: carmel.cc.huji. Life seems to be going on in Jerusalem... Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com [Moderator's Note: Well, Adolph -- er, I mean Saddam seems to not be bothering Jerusalem at all; it is Tel Aviv which is getting the rough time this past week. Are sites there still connected? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Edgardo Richards Subject: Voice-Image Phone Information Wanted Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 17:46:41 CAM I've not been able to get information on voice-image phones. I've heard that Mitsubishi manufactures something like that. I would like to know about technical features, behaviour, limitations, dealers, prices. Please write to : uunet!huracan!richards Edgardo Richards Encargado de Informacion Confederacion Universitaria Centroamericana San Jose Costa Rica Thanks in advance ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #67 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27564; 27 Jan 91 5:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07538; 27 Jan 91 3:57 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04513; 27 Jan 91 2:52 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 2:33:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #68 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270233.ab18692@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 02:33:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 68 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Call Answer Detection Unit [Barton F. Bruce] Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order [Ed Greenberg] Re: Japanese Payphones [Lars Poulsen] Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [Roger Fajman] MA 911 Payment Scheme - Sounds Like Business Opportunity [Dan Herrick] Re: Charging for 911 [Steve Thornton] AT&T 5000 Series Answering Machines Are Superb! [Randy Borow] Re: Videos by Phone [Dennis Pratt] Re: Videos by Phone [Heath Roberts] USOC Code Letters [John R. Levine] Israel Connectivity Status [Richard Budd] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Call Answer Detection Unit Date: 27 Jan 91 06:51:37 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. The lack of answer supervision being passed back to the subscriber has long been a problem especially in the lodging industry. People checking out often find they are charged for unanswered calls and were not charged for brief calls. At least three companies now are marketing hardware that listens to the line and tries to determine when the call was answered. Some have gotten quite clever, and score quite well even on international calls and on calls to DID PBXes with non standard ring-back tone, etc. They can capture the SMDR record, strip its 'time', match the number dialed with what they capture watching just the actual trunks, and produce their own version of the SMDR record with correct time for the existing call accounting system to price and post to a hotel guests account. Not cheap, but they are selling well to LARGE hotels. Payback thru catching short calls frequent travelers are skilled at making can pay for the system in a few months. At smaller properties, and where there is less cheating, they may NEVER pay for themselves. Hopefully the phone companies will get around to offering answer supervision as a service one of these years. Many switches like the Mitel SX200Ds that are popular in the lodging industry can detect reverse battery on the trunks and use it as answer supervision for SMDR call timing purposes. I can BUY an SX200D for about the price of one the smaller of these add on units, so I think they are quite overpriced. If you need info, the literature I am looking at is from: Gemini Telemanagement Systems 1000 Elwell Court Palo Alto CA 94303 415.967.4610 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:56 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order Steve Mitchell writes: > I find it ironic that, in our humanitarian gesture towards the > people of the Arabian Peninsula, the first casualties in the > conflict may have been civilian professionals like you and I. The > contradictions in the philosophies of modern warfare, in terms of > their goals and their means, abound. You know, there isn't much humanitarian about a war. It is sobering, however, to realize that the telephone operators are as much at risk as the soldiers. As a technical person, you may too live near "ground zero." I live and work within ten miles of Moffett Naval Air Station -- in the heard of Silicon Valley. I grew up going to school across the street from Grumman Aerospace in Bethpage, New York. If "the big one comes" and thank the deity that's less likely these days, I have no illusions about whether I live in a target area. On the other hand, if it is suggested that we not take out the telephone exchange because there are civilian technicians working there, then we have bowed to the Human Shield concept and our entire operation is now held hostage. [Moderator's Note: Telephone employees have been in the middle of these things before and simply tried to carry on the best they could. There have been local and national emergencies which greatly taxed the ability of telecom people to get the job done ... yet they stuck with it. Historical trivia: In the middle 1960's, protestors of the war in southeast Asia barricaded the Administration Building at the University of Chicago and forced the building to be closed for two days. The one exception was the telephone operators: they not only were permitted to enter and leave the building, but as a matter of their personal safety were escorted in and out by the protestors. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Organization: Rockwell CMC Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 20:28:57 GMT In article <16384@accuvax.nwu.edu> wolfson@mot.com (Steve Wolfson) writes: >[An article in Business Week] mentioned that [prepaid telephone cards] >may become used for items other than payphones. Like everywhere else >there is talk of standardization of these cards and concerns that this >would create a new alternative "electronic" currency that doesn't fit >within standard banking laws. I just read that the Danish telephone companies have started a project together with the Visa/EuroCard clearinghouse to define a "smart" debit card to replace coins. This card would be prepaid with $50 to $100 and be used for things like telephones, bus fares, street hotdog vendors etc. Unlike existing debit cards, which may only be issued to persons age 18 and up, these would have no age restrictions. I suspect in a couple of years, every child will wear one around their neck. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 17:25:17 EST Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues I too was a customer of SBS when MCI took it over. I was somewhat concerned because we had previously switched to SBS from MCI due to poor line quality. This turned out not to be a problem because MCI had sufficiently improved their line quality in the meantime that we did not notice any difference on our voice calls. The problem that I did have is that this this was in the days before equal access became available in our neighborhood and MCI wanted us to dial a regular local number instead of 950-1088 (the SBS number). Due to our class of local service, this turned a free local call into one that cost nine cents. By complaining enough I got them to keep us on 950-1088 until equal access became available, a matter of a few months. The Around Town feature on the MCI calling card was available then, but it made dialing more complicated. As I recall, SBS took the account number first, so it could all be put on one button on our memory phone. The phone was able to wait for the second dial tone. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 91 00:40:00 EDT From: "CONTR HERRICK, DAN" Subject: MA 911 Payment Scheme - Sounds Like Business Opportunity dgp0@bunny.gte.com (Dennis Pratt) writes: >Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the >system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has >convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411 >users, pay for this system. If they are going to price directory service out of reach, someone should offer a $0.40 per minute (or maybe .50) 900 directory information service. It should be possible to base the operation in a state other than Massachusetts, thus staying out of the reach of the Massachusetts regulators, and offer nationwide directory service, again staying out of the reach of Massachusetts regulators, but advertise more heavily in Massachusetts to get it started. It would require cutting a deal with the operators of that data base accessible through COMPUSERV that provides all the directories of the US online. Directory service prices from the various telephone companies are going up. It should be possible to start this service in a kitchen with one operator serving one phone line. As the demand increases, add servers. Thus, most of the up-front expenses are initial advertising. Start with a daily ad in the Boston Globe, one column inch. Pyramid it from there. Anyone want to see if we can make this work? dan herrick Aricol Communications POBox 1419 Mentor, Ohio 44061 (216)974-9637 herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com [Moderator's Note: You'd have to price it much higher. If you were using CIS, they get regular connect rates plus 25 cents per minute surcharge for that service. You'd pay 30 cents or more to the provider of the 900 line. The similar service doing reverse lookups is getting about $1.50 per minute I think. No one would pay that much for your service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 09:50:36 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Charging for 911 I don't know about your area, but here in Boston, *all* calls requesting police assistance, even non-emergencies, must go to 911. If you try to call the cops on your neighbors' loud party, the station will tell you to call 911. A $5 or $10 charge would effectively cut off police access except in the most dire emergencies. Also, how would you call 911 from a pay phone? Forget it, that dog won't hunt (to quote our new governor). steve thornton / harvard university library / 617.495.3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Sun Jan 27 00:37:07 CST 1991 Subject: AT&T 5000 Series Cordless Phones are Superb! Ben Singer commented on his purchase of a Panasonic Cordless phone and had alluded to AT&T's phones. Allow me to say that -- even if I despised AT&T (which I definitely don't) -- I can honestly state that AT&T's cordless phones in the 5000 series are superb! I have the old model 5200 (now replaced by an updated version), and I love it. The reception is spectacular. Their 5500 is also a great buy. It has a speakerphone (one of the best on the market), as well as a dial pad on the base (good idead if you misplaced the handset). It has ten channel security, intercom, extra base for the handset, etc. While the $249 retail price is kinda high, I'd suggest getting ahold of an AT&T employee who can get one for you as a "gift" at a substantial discount. By the way, Ben, you could always call AT&T at 1-800-555-8111 and ask about home delivery and other personal phone equipment stuff. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: Dennis Pratt Subject: Re: Videos by Phone Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1991 15:16:55 EST In article <16348@accuvax.nwu.edu> djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: > Explore Technology Inc. which apparently is about to deliver > the first video-on-demand service, Instant Video. This product was > demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas ... > technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations I went to the Consumer Electronics Show. I passed by the Explore booth, but did not notice their system. The Winter CES Official Directory does not list their "Instant Video Receiver" or their "Instant Video Transceiver" products as part of their product line. A review of all the seven daily trade magazines that wrote about many of the highlights of the show and that were distributed free at the show does not mention Explore or its outstanding achievements at all. Explore's press release has relatively little information. Instead it is filled with adjectives such as "unprecendented", "revolutionary", "graduated from science fiction to world of today", "like something born of the 25th-century technology protrayed by the television series 'Star Trek'", "significant benefits", blah, blah, blah. They contend their 'technology' will enable video on demand. They also talk about their "*patented* Instant Video system" yet will not talk without non-disclosure. Their speed contention is that "an IVR connected to a *high-capacity* transmission line using Instant Video technology would receive a two-hour motion picture in approximately 15 seconds." My guess is that all we have here is a typical video compression algorithm hidden by a bunch of sales hype and exaggerated by fiber. Their number, if you want to confirm this, is 602-991-3224. Richard Lang is "CEO". If they aren't just hyping, I'll buy their stock for sure. Dennis Pratt Disclaimer: My company doesn't know about any of this ever. ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: Videos by Phone Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:30:44 GMT In article <16392@accuvax.nwu.edu> esupg@cu.warwick.ac.uk (barj) writes: >> Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone >> lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. >If this is the case, you're going to need well over 300,000 telephones. >And a mailman who will be prepared to deliver the 3500+ bills a day. :-) >The Sonet/SDH intercontinental level is only going to use a bit-rate >of 2.4Gbps and I doubt that _that_ will be anywhere near the market >place by 1995. Full motion video takes about ten to fifteen megabits per second of bandwidth. Northern Telecom has 2.4Gb and 4.8Gb units on the market, and higher-rate units working that have to be field-packaged (I can't say any more specifics). This kind of system (selectable video program) has been demonstrated by Northern Telecom at a retirement community in Florida, and is part of Fiberworld. It does require fiber optic cable to the customer premises, and right now such service probably wouldn't be allowed by regulatory agencies, but it is coming. At least technically. The service the writer above mentioned is probably a movie-ordering system. You call a number to see a given movie, the cable TV company gets your number, maps it to the appropriate video box number, and tells your decoder to let you watch the movie. The difference is that your LEC is NOT providing the video, only subscriber information to the cable franchise. This has been tariffed in a few states already. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: USOC Code Letters Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 27 Jan 91 00:35:16 EST (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article <16373@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > I have the wiring diagrams for both the RJ-41S and RJ-41M > jacks in front of me right now and can't find any differences; As far as I can tell, the letter describes the physical mounting of the jack and is unrelated to the wiring. According to my old Armiger catalog, the letters are: C Connecting block on baseboard or in mounting box W Wall mounted set (e.g. wall phones which snap on to two pins on the mounting plate) M Multiple arrangements with up to 8 blocks X Anything else, typically physically the same as C S Single connector block, I suppose for arrangements where it is typical to have multiples. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 21:46 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: Israel Connectivity Status Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY Hank Nussbacher writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #59 >Our PTT has also started using its new fiber optic cable - AMOS - >ahead of schedule. This links into TAT8. The fiber optic cable is a >joint venture among all Med. countries, including Greece, Cyprus, >Italy as well as others. I'm curious whether Egypt, Turkey, or Syria are among the Mediterranean countries included in the AMOS fiber optic venture considering the strained relations between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus and the belligerent state of affairs between Syria and Israel. Of course, it could be possible. I just finished explaining to someone about an Iranian student who receives his news from Israeli radio. Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others - klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone : (914)578-3764 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #68 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29454; 27 Jan 91 6:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15711; 27 Jan 91 5:03 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07538; 27 Jan 91 3:58 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 3:47:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #69 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270347.ab02359@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 03:47:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 69 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Audiovox CMT Series Program Codes [Douglas Scott Reuben] Press Release of Lotus Decision on Household Database [Steve Forrette] Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts [Donald E. Kimberlin] Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Jeff Sicherman] CNN Coverage in Baghdad [Richard Budd] Hunting and Busy Call Forwarding [Ole J. Jacobsen] Special Mailing: Telecom Calendar of Events [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Audiovox CMT Series Program Codes Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 12:16 EST Here's what I know about programming Audiovox CMT400, 405, 450, 550, 605 and BC-40/BC-45 phones. The instructions may also work on other models, as all Audiovox (and perhaps other brands?) phones seem to follow the same procedure. If anyone saw my last posting on this a while back, this list is more or less complete (which my last one was not), so this should supercede any previous postings on the subject by me. Without further delay, here's how to program the phone: 1. Turn on the phone. 2. CLEAR out the display (hit CLR) 3. If it has never been programmed, you LOCK code is "000". 4. Enter your LOCK code (usually last 3 digits of your mobile number). 5. Enter FUNC, then "#", and then "1". You should now be in program mode. You will see the first three digits of your phone number as display item #1. (Thus, if your number is 555-1212, you will see something like: "C1 555". C1 is the item number.) Here's a table of the different locations: 1. FIRST 3 digits of phone number 3 digits 2. LAST 4 digits of phone number 4 digits 3. LOCK Code 3 digits 4. Area Code 3 digits 5. Home Area System ID 5 dig.,usually "00xxx" 6. Horn Alert (0=disable, 1=enable) 1 digit (0/1) 7. Hands-Free Speakerphone (0=disable, 1=en.) 1 digit (0/1) 8. End-to-end signalling (0=off, 1=on) 1 digit (0/1) 9. Repertory Mark (0=ff, 1=on) 1 digit (0/1) 10.Group ID Mark 2 digits 11.Access Overload Class 2 digits 12.Station Class Mark * 5 digits 13.Local Use Mark (allow local calls only?) 1 digit (0/1) 14.MIN Mark 1 digit (0/1) 15. (not alterable by user, depends on SYS ID) ....... 16. (not alterable by user, depends on SYS ID) ....... 17. Function Mark: 3 digits a. No functions: 0 0 0 b. Preferred System Lock 0 0 1 c. Automatic Lock * 0 0 2 d. Call Timer Beep * 0 0 4 e. Home / Roam inhibit 0 0 8 f. Automatic Cell-Site Redial 0 1 6 18. Reserved for future use ....... 19. Reserved for future use ....... 20. Inhibit SYS-ID (IE, block calls in SYS ID#) 5 digits (ie, SYS ID, 00xxx) 21. Horn Alert Turn-Off Timer * (01-31 hours) 2 digits 22. EMR Turn-Off timer * (01-31 hours) 2 digits 23. Reserved for future use ........ 24. Call-Timer Reset code (just use LOCK code) 3 digits 25. Reserved for future use ........ 26. Depends on all other settings, not alterable by user. * = For CMT-550 and CMT-605 only, these features are not available (as far as I know) on earlier models. You can "move" back and forth between items by pressing the "*" or the "#" keys. After you ALTER any item, make sure you press the STORE (STO) key. This will store your new entry into permanent memory. You must do this even though your new entry shows in the item line; if not, the previous entry will remain once you re-start your phone. When you have STOred all the new items, and wish to end the programming session, pres: FUNC and SND to write the data into the phone (NAM). After this, press FUNC and CLR to re-start the phone. You may also just power it down and then turn it on again. Your phone will now have the new values which you have programmed in. If you decide you don't wish to change the info after all, just press FUNC and CLR (or turn it off/on) without pressing FUNC SND first. I've found this pretty easy to do, and I manage to change from one system to another in about 20 seconds. You really don't have to look at EVERYTHING. All you need to do is enter a new phone number, and that's it. The System ID code is NOT SENT OUT, no matter what some paranoid cell co. may say. Thus, enter the program mode, change locations #1, #2 and #4 (press "#" or STO to skip over #3, your lock code, unless you want to change that), press FUNC and SND, and then FUNC CLR, and you are set! (Note: if you change from the "A" system to the "B" system, or the other way around, you will have to change the SYS ID code, OR use your A/B switch to get from one system to the other. This is because the phone "knows" to look for either the "A" or "B" system first by whether your SYS ID code is ODD or EVEN. (A systems = ODD, B systems = EVEN, so Metro Mobile, the "A" in CT is 00119, while SNET, the "B" in CT, is 00088.) I've found that it is even useful to change the SYS ID code while roaming, to the roaming city's code, so that I will KNOW when I am using some other nearby system and thus will not incur extra daily charges. (... in addition to the one I am already paying for roaming. So let's say I went to Allentown, PA; I would set my SYS ID to be 00103. Thus, while I am in the Allentown system, the ROAM light would be off. As I moved to the Metrophone/Philadelphia system, the ROAM light would come on, telling me that if I make any additional calls, I will pay another roamer surcharge since I am in a new system. Very useful if you don't know the exact coverage of a system in an area.) Guess that's it. If you have any questions, let me know, and I'll see if I can help. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:05 GMT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Press Release of Lotus Decision on Household Database CAMBRIDGE, MA (JAN. 23) - Lotus Development Corp. and Equifax Inc. Wednesday announced the cancellation of Lotus MarketPlace: Households, a CD-ROM database product of names, addresses, and marketing information on 120 million U.S. consumers originally scheduled for shipment in March. The companies said the decision to cancel the product came after an assessment of the public concerns and misunderstanding of the product, and the substantial, unexpected additional costs required to fully address consumer privacy issues. Lotus also announced that it will discontinue shipment of Lotus MarketPlace:Business, a database of information on seven million U.S. businesses that began shipping in October, 1990. "Unfortunately, Lotus MarketPlace: Households is at the apex of an emotional firestorm of public concern about consumer privacy. While we believe that the actual data content and controls built into the product preserved consumer privacy, we couldn't ignore the high level of consumer concern," said Jim Manzi, Lotus' president and chief executive officer. "After examining all of the issues we have decided that the cost and complexity of educating consumers about the issue is beyond the scope of Lotus as a software provider." "Technology is radically changing the way we work and, more importantly, how we use information," said Manzi. "Balancing the advantages of easier access to information with the individual's right to privacy is only the first of many new issues our industry will grapple with in the coming years." C.B. (Jack) Rogers, Jr., president and chief executive officer of Equifax, which provides the data in MarketPlace, said: "Equifax has made several key investments in consumer-oriented initiatives, including our sponsorship of a national survey of consumer attitudes on privacy. The major survey finding was that consumers are willing to make trade-offs for the use of their personal information when they clearly understand the benefits. Despite our significant consumer education efforts, consumer misperceptions about this new product offered through this distribution channel persist." In developing Lotus MarketPlace: Households, Lotus and Equifax implemented a number of privacy-related controls that exceeded traditional direct- marketing industry practices. These practices were the result of extensive research of the consumer privacy issue prior to product development, including testing the product concept with several consumer focus groups and counsel from a nationally recognized consumer-privacy expert. The practices included: o Limiting the data. Specifically excluded from the product were telephone numbers and individual personal data such as actual income, credit data, and purchase history; o Offering the data only to legitimate businesses, through a controlled purchase process; o Educating and advising users about the proper legal and ethical responsibilities for list usage; and o Providing several Lotus- and Equifax-funded options for consumers to have their names removed from the database. "We developed MarketPlace in response to a perceived need and real market opportunity. MarketPlace is an innovative tool for small businesses, who are often shut out of sophisticated direct marketing because of its cost or complexity," said Manzi. "The market for tools like MarketPlace is a viable one. At the same time, the product is not part of our core business, and Lotus would be ill-served by a prolonged battle over consumer privacy." Rogers added: "Equifax is a technology leader and, equally important, a pioneer in the area of consumer privacy protection in the information industry. While we remain committed to using the most sophisticated technology available, we are equally committed to maintaining the delicate balance between legitimate information needs of business and consumers' privacy concerns." The Lotus MarketPlace product family was a suite of CD-ROM (compact-disc, read-only memory) database tools that used the Apple Macintosh personal computer to make it easy for businesses to find new customers. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:59 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts A post and some comments on here remark about tones of the region of 10 Khz and up are heard or radio broadcasts of Mideast dial-up connections. It is utterly impossible for these to be coming from the source, as any dial connection passes through at least one and probably several sets of channel bank filters and digital carrier channels that cannot pass anything beyond 4 Khz, most often no more than 3 Khz. However, high-pitched noises and crosstalk on local telephone cable pairs are often and readily passed by broadcast equipment and transmitters. AM stations in the US can often pass 12 Khz, and most can pass 10 Khz, while FMs are regulatorily required to pass 15 Khz. Experienced broadcasters avoid this by placing their own low-pass filter in the dial line output to air so as to avoid these problems. If the source of what is being broadcast was taken from an inter- national shortwave broadcast, high-pitched noises and whistles caused by adjacent channel transmissions on the High Frequency bands are rather common. These could likewise be filtered out at the station, but frequently the news people grab such material and air it in a rush without any prepping for air. I really suspect the latter is more often what people hear now- adays. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:49:42 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm An article in the local newspaper (Orange County Register, California) mentioned that many families with relatives deployed to the middle east for operation Desert Storm/Shield have been experiencing humongous phone bills due to the needs and desires to stay in contact with loved ones. The phone companies, both local and long Distance (AT&T, any others ?) are arranging payment plans and have no intention of cutting off service but have said that tariffs forbid them from making the services available at special prices or from giving them away. (How is the Desert Fax service available from AT&T phone centers excluded from this?). I guess the government can't allow use of military lines for this purpose, due to operational considerations but what about government lines that are largely idle on weekends and at night? Do these have sufficient international capacity and would it be legal for them to be used in this manner with some screening? Also seems like there ought to be a way for some large volume user/aggregator with excess capacity to resell through some non-profit operation arranged for this purpose. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sun-Times} this past week mentioned a woman living here in Chicago whose son is in the Marines in the middle east. She got a bill from AT&T for $213 recently due to collect calls from her son. The problem is, she lives in a Chicago Housing Authority building and her sole income is $169 monthly from Public Aid. Several Chicagoans, upon reading the story in the newspaper immediatly sent checks to IBT to pay the lady's bill for her ... The excess funds are now being held by IBT and will be applied to others in similar straits as a result of a family member or loved one being 'over there'. I think it would be a very generous act if members of this net would take charge of establishing such a trust fund in their own community to be administered by a local, recognized charity in cooperation with the telco and an OCC. We've seen the power of this net in other ways in the recent past; how about a concerted effort to make international long distance affordable to our troops and their families for the duration of the conflict? The technical difference between the phone center FAX messages and these other calls is that in the case of the FAXs, AT&T is the 'customer' and is paying for the transmission. They are inviting you to come to their office and use their phone. If you use your phone then you are the customer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 00.10.17 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: CNN Coverage in Baghdad Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY As of 8:00 AM EST, January 25, 1991, Peter Arnett of CNN was still in Baghdad and is the only Western reporter still in Iraq. Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others- klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone : (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1991 11:02:59 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Hunting and Busy Call Forwarding I am happy to report a definite "yes you can do it" to a question that I have been wondering about for some time. Special thanks to Pete Ahrens of Pac*Bell for clarifying this. I have two lines, A and B, in "circular hunt" or "series completion". This means that if you call A and it is busy, B will ring. If you call B and it is busy, A will ring. So far, pretty basic stuff. I decided to add a third line C, which would be my "spillover" and allow me to receive a third call placed to either A or B when *both* were busy. This is accomplished quite readily by adding "busy call forwarding" to both A and B pointing to C. It turns out that the hunting is attempted *before* busy call forwarding is activated, and so the two services work nicely in conjunction. Another solution would have been to put A, B and C all in circular hunt, but the result would not have been quite the same, as a call to B would hunt to C before hunting to A. Thought you'd like to know. (And Higdon said it could not be done. :-) Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Mailing: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 2:44:17 CST A special mailing will follow this issue of the Digest. William Degnan now is editing a telecom calendar of events, and as new issues of the calendar are released they will be distributed here in the Digest and in comp.dcom.telecom. The first calendar, covering several important events in 1991 is available now. I'm sorry I did not have it available earlier this month. You should send comments, corrections and other information direct to Mr. Degnan at the address in the article. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #69 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00711; 27 Jan 91 7:42 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26834; 27 Jan 91 6:08 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15711; 27 Jan 91 5:03 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 4:14:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 BCC: Message-ID: <9101270414.ab31288@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Dear Readers, This is the first in what I hope will be frequent updates to a Telecom Calendar of Events. I've wanted something like this in the Digest for some time now, but simply was too busy to work on it. Please send comments direct to Mr. Degnan if you find this sort of thing useful and would like to see it here more often. PAT Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 13:24:12 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Telecom Calendar 1991 in Telecom v 0.03 This is our compilation of events calendars for various aspects of the telecommunications industry. To have your activity listed, send your request to: Private Line, Calendar Editor, P.O. Drawer 9530, Austin, TX 78766-9530, or EMAIL to WDEGNAN@ATTMAIL.COM, William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG. ======================================================================= ** 1991 ** ======================================================================= January ======= Jan 10-13 Winter Consumer Electronics Show Las Vegas 202 457-4919 Jan 13-16 Pacific Telecommunications Conference Sheraton Waikiki Honolulu, HI 808 941-3789 Jan 14-17 Building Industry Consulting Service International (BICSI) Holiday Inn Tampa International Airport Tampa, FL 813 974-2695 Jan 14-17 OPASTCO Winter Convention Arizona Biltmore Phoenix, AZ Tampa, Fla. Jan 16-18 Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Convention Center San Diego, CA 202 785-0081 Jan 21-24 MECOM 91 Bahrain 201 652-7070 Jan 22-23 Infotext '91 Interactive Telephone Marketing Tropicana Hotel Las Vegas, NV 714 493-2434 Jan 22-25 Eurocomm '91 International Telecom/Datacomm show RAI Exhibition Centre Europaplein Amsterdam The Netherlands 616 933-9055 Jan 28-31 Network Computing Forum '91 Grand Hyatt Washington, DC 508 879-6700 Jan 28-31 Communications Networks '91 Convention Center Washington, DC 508 879-6700 Jan 29-31 MexCom '91 Mexico City Mexico 305 442-4741 February ======== Feb 4-5 Making Incoming Call Centers Pay Off Business Communications Review Embassy Suites Orlando, FL 708 986-1432 Feb 4-6 Western Communications Forum Hyatt Regency Phoenix, AZ National Engineering Consortium 312 938-3500 Feb 5-8 ONLINE '91 Congress-Centrum-Hamburg Hamburg, W. Germany +49 (2051) 23071 Feb 6-8 Understanding Voice Response: Applications, Technology, and Implementation Business Communications Review Embassy Suites Orlando, FL 708 986-1432 Feb 10-14 National Telephone Cooperative Association San Diego Marriott and Marina San Diego, CA 202 298-2300 Feb 11-14 Networld '91 No location set Boston, MA 800 444-4698 Feb 12-13 Talking Newspapers: Voice Information Services Opportunities Hyatt/Airport Atlanta, GA The Audiotext Group 215 297-1000 Feb 12-14 Mobile Data World Hyatt Regency Capitol Washington, DC 212 373-1930 Feb 12-15 COMEXPO Mexico New Exhibition Center Mexico City, Mexico 703 527-8000 Feb 17-19 Canadian Independent Telephone Association Seminar and Showcase Toronto Canada 416 259-2053 Feb 17-20 California Assn. Annual convention Hyatt Hotel Monterey, CA 916 922-3307 Feb 18-22 Optical Fiber Comm '91 Convention Center San Diego, CA 202 223-8130 Feb 25-27 ComConn '91 "Telecommuting -- Beating traffic and the Competition" Town & Country Hotel San Diego, CA 415 637-2300 Feb 26-28 Computer & InfoAsia '91 Shangri-La Hotel Bangkok, Thailand 662-260-7109 Feb 27-Mar 2 Com Technology Indonesia '91 Jakarta Fair Grounds Jakarta, Indonesia 301 656-2942 Feb 28-29 OPASTCO Leglislative & Regulatory Conf. Quality Inn on Capitol Hill Washington, DC 202 659-5990 March ===== Mar 3-6 Entelec George R. Brown Convention Center and Hyatt Regency Houston, TX 214 235-1761 Mar 3-6 Minnesota Telephone Convention Radisson South Hotel Bloomington, MN 612 291-7311 Mar 5-7 PETE '91 Orange County Expo. Ctr. Costa Mesa, CA 800 525-7383 Mar 5-8 Communications '91 No location set Sidney, Australia +44 (1) 487-5831 Mar 10-13 Western Rural Tel. Assn. Annual Meeting Fess Parker Red Lion Santa Barbara, CA 707 578-5580 Mar 12-15 Carolina-Virginias Tel. Member. Assn. Marriot Raleigh, NC 919 592-5751 Mar 13-20 CeBIT Hannover Germany 404 239-9494 Mar 18-19 OPASTCO Spring Workshop Houstonian Houston, TX 202 659-5990 Mar 18-21 Supercomm '91 George R. Brown Convention Center Houston, TX 312 782-8597 Mar 19-21 Fiber Perspectives '91 George R. Brown Convention Center Houston, TX 312 782-8597 Mar 21-22 Emerging Opportunities for Voice Enhanced Print Products in Europe Inter-Continental Hotel London IBT Technical Services/The Audiotext Group 609 466-0900 Mar 24-26 American Telemarketing Spring Conf. Hyatt Regency Washington Washington, DC 800 441-3334 Mar 24-27 Nat'l Cable TV Assn. (NCTA) Convention Center New Orleans, LA 202 775-3550 Mar 24-27 AM/FM Conference Marriott Hotel & Marina San Diego, CA 303 337-0513 Mar 25-28 Interface '91 World Congress Center Atlanta, GA 617 449-6600 Mar 25-29 ISFOC (Int'l Soviet Fiber Optics Conf.) Bontch-Bruevich Institute Leningrad, USSR 800 323-1088 Mar 26-28 Int'l Mobile communications Expo Convention Center Anaheim, CA 303 220-0600 Mar 27-30 International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications Windham Paradise Valley Resort Scottsdale, AZ 602 862-5200 April ===== Apr 1-3 DMA PRofitable and Effective Use of the Telephone: Outbound and Inbound Palmer House Chicago, IL 212 768-7277 x486 Apr 1-3 SC Telephone Assn. Spring Convention Radisson Resort Hotel North Myrtle Beach, SC 803 252-4505 Apr 2-5 Communications Tokyo '91 Tokyo Japan 301 986-7800 Apr 2-5 National Fiber Optic Engineer's Conference Opryland Hotel Nashville, TN 205 977-7657 Apr 5-9 ACUTA Spring Seminar Hyatt Regency Waikiki Honolulu, HI 606 252-2882 Apr 8-10 Test '91 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 409 845-6575 Apr 9-12 East Eurocomm '91 Budapest Hungary 3388988 (Singapore) Apr 10-11 North Dakota Tel. Assn. Annual Mtg. International Inc. Minot, ND 701 223-6022 Apr 10-12 Voice '91 Convention Center Anaheim, CA 713 974-6637 Apr 21-May 1 Eastern Communications Forum Crystal Gateway Mariott Washington, DC National Engineering Consortium 312 938-3500 Apr 22-24 Network Management Solution World Trade Center Boston, MA 800 225-4698 Apr 22-26 NTCA Legislative Conference Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill Washington, DC 202 298-2300 Apr 22-27 IT '91 Paris-Nord Villepinte Paris, France 312 565-4340 Apr 23-24 Suppliers Showcase (CA Assoc.) Radisson Sacremento, CA 916 922-4407 Apr 23-24 Tele-Marketplace, Telecom Canada Metro Toronto Convention Centre Toronto, Ont. Canada 416 691-6526 Apr 23-26 ISSLS No location set Amsternam, Netherlands +31(35)871466 Apr 23-26 Computer '91 Palais de Beaulieu Lausanna, Switzerland +41(21)451111 Apr 25-26 InterCom '91 Omni Hotel Miami, FL 305 446-5150 Apr 25-26 IFABO/Programma Messegalande Vienna, Austria +43(222)93145240 Apr 25-27 Mobile Comm North America Convention Center Toronto, Canada 202 267-4770 Apr 26-29 East Eurocomm '91 International Fair Centre Budapest, Hungary +65-3388998 Apr 29-May 1 ECF '91 Marriott Crystal Gateway Washington, DC 312 938-3500 Apr 29-May 2 CICC '91 Westin Copley Place Boston, MA 808 879-9128 May === May 3-5 Spring STC Conference No location set Chicago, IL 800 782-7670 May 7-9 Canadian Utility Equipment Show Fargo Holiday Inn Fargo, ND 701 223-6022 May 7-9 TEXPO '91 Moscone Center San Francisco, CA 800 448-3976 May 7-10 OITA Annual Meeting Rippling River Resort Welches, OR 503 581-7430 May 13-15 Tel. Assn. of Michigan Convention Radisson Resort Ypsilanti, MI 517 482-4166 May 14-16 Canadian Utility Equipment Show Metro East Trade Centre Pickering, Ont. Canada 503 581-7430 May 15-19 Telecommex Asia 1991 Trade Training Center Metro Manila, Phillippines +65-5343588 May 19-22 WITA Annual The Inn at Semiahmoo Blaine, WA 206 352-5453 May 20-22 Telecom Developers '91 Hyat Regency - DFW Airport Texas Teleconnect Magazine 212 691-8515 May 20-23 COMDEX/Spring World Congress Center Atlanta, GA 617 449-6600 May 28-31 National Telecommunications Forecasting Conference (A Vision of Tomorrow's Reality) Westin Hotel at Copley Place Boston, MA New England Telephone 617 743-2234 June ==== Jun 2 ICA Anaheim Convention Center Anaheim, CA 214 233-3889 Jun 5-10 Expo Comm Moscow '91 Moscow USSR 301 986-7800 Jun 9-12 New York Telephone Association Sagamore Hotel Lake George, NY 518 462-6696 Jun 9-14 Caribbean Association of National Telecomm Organizations St. Thomas U.S. Virgin Islands Latcom Inc. 305 446-5150 Jun 16-Jul 1 Shanghai China 5463810 July ==== Jul 15-18 Comm Networks West '91 Moscone enter San Francisco, CA 800 225-4690 August ====== (none at this writing) September ========= Sep 9-12 Network 90's Conference and Exhibition San Francisco, CA Pac Bell/USTA/TIA 916 972-3737 Sep 24-26 TCA San Diego Convention Center San Diego, CA 818 967-9411 October ======= Oct 8-15 Geneva Switzerland 312 782-8597 for information November ======== (none at this writing) December ======== (none at this writing) Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14255; 27 Jan 91 17:42 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27108; 27 Jan 91 16:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09201; 27 Jan 91 15:11 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 14:40:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #70 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271440.ab22398@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 14:40:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 70 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones [Craig R. Watkins] Rental Cellular Phones [Larry Jones] Re: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request [Mark Earle] ISDN and Cellular [Jeff Sicherman] NEC P300 Programming [Bob Sherman] Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Donald E. Kimberlin] TX PUC Final Orders Update [William Degnan] Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments [Joe Konstan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones Date: 26 Jan 91 00:07:44 EST Organization: HRB Systems I'm trying to describe generic programming characteristics of cellular phones. I'll list the various terms used by previous authors and try to describe the attributes. I'll use information from previous postings and literature that I've read. Mostly I'll be asking questions about holes in my understanding of how the attributes are used. The following contains information from telecom articles on programming various phones including: A) RS CT-301 from Rob Warnock on 20 Apr 90 (from the manual, I think) B) RS CT-201 from Dave Levenson on 29 Jul 90 (from the phone display, I think) C) Technophone MC-915-A from PAT on 15 Oct 90 (from the phone display) D) NEC P9100 from me (from the phone display) E) From Motorola `Programming Your Personal or Portable Cellular Telephone' `Programming Manual' part #68P81155E16-D, 6/15/89 as supplied by Jerry Durand . A) home system identification 5 digits B) ho id 5-digit C) AREA ID five digit number D) Home Area E) System Identification (SID) Code This is the five digit system id, or SID, of the home cellular system. See the file cellular.carrier.codes on telecom-archives. A) mobile number 10 digits B) phon ten-digit C) some ten digit number ten digit D) Phone No. E) Cell Telephone Number This is the actual ten digit telephone number, or MIN, the mobile identification number. MIN is made up of MIN1, the 24 bits which correspond to the seven digit telephone number and MIN2, the 10 bits which correspond to the three digit areacode (the encoding method is non-obvious). Sometimes people call this the "NAM." This is really the MIN. I think of all these parameters together as a "NAM." A) home paging channel 3 dig B) paging ch 4-digit C) IPCH initial paging channel D) First P-CH E) Initial Paging Channel This is the paging channel on which a phone starts scanning when it is "home." On the A side, this is typically 333 and scanning starts down. On the B side, this is typically 334 and starts up. The 333/334 is obviously the split between A and B on the old 666 channel system. First set of questions: Has anyone used anything other than 333 or 334? Under what conditions would a carrier use a different first paging channel? A) group identification 2 dig B) group id 2 digits C) GRP ID two digit group ID Mark D) G.I.Mark E) Group ID Mark This is a marker (a bit position, I believe) to designate which (MSB) bits in the system ID are used to identify a group of cellular systems (such as PacTel Cellular). (Pat, I believe in your article you mentioned that this had to do with letting the carrier know that you have 832 channels available. I believe that is the SCM parameter in the phone and not this. Do you concur?) [Moderator: I believe you are correct. Also, my Technophone MC-915-A always parks on 327, although it is programmed for and starts out at 333. PAT] I've read that home mobiles or mobiles roaming in the same group may use "Local Control" (see Local Control below). Is the group ID used for anything else? Can anyone comment on either current use or the proposed use of the group ID? A) local control option 1 or 0 B) locl opr 1 digit C) D) Local Use Yes/No E) Local Use bit I assume that this controls whether the mobile uses the "local control" information from the carrier. From what I have read, this info is specific to the local system. If this is the case, what does my phone do with it? How does it know? Anyone with more info on what local control may be used for? Mine is enabled in my phone. A) overload class 2 dig B) o-load class 2 digits C) O/LOAD CLASS two digit number D) ACCOLC E) Access Overload Class This is a four bit number to describe the access overload class of the telephone. I believe it is used to control overloading conditions on the reverse control channel. The carrier can prohibit classes from originating on the reverse control channel at various times. Do I have this concept right? Does anyone know the logistics behind assigning these classes to telephones? Do any carriers assign specific classes to specific groups of users (such as emergency personnel)? After starting these questions, I found a reference to ACCOLC: EIA TSB16-85 Assignment of Access Overload Classes in the Cellular Telecommunications Services. 6pp. However, I wasn't able to find this locally. I may have to order it. Has anyone seen it? A) B) C) EXp ? 0 or 1 D) MIN Mark E) MIN Mark bit Is this whether the mobile sends both MIN1 and MIN2? If so, I thought that was at the request of the carrier, not the phone? A) access method 1 or 0 B) access 1 digit C) D) E) I'm not sure what this is? Any Radio Shack phone owners that can tell us? This might have something to do with accessing the reverse control channel (just a wild guess). A) B) st class 2 digits C) D) E) Station Class Code I believe this is Station Class Mark (SCM), a four bit code in the form ABCD. A = 0 666 channels A = 1 832 channels B = 0 continuous transmission mode B = 1 discontinuous transmission mode (battery saver mode) CD = 00 high power CD = 01 medium power CD = 11 low power A) B) pref sys A or B C) D) Sys Select E) This seems fairly obvious. Most phones also had an [un]lock code and/or a security code which I omitted in this listing because I didn't find it very interesting. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: Larry Jones Subject: Rental Cellular Phones Date: 27 Jan 91 00:55:07 GMT Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati From the January 26 {Cincinnati Post}: Hotels and car-rental agencies that provide cellular telephones to customers soon will be able to get a quick peek at the dollar volume of calls made when the phones are returned at check-out time. Cincinnati Bell Information Systems (CBIS) by March will introduce a new product geared toward business travelers, conventioneers and other short-term cellular users. CIPHERS -- or Cellular Integrated Phone Rental System -- will allow telephone charges to be tallied immediately after the phone is returned so that the rental agencies don't have to bill the client later when its own bill arrives from the phone company. Hotels and car renters will, in essence, be able to hand the customer an "instantaneous invoice," said Tony Tagliareni, CBIS market support manager. CIPHERS works by using a tiny computer chip inside the phone to record call data, rather than relying on information collected at the switch site. The chip can store data for up to 200 calls, more than enough capacity for the typical short-term user, who may spend 20 minutes per day on the phone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:23:57 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request Howard Pierpont (pierpont@crboss.enet.dec.com asks in general about putting six phones in a van. While I cannot suggest much in the "correct" antenna placement or RF issues, I do have some advice. We use CMT's with external modems. The "magic" is a box from Telular (they have an 800 number). This box is called a "celljack". It connects in place of (or in paralell with, depending on cabling desired) the regular hanset/cradel. You then have a regular RJ-11 jack to plug in "whatever". The Celljack provides dial tone when the attached device goes off hook. It will interpret tone or pulse dialing, and send the correct data stream to the CMT transceiver. It will drive 5 REN-1 loads. So far, I've tried it on several Marata, Mitsubish, and Panasonic fax's. NO problem at all. We principally use it at remote sites, so we can modem in to a remote data collection computer. Again, no problems of significance. One thing you will notice, is that on calling TO a modem connected to the Celljack, it takes a bit longer. You may need to increase your terminal emulator's "time out" paramater. On OUTGOING calls through the Celljack, the same problem may occur, since it may take up to 5-10 seconds for the cell side of the call to set up. Most modems or software have a register or paramater to handle this, so it is generally NOT a practical problem. Audio quailty is good (a plain old black desk phone sounds better than the regular cmt handset). I have successfully used an HST 9600 bps modem, to another HST, and gotten 1600 cps; have also used a telebit; and have called to Compuserve's ports, both "regular" and MNP. Also to various Unix boxes and dos-based bbs's, all with no problems. This is both fixed, and while someone else was driving with the vehicle in motion. There is another distributor, Cellular Solutions, who sell the Celljack. It does not work with *all* CMT's but the included list is representative of the more popular units. The cost is about $450. Oh -- it has extensive on board diags you enable with a switch. For instance, ring attached instrument, decode touch tones, verify pulse make/break ratios, etc. For the $ it makes a good general purpose piece of test gear. It can also be set up for ground or loop start, etc. Another unusual use of this product (which is the size, about, of the CMT transceiver unit -- we just double-sticky tape the Celljack to the CMT!) is to connect to a port on a PBX. Dial '7' to get the "special" circuit. Turns out the CMT, with a directional antenna, could reach across an very expensive toll zone. The per minute airtime is about 1/3 of the rate to call direct -- and it gets cheaper at night. The celljack seems to provide all the DC signalling the PBX (small Panasonic) wanted-the pbx belived it has a standard line on that port. Hope this helps! 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: Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:46:25 PST From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: ISDN and Cellular I realize this is kind of a vague question but ... What are the implications and complications for ISDN upon cellular service. It would seem to me that the bandwidth required would be a major problem. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: NEC P300 Programming Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:54:56 GMT If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300 handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass them along to me via e-mail or here on the net. Many Thanks!!! bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:57 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically In addition to MCI Mail automatically providing each E-Mail user an international Telex number based on their account number, in fairness to the competition, we should post that AT&T Mail does the same, as, I believe, does SprintMail. The difference will occur in what US international Telex carrier the numbers come from. That will make a difference in how the overseas Telex caller must dial to reach them. If on MCIMail, their number is on WUI. On ATTMail, it is FTCC Communications, while the former Easylink is via WUTCo. I do not know what carrier SprintMail's deal is with. Those who want to use this option (needed for receiving only; you can transmit to international Telex on all, even without a number) will want to check to find out how to instruct correspondents to call them. MCI Mail certainly is smartest about this. They publish the details in their instruction book. With the others, expect the incompetence we so often suffer. International Telex is unknown to most Americans including the "sales" and "customer service" people of too many locations. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:45:51 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: TX PUC Final Orders Update The following is quoted from the Final Orders Update, published by the PUC's Public Information Office: Public Utility Commission of Texas 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard - Suite 400N Austin, TX 78757 512/458-0100 FINAL ORDERS UPDATE January 9, 1991 Members of the Public Utility Commission of Texas met on January 9, 1991, to consider 14 dockets and one rulemaking. Final Orders were issued in 10 proceedings. All decisions were unanimous (3-0), except where shown. The name of the ALJ/examiner assigned to the case is shown in parentheses following the docket number. CONTESTED CASES "Docket No. 8387 (Robert Howell), Final Order, Petition of R.A. Hirsch against Swouthwestern Bell Telephone Company. "Commissioners adopted the Examiner's Report and amended Final Order, which recommends approval of a joint stipulation stetting the following terms by which bulletin board systems may qualify for a residential rate: (1) if the BBS is located in a residence, (2) the BBS does not operate for profit or otherwise solicit or accept compensation, and (3) the BBS uses no more than three local access telephone lines. A BBS is a host computer with software package that is linked with the telephone network via a modem. Other persons who also have computers equipped with modems may communicate and exchange information with the BBS. The disputed issue in this docket was whether BBSs located in residences should be billed as businesses." ### Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 11:11:40 PST From: Joe Konstan Subject: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments I almost just bought the Panasonic 3910R (I think it had the "R" not sure) but found that all of the discount places around here (BEST, Circuit City, Good Guys etc. were out of them and didn't expect more in for a while). After long hassels with Circuit City I ended up with the AT&T 5500 instead (for only $120 plus tax!!) and I think it's great! Basic feature comparison: AT&T 5500 Panasonic 3910 10 Channel cordless 10 Channel cordless 9-number memory dialing 16 number memory dialing speakerphone in base speakerphone in base .... Basically, these are almost identical. The 5500 has very good sound quality even from the speakerphone (My friend who used to work in a lawyer's office said it was much better than theirs). There are hold buttons on both the base and extension, etc. The only drawback is that the extra cradle for the cordless unit doesn't have a charger built in -- so you do have to return it to the base at least weekly. Joe Konstan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #70 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16136; 27 Jan 91 18:49 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06622; 27 Jan 91 17:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27108; 27 Jan 91 16:16 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 15:25:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #71 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271525.ab17169@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 15:25:09 CST Volume 11 : Issue 71 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [William Degnan] Re: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator [John Higdon] Re: Videos By Phone [Peter da Silva] Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Telecom*USA [Steve M. Kile] MCI Masterphone [Lyle A. McGeoch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Date: 25 Jan 91 05:48:43 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16347@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tel@cdsdb1.att.com writes: > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a > device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is a > box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into > ... > My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and > PROG stand for? Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have > Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel NJ tel@hound.ATT.COM 908-949-0428 ^^^^^^^^^ A user will now tell how the Bell System and FCC set this mess up. Arminger and others like Suttle are all licensed by YOUR company to produce such devices. You will find corresponding WE-xxx numbers for your products that they make with AA-xxx numbers and Suttle has SE-xxx ones, too. Arminger is heavier into data related special jacks then Suttle. Anyway, this has lots of history that I will partly skip, but the simple part of it is that modems are not supposed to hit the CO with a signal hotter than -12dbm. Originally modems all were from the phone company, and THEY set the xmit level internally with dip switches. When users were finally allowed to plug in modems, a way was devised to let the jack set the signal level. Any modem worth its salt today can receive signals that my bad ears can barely hear. But when this was planned, there was a scheme devised whereby the installing phone company could install a data jack that would program the transmit signal level for a modem with an external resistor the installer would select supposedly after determining the loop loss to the CO. That is your PROG switch position. Some modems were assumed to be too dumb to be programmed, and you could run with a fixed pad that killed some signal level for BOTH transmit and receive. They were assumed to xmit at -4dbm, and the pad would cut the level to what was needed. The transmit side of this was cut to 'protect' the network, but padding the receive side was/is totally STUPID. There is a third option the modems have and that is 'permissive' mode. It is assumed that there will be at least 3db loss on a CO line, and so any modem is 'permitted' to transmit at a fixed -9dbm (to hit the CO at no higher than -12dbm). Permissive mode is what all normal modems pluging into RJ11 jacks are using. I never saw a modem ordered or equipped for FLL (fixed loss loop) operation, but there were specs on how to do it. Some of the old modems came with instructions for the telco to set the levels internally, or you set them for 0 dbm internally and used a special cord for the external PROG or FLL or PERM jack setup. If you had loss set inside and externally you would have too much. Typically the adapter cord to make a programmable modem a FLL one included the 866 ohm resistor for -4dbm needed in FLL mode, and the adapter cord for permissive mode included the 5490 ohm resistor needed to transmit at -9dbm. The cord for programmable mode simply connected the resistor in the jack to the modem. Your jack with cord, etc is probably Arminger's AA-330A Universal Data Station Adapter. The center two wires from the RJ11 cord go to the center two of the eight-wire data jack, so any RJ11 modem plugged into this could as well be just plugged in without this. Pins 1 + 2 go to the internal PAD and then to incoming T + R via that switch when thrown to FLL position. The resistor for PROG mode is across 7 + 8. This adapter's resistor is set for -9dbm, and the unit effectively converts OLD FASHION FLL or PROG mode modems into PERmissive ones and is an FCC registered device (APZ9P9-67263-AD-N the Ren is 0.0B in PROG, and the PAD makes Ren = 2.5B in FLL mode). On telco installed data jacks, I have NEVER seen different resistors installed whether the jack is near the CO or miles from it. The installers always put in just one value. In the real world now, NO ONE needs this nonsense. If you have OLD modems that need this, maybe buy an eight-wire jack and stick your OWN resistor in and run in programmed mode set for -9dbm (i.e. run it in permissive mode). Certainly don't BUY this sort of over priced factory nonsense adapter. New modems will run in permissive mode and that is fine. Use RJ11 jacks. In some areas you seem to need to order a data jack just to get a data quality line. Then get an RJ45S (the programmable jack with out the FLL switch - but they may 'provide' it by giving you the universal model that HAS the switch). The RJ41S function DOES include the FLL Pad, and typically is provided by an AA-97A (1-9) (that 1-9 is for loop loss of 1 to 9 dbs - each number you order comes with a different resistor and pad) and nine different order numbers!, and costs about $18. The AA-97B only does RJ45S (PROG) function (no FLL switch) and comes with eight resistors (one order #) and costs about the same. Those two are the same size box, but a newer jack that looks like a fat RJ11, but also takes the eight wire plugs is the AA-97B1. It also comes with the kit of eight resistors (NO resistor is used for the highest loss setting) and costs about $8. The same jack bought as a generic JACK is under $4, and you can get the resistor for -9dbm xmit (the 3db loop loss resistor) for pennies elsewhere. Use 5,490 (or near that) ohms. If you are stuck with telco installed FLL switches, TAPE them into the PROG position. NEVER use FLL, it is a dumb and obsolete idea. Remember any normal (permissive) modem plugs into an RJ11, but also works fine in the eight-wire jacks but hardly needs them. History lesson: xmit level resistor loop loss range 0 (short) 12 or more db -1 150 ohm 11-12 -2 336 10-11 -3 562 9-10 -4 866 8-9 -5 1,240 7-8 -6 1,780 6-7 -7 2,520 5-6 -8 3,610 4-5 -9 5,490 3-4 -10 9,200 2-3 -11 19,800 1-2 -12 (open) 0-1 Personally, I get data lines in on RJ21X jacks mixed in with general phone lines. The 25 pairs there come out on the AMP connector and go to MY-OWN CO quality 3 electrode gas tube + diodes lightning protection (I like Porta System's Delta series, but NTI/Cook, AT&T, and Reliable all make this sort of thing), and then it goes to modular patch or 66 punch and then to internal voice or data or whatever we need on OUR wires. Modems plug into RJ11 jacks. Period. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 09:02:58 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" On Tom Lowe writes: > Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are > given a device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack. It is > a box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug > into the phone jack... > Armiger & Associates, Inc. Fort Worth Texas USA > Data Conn. Blk. Model No. AS-97A (1-9) Use as USOC RJ-41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M, > RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A) Complies with Part 68, FCC Rules > My question is: What is this box, what does it do, You have answered your own questions. It is an AS-97A (1-9) [actually what you describe is an AA-97A (1-9)-RTC1]. It is for use as an RJ41S-M, etc. > and what do FLL and PROG stand for? Why Fixed Loop Loss or PROGrammable. > Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have no idea. Would they know if you _didn't_ ask them? Next time you can tell them that it is essentially the AA-97A-RTC connector, with the FLL/PROG switch located on the outside and a one foot, four-conductor line cord which is connected to the network side. The AA-97A-RTC is a data connecting block arrangement that includes an eight-position modular jack for the registered data connection and an eight-position series modular jack for a modular jack for a modular connection to other data interface equipment. See your modem manual for the manufacturer's recommendation for FLL vs. PROG. > I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes. Is there something for which NJB _doesn't_ charge an arm and a leg? Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator Date: 27 Jan 91 00:09:49 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon "John C. Fowler" writes: > Now I wonder, on phones with no three-way calling, is flashing the > switchhook designed so that rotary users can place additional calls > in the same way tone users can press "#"? Flashing the switchhook during the course of an operator-assisted call has signaled and recalled the operator since the beginning of time. Little has changed in the manner that the LEC connects to AT&T for operator assisted calls, even since divestiture. A tone-entered calling card call is functionally identical to an operator-assisted call. When such a call is made, control of the calling connection is passed from the caller to the IEC. Hence, when you hang up the connection remains until the IEC releases it. Pressing the switchhook for just a moment does not release the connection but signals the operator instead. This is why you were told to "hang up longer". This has nothing to do with providing convenience for rotary callers. Ever call operator-assisted as the second connection for a three-way? When you are through talking, you can't just drop the connection with a flash of the switchhook. Usually an operator comes back on the line and sometimes you get a really stupid one who cannot seem to just push "release" without giving you a ration of excrement. The fact that you as the caller cannot break the connection with the operator was sometimes used in pre-E911 days to send help to an emergency caller when the phone was hung up or the connection was otherwise broken before the operator could get an address. The operator would keep the connection up until the call could be traced. TSPS made this unnecessary, since the calling number was displayed on the TSPS console. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Here in IBT-land we can flash and dial 110 to recall the operator under these circumstances. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Videos By Phone Date: Sun, 27 Jan 1991 18:34:38 GMT > Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone > lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be > something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get > excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->). Begin back-of-the-envelope mode... Let's see, assuming they're using something like JPEG and a moderate resolution video signal (640x400x12 bits). That's 380K per frame, 30 frames per second, and the high side of 20:1 compression ratio. Give them 30:1 to make the calculations easy. About 2.5 gigabytes in 15 seconds, or a little over 1 gigabit/second. You couldn't do it over ethernet. You'd have to run fiber into each house... Hey, if they pay for the fiber it sounds like a good deal. :-> (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 15:02 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates A recent thread here discusses the practicality of competition arising in New Zealand, to let market forces work on monopolistic practices and prices of Telecom NZ. One statement too broadly made and accepted without question is to feel that, "competition is impractical." This is largely based on a belief that any competitor would have to build parallel transmission plant using the same technology or a similarly expensive technology as the existing company. I'd like to posit a few thoughts that counter such a view. Here in the US, the FCC undertook to let technology erode the rather shaky "natural monopoly" enjoyed by local Telcos. Thus, we have seen the ownership of cellular radio by non-Telcos. One maker, IMM of Philadelphia, has even fielded a cellular system suitable for use in rural areas to fixed positions. An even earlier technology from Farinon in the US and a Canadian firm used lower frequencies in the 450 Mhz region to serve rural users. We had a non-directional microwave technology called Digital Termination Service that was premature for the marketplace, with so few people applying for it that the FCC withdrew the frequency allocations. In England, the government legislated local competition into existence, with Cable and Wireless' Mercury Communications developing means to provide local telephone channels via existing cable television. Most recently, we have seen a US proposition, backed by the FCC, to let cable TV companies operate nodes of PCN telephones (akin to the UK "Phonepoints") along their cable routes. If the regulators or legislators in NZ will simply let entrepreneurs loose to try their ideas, New Zealanders might have a choice within a shorter time than Telecom New Zealand realizes! That's not to say they would realize what is happening to them very rapidly. Here is the US, most local Telcos are at present trying to ignore the threat, and hoping the public won't find out there really is no "dial tone monopoly;" that thay've all been living in Oz (and I don't mean NZ's cousins a thousand miles or so to the west!) ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!Steve_M_Kile@uunet.uu.net Subject: Telecom*USA Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 11:47:07 PST Pat: I called Telecom*USA on Friday night, Jan. 25th and after a long conversation with the nice lady (and her supervisor) they agreed to sign me up for the Telecom*USA card and an 800 number at the $2.75/month rate. They asked many questions about my phone use and credit and then said I should be hooked up in two or three weeks. We will see. Steve steve_m_kile@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: Please follow up on this and let us know the results. I think the Telecom*USA card and 800 number setup is one of the better, less complicated, least expensive deals around. I think it took me two weeks to first get installed on their system but since that point their customer service has done maintainence on my account within hours, or a day at most. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Lyle A. McGeoch" Subject: MCI MasterPhone Date: 26 Jan 91 04:24:24 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Until now I've used AT&T (via my Bell Atlantic card) for my infrequent calling card calls. The MCI MasterPhone program, which has slightly better rates and automatic billing to a MasterCard, seemed like a reasonable way to save a bit. No fee to sign-on, no extra bill to pay each month... sounded great. Well I just received the information packet from them. The catch turns out to be the laborious dialing instructions: --- call their 800 number and wait for them to answer --- dial 0 plus the number you're calling, and wait for the tone --- dial your MasterCard number and PIN (20 digits) --- dial # I can live without this nonsense. Lyle A. McGeoch, Rutgers University, lyle@dimacs.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #71 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17719; 27 Jan 91 19:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09631; 27 Jan 91 18:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae06622; 27 Jan 91 17:21 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 16:35:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #72 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271635.ab27213@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 16:34:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 72 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Donald E. Kimberlin] Digital Communication Over Radio [Rick Moll] Neax 2400 Codes Needed [Will Martin] Bonehead 611 Message-Takers [Nick Sayer] INMARSAT (MARISAT?) Telephones [Rop Gonggrijp] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:55 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" Beginning with a query from Tom Lowe at AT&T Bell Labs in Holmdel In Digest Volume 11, Issue 60 (or so), several readers have posted the presentation as seen in their areas. Here is a post to hopefully give the topic a broad overview: The problem in understanding this topic is that most people who entered use of data communications since Dennis Hayes made a popular dial-up product of the "modem" never knew a major component of his product success was adoption of one of the _three_ ways the FCC authorized users in Part 68 of its Rules. Forced into taking control by the slow action of the telephone industry and considerable public complaint about "protective" devices called "Data Access Arrangements" ("DAA's") offered by the telephone companies, the FCC acted by asking public suggestions to get AT&T to protect its interests by describing ways to acceptably connect user- provided data transmission devices to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). The basic principle of all three is the same...to have a user- sourced composite data signal enter a switching point (the first local exchange machine) in the PSTN at a power level of minus 13 dBm. Allowing for a wiring loss of 1 dB in the office, that level of the signal delivered to the local exchange building was set at minus 12 dBm. From there. levels can be controlled so as not to get so high as to couple themselves into adjacent circuits and cause noise or crosstalk in the network. The three methods are titled, "Permissive," Fixed Loss Loop," and "Programmed." The "Permissive" method requires that the modem tranmsit at a fixed, internally set power level of minus 9 dBm. It assumes there is a loss of 3 db in the subscriber loop, thus realizing the desired minus 12 dBm at the central office entrance. Any excess loop loss is to the detriment of the modem. Under these conditions, the FCC authorized plugging any modem into any regular telephone jack on the network, thus the name, "Permissive," a name most have forgotten by now. And, any regular telephone jack is the smaller "six-conductor" jack we have come to generically call an RJ-11. Other station wiring variations have different FCC numbers, like RJ-15 for a weatherproof outdoor plug and socket (recognizable as a fairly common AC twist-lock power conector with a center pin added to avoid accidental insertion into a power outlet). The 1200 bps modems Dennis Hayes first marketed would operate adequately at the then-current state of the dial network, so his use of the "permissive" arrangement was highly successful. As time pro- gressed, both modems and the PSTN improved such that it has become the norm, even for data rates of 9600 bps on the PSTN. That success and development has largely made the other two FCC-authorized methods technologically obsolete. The second method is called "Fixed Loss Loop," and specifies a wider eight-conductor plug that cannot fit into a "permissive" jack. It has a corner cut off for reasons explained later. In the FLL method, the modem is factory-set to transmit at minus 4 dBm, and the local telephone company is supposed to make and actual measurement of the, loop, providing an attenuator that gets the level to minus 12 dBm at the exchange entrance. While it can be had in most Bell operating company areas, most small "independent" telcos never tariffed it, so they will tell you you can't have it, anyway. Larger independents cheat and just look up what the loop loss of your cable is supposed to be and stick in a pad. Unfortunately, your loop can and often does have higher loss than the records show (due to bridged taps hung all over so many cable pairs), so you lose. It's probably no better than permissive. The "modular" jacks used are shaped such that a "permissive" plug will fit into them and work ... of course with extra loss in the attenuator plugged into the loop. Since your "permissive" modem is set at minus 9 dBm, and the FLL plan assumes you run minus 4 dBm, you have at least a 5 dB penalty starting out, and may well find the FLL jack, if fully installed with attenuator, works more poorly than a plain dial line. (For this reason, some modems have a "secret" adjustment to raise their transmission level for FLL operation.) We have come to use the term RJ-41 to name FLL jacks in general. What was intended to be the most precise method, "Programmed," requires the modem to contain an externally-controlled transmit level adjustment, set by the Telco installer putting a resistor across two more wires between the modem and jack, to set the modem's level anywhere from 0 dBm to minus 12 dBm. It works protectively in that no resistor causes minus 12 dBM, lower than permissive. Conversely, a "programmed" modem will transmit its full maximum 0 dBm if one puts a short circuit (a "zero Ohm resistor" ... and such are sold!) in the jack's programming slots. The potential for misinstallation and abuse is obvious ... it is not hard to unscrew the cover of the jack and change the resistor at all. Practically no non-Bell telco has ever tariffed "programmed" jacks, so their availablility is rather limited. We have come to call these by the generic term RJ-45. These use an eight-conductor plug with no corner cut off, so they cannot plug into an FLL jack, while both an FLL and a Permissive plug can fit into the Programmed jack. It of course, is a regular dial line, so permissive modems should operate as well in an RJ45 as in a regular line. What's questionable is if you get anything for whatever extra price you pay for an RJ45 in that case. It appears from some posts that Bell of PA has created an interesting product that may be of value for them. One hybrid FLL/Programmed jack, called RJ41S, has a switch for either mode, and its Western Electric style number was 635, so that number may be used for the jack hardware (where 625 was the WECo type for the "RJ-11" jack). Hopefully this exposition will help rationalize the various experiences reported from diferent locations on here. Most interesting about how our business has evolved is that the first inquiry came from the place where all this was first developed -- Bell Labs at Holmdel. There are probably still papers in the archives there describing all this with much more complete rationale. ------------------------------ From: Rick Moll Subject: Digital Communication Over Radio Date: 26 Jan 91 18:39:20 GMT Organization: WICAT Systems, Orem, Utah A friend of mine is doing his undergraduate EE thesis in the area of digital communications over radio. Can anyone provide some helpful references in this area? Also, he is particularly interrested in finding out anything he can about a specific product called "Digipack". Rick Moll Please post or reply to: rick@nullset.UUCP -or- uplherc!wicat!nullset!rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 13:17:50 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Neax 2400 Codes Needed The NEC Neax 2400 phone system we have here is, like all "new and improved" phone systems, driving me bats. The user manuals are woefully incomplete, assuming anyone trying to perform various functions has a phone instrument with all sorts of preprogrammed, labelled buttons for each function. Of course, none of the phones I've ever seen have a fifth of those preset functions. We received a handout at the time we moved in that lists some of the more common keypad-press equivalents of the programmed functions, but I need to know more. What I really need is the owner's or administrator's manual, but it looks like I'm never going to get access to that via normal channels. Here's the code equivalents I know: *99 = hold *5 = forward all *6 = cancel forward all *8 = forward busy/no answer *9 = cancel forward busy/no answer (how can "*99" work if this does?) *77 = pickup ringing incoming call in your pickup group 178 = call park (after flash) 179 = parked call retrieve local 180 = parked call retrieve remote (follow by extension of parked call) 123 = faulty trunk report (after flash) 173 = busy call back (after flash) 189 = directed call pickup (follow by extension of ringing phone) That's it. I'm sure there are a batch of others; if anyone knows any, please send them to me. (I'll accumulate and post the results, if I get any responses.) Specific question: One thing I am trying to figure out, at the moment, is how to remotely change call forwarding. That is, I know my extension and its authorization code (the same as the voicemail "password"). How do I, from some other place, call the PBX CPU (I realize I'll have to get that number here) and tell it to change the call forwarding on extension "n" [verify with password] to "call forward all to extension 'y7'" or whatever else I want done? If I can do this, can I also do it from a tone phone outside, or only from within the system? Am I having unreal expectations that this capability is available? I thought it was a standard feature of new phone systems. Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers Date: 27 Jan 91 10:35:56 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA Some explanation: quack is my trusty Sun 2 with its own phone line, which (of course) is different from my voice line. Tonight (Sun 1/27, 01:30 or so) the phone service was disrupted on quack's line (only), but with the most bizarre set of symptoms I've ever heard of. I was logged in to a local machine at 2400 baud and suddenly got NO CARRIER. Well, that's not unusual. The machine in question is behind a PBX with a bad attitude. :-) Redial. No dial tone. Ok. Wait one minute, redial. Fine. Back in business. Three minutes later, NO CARRIER. Redial. No dial tone. It's been like that ever since. There's still battery (48v from telco) since I can breath into the mouthpiece and hear it, and make DTMF with an old once-was-leased bell phone. If I dial the number from the voice line, I get rings, but the line in question does not get the ring (90 vac, or whatever). If I pick up line two (still no dialtone), THEN dial line two from the other line, I get busy. Ok. So my subscrber loop isn't broken, so I call 611. I cringe. I'll get an answering-machine-with-a-pulse. Sure enough. She takes my "report," says "uh huh" in all the right places, and promises they'll get to it by Monday at 5 PM. I can understand the delay if a backhoe rips out my loop. But that's not the case. Clearly they could at LEAST run a computer check of the local switch. If I could talk to someone with some technical savvy, I could give them the symptoms as I describe above and they'd at least know where NOT to look, right? Is there nothing for us comp.dcom.telecom readers to do but deal with 611 like "the rest of the world?" Sheesh. ...And they wonder why I decided on microwave instead of leased lines for our WAN link... :-) Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ [44.2.1.17] 209-952-5347 (Telebit) [Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like something is hung in the office; the tester will clear it soon if it hasn't been done already. I've had the same kinds of problems in the past. The clerk taking your call is not trained to know all these things, and if they were to get into the habit of passing customer calls direct to the technicians then they (the technicians) would never be able to get their own work done. When the tech calls you back -- if the problem cannot be isolated or located in the CO -- then you will have a chance to tell your story to someone who can resolve it. The best report you could have filed with the clerk would be to give the number, and say that the line is alive; there is battery present, but no dial tone. Tell them you have checked at the demark (I assume you have! Once I almost tore the backside off of a repair clerk only to be embarassed when I found a phone on this end was malfunctioning!) and the problem seems to be in the central office. The clerk will report it that way. They have to quote you a turn-around time, even if the time involved seems ridiculous based on your appraisal of the problem. I've had things get hung in the office, been told they would fix it 'by Tuesday' and in fact had the problem gone a few minutes later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: INMARSAT (MARISAT?) Telephones etc... Date: 27 Jan 91 18:50:14 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic I went to the Eurocom Trade-Show here in Amsterdam and met with some of the people that are selling equipment for USE with the INMARSAT system. (If I am correctly informed, MARISAT is the old name). There's two types of services on these sattelites: Inmarsat-A: Speech transmission, takes a dish of about one meter diameter, costs a lot of money ($50 K or more) and is even more expensive to subscribe to. The only code in the machine however is the 'telephone-number' of the device itself. This seven-digit number can be called by dialling +871-XXXXXXX (Atlantic Ocean), +872-XXXXXXX (Pacific Ocean), +873-XXXXXXX (Indian Ocean) or +874-XXXXXXX (Atlantic Ocean - West). Inmarsat-C: Data transmission. This service is packet-oriented and the devices transmit burst of 75 Watts (!) at 1.6 GHz, yet the sales-people talk about only 0.5 Watts which would suggest a 1/150 duty cycle. This is transmitted through an omnidirectional antenna (clear view of sattelite still required). Two types of services available: telex and X.25, but very few CES (Coast Earth Stations) support X.25. Telex Country codes are 581, 582, 583 and 584 in the above order. These devices are newer and they got a little smarter and gave the things three codes that have to match up. But since all these things transmit all three of them at 75 Watts omni, this does not sound much more secure. Devices "only" cost about $3 K. A couple of remarks: 75 Watts at 1.6 GHz sounds like a nice discussion for the people at comp.risks (about two years worth ;-) and yes, there are people making free calls with Inmarsat-A sets, and yes, the Inmarsat organisation recognizes to the in crowd that these people CAN NOT be traced in any way they can see. 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 [Moderator's Note: Although tracing them might be very difficult or impossible, you'd think their pirate instruments could be rendered almost useless by employing certain security techniques which cellular carriers use. For example, the inclusion of a difficult-to-alter electronic serial number in the instrument and the refusal of Inmarsat land stations to pass or accept traffic to units on a subsequent 'negative listing' would kill much fraud from the less agressive or technically-oriented users. A regular analysis of the traffic patterns of other 'questionable' users would lead the authorities to land-sites participating in the scams. For example, would anyone with a pirated cellular phone in the USA be foolish enough to routinely call the same phone number, enabling investigators to agressively question the receiver of the calls as to their origin? Fraud will never be totally eliminated but it is difficult for me to understand why Inmarsat feels nothing can be done. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #72 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19585; 27 Jan 91 21:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19100; 27 Jan 91 19:31 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae09631; 27 Jan 91 18:26 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 17:40:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #73 BCC: Message-ID: <9101271740.ab17422@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 17:40:23 CST Volume 11 : Issue 73 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation [Donald E. Kimberlin] Telco / Customer Relations [Andy Jacobson] New Glossary of ISDN / Data Com Terms in Archives [Goetz Kluge] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:50 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation In a number of posts here (largely under the heading "CNN from Baghdad") there was a lot of meandering around the topic of what CNN called their "four-wire line." It seems many participants thought such a transmission circuit is a rather special form of transmission medium; one infrequently used and perhaps of exceedingly high cost. What follows is an attempt to describe what is actually a rather common and age-old technique in a way that might help readers know how to use it for their own benefit. Most people involved with telephony have only been exposed to local use, adn even local subscriber line physical plant, where a single pair of wires is used for a dial subscriber line for one over- riding reason: The cost of providing service to the majority of users, people who simply want dial voice-grade telephone service. Were the local telephone exchanges to use a "four-wire line" to each and every subscriber, we could have a far more idealized Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN - the proper CCITT name). We in the US often mistitle the PSTN as "DDD," which actually is the Bell acronym for Direct Distance Dialing (long-distance subscriber dialing, called STD in the UK, or a close equivalent in other nations). Transmission losses could have historically been much less, as there would be no echoes to combat. We would transmit in one direction on one pair and transmit in the other direction on the other, without interaction between the two directions. However, to provide such a plant would require double the literally millions of tones of copper wire that have been installed worldwide. The economic cost factors are obvious. Paying for the local cable plant has been a major cost factor for public telephone networks worldwide. (Other alternatives such as fiber and coaxial cable used by cable TV companies are making some change, but the millions of tons of copper are already there ... and ISDN is planned in a way to try to continue to use that imbedded investment. So, a local telephone plant uses only one pair per subscriber. In engineering terms, it is far from a perfect transmission line. The main reason is that no transmission line operates at its normal electrical "impedance" until it is a significant portion of an electrical wavelength of the signal it carries. Studying a beginning physics book will show that one wavelength at 3000 Hertz in a perfect line is 61 miles, and at 300 Hertz, it would be 610 miles! (Another factor called the "propagation velocity" even stretches this _much_ more in practical wire.) Obviously, to have even reasonably well-matched wire would not be reasonable, and it wasn't at all economical in the developmental era of the PSTN. So, this network evolved assuming some very large tradeoffs were needed. An electrical transmission line has one interesting characteristic just opposite from water pipes or acoustical guides (hollow tubes). Instead of an open distant end letting all the energy spill out, an open-ended electrical line _reflects_ all its received power back toward the source. A shorted line absorbs all the energy (as you find out when you short a power line and blow the fuse!). What this characteristic means to telephone transmission is that with lines as short as they must be in local plant, echoes are reflected back toward the speaker, subject only to the losses they incur rattling back and forth. They really are pretty high, but we don't notice them. The reason: Echoes that return to our ear in less than about 10-15 thousandths of a second are heard by us a part of the outbound signal ... we just don't hear them. Local connections are short enough that for general telephony, echoes can be largely discounted, even thought they are there. Very early in the development of longer transmission paths, it was learned that transmission losses mount rapidly when one really does have miles and miles of wire to talk on. In intercity transmission lines, use of electronics to amplify the signal as intervals was seen to be mandatory to achieve commercially successful "long lines." Thus, as soon as the three-electrode vacuum tube was available, the telephone industry had a very real interest in it, and pressed to realize its use as soon as possible. (In fact, a Bell Labs worker contributed "negative feedback" to the early vacuum-tube circuitry, making the "tube" a controllable, useful technology instead of a physics lab curio.) But, the vacuum tube (as its descendant, the transistor) has one limitation. It can pass a signal in only one direction, a characteristic that happens to match that idealized "four-wire" transmission line. So, "long lines" very early on (in the 1910-15 time frame) all became "four-wire lines." They did, however, have to interface to the echo-prone and less controllable local "two-wire" (single pair) telephone networks. The method devised was the "hybrid," in telephony mostly an arrangement of trans- formers that had three windings, one for the local two-wire side and one each for the sending and receiving "long lines." Now, echoes were a real problem. Not only would echoes from the local two-wire line take long enough to return to the distant city to be heard, but impedance mismatching of the two-wire local line to the transformer could cause received distant signals to reflect right in the transformer back down the transmitting channel as well. "Echo control" became a major topic in handling "long lines." (The trick is to add a fourth winding set to the transformer with an "artificial line" that is adjusted to create the match. In telephony, its name is a "balancing network." All this sort of work was at first (and for decades) the work of the "long lines" people. Very little of it was in the hands of the local people. The "long lines" people were AC and electronics people, while the local people were DC and electrical people. The oeprational reasons for having a "Long Lines Department" are obvious in this context. As multichannel "carrier systems" evolved (and early, too, beginning around 1915 between Toledo, Ohio and South Bend, Indiana in the US), their intrinsic electronic transmission using vacuum tubes made a "four-wire" (of virtual wires, certainly) a commonplace in intercity transmission. And every "carrier system" since the beginning has been made of "four-wire" paths ... set up in pairs of channels, one for each direction of transmission, needing that "hybrid" function at each end to connect to the local plant. In intercity (and more so international) carrier systems, a "line" transiting a junction point can be (and is) connected on a "four-wire" basis, either _through_ a "four wire switching machine" for PSTN temporary connections, or hard-wired _around_ the switching machine if the use is a semi-permanent "special services" circuit, like a dedicated data line or indeed, a permanent speech circuit, as is CNN's "four-wire line," our subject here. At the end points, one local pair is used for each direction of transmission ... at a price reflective of using twice the local plant. Local wire pairs ... "loops" ... for "special services" are expensive to rent. After all, they are no longer available for the local telco to derive PSTN revenue on. If reaching the "long lines" point of presence (now called a "POP" in American jargon) requires use of local wire (nowadays local carrier channels) across a city, these are no longer available for "trunk" use between local PSTN exchanges, considerable revnue potential is lost, and is going to be paid for. Thus, many speech-only "private circuits" do have a hybrid in the "POP" and use only one local pair anyway ... but are STILL "four wire channels" between cities. The British have some excellent descriptive terminology we Americans never developed. They speak of transmission circuits as "two wire presented" or "four wire presented" to the end user. These terms, of course recognize that long circuits are all "four wire," regardless of how they are 'presented" to the end user. What are the advantages of "four wire presentation?" Avoidance of the electrical echo bugaboo. And, part of the "control" of echoes in "two-wire presentations" is to deliberately insert transmission loss to make the echoes a bit lower, so "four wire presented" channels can have less loss and sound louder ... and deliver the received signal higher above the noise ... making the signal sound "cleaner." This of course is why high-quality dedicated data circuits are four-wire presented ... to give the modem signals the most advantage possible. Hopefully, if you have persisted through this longish explanation, you now know that the "four wire line" is indeed not rare at all. Rather, it is the norm between cities, and especially between nations. You know it isn't new. It's just that most people have never seen one. Improvements in the local plant (including widespread deployment of digital carrier, the "T" carrier so often spoken of today) have made extension of the "four-wire line" right into your local exchange a reality in most places, so even your PSTN phone sounds much louder and cleaner than it did twenty years ago. That's what solid-state electronics coupled to digital transmission did for us all. Those who really _needed_ the advantages of "four-wire" have used it for a long time. Major examples were the FAA's network of dedicated lines that had to be interconnected at random (reflected in Bell parlance as the "FAA 300-type switching system), and the US military's AUTOVON network. While AUTOVON was based on four-wire switching machines throughout right to four-wire telephone sets, economics even there forced the allowance of two-wire user lines and telephones for voice-only stations, and many AUTOVON lines wound up being four-wire. But, AUTOVON also has many "four-wire" user stations where dedicated-line type "full-duplex' data modems can be used. There! This started out being a typical short post, but I think all the detail is needed to provide the reasons in words that show how things got the way they are. I hope some readers found it useful enough to now know _why_ they might themselves already have some "four-wire lines" around and _how_ they might themselves take advantage of a very useful technique that is far from unusual. Thanks to our Moderator for publishing it, in the hope it is a useful tutorial for many readers. For those who really want to learn more, I recommend the following books: 1.) "Basic Carrier Telephony" by David Talley, a real chestnut of telephone transmission for the non-technical reader who is weak on physics. Originally published by Hayden Book Company as their stock number 5749 (Library of Congress catalog number 60-10470 in its second edition, I understand that Wiley in New York has republished it and finds several Telcos use it for textbook for technicians. 2.) "Understanding Communications Systems," by Don L. Cannon and Gerald Luecke, originally published and sold by Radio Shack stores as part number 62-2018 (ISBN 0-89512-035-6) for $2.95, this book has been republished by Howard Sams at Indianapolis for about six times the price in hardback. It uses far less classic "telephonese" but has excellent ways of showing how analog and digital transmission are far more related than most non-technical people can understand. I recommend both of these books to the harried educators on here who are frustrated in finding short texts for introductory curricula. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 23:45 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Telco / Customer Relations I have read here (too) numerous posts about rude, stupid, uncooperative, and just plain WRONG operators, customer service representatives, etc. Well, I'm tired of it. Not because I think it's bad to post these things, but because they are there in the first place. I think we need to do something about it. In an organized fashion that is. Indeed several telco employees have used this forum to publicly explain or apologize for actions committed by employees of their companies. I would like to ask some of these telco employees here to do a bit of research and post for us addresses for real corporate complaint/action offices within their telco. Maybe we could have an archive list of them. I suggest we all start now making a habit of when talking to a telco rep, FIRST, get thier name or operator position number, before conducting business. Even if you get their identification afterwords, get it. Then, either through addresses posted here or through other means, pursue problems. This is especially important with the monopolies (and near monopolies) that we have in the communications industry. For many things you simply can't take your business somewhere else, and where you can, the service is often worse. Creating and using a customer action contact list might deliver some satisfaction, but it might also make some improvements in the service we receive. If the operator blatantly lies to you about why you can't call internationally with your calling card, make hell break loose for that operator. Pat: Don't wait for the last straw to pull the plug on AT&T; tell their corporate ombudsman what you've told us about their service. Tell them seven bills is unacceptable. Tell Mr. Allen if necessary. If they ignore you, then it's really time for customer revolt. For my part, here is GTE's "Customer Action Line" (from LA at least) 800-982-6347. I have gotten some good responses from them. Their address is: EXECUTIVE OFFICES One GTE Place Thuosand Oaks, CA. 91362-3811 I do NOT (and would never) work for GTE The customer is always right, because the customer is the company's employer. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 06:18:25 PST From: cdp!anlyyao@labrea.stanford.edu Subject: New Glossary for ISDN / Data Com in Archives [Moderator's Note: The 43 K file has been moved into the Telecom Archives in the section with the other glossary/reference files. PAT] Abbrevations for ISDN and Data Communications 1991/01/28, Goetz Kluge Seoul cdp!anlyyao@labrea.stanford.edu This list has been compiled during my work for a German semiconductor maker at its Seoul branch. So you also will find some abbrevations related to that products of that company. But the larger part of this collection is not related to my employer. During my work I got quite fed up with those many abbreviations which quite often are not explained in the literature. So always when one of these crossed my way, I filed it in this file. There might be some mistakes: (a) Sometimes I could not verify which of different explanaitions given for an abbrevation was the right one. (b) I am German, so is my English. I hope you don't mind or even have some fun with it. Any hints, corrections or new abbrevations are welcome. Goetz mail: Goetz Kluge & Dr. An-Ly Yao-Kluge Goetz Kluge 204-11 Itaewon-Dong Im Streemelmoor 2 Yongsan-Ku D - W-2852 Kuehrstedt Seoul Niedersachsen 140-200 KOREA (ROK) GERMANY phone: +82-2-271-6111 ext. 448 (Goetz Kluge, Siemens Seoul) FAX: +82-2-268-2697 (Goetz Kluge, Siemens Seoul) e-mail: CompuServe: 71520,3515 (Goetz Kluge) or 71530,1107 (An-Ly Yao-Kluge) or Internet: cdp!anlyyao@labrea.stanford.edu [Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives is available by anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu. When connected there, cd telecom-archives. My thanks again to Goetz for this donation. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #73 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25548; 28 Jan 91 1:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14174; 27 Jan 91 23:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31581; 27 Jan 91 22:32 CST Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:10:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #74 BCC: Message-ID: <9101272210.ab21072@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:10:26 CST Volume 11 : Issue 74 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New Telecom Forum on Compuserve [TELECOM Moderator] Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [TELECOM Moderator] Pac*Bell, The Industry Stinker [John Higdon] AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Michael Ho] Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Colin Plumb] Re: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments [John Higdon] Dragnet Busts a Boiler Room [Peter da Silva] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 20:26:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Telecom Forum on Compuserve A new telecom forum or Special Interest Group (SIG) is getting started on Compuserve. You can reach it with GO PCS-87 when on line with CIS. Another alias will probably be GO TELECOM in the near future. The folks there have contacted me asking to distribute TELECOM Digest via that forum, but my understanding of the rules here is that the Digest (actually any Internet mailing list / Usenet news group) can NOT be made available for commercial purposes, which would certainly seem to preclude it being read on line at CIS in a SIG or forum. TELECOM Digest is distributed to many commercial email sites at the request of *individual subscribers* at those sites who have requested receiving the Digest there for their convenience. Several subscribers at Compuserve in fact receive the Digest in their email there ... but public, for-profit distribution is not an option. I've never moderated this Digest with the intent of making a profit doing so, nor can I give permission to recipients to redistribute the Digest with that intent. But you will see me from time to time on the new CIS telecom forum, as I have promised them I would stop in to visit with the readers there. My best wishes for the success of this new group! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:07:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities Call Screening sends an interesting message to the person trying to call a number from which they have been prohibited: "The number you have dialed has activated call screening, meaning they do not wish to receive calls at this time. Please try your call again later." There are no tones at the start of the message, at least in the IBT version. To add a number to the list of callers you do not wish to hear from, you do as follows: Dial *60. A recorded message advises that (your) "Call Screening is now turned on. You have X entries in your directory. You may dial now, or wait for instructions." (five second pause) "To reject the last call received, dial # followed by the seven or ten digit number of the caller, then dial the # again to complete the entry. If you do not know the number of the last call, dial # 01 # to have it added as a 'private entry' ... dial 1 to hear the entries in your directory." Once added to the directory, calls from *any line* under the same ANI will be rejected. Example: you have three lines at your home, but all are billed under the first number. Your first number is presented as ANI to the network. Calls from your second or third line will also be rejected. This is a very nice feature, especially the part about being able to exclude callers no matter what line (within their group) they use. Obviously if they go out to the corner payphone you can't stop them. If the call you wish to reject did not present ANI or is outside the LATA (area codes don't matter, but outside the LATA does) then dialing *60 # the number # will return a recording, "I'm sorry, the number you wish to add cannot be screened at this time." Likewise, *66 (repeat dial last number you called) and *69 (return last call you received) rely on the ANI received. If the number is outside the LATA then you get "I'm sorry, the number you are calling cannot be used with this feature." If dialing *66 or *69 reaches a busy line then you do not hear the busy signal. Instead you get a recording saying "the number you are trying to reach is busy. If it becomes available within the next thirty minutes you will be notified and automatically connected." Phunny experience: I tried repeat dialing my own line. First I dialed myself and got a busy signal, so my number would be in the buffer used by *66 and *69. Then I dialed *66, and got the recording telling me the number was busy, and that if it became free in the next thirty minutes I would be notified, etc ... apparently the number is checked every thirty seconds or so, because in less than a minute my phone gave the special ring which means 'your call is available'. When I answered, there was silence for a couple seconds and a recording which said "the number which you were calling was free, but has become busy again. We will keep trying ... " I hung up and sure enough, thirty seconds later, the ring again, and the same recording again !! I suppose it would have gone on forever except that I punched *86 and was told my 'repeat dial and return call requests have now been cancelled'. *89 also does the same thing. *80 temporarily turns off Call Screening. Other Call Screening tidbits: the number to be screened has to be supervisable. You can't screen non-working numbers; telco administrative numbers; police, etc. I cannot screen my distinctive ringing pseudo-number. As noted, PBX, DID or Centrex systems which present a single billing number on outgoing calls can have every line in their system screened by merely entering the billing number. Some DID numbers leading to a PBX cause some confusion for call screening, and repeat/return call functions however. The new CLASS features are a lot of fun and very useful. The big one missing here at least for a few more months is Caller*ID. I'm told when we get it here it will also send the ANI of the billing number when applicable ... not necessarily the actual number being used for the call. But the rule will be if you can ID it, you can block it. PAT ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Pac*Bell, The Industry Stinker Date: 27 Jan 91 09:27:42 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon All right, I cannot stand it any more. With all the crowing about RBOC inovations, it is only fair that Pac*Bell be represented. So let me see... [hours later after much thinking] By the early seventies, Pac*Bell (actually Pacific Telephone, but I am going to refer to both the pre and post divestiture company as Pac*Bell) had converted most, but by no means all of its offices to DIAL. Notable exceptions were the toll stations in the desert and the foothill communities of the Sierra Nevada, but then, hey, what kind of revenues could the company get out of these few people anyway? By the mid seventies, touch tone was starting to become available in many offices (and this, friends, only ten-plus years after becoming commonplace in the rest of the US). It was a lot of fun to try to order Touch Tone service. The reps had no idea what you were talking about, unless, of course, you would find someone who had just moved here from the east coast. Another inovation of the seventies (in an area that Pac*Bell is most expert in -- billing) was the introduction of ZUM or Zone Usage Measurement. The net effect of this plan was to carve up cities larger than a wide spot in the road so that more toll calls could be generated. Before ZUM, you could call from anywhere in San Jose to Sunnyvale, a neighboring community. After ZUM, since San Jose had been carved up into three zones it became a rather expensive toll call between south San Jose and Sunnyvale. This has got to be telephone pioneering at its finest. When ESS finally appeared, it took sometimes many months for the technicians to figure out how to implement the most basic of custom calling services. The first hearings of what we now consider "standard" tone signals by me came not from ESS. It was some brand of Japanese crossbar located in a trailer in the south part of town. This stuff was great: when you dialed a toll number, an operator would come on the line to ask for your number. But he/she had exactly thirty seconds to do this, otherwise the call went to reorder. Calling up the SF peninsula during peak times was impossible. This was in the mid-seventies. But I digress. By 1988, Pac*Bell had actually implemented FGD in 78 percent of its exchanges. WOW! Not by actually replacing old wornout 1940's crossbar, but by gluing in a horror known as CONTAC. This system is so troublesome, I am told that the trouble recorders in the COs had to be shut off for fear of deforesting the planet from the cards that were dropped continually. (I can only assume that the other 22 percent of exchanges were either manual or just could not be made to accept the CONTAC abortion.) In my crossbar office, call setup time is so slow that one's hand melds to the receiver while waiting. It will not accept 20 PPS dialing (thanks, CONTAC), and some of the connections are so noisy that you have to hold the receiver away from your ear. Scheduled replacement date: none. Oh, you say, rural areas sometimes take awhile to catch up. I live within the corporate limits of the largest city in northern California. So take that, all you IBT and NJB hotshots. We march to a different drummer out here. Wake me when it is over. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Organization: Daily Nebraskan, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:50:15 GMT In <16435@accuvax.nwu.edu> rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > Ben Singer commented on his purchase of a Panasonic Cordless >phone and had alluded to AT&T's phones. Allow me to say that -- even >if I despised AT&T (which I definitely don't) -- I can honestly state >that AT&T's cordless phones in the 5000 series are superb! > I have the old model 5200 (now replaced by an updated >version), and I love it. The reception is spectacular. Their 5500 is >also a great buy. All agreed, and I thought I'd jump in here because I *am* one of those people who hates AT&T. :-) This grumbling notwithstanding, I own a 5500 (yep, it set me back just under $200) and just bought a different model for my parents for Christmas. The only complaint I have about the 5500 is that it doesn't withstand tipping very well; I get quite a bit of static if I put it at the wrong angle to the base's antenna. I have one easy question about cordless phones and one trickier one. 1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) 2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. (As an aside, I was shopping for the phone for Christmas and ran across a phone by Northwestern Bell Phones. I searched the box for info about security, and it gave little information -- just enough to get past the regs, and something about "security plus" -- not the real name, but you get the idea. Turns out their idea of security was this: If the phone's in the base, nobody can dial out. Sounds secure to me. :-) ) Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Peons don't speak for bigwigs. ------------------------------ From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:57:00 GMT In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch says: >> I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff? jyacc!charles@uunet.uu.net (Charles McGuinness) wrote: > You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer > rotary dial phones! I'm simply of the opinion that it's not worth $2/month or whatever it is to make less use of the local switch's dialing register. So I have the most vanilla POTS imaginable (a long-distance volume discount option, but that's not a class of service) and am content. So it takes my modem 7.2 seconds instead of .98 to call in. Big deal. Besides, it lets me use a classic - a black 500 set with a dial! (The real reason I got it is that it migrates around my bedroom and I've tripped over it or the cord endless times. Hurrah for indestruct- ibility.) (The most recent annoyance was navigating Telebit's voice-mail system, but I can use my modem for those occasional needs.) Colin ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments Date: 27 Jan 91 17:08:28 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon Joe Konstan writes: > Basically, these are almost identical. The 5500 has very good sound > quality even from the speakerphone (My friend who used to work in a > lawyer's office said it was much better than theirs). There are hold > buttons on both the base and extension, etc. The 5500 does hold the sound quality edge over the Panasonic. But the Panasonic has an important feature lacking on the AT&T: long DTMF. The AT&T falls victim to the most frustrating drawback found on phones by voicemail users and that is those short DTMF bursts regardless of how long you hold the button. The Panasonic will sound the digit as long as you want. Side by side you would probably find the standby battery life of the AT&T to be superior to the Panasonic. Panasonic's auto-channel-select is more convenient than the 5500's strictly manual system, but that defect is overcome in the otherwise lesser-endowed model 5400. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Dragnet Busts a Boiler Room Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 02:58:38 GMT I was just walking through the living room and noticed Dragnet on, on Nickelodeon. They were busting a con-man working out of a "boiler room" (actually, quite a nice office). Wouldn't it be nice... Friday: "Call the station..." Conman: "Not on my phone you don't. Those phones cost money." Friday: "Here's two bits..." (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: As someone old enough to remember watching Dragnet when it was a new show on television, you brought back some fine memories! Sgt. Joe Friday of the Los Angeles Police was assigned to the 'bunko squad' in several of those old episodes. Those stories were based on real cases in California from the late 1940's ... do you remember how at the end of every show the gong would sound and a somber voice would announce that the subject had been found guilty under California law such-and-such and sentenced to so many years at San Quentin? Joe Friday worked in Violent Crimes, Narcotics, Sex-Homicide, Vice and other areas, but his stories about con-artists he arrested were among my favorites. He had two partners in the series. When the first one died (in real life), they wrote him out of the Dragnet series by having him killed in a gun battle in a hostage episode. If you like police drama, it was an excellent series although a period piece -- a bit outdated -- when seen forty years later. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #74 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00308; 29 Jan 91 3:34 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29080; 29 Jan 91 1:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30406; 29 Jan 91 0:42 CST Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:45:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #75 BCC: Message-ID: <9101282345.ab28427@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:45:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 75 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson E-Mail to Telcos' Customer Services? (also: Thanks!) [David R. Zinkin] Re: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers [Terry Kennedy] Re: Telco / Customer Relations [Steve Kass] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Michael Nolan] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Brian D. McMahon] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Floyd Davidson] TDD Emulation by a Mac [Doug Faunt] Caller-ID Information Decoding [Eric R. Skinner] Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update [Bill Berbenich] Re: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones [Craig Watkins] You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [David Barts] Maybe Under Rocks [David W. Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: E-Mail to Telcos' Customer Services? (also: Thanks!) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 03:40:24 GMT Thanks to all who responded to my post about the AT&T ACUS Service. As I type this, the service is scheduled to start here at CWRU in less than 1 1/2 hours. If there's interest, I'll report on what I find here vs. what I've heard about from other locations. For now, though, I have another question. I'd like to contact the Customer Service Departments (or the equivalent, since "Customer Service" doesn't seem to be common anymore) of several telephone companies. If it's possible to send E-mail to the higher-ups at AT&T, it ought to be possible to send mail to AT&T's Customer Service division. Can anyone help me with this? I'd also appreciate the E-mail address for British Telecom's Customer Service if possible. I know the domain (bt.co.uk) but can't find the full address I need. Thanks, David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers Date: 28 Jan 91 00:54:48 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article <16470@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > I can understand the delay if a backhoe rips out my loop. But that's > not the case. Clearly they could at LEAST run a computer check of the > local switch. If I could talk to someone with some technical savvy, I > could give them the symptoms as I describe above and they'd at least > know where NOT to look, right? Is there nothing for us comp.dcom.telecom > readers to do but deal with 611 like "the rest of the world?" Sheesh. Well, it depends on how friendly you are with your local phone company, or how big a customer you are. I have a 24-hour number for the maintenance group for our switch (since the same facility houses some 50-60K lines they have 24-hour coverage) as well as 9-to-5 number for the person who handles the program issues on the switch. These were cheerfully provided to me when I asked, your mileage may vary. 8-). And your problem isn't that unusual. I could tell you horror stories about call forwarding foulups in the switch that would make you cringe... Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 00:04 EDT From: Subject: Re: Telco / Customer Relations Andy Jacobson writes: > I suggest we all start now making a habit of when talking to a telco > rep, FIRST, get thier name or operator position number, before [...] > If the operator blatantly lies to you about why you can't > call internationally with your calling card, make hell break loose for > that operator. [etc.] It's easy to want to make hell for someone and hope to have them fired, but don't forget that these operators may be victims of poor training and working conditions that don't foster learning from more experienced employees. My guess is that most of the employees are really trying hard in a difficult job. It might be best (if not as effective) to complain about poor service without mentioning names, and suggest that training be improved. As for something like international call blocking, do you really think that the subject is part of routine training, or is in a reference manual anywhere? I don't. That doesn't excuse the operator who makes up an answer, but if he bothers a supervisor to find the answer to your question, he might garner a mark against him. Let's complain against lousy service, yes, but let's aim our complaints at the source of the problem, not just a symptom. Steve Kass - Math/CS - Drew U - Madison NJ 07940 - 2014083614 - skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan) Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: 28 Jan 91 04:59:57 GMT ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: >1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or > so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty > short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as > well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) I personally prefer the flexible antennas, as opposed to the three foot extendible/breakable monsters. Part of this is using them in places like lying down in bed, when the antenna kinda gets in the way, and the fact that I've replaced two or three of the others because my younger son busted them by bending them too fast. Can't say I've noticed much difference in signal strength between the two thpes, either. >2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? > Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the > dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring > a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I > wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and > it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. My understanding is that the 'security code' only affects the recognition of a 'ring' signal, so that someone calling your phone doesn't ring your neighbor, even if they are on the same channel. It does NOT scramble your phone call in any way. This is based on a fairly thorough perusing of the manuals and the fact that scrambling/descrambling chips are still a little pricey for phones in the under $200 range. The cheapest cordless phone I've seen that offered scrambling was something like $500. (Don't remember where I saw it, somewhere like Sharper Image.) BTW, I've had several cordless phones, and have had VERY good luck with the higher priced Panasonic phones, especially the ten channel model. (I missed the original posting, but get the impression it slammed Panasonic.) I've not had much good luck with Sony cordless phones, though. Michael Nolan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 18:59:24 cst From: "McMahon,Brian D" Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm Which reminds me ... again. :-) Does anyone know if MARS is still in business? MARS is/was the Military Auxiliary Radio Service (or System, I'm a bit hazy on the acronym), and provided a radio link between soldiers and the Stateside phone network. Has this service been declared outmoded, or are they still doing their good work? Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: +1 515 269 4901 Fax: +1 515 269 4936 ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 08:25:44 GMT >[Moderator's Note: [...] >The technical difference between the phone center FAX messages and >these other calls is that in the case of the FAXs, AT&T is the >'customer' and is paying for the transmission. They are inviting you >to come to their office and use their phone. If you use your phone >then you are the customer. PAT] It went even further than that, though I don't know much of the details. AT&T leased, for use in Saudi Arabia, a portable earth station immediately after the crisis started. The FAXs were routed through the leased satellite link during off hours. Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 20:57:44 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: TDD Emulation by a Mac I don't believe I brought this up here before. I'm looking into TDD emulation by a Mac. I've got a couple of leads on making a Mac do Baudot, maybe even at 45.45 baud, but I do need to provide a modem. I have a few options here. I have a couple of old Pennywhistle 103 modems that as I recall should be suitable for conversion. Does anyone have the documentation for these? I haven't located whatever I might have. A reference to the original Popular Electronics article would be useful, but there was a more complete package available, that I had at one time, that would be more useful. Also, references to old construction articles for 300 baud modems, preferably using the XR2206 and XR2211, preferably known good are desirable. I have the EXAR app notes. Comments on their accuracy are welcome. And of course, any other information you have about such things above the basics would be much appreciated. I've references the previous articles on TDD's that came across here, and they were most useful. Thanks, and 73, doug faunt@cisco.com PS: In digging into my archives, I came across a set of the "Inside Ma Bell" articles from 73 Magazine. df ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 00:56:16 EST From: xgml!ers@dataco.uucp Subject: Caller-ID Information Decoding There has been mention in a few past issues of devices such as ClassMate which read the Caller-ID info and pass it on to a computer. I have a Northern Telecom "Maestro" phone which displays incoming numbers. If I buy ClassMate, will *both* devices be able to read the incoming data? It's worth noting that I am in Canada, in Bell Canada territory. As David O'Heare (gandlaf!oheare@uunet.uu.net) mentioned in volume 11, issue 57, Canada's data is different from the US CLASS data. So perhaps the real question is "Will ClassMate work at all?" Thanks, Eric R. Skinner UUCP: ...!dataco!xgml!ers Software Exoterica Corporation Internet: xgml!ers@dataco.UUCP ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 13:34:25 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I just spoke with Southern Bell's marketing department today to get the latest info on Caller*ID. You may remember that according to my "inside source" at Southern Bell, CLID was supposed to have been available FOR ORDERING today (Jan. 28). That is not currently the case. A "no-later-than" implemementation date for the metropolitan Atlanta area was set for February 14, according to Southern Bell PR folks (as of my conversation with them in late Dec. '90). As of sometime in the past week or so, Southern Bell is referring all CLID questions to their Marketing department - the folks who will actually market (naturally) and take orders for this new service. My call today to marketing - (404) 780-2525 - revealed that Southern Bell will be holding training for their people beginning Feb. 14 and that is quite likely the earliest date at which orders will now be taken. Technically speaking, as of my last conversation with my "inside source", the switching equipment and SS7 is all ready for CLID and the appropriate software has been loaded to the various metro Atlanta switches. What currently stands between this stage and the next in which the service is actually offered to the public is a (1) testing/debugging phase (currently in progress) and (2) training of the order-takers (see above), currently scheduled for Feb. 14. Bottom line and my personal assessment: CLID will not be on-line until Feb. 14 at the earliest. With all due credit to Southern Bell, they never went public with any date prior to Feb. 14. It now appears that their "no-later-than" date has since become a "no-sooner-than" date. The feelings that I get from my various conversations with Southern Bell employees (including my "Deep Throat"), is that they have received quite a few inquiries about CLID - and that the greater number of their calls have been to ask about when-can-I-order-it? One order clerk (with whom I spoke at relatively great length) did admit that she had received a call from a somewhat upset "older gentleman" along the lines of 'if Southern Bell follows through on offering CLID, I'm going to have my phone disconnected!' I'll keep the list posted, as I find out more. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman' should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him take it from there ...) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones Date: 28 Jan 91 11:47:40 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16452@accuvax.nwu.edu>, CRW@icf.hrb.com (me) writes: > A) > B) > C) EXp ? 0 or 1 > D) MIN Mark > E) MIN Mark bit > Is this whether the mobile sends both MIN1 and MIN2? If so, I thought > that was at the request of the carrier, not the phone? I believe the phone or the system can request this. > A) access method 1 or 0 > B) access 1 digit > C) > D) > E) > I'm not sure what this is? Any Radio Shack phone owners that can tell > us? This might have something to do with accessing the reverse > control channel (just a wild guess). I now believe that these two categories are one in the same, ie: A) access method 1 or 0 B) access 1 digit C) EXp ? 0 or 1 D) MIN Mark E) MIN Mark bit EXp is the bit that controls "access method" which determines whether the mobile will send both MIN1 and MIN2 on every access attempt. I'm assuming that MIN Mark is another name for this (half because of its name and half from the process of elimination). Can anyone confirm this? Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 12:21:59 pst From: David Barts Subject: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA The Moderator writes: > . . . the good ole USA allows calls everywhere. If I remember a previous thread correctly, you can't call Cuba from the US (with the exception of Guantanamo Bay). David Barts Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA davidb@pacer.uucp ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb [Moderator's Note: I believe you can call Cuba; but the call cannot be dialed direct and has to be routed manually by the operator. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Maybe Under Rocks Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:42:22 CST From: "David W. Tamkin" Plagiarized unabashedly from Tamayo Otsuki's act on "Comic Strip Live Late Night," broadcast on the Fox network Saturday, January 26, 1991: "I was horny, so I called a 900 number. I talked fifteen minutes and they charged me $82. When I call Japan I talk fifteen minutes and they charge me $17. Where do these people live?" David Tamkin PO Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 dattier@vpnet.chi.il.us GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 MCIMail:426-1818 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #75 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29381; 30 Jan 91 1:52 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18880; 30 Jan 91 0:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03386; 29 Jan 91 22:59 CST Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:23:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #76 BCC: Message-ID: <9101292223.ab14163@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:23:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 76 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 [David E A Wilson] Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Carl Moore] Re: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code [Carl Moore] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Heath Roberts] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Randy Borow] Re: New, Very Simple Phone Scam [David Smallberg] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Eddy J. Gurney] Re: Pac*Bell, the Industry Stinker [moocow!drmath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu] Do I Have a Right to a "Demark Point"? [Gary D. Archer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:40:22 GMT telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >on it. Please send comments direct to Mr. Degnan if you find this sort >of thing useful and would like to see it here more often. PAT] Sorry about sending this to the list but I am unable to get Mr. Degnan's email address to work. >Mar 5-8 >Communications '91 >No location set >Sidney, Australia >+44 (1) 487-5831 This should read: Mar 5-8 Communications & Office Technology '91 Sydney Exhibition Centre Darling Harbour Sydney NSW Australia +61 3 867 4500 (voice) +61 3 867 7981 (fax) The phone numbers are for Australian Exhibition Services Pty Ltd Illoura Plaza 424 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia which explains the Melbourne area code for a Sydney exhibition. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:01:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? To correct the Moderator's Note: Yes, in Chicago, you had to start using 1+, but that is for calls to another area code. You still use just 7D for calls within your own area code. What I was saying was that 215 is the first area I know of to change 1 + 7D for long distance WITHIN it -to- 7D for long distance WITHIN it in preparation for N0X/N1X prefixes. Long distance (and local) to another area code from 215 is 1 + NPA + aaaaaa7D, and that is not being changed. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:17:20 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code Oops, maybe I should have added "adjacent" to my message warning about 301/310 etc., given the message I have received about 415/514. (I also had a case where I answered a Newark, Delaware pay phone on 302-366 exchange, was asked by a British-sounding operator if I would accept a collect call, and I said I didn't think I could since I was on a pay phone; I started reciting the number, including the area code, where I was, and the operator said "203, 302 -- oh, wrong number.") ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 19:34:54 GMT In article <16478@accuvax.nwu.edu> ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: >1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or > so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty > short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as > well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) They have less range than the telescoping antennas, but still work very well. I have one and only notice a difference at the edges of reception. Sound quality is still excellent. >2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? > Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the > dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring > a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I > wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and > it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. If you want encrypted audio, start looking for digital transmission. You could maybe get a couple of Motorola walkie-talkies with their DES scrambling module (this'd work great for cordless telephone -- good sound, three or four mile range w/o a repeater....) but that'll run you about $1K per radio, plus the security modules. I don't think you'll find any consumer telephone on the market that actually has secure communications. AT&T's security simply sets a key number in the base and handset each time they're mated, which prevents someone sitting outside your house from using your telephone line with another handset. Cordless conversations are definitely legal to receive (cellular too, but law enforcement can't use information from cell telephones without a warrant). Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Jan 28 12:27:55 CST 1991 Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Michael Ho had queried about flexible antennas for cordless phones. I, too, have seen them. My father has one on his Panasonic two-line cordless, and let me tell you that phone has way too many static problems! I don't know if it's the antenna or the phone itself (methinks it's the combination of both); nevertheless, the clarity leaves much to be desired. Basically, the question of flexible antennas is a matter of personal preference. I am not a technician, nor do I admit to having much knowledge of this realm of telecommunications; however, most of the people whom I know prefer the regular, metal, retractable antennas. Re: AT&T's security code for its cordless phones: the higher model numbers (5300, 5400, 5500 series, etc.) have many more security channels available. From what I know, these models scramble a security code every time you put the phone in its base or hang up. I have never been the victim of mysterious calls (even when I had AT&T's atrocious 4000 series cordless phones), nor have I ever known anyone who experienced this problem. Anyone out there ever been the victim, or know someone who has been a victim, of such? I'm curious to know. BTW, one unrelated item of interest: several issues ago, our esteemed Moderator explained about Illinois Bell's accomplishments (first in....., etc.). I would just like to give credit where credit is due. We all, including myself, too often complain about telcos: their reps, policies, etc. While I sometimes wish Illinois Bell would do this or that differently, I commend their people with whom I have dealt. I continue to be amazed at their technological advancements, accomplishments, nifty little telecommunications toys (Caller ID, auto ringback, call screening, etc.). One problem, though: I wish in my home area all this stuff was available. It seems like in Pat's it already is up and running. So far, all we have of the new stuff is distinctive ringing. I can't wait for the Caller ID, ringback, and screening. My harassing calls are getting more than annoying. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Note: Several years ago I knew someone whose idea of a good time on Saturday night was to take a cordless handset and go out 'cruising for dial tone'. He'd drive around in his car and whenever dial tone was heard he'd stop and make a call or two. Real upstanding character. Regards CLASS in 708/312: It was just about two months ago that we were able to order *some* features. I have Call Screening and for all I know may still be the only subscriber or one of the few in the Chicago-Rogers Park office to have it. The business office is still not actively marketing it. About 70-80 percent of 312 is now equipped, and a somewhat smaller percentage of 708. Just keep asking for it. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Smallberg Subject: Re: New, Very Simple Phone Scam Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 19:48:44 GMT In article <16404@accuvax.nwu.edu> leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: [Phone scammers call random numbers and claim to be telco security conducting a test. Victim is told to say "yes" to the following call asking approval of a 3rd-party charge.] >If the victim disagrees, the scammers will often threaten to cut off >phone service. How foolish of them -- I'll bet fewer people would think something was amiss if instead the scammers said, "Well, in that case we'll have to schedule a visit to your premises. During what four-hour period will an adult be present, etc.". The hassle involved would probably get more victims to give in. Are any telcos planning to automate the third-party charge approval call with a voice-recognition system, the way that many collect call approvals are now done? I imagine there's plenty of scam potential there, if so. David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has collect and third-number charge approval completely automated. After dialing the number and the 0 for operator assistance a recording says "to place a collect call dial 11; to place a third-number call, dial 12; otherwise dial 0 once again to reach an operator." You then record your name, are placed on hold while the request is verified, then connected (or disconnected!) as appropriate. The other nice thing we have here is we can have our lines set to automatically deny collect/third number billings if desired. The IBT/AT&T data base will tell operators everywhere that you do not accept such calls without the operator even bothering to call you and ask. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 16:03:54 EST Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service Hi Patrick! Just a quick note to let you know that I also called Telecom*USA and requested an 800 number with them. They said there is a one-time $25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month. Calls will be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the evening. This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and requires users to enter a "security code" so "you control who calls." This sounds to me like an excuse to let multiple users share one 800 number. :-) Like Steve Kile mentioned in an earlier message, it will be a couple of weeks before service is connected. I will let you know how things go if you're interested. I do have a few other questions though (some of which I forgot to ask the sales rep.): One, do you have a lot of problems with people calling your 800 number who you DON'T want to call? (e.g., business-oriented telemarketers, etc, ad infinitum, et al...) "Distinctive Ringing" is not offered in my exchange, so I won't know if I get to pay for the call or not. :) Two, are you listed in 800 information if you have your own 800 number? If so, can you tell them NOT to list you? Three, if my line is busy and someone calls on the 800 number, am I still billed for their call? Also, here at Michigan State U, on campus we have AT&T's ACUS as our ONLY choice for a LD carrier. So like you, I will be using two different LDCs for different purposes. Best regards, Eddy J. Gurney, N8FPW -- eddy@jafus.mi.org -- The Eccentricity Group [Moderator's Note: Wrong numbers on my two 800 lines are rare. The way I 'control who calls' is by giving the number to a very select group of people: my brother and his wife, our parents, friends, etc. I had the 800 numbers before I had distinctive ringing, with them being diverted by the Telecom*USA switch into my first line. Once distinctive ringing started two months ago, I had the 800 numbers set to dial the distinctive number. *No one* uses the distinctive number except my brother, his wife or myself when calling home from elsewhere, *and* 800 calls diverted into it. Therefore the distinctive ring indicates a call we want to receive and/or control. Telecom*USA does not bill for incomplete 800 calls. If your line is DA or BY then there is no charge. You have to actually answer. Distinctive ringing also has a distinctive call-waiting tone; you can flash, accept the call, put it on hold or do whatever you can usually do with call-waiting, but of course you don't want to keep the 800 number on hold very long if you can help it. 'Return Call' (*69) is not yet able to return 800 calls, which are simply calls direct dialed to me out of the Telecom*USA switch. Unlike most phone service where a free directory listing is the default and a non-pub number is an extra charge, Telecom*USA 800 numbers are non-pub by default. You can have it listed in the 800 data-base if desired; I think they charge a few dollars per month, or whatever SW Bell (SWBT operates 800-555-1212) charges them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 15:43:44 EST Organization: Brown Cow Software Subject: Re: Pac*Bell, the Industry Stinker john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > All right, I cannot stand it any more. With all the crowing about RBOC > inovations, it is only fair that Pac*Bell be represented. So let me > see... [ good stuff deleted] > But I digress. By 1988, Pac*Bell had actually implemented FGD in 78 > percent of its exchanges. WOW! Not by actually replacing old wornout > 1940's crossbar, but by gluing in a horror known as CONTAC. This > system is so troublesome, I am told that the trouble recorders in the > COs had to be shut off for fear of deforesting the planet from the > cards that were dropped continually. (I can only assume that the other > 22 percent of exchanges were either manual or just could not be made > to accept the CONTAC abortion.) I lived in the "Santa Clara 11" (244, 246 etc) back then and remember getting a little card with my bill stating something about CONTAC. I didn't pay any attention at the time, but shortly thereafter, I noticed that I could discern three different dialtones! They were all dialtones, but each one sounded a little different. I wonder how long it will be before Pac*Bell gets CLASS? (peals of laughter) !! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 14:04:51 PST From: "Gary D. Archer" Subject: Do I Have a Right to a "Demark Point"? The other day I was having some problems with my modem line ... so down I went to the garage of my condo looking for the demark plug to test the lines. Lo and behold ... I don't have one, I only have the old style lightning protector block. Yes ... I checked to see if there were any other "demark" boxes for the condo units ... all the wires come in individually to each unit. What are my rights to have a "demark"? (BTW the modem problem was my cat pulling some wires out of a phone jack in another room, if I'd had a "demark" it would have been easier to verify it was my problem. If I call and ask that a "demark" be installed with the phone company (PAC*BELL) charge me for the install? Gary [Moderator's Note: I may be wrong, but I do not believe a 'demark' is anything more or less than the place on the wire where your possession of the wire ends and telco's begins. In your case, this would probably be at the lightning protector, if that is the place where the wires then come through the wall and into your home. It is the place on the wire where you no longer have any control over what happens to it. Why don't you put your own demark in at the point where the wires enter your home? Get a modular block (RJ-11?) from Radio Shack and mount it where the wires come in. Cut the wires, attach them to one side of the block and re-connect your side of the wires at the same place. Then in the future, tests can be done by going to that place, lifting off your side of the wires and plugging a known good phone into the connection, enabling you to test outward from there, from the convenience and warmth of your home. If the line is bad at that point, the trouble is obviously outside your home and your control. The single part needed from Radio Shack will cost only a couple dollars. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #76 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01905; 30 Jan 91 3:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16729; 30 Jan 91 2:20 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22848; 30 Jan 91 1:10 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 0:11:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #77 BCC: Message-ID: <9101300011.ab31054@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 00:11:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 77 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 800 Number for 900 Abuse [Ken Jongsma] Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled [Carl Moore] Attendant Required For Message to New York State [Carl Moore] Merc Marketing Executive Contacts [John Higdon] Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Kent Hauser] Tel Aviv Pingable Systems [Hank Nussbacher] Calls to Cuba [Carl Moore] Telco Sets Record For Processing New Order [Ed Greenberg] Need System For LD Accountability [Ed Greenberg] Need Rs-485 Interface For RS-6000 AIX [Robert Green] Fiber Optics Standards Request [Adeola Osinuga] Hello Direct Announces AT&T Partner System [Curtis E. Reid] How Do I Tell When ... [Ralph Zazula] Information Needed About Electronic Blackboard [Renato Cortinovis] 1 + 976 Telephone Programs [Carol Springs] Re: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update [Robert Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 800 Number for 900 Abuse Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 21:14:11 EST From: Ken Jongsma According to a small blurb in this weeks issue of _Insight_, a 900 number industry association will set up an 800 number to field consumer complaints! According to _Insight_, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Telesphere and 100 of the estimated 500 providers will have the number running by March. Complaints will be taken and given to the carrier responsible for routing the call. Presumably, the carrier will cut off those providers that do not meet the carriers' standards. When the number is released, the local RBOCs will be used to promote it. Actually, considering the industry, I'm surprised it isn't going to be a 900 number, at $9.95 for the first minute. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken [Moderator's Note: I think you are a cynic. Actually, AT&T is very conservative about what they allow on their lines by comparison to many of the others, and they are more responsive to consumer complaints about 900 service. Post the number when you get it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:04:10 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled Yesterday, during Super Bowl coverage, I heard that Pepsi had planned a telephone call-in contest, but that it decided to cancel it out of concern over the phone network. This (as I have read since in a news- paper) was done after consultation with the FCC. I don't know much else about this. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:07:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Attendant Required For Message to New York State I have sent an AT&T Voicemark message (via call to 800-562-6275) to a telephone number in New York state. During the call, I got a message, apparently prompted by the recognition of a New York area code, that New York state law requires an attendant to deliver the message (understood to mean that automated delivery is not allowed); however, the automated option was still available (I then talked to an attendant who told me that the message would have been rejected by AT&T if I had selected the automated option); I had selected the attendant-delivery option anyway. ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Merc Marketing Executive Contacts Date: 28 Jan 91 12:09:39 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon I was doing some house cleaning on the ole system here and discovered some info that might be of interest to anyone who is still being pestered by the Mercury News. These are the key phone numbers to make it stop: San Jose Mercury Marketing Manager: Mr. Averitch 408 920-5651 President of the Telemarketing Contracting firm: Steve Bush 408 983-1800 If you are having problems, these are THE people who can help. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Kent Hauser Subject: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Date: 29 Jan 91 00:43:59 GMT Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC What's the latest and greatest in small business telephone systems? General requirements: ==================== 6-8 incoming lines 16-20 telephone lines "Normal" features such as intercom, paging, DND, etc. Ability to connect normal two-wire devices such as FAX, answering machine, cordless phone, etc. Good value (ie cheap). Please send your recomendation and I'll be glad to summarize. Thanks. Kent Hauser UUCP: {uunet,sundc,uupsi}!tfd!kent Twenty-First Designs INET: kent@tfd.com (202) 408-0841 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 11:30:42 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Tel Aviv Pingable Systems >[Moderator's Note: Well, Adolph -- er, I mean Saddam seems to not be >bothering Jerusalem at all; it is Tel Aviv which is getting the rough >time this past week. Are sites there still connected? PAT] The following are a list of the publically advertised IP systems in the Tel Aviv area: Bar-Ilan University - Ramat Gan BIMACS.BIU.AC.IL Computer Science system VM.BIU.AC.IL Computer Center VM system ALEPH.BIU.AC.IL Library (Aleph) Tel Aviv University - Ramat Aviv VM.TAU.AC.IL IBM/3090-150E - VM/CMS CC VE.TAU.AC.IL CDC Cyber 990E - NOS/VE CC NOS.TAU.AC.IL CDC Cyber 990E - NOS CC CCSG.TAU.AC.IL Silicon Graphics IRIX CC ARISTO.TAU.AC.IL Sun3/80 - SunOS CC TAUVAX.TAU.AC.IL Vax 6320 - Aleph Library VIRGO.MATH.TAU.AC.IL Sun4-390 - SunOS Math LIBRA.MATH.TAU.AC.IL Sun4-390 - SunOS Math TAURUS.MATH.TAU.AC.IL Sun4-390 - SunOS Math TAUENG.TAU.AC.IL Vax11/750 - VMS Engineering GENIUS.TAU.AC.IL Sun4 - SunOS Engineering VESTA.TAU.AC.IL Sun4 - SunOS Physics You are free to ping them as you wish. Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 9:36:36 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Calls to Cuba Because of the message about not being able to call Cuba (except Guantanamo Bay) from the U.S., I am including what codes I have for Cuba: 53 Cuba 7 Havana 99 Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base (dialable only from U.S.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 09:01 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Telco Sets Record For Processing New Order I don't know if this is a record, but it certainly comes close. On Saturday, 26 January, at 9:00 AM, I called the Pacific*Bell business office and asked to have phone service turned on in my brother-in-law's apartment. The order taker went through the usual questions with me, and promised service by Monday at 5:00 PM. We then proceeded to the store and purchased a phone. We returned to the apartment and, just for the heck of it, plugged in the phone. Voila! Dial Tone. I called the operator and asked if I was calling from the number that I had been given. I was told yes. This was at about 11:00 AM. Two hours from order to service! Amazing. Bouquets: The order taker was professional, knowlegable and courteous. Nice, even. She and I swapped telecom jokes. She offered three numbers to choose from. She offered, but did not press for, custom calling features. She queried for a LD carrier. Brickbats: She tried to sell me touch tone. (!tm) Many of you know that Pacific*Bell will remove the charge for touch tone on Feb 1. I think she was just programmed to ask the question. Had I said yes, it would have cost $5 installation plus a prorated portion of the $2/ month tone charge. I said no, bought a tone/pulse phone (aren't they all these days?) and lo and behold it works on tone anyway. Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 09:08 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Need System For LD Accountability My brother-in-law (Torre) has a small business which employs about ten people. He currently uses a LD system wherein there is a dialer on each line that absorbs the phone number and a unique ID code, then redials the call on a 950 number. When the bill comes, it is sorted by ID number and thus Torre can see who made what calls and how much each employee spent on the phone. Calls are being processed on "Call America," a undistinguished (IMHO) LD carrier giving what seem to be average rates. They seem to excel at saving money on INTRA-LATA calls, while are competitive on INTER-LATA calls. Questions: Does anyone know anything of interest about Call America? Can anyone suggest any similar solutions that are CO or LD-switch based, i.e.do not require the dialer on the line? Ed_Greenberg@HQ.3Mail.3Com.COM ------------------------------ From: Robert Green Subject: Need Rs-485 Interface For RS-6000 AIX Date: 29 Jan 91 20:20:05 GMT Organization: Decision Software Co, Cambridge, MA I need a RS-6000 AIX, micro-channel or RS-232 interface for RS-485. Does anyone know where such a product or some information can be obtained? Thanks, Bob Green uunet!mrmarx!bg Mainstream Software Corporation (617) 894-3399 411 Waverly Oaks Road FAX (617) 894-2353 Waltham, Mass 02154 ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 29 Jan 1991 16:53:15 EST From: LABXU@cunyvm.bitnet Subject: Fiber Optics Standards Request Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center I would like anyone that knows about references to standards in Fiber Optic cables to mail some ideas into my mailbox. Specifically, if you were at an installation and were going to connect some fibers together, what standards would you adhere to? RS-232 for example, is an interface standard. Thanks, Adeola Osinuga Internet:Labxu@cunyvm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:25 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Hello Direct Announces AT&T Partner system I got the latest catalog of Hello Direct (Spring, 1991). On pages 28 and 29, Hello Direct announces AT&T Partner phone system. If you have two to four outside lines and four to six extensions, this is the ideal system at an affordable price. My question is: there is no specification included. I don't want to call them and have them recite the specs over the phone. Does any one know the specs of the Partner system? For example, can it use existing RJ-11/RJ-14 jacks? Can a different phone set (i.e. a Panasonic Easa-Phone series set) be connected to the jack as analog set? What is "extension wiring kit"? Is it a PBX, KSU, or Hybrid? And so on and on. It's interesting that I haven't heard of this system. Does anyone know when it was first produced or is it truely a new product? Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ From: "zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu"@arizona.edu Subject: How Do I Tell When... Date: 28 JAN 91 22:23:29 Reply-To: zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu Organization: U of Arizona Experimental Elementary Particle Physics - Tucson, ..a phone in another part of the house has been picked up? I want to do this via the phone line in my room. I guess this is the same idea that is used on the phones with the little lights on the bottom that light up when someone else picks up a phone on the same line. Thanks alot! (in advance) Ralph Zazula University of Arizona Department of Physics UAZHEP::ZAZULA (DecNet/HEPNet) zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu (Internet) [Moderator's Note: We have this question from time to time, and always I recieve numerous schematics, etc. Perhaps some of you will answer direct to Mr. Zazula and assist him. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Renato Cortinovis Subject: Information Needed About Electronic Blackboard Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 12:18:58 CAM I am looking for information about audio-graphic conferencing software that would allow the use of a standard PC as electronic blackboard in distance education environments. As far as I heard, some people are working to such a system, that would be composed of a cheap PC board for audio digitalization and data mixing, plus some software package available under windows. Please send any available information to this conference or to Renato Cortinovis on Internet or the following X400 address: Count, ADMD = ARCOM, PRDM = ITU, Name = Cortinovis. Many thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 23:01:29 EST New England Telephone in Massachusetts has an insert in its latest round of bills entitled "Introducing 1 + 976 Telephone Programs": By dialing telephone numbers beginning with 1 + 976, you can get in touch with a wide variety of information and entertainment programs ... These programs are provided by vendors known as Information Providers, who are *not* affiliated with New England Telephone ... [NET] only provides the 1 + 976 telephone numbers, and bills the charges established by each Information Provider in your monthly telephone bill ... Calls to 1 + 976 can't be made from outside of Massachusetts or via long distance carriers. They also can't be made from coin operated phones, WATS lines, or certain cellular or other types of mobile telephones. Also, your calls to 1 + 976 programs can't be Collect, Bill to Third Number, Credit Card, or Operator-handled calls. Nowhere in the flier is it mentioned that 1 + 976 numbers act the same as the old 976 numbers. The main, unstated purpose of the insert seems to be to alert customers to the fact that they must now dial 1 before 976. And the "1" itself probably results from complaints of a predictable type: "Hey, what's this funny charge on my bill? It looked like a regular number to me..." I don't know whether there is an interim period in which unadorned 976 will still work, since I had 976 calls blocked on my lines long ago. (I suspect dialing old-style will get you a "You must first dial 1..." recording.) Any other areas have 1 + 976, or is New England Telephone leading the way? Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update Date: 29 Jan 91 08:26:16 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle I was really sorry to see the Moderator assume a pro-Caller ID stance in an addendum to a posting on this topic. It's a controversial and by no means trivial topic, and one that could have severe repercussions for the telephone industry. If this sort of bias pervades discussions of Caller ID, I will have cause to wonder about the objectivity of moderation extended to other topics here. Bob Jacobson [Moderator's Note: I am very much pro-Caller*ID and make no bones about it. Is it biased to favor Caller*ID but unbiased to take a stance against it? Actually, discussion of Caller*ID -- at least the politics of it -- is kept to a minimum here because of the amount of controversy it generates both ways. For continued discussion of the topic I suggest our companion mailing list which specifically deals with the several facets of telecommuications privacy. Messages should be addressed to: telecom-priv@pica.army.mil. To contact Dennis Rears, the maintainer of the list so that you can be added if you wish to read what others have written: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #77 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02945; 30 Jan 91 5:05 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04950; 30 Jan 91 3:27 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16729; 30 Jan 91 2:20 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 1:57:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #78 BCC: Message-ID: <9101300157.ab06702@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 01:57:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 78 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [Al L. Varney] Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Joe Talbot] Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [David Tamkin] Re: MCI MasterPhone [David Tamkin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 09:50:53 CST From: Al L Varney Subject: Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article <16476@accuvax.nwu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Call Screening sends an interesting message to the person trying to >call a number from which they have been prohibited: [some details removed] >Once added to the directory, calls from *any line* under the same ANI >will be rejected. Example: you have three lines at your home, but all >are billed under the first number. Your first number is presented as >ANI to the network. Calls from your second or third line will also be >rejected. This is a very nice feature, especially the part about >being able to exclude callers no matter what line (within their group) >they use. Obviously if they go out to the corner payphone you can't >stop them. Pat, I'd like more details on your testing of this "feature", since it shouldn't depend on the "ANI", except under very special rules. One reason for this is that, on forwarded calls, ANI is the forwarding party, but you really want the ID of the original calling telephone. All CLASS features rely on the "Calling Party number", which is the telephone number of the originating caller AS KNOWN BY the CO switch. PBX telephones aren't known by the switch, so it uses the "Main" number associated with the PBX lines/trunks -- usually the number listed in the telephone book for the PBX user. Multi-line Hunt groups MAY have lines that have NO telephone number, so the switch uses the the "Main" number associated with the group -- this will lead to the behavior you report. These types of Calling Party numbers are also labeled as "non-unique". Multi-party lines (more than two on a line) may not have a known calling telephone -- the switch labels the Calling Party as "unknown". Bellcore and the industry/ANSI T1 Committee haven't decided on or documented the behavior of Centrex (Bellcore's "business") lines, so they work (or don't work) in whatever manner the switch vendor decided. That's why your "StarLine(?)" service [really "personal" Centrex lines] isn't offered with CLASS -- Illinois Bell can get it on some vendor's switches but not all switches, so they can't or won't tariff it. >If the call you wish to reject did not present ANI or is outside the >LATA (area codes don't matter, but outside the LATA does) then dialing >*60 # the number # will return a recording, "I'm sorry, the number you >wish to add cannot be screened at this time." >Likewise, *66 (repeat dial last number you called) and *69 (return >last call you received) rely on the ANI received. ... ^^^ see "Calling Party" above >If dialing *66 or *69 reaches a busy line then you do not hear the >busy signal. Instead you get a recording ... "Repeat Dial" and "Return Last Call" are probably Ameritech Service Marks for the Bellcore terms "Auto-Callback(AC)" and "Auto-Recall(AR)". Auto-Recall/Auto-Callback attempts initially query the distant number to verify it is a number valid for an incoming CLASS call. The busy/idle status is returned if the number is valid. No call takes place unless/until the line is idle, thus no busy signal. >Other Call Screening tidbits: the number to be screened has to be >supervisable. You can't screen non-working numbers; telco >administrative numbers; police, etc. I cannot screen my distinctive >ringing pseudo-number. As noted, PBX, DID or Centrex systems which >present a single billing number on outgoing calls can have every line ^^^^^^^ See "Calling Party" above >in their system screened by merely entering the billing number. Some >DID numbers leading to a PBX cause some confusion for call screening, >and repeat/return call functions however. The features shouldn't be "confused"; they don't work here because the Calling Party number is not considered "unique", and thus you are unlikely to reach/screen the original calling telephone. Illinois Bell could set the option to allow Auto-Recall to such numbers, but it does complicate the feature documentation to the customer. [You have to explain how you may reach an attendant, not the original caller, and of course the attendant may be unaware of the original call.] >The new CLASS features are a lot of fun and very useful. The big one >missing here at least for a few more months is Caller*ID. I'm told >when we get it here it will also send the ANI of the billing number >when applicable ... not necessarily the actual number being used for >the call. But the rule will be if you can ID it, you can block it. For consistency, of course, Caller*ID (Bellcore's "Calling Number Delivery") uses the Calling Party number, along with the "presentation allowed/restricted" indication. Glad to hear you like the capabilities; a friend in New Jersey that is not a "telecom person" thanked me profusely for the features when I mentioned I had worked on them over the last several years!! She particularly liked the "repeat dial" function, with whatever name Bell Atlantic chose for the feature. One thing Bellcore didn't standardize when documenting CLASS was the NAMES for the features. This will eventually cause real confusion when the people discuss the features or when they relocate to other areas of the country. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems The above is personal opinion, not AT&T's or its agents. [Moderator's Note: The tests I performed were these: My office has a PBX with sixteen trunk lines. All the trunks have actual numbers assigned to them. The FAX machine has its own outside line/number not connected with the PBX. A few of us have private lines which do not go through the switchboard. From home, I call-screened only the main listed number for our office. Then I used a WATS-extender in my office to call into the PBX from home. I dialed '9' and called my number. The call was rejected. I repeated this from the office the next day, to assure myself I was going out on various trunks -- almost certainly not on the main number (the first trunk) itself. I was even blocked when I used the FAX phone line or some of the private phone lines in our office. Why? I believe it is because every phone in our office is associated with and billed under our main number -- the one that I screened. In the second test, I 'call-screened myself'. That is, I used my first line to tell the switch to screen calls from my first line. When I used my first line to dial my first line, I did not get a busy signal. Instead, I was sent to treatment with the screening message. When I tried dialing my first line from my second line I was *also* screened. Why? Again, I think it was because both of my numbers are billed under the first number. When I did it in reverse, using my second line to screen my second line the results were not the same. My second line was screened from calling my second line, but my first line got through with no argument. I am not sure why. I was unable to get either of my lines to screen calls from my bogus, pseudo-number used for distinctive ringing on the first line. Not that there would be any calls, of course -- there cannot be outgoing calls from that 'line' -- but I wanted to see what would happen. What did haopen was the switch said 'I'm sorry, that number cannot be screened' in the same way it refused to screen numbers not in service or numbers which otherwise do not supervise. Oddest of all were a bunch of numbers in a DID group I tried: Both the main listed number and various internal numbers on the (Rolm-behind-a-few-hundred-DID-trunks) system could not be screened. But IBT would not say 'yes' or 'no' ... the response was 'I'm sorry, that number is temporarily unavailable. Try again in a few minutes.' But no matter when tried over several days, the response was always the same. Finally, if you have been screened, the operator cannot put you through either! It works like our 900/976 blocking here: If I block my phones from 976-whatever, dialing the operator won't help. She cannot connect me. And likewise, if I screen you, then calling the operator *from the line(s) being screened* to ask for an emergency interupt or 'assistance in dialing' will be to no avail. Her calls will be screened also, because the equipment apparently is smart enough to know the number placing the call. Very clever service! PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? Date: 29 Jan 91 00:29:51 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16479@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) writes: > I'm simply of the opinion that it's not worth $2/month or whatever it > So it takes my modem 7.2 seconds instead of .98 to call in. Big deal. If the modem folks would define a way to specify 20pps, sticking to rotary would be even less painful. Our Cannon FAX has three positions: 10pps, 20pps, DTMF. Ask Hayes how to do 20pps... TT is great, but it is over $4 on residence lines in some places, and the telcos deserve as many customers as possible saying that is outrageous and sticking to rotary where possible. Many PBXs can be simply programmed to do the conversion at 20 pps, and the $ savings over a few years can be dramatic. If it isn't your own staff, but your 'customers' (e.g. hotel guests), the additional wasted 'people' time isn't an issue. The big fight may come when you say you will pay for rotary service but want to be class-marked as a TT customer so 0+ calls will first try bong-tone to let you TT in fone-card info. Normally rotary customers get the operator directly. The bong-tone includes the '#' tone to knock TT->pulse converters off the line. You are paying TT charges to the local telco, but the IXC would rather have you TT the card info rather than waste operator time. ------------------------------ From: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone Date: 29 Jan 91 06:11:57 GMT Reply-To: Joe Talbot Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan This is a really annoying one to get repaired! First, GTE ALWAYS "clears" trouble reports quickly. The company's performance is based on trouble reports being "cleared", NOT necessarily solving the problem reported. Often people will just give up. When you report a problem, you'll find that it is almost always "cleared" within and hour, and WITHOUT anybody calling you back to tell you about it. Intermittant problems such as bad trunks, bad DTMF receivers and switch bugs are almost impossible to get fixed unless you are persistant and somtimes nasty. Always keep a log of who you spoke with, at what number and when. Always let the GTE person you are speaking with (usually a clerk with no telcom knowledge or interest and NO power to get anything done) know that you are keeping a log and that if this problem isn't solved, it WILL come back to haunt THEM. I hate to sound so down on them, but GTE runs its telephone operations like a water or gas utility, or a governament bureau. To them, you're just a number. Joe Talbot Voice Mail 011-813-222-8429 [Moderator's Note: About twenty years ago I had a case where many calls I made in the middle of the night were getting hung up in some bad equipment in the Chicago-Hyde Park CO. No one in repair wanted to listen to me. One night I got the troubled equipment so I kept it on hold on my first line and called Night Plant on my second line and asked him to go in the frames and find me; in doing so he'd find the pathology and either fix it or busy it out. He went in and found it. The next day the foreman called me and thanked me, saying "I've been looking for that booger for a couple days now!" :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 20:41:27 CST Steven Minneman wrote in volume 11, issue 66: SM> In article <15921@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: CM> ...as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by CM> removing the 1+ from toll calls within it SM> And in the 415 area, we have never had to use 1+7D. Patrick Townson commented: PT> [Moderator's Note: Nor did we in Chicago until a few years ago. For PT> however long we dialed seven digits for anything in the old 312 area, PT> and ten digits for anything else. In order to allow the use of PT> prefixes which 'look like area codes' they started using 1+ here. PAT] We still don't use 1+7D in Chicago. It's 1+10D that we had to start using in 1982, only for inter-NPA calls, when we were preparing for N [01] X prefixes. We've never dialed 1+7D here. Before October 1, 1982, Illinois Bell tolerated 1+10D; then they started requiring it. Centel recommended it even before then and has required it since, except for calls to area code 815, on which Centel accepts 10D for some reason, even though they insist on 1+10D for calls between 312 and 708. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com [Moderator's Note: In Chicago itself we never dialed 1+7D, but some of the outlying suburbs did. Antioch comes to mind, but then they could dial 396-xxxx without the 414 on the front. The rest of us couldn't. And interestingly enough, Americtech Mobile still allows 10-D calls between 708 <==> 312 <==> 815, or you can go 1+ 10-D if that is your pleasure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: MCI MasterPhone Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 21:00:41 CST Lyle McGeoch wrote in volume 11, issue 71: : Until now I've used AT&T (via my Bell Atlantic card) for my infrequent : calling card calls. The MCI MasterPhone program, which has slightly : better rates and automatic billing to a MasterCard, seemed like a : reasonable way to save a bit. No fee to sign-on, no extra bill to pay : each month... sounded great. Well I just received the information : packet from them. The catch turns out to be the laborious dialing : instructions: : --- call their 800 number and wait for them to answer : --- dial 0 plus the number you're calling, and wait for the tone : --- dial your MasterCard number and PIN (20 digits) : --- dial # But MCI and US Sprint will gladly bill any account -- at least any residential account -- to a MasterCard or VISA. You can use a regular MCI Card and just dial 950-1022 and a fourteen-digit card number (already saving ten digits and the final octothorpe) and still have it billed to a credit card. No fee to sign on, no extra bill to pay each month; sounds just as good as it did at first. MCI and US Sprint will also bill your 10XXX dialing to a MasterCard or a VISA (or your 1+ dialing if they're your primary carrier, which MCI has a habit of becoming suddenly and unexpectedly, but that's another story). My accounts with both of them are billed to a MasterCard, and through other arrangements one of my VISA cards has an MCI PIN and my AmEx card has a US Sprint PIN; calls made through them would likewise be billed directly to the card. : I can live without this nonsense. You're the customer; make them live with yours. Get a no-fee Universal Card from AT&T (they've extended the no-fee introductory offer to March 26, 1991), place your calls through MCI or US Sprint, and have them billed to the Universal Card. AT&T won't like your using another carrier instead of them, the carrier you use won't like having to pay the credit card discounts to AT&T, and neither will like your being so blatant about it. You get to tick off everyone! David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #78 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13324; 30 Jan 91 13:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10334; 30 Jan 91 12:54 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15255; 30 Jan 91 4:42 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04950; 30 Jan 91 3:27 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 2:51:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #79 BCC: Message-ID: <9101300251.ab30239@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 02:51:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 79 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: NEC P300 Programming [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Person Numbers [Bill Woodcock] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Jon T. Adams] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [S. H. Schwartz] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [J. Langri] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Doug Faunt] Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Jim Rees] Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding [Dave Levenson] Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding [Alan B. Owens] UK Caller Identification [Steve Hamley] Information Wanted on Programming Novatell Cellular [David E. Sheafer] NAMFAX Book For Sale [Kendall Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) Subject: Re: NEC P300 Programming Date: 29 Jan 91 19:00:06 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16456@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes: > If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300 > handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass > them along to me via e-mail or here on the net. I have a catalog from Cellular Products Distributors (my only relationship is that I have their catalog -- I've never even ordered from them). They advertise a "NAM PROGRAMMER FOR THE NEC-P300" for $88.88. They have a sketch of the device which looks like a box, somewhat smaller than a standard RJ11 block connected to a short pigtail with a connector on it which I assume would connect to your P300. (They seem to have other "NAM programmers" also.) My guess is that it is probably similar to the "Programming Battery" for the P-9100 and it simply shorts some contacts which then allows you to program it from the keypad if you know the codes. CDP lists phone numbers: (800) 654-3050 / (213) 312-0778. They sell cellular accessories (batteries, chargers, stands, phone holders, antennas, etc.). Their prices seem fairly good. If anyone orders from them, let us know how they are to deal with. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw [Moderator's Note: I bought a couple things from these people. I got a 'low-profile' 1/8 wave antenna for my Radio Shack CT-301. It is about the size of my thumb, and works almost as well as the standard, but much larger antenna. I also bought a 'battery eliminator' for the same cell phone. It is a dummy battery which fits on the unit in place of the regular one, and has a cigarette lighter plug on the other end. I can use it in the car without the more cumbersome 'mobile charging stand' supplied by Radio Shack. I put my order in one day; it came UPS Red a couple days later, charged to my VISA card. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: Person Numbers Date: 29 Jan 91 18:50:00 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz stoltz@eng.sun.com (Ben Stoltz) Writes: > I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers". > In the brave new world, people may have the option of > calling me instead of my phone. Or, they may want to call my > fax, even if that means the fax in the hotel where I am > staying instead of the fax machine where I work. > If you were going to implement this today, without TPC help, > how would you do it? It's my understanding that BellCore has been working on this for a couple of years now, with the eventual goal of being able to issue everyone a single phone number when they sign up for service the first time, much like getting a Social Security number. I've seen articles about the project in a couple of rags recently. Central computers would then (in an effort to be both "smart" and "user friendly") keep track of things like where your cellular was roaming and where the last outgoing call you'd made was placed from. In addition, you can keep a schedule on file with the telco: "homephone 6pm-7am; cellular 7am-8am; workphone 8am-5pm; cellular 5pm-6pm" or something like that. They also mentioned a feature that I've been looking for for a LONG time: having All your phones in at all locations ring until ANY ONE of them is picked up. bill.woodcock.iv woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu 2355.virginia.st berkeley.california 94709.1315 ------------------------------ From: "Jon T. Adams" Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 14:13:12 PDT Somebody named "Tiny Bubbles" queries: > 1. Are flexible antennas any good? They sell them for ten bucks or > so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty > short compared to the "whip" that comes with it. Do they work as > well as the whip? (Too bad they can't retract.) For the most part, the current rash of portable phones that use the 46MHz/ 49MHz spectrum will not work quite as well using a rubber duck. Capture area is what generally makes an antenna and using a physically smaller antenna does reduce the capture area. However, since you are dealing with a hand-held radio which is a decidedly non-optimal environment for RF propagation especially at around 50MHz, you will be happier choosing personal convenience rather than efficiency. In other words, if I was regularly breaking the metal whip antennas (or had an urchin that did) I would opt for the flexible antenna. Also consider moving the base unit to a better location, higher up (get it off the floor), etc. > 2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? > Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the > dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring > a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I > wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and > it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. The security codes vary in their sophistication; but all concern themselves only with protection from some other person using your phone line and/or your handset ringing when someone else locally receives a call. None do any kind of voice encryption. Nothing you say on a portable telephone (different only by politics from a "cellular" telephone) is legally protected from eavesdropping. In fact, anyone with a 46 to 49MHz radio receiver / scanner (available at Radio Shack and anywhere else) can pick up your conversations. The police can enter anything heard there as evidence in court. But it's fairly boring eavesdropping, at least in MY neighborhood... Eventually, if enough people complain that their "rights" are being violated by this loophole, well maybe Congress'll just pass another law, forbidding anyone from listening, just like up in the cellular telephone spectrum. Or, with the same likelihood of a snowball lasting fifteen minutes in Hell, maybe some smart manufacturer will come out with a great new phone and some reasonable encryption system using spread-spectrum stuff and will make this fact pointedly known through worldwide advertising. There's still room for entreprenuers. But they are darned handy things to have. Plantronics makes one (or more likely, MADE one, since DAK now sells it for 59.95) that clips on your belt, has a tone pad for dialout, and a featherlight earphone/mic that just fits in your ear. Great for when you're working around the house. Have fun! jon ------------------------------ From: "S. H. Schwartz" Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Date: 29 Jan 91 17:08:24 GMT Reply-To: "S. H. Schwartz" Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY In article <16490@accuvax.nwu.edu> is written: >My understanding is that the 'security code' only affects the >recognition of a 'ring' signal, so that someone calling your phone >doesn't ring your neighbor, even if they are on the same channel. I thought the security code affected call-OUT, i.e. prevent someone with a portable handset from calling out through your base unit and your paying for his calls. S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains NY 10604 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 07:56:59 est From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Keep in mind that flexible antennas are a "compromise". You have to give a little to get a lot. Replacing whip rod antennas can get expensive ... but I keep one for fringe areas. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 11:13:31 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm MARS is definitely in business. The local Naval Hospital is looking for people to man the station there, to pass H&W traffic and 'phone patches to the local hospital ship, the Mercy?, deployed over there. ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 21:15:33 GMT In article <16379@accuvax.nwu.edu>, julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) writes: > I am not familiar with Indonesia, but you will find that the line > voltage for most of the world is 48V, give or take a few. Depends on where you are in Indonesia. I spent a week in Dabo Singkep once, and the ring voltage and frequency on the phone line depends on how fast you turn the crank. The loop talk current depends on how fresh the batteries are. I've been trying to call Dabo since I got back, and I can't convince the AT&T operator to stay on the line for the ten minutes or so that it takes the operator in Indonesia to get through. Seems to me that in the old days, the operator would take the number you wanted to call, then ring you back when she was able to get through. Is there some way to get them to do that today? ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding Date: 29 Jan 91 12:42:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16494@accuvax.nwu.edu>, xgml!ers@dataco.uucp writes: > There has been mention in a few past issues of devices such as > ClassMate which read the Caller-ID info and pass it on to a computer. > I have a Northern Telecom "Maestro" phone which displays incoming > numbers. If I buy ClassMate, will *both* devices be able to read the > incoming data? You can connect ClassMate, and your Maestro and other Caller*ID receiving devices in parallel up to the REN limit for your line. Each device is a passive listener, and does not interfere with other similar devices on the same line. I don't know whether or not ClassMate will work in Canada. Perhaps there is a similar product aimed at the Canadian market? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 13:14:45 EST From: "Alan B. Owens" Subject: Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding In re TELECOM Digest V11 #75 (item 8): I have a ClassMate and an LCD display unit on the same line. Both devices read the incoming data. I live in Northern Virginia, in Bell Atlantic territory. I don't know if ClassMate will work in Canada. Alan B. Owens Building 182, Room 3M106 Staff Programmer 800 N. Frederick Avenue IBM Corporation Gaithersburg, Md 20879-3395 owensa@gbgvm2.iinus1.ibm.com 301-240-7191 ------------------------------ From: Steve Hamley Subject: UK Caller Identification Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 15:21:13 GMT Andrew Bargery (esupg@cu.warwick.ac.uk) writes... > Recently, I have seen some equipment for sale in the UK that displays > the caller's telephone number before you answer the phone. How is this > done? I think I read in this group a little while ago that in the US, > the caller's phone number comes down the line (in DTMF) between rings. > Is this true? Is a similar system used here? Is it automatic or (more > likely) do you have to pay BT (or Mercury) lots of money to get it? The piece of equipment that you describe is a rip-off. Neither BT or Mercury send Caller*ID information over normal analog circuits and seem unlikely to do so in the future. The company who market the device are very cagey about admitting this. If you want to know who's calling and you're on a System X exchange then it is possible to convert to ISDN. Alternatively, 'Distinct Ringing' will soon(ish) be on the way as an extra 'Star Service'. The Caller ID device being advertised works as follows. When a person calls your number, it answers the call and asks the person at the other end (in a badly digitised voice) to key in the number they are calling from. It then displays this on a small LCD display. You then have the option of answering the call if the number is one you recognise. The flaws of such a system are rather obvious. Not least the fact that only around 10% of UK residential phones use DTMF signalling, which the device needs to take down the caller's number. **** As a brief comment on another message in the Digest, CNN's Peter Arnett isn't the only Western reporter left in Iraq. Alfonso Rojo from Spanish newspaper El Mundo is also permitted to remain by the Iraqi authorities. ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Subject: Information Wanted on Programming Novatell Cellular Date: 29 Jan 91 09:53:03 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA I have a Novatel 8305 cellular telephone, and if anyone knows how to program it, the information would be most appreciated. My B carrier (for reasons both good and bad from the consumer's point of view) purposely locks out the A carrier, even though they are willing to reprogram if I want to access the A carrier. (That's great if there was a close by place I could bring it to.) Thanks, David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Bitnet: Sheafer_davi@bentley ------------------------------ From: kendall miller Subject: NAMFAX Book For Sale Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 16:58:21 MST Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ My mail to coriolis!lewiz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu bounced and I was unable to get a number for Lewis De Payne or Albedo Communications through directory assistance so I guess the only option left is to post this. I purchased the loose-leaf version of the NAMFAX book from Curtis about six months ago (07/25/90). I have had only one notice of an update since I bought the notebook. I did not purchase the update. (Of course they might drop one from the mailing list if you don't buy the updates.) As you probably already know, the loose leaf notebook is updatable, while the mini-binder is not. I would be willing to part with the notebook for $100.00 plus shipping and COD charges. If you are interested, you can contact me at the email address: kendall@coyote.UUCP or kendall%coyote.UUCP@noao.edu You can also call me direct at 602-797-8660. Kendall Miller ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #79 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27771; 31 Jan 91 1:35 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14597; 30 Jan 91 23:54 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25288; 30 Jan 91 22:47 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 21:54:24 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #80 BCC: Message-ID: <9101302154.ab31230@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 21:54:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 80 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CNN from Baghdad [Daniel Jacobson] Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Julian Macassey] Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Wolfgang R. Schulz] Re: Info Needed on Electronic Blackboard [Sandy Kyrish] Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs [Colin Plumb] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Bill Huttig] Re: The "Four-Wire Line": An Explanation [Jim Rees] Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Dan Jacobson] AT&T 605 and 615 Terminals Available [Alan Fleming] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 16:28:04 CST From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: Re: CNN from Baghdad = [This is a recording.] The following netnews may interest you. No = feedback to me is necessary unless you are getting overloaded with = these forwarded articles. The views below are not necessarily = endorsed or even thoroughly read by me [except if I wrote them = myself]. Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM From: klg@george.mc.duke.edu (Kim Greer -- rjj) Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave Subject: Re: CNN from Baghdad Date: 29 Jan 91 16:35:17 GMT Organization: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC Can we please put an end to this? If you don't read any thing else in this message, please at least read this next list of *reasons* why I continue to keep saying the four-wire used during the initial days of audio-only from Baghdad was *wires* and not ham radios, or Inmarsat or smoke signals or flashlights or whatever - Short version: 1. a CNN engineer told me on the phone the 4-wire was *wires* 2. Shaw and Holliman themselves described it as *wires* 3. a report on p. 60 of the January 21 issue of "Communications Week" describes it as *wires* 4. a Time magazine description of the setup (I know that calling something "four-wire" doesn't make it actual wires, but read or listen to the descriptions.) Long version: 1. I just got off the phone talking to an engineer at CNN. The company policy is to not give out names. You can call them yourself at 1-404-827-1500 and ask for engineering. The man I spoke to said that yes, the initial days of contact was by *wires* running from Baghdad to Amman. On questioning, he said that *that* phase of reporting was by *wires* and *not* satellite or cellular phones or any other goddamn thing. Whatever Peter Arnett is using now is not under discussion; nobody cares if he is now being shown in front of a satellite dish. He said there is a very good report of it in last week's Time magazine. That's *wires* as in "copper strands". So that there was no possible confusion of terms, he said after specifically asking about satellites, cellular phones, etc : (paraphrase): "No, it was a set of wires". 2. Interviews with Shaw and Holliman on Larry King Live (once they were back in the US) : S & H said that they were using a dedicated line that everyone else wanted to use, that they could not use the satellites. If you don't believe me, then write to the Larry King Live show and pay for a transcript of the show. I wish I had taped it. 3. From a posting made by Larry Johnson: On p. 60 of the January 21 issue of "Communications Week" ("The Newspaper For Network Decision Makers") there is a short article titled "Dedicated Line Pays Off For CNN." It says: ...Charles Hoff, managing director of CNN News Beam, explained it this way. In addition to regular telephone connections, CNN installed a dedicated, four-wire circuit from its Baghdad hotel room to an Iraqi-provided telephone switch. CNN also arranged a priority overseas connection with AT&T.... The line was "hard wired" so the connection did not travel through relay points, Hoff said. During a power failure, dedicated circuits are more likely than regular switched phone connections to keep working. In fact, when the fighting started, he said, normal telephone communications had ceased. (end quote from posted article) 4. Time magazine article - look it up for yourself. The CNN engineer I spoke to described it as "a very good article" - his exact words. Now skip the rest if you are as tired of this as I am. In article <3633@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes: >Uh... before you get too carried away... Don't really think I am. I'm just tired of idle speculators trying to contradict (with no evidence whatsoever) everything that so far has been published and broadcasted. >A four wire is a telecommunications and broadcasting term for a >full duplex link, where there is a separate circuit for each direction. >The term comes from the old technology days where there were literally >four wires running between the end points: in broadcasting, between the >studio and transmitter. Today, however, "four wire" >means that the telecommunications terminal provides 2 600 ohm, wide >band equalized circuits - one in each direction. It does NOT mean >that four wires (or any wires at all) are used. I never said that it had to be wires. I'm saying that all the published articles and broadcasts that I've seen and heard said that it was wire. >For example, the Arizona National Guard has a VHF repeater system >that is statewide (and for which I designed and now manufacture >the control system). Guess what they call the terminals that >come out of the microwave backbone? Yep... "four-wire." And yet, >in that case it is clearly microwave. ... and Arizona National Guard is not CNN. Mostly irrelevant. >This is not to say that they didn't use telephone lines. It is to say >that your evidence for same is worthless, since all it depends on is >the definition of "four wire." I say that I have a lot more evidence on my side. And please don't try to confuse the issue by now calling it "telephone" lines. >your evidence for same is worthless I guess we will all have to stop listening to CNN broadcasts, CNN correspondents, CNN engineers, Time magazine and Communications Week. Where is your evidence to contradict all of these people and organizations?? > your evidence Where is yours ??? You have none. I've spelled mine out. >VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) systems can provide "four wire" >service - typically on Ku band. Because they can does not mean VSAT *was* used. No "evidence" anywhere that I've seen said satellites were used. All evidence specifically and pointedly says just the opposite. See above. > It is possible that they were using this. Pure speculation. Please back it up with something that says they were. >As far as that making it a target - the ECM aircraft have >sophisticated systems for discriminating between radars, command links, >and other systems. They really don't want to waste an expensive >missile on someone's VSAT uplink. I don't think that CNN was in >much danger from radiating 10 Watts in a tight beam up to a satellite >(if in fact that is what they were doing). Military satellites in the above-Iraq area, AWACS and probably F117A's can "see" ten watts of microwave. And they most likely are not going to eavesdrop long enough to see if the originator is Iraqi or foreign. With pinpoint strikes of microwave dishes possible, who would be stupid enough to use them? >John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john >Opinion: New protest song:All we are say...ing.... is... Give BOMBS a chance! Finally, John, we can agree on something. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Kim L. Greer Duke University Medical Center klg@orion.mc.duke.edu Div. Nuclear Medicine POB 3949 voice: 919-681-5894 Durham, NC 27710 fax: 919-681-5636 ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA Date: 30 Jan 91 15:11:04 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. The Moderator Notes, in response to an article: >If I remember a previous thread correctly, you can't call Cuba from >the US (with the exception of Guantanamo Bay). >[Moderator's Note: I believe you can call Cuba; but the call cannot be >dialed direct and has to be routed manually by the operator. PAT] My 1982 Edition of "Telephony's Dictionary" shows a cable between Key West, Florida and Havana Cuba. The number of circuits is not listed, but I would guess it is less than fifty. I have no idea when the cable was laid or whether it is still in use. 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 ------------------------------ From: "Wolfgang R. Schulz" Subject: Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically Date: 29 Jan 91 17:26:08 GMT 0002293637@mcimail.com (Krislyn Companies) writes: >Just a small technical correction ... MCI Mail subscribers don't have >to request a telex number - they get one automatically. It's 650 + >the seven-digit MCI ID. And even better: if you are at some odd place where you have no phone line nor a computer handy, you can access your MCI mailbox through telex, just dial 6700 or 650-0000000. And there you are. Wolfgang R. Schulz Hamburg-Germany wrs@mcshh.hanse.de * wrs@mschh.UUCP * 0002412526@mcimail.com ...unido!mcshh!wrs * No BTX (German Videotex) address anymore ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 14:25 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Info Needed on Electronic Blackboard Regarding a PC "electronic blackboard" for distance education: the best bet is to call Optel Communications in NYC, 212-741-9000. They have what you need, and they are well-entrenched in the audiographic distance education market. ------------------------------ From: "Randal L. Schwartz" Subject: Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 16:00:18 GMT In article <16527@accuvax.nwu.edu>, carols@world (Carol Springs) writes: | I don't know whether there is an interim period in which unadorned 976 | will still work, since I had 976 calls blocked on my lines long ago. | (I suspect dialing old-style will get you a "You must first dial 1..." | recording.) Any other areas have 1 + 976, or is New England Telephone | leading the way? We've *always* had 1+976, because around here, 1 means toll, and always has. (Well, maybe, not forever... sigh.) Just another person for whom the bell tolls, Randall L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn ------------------------------ From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:32:16 GMT In Toronto, which used to use 1+ as a long distance indicator (1+7D for within-416 LD, and I believe 10D worked for cross-area local calls, although I never lived that close to an area code boundary), it was always 1-976-SCAM (or whatever :-}). However, in anticippation of N0X/N1X prefixes, it's now 1+416+7D for long distance, and 976 went with it. 1-416-976-SCAM. The latest I saw: 1-416-976-WAKE. Wakeup calls. I don't know how well done their system is, and they say they'll call you anywhere, but for $3.00 a call, I'll buy a cheapp alarm clock, thanks! Colin ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service Date: 30 Jan 91 18:22:34 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <16510@accuvax.nwu.edu> eddy@jafus.mi.org (Eddy J. Gurney) writes: >$25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month. Calls will >be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the >evening. This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and >cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and MCI's personal 800 number is MUCH cheaper ... no $25 service charge ... only $2/mo (with Primetime) and .225 a min day and .1083 evenings/ weekends (with Primetime). Even at the $5/mo rate it would take over eleven months to make up the difference; and the calls are .25 day and somewhere around .20/min other times. [Moderator's Note: One thing I neglected to note originally (or comment upon yesterday) was that I did not pay any $25 service charge or set up fee. That must be something new MCI has added since they took over. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 17:29:51 GMT In article <16472@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: [ an excellent introduction to 4-wire lines ] > So, a local telephone plant uses only one pair per subscriber. > In engineering terms, it is far from a perfect transmission line. The > main reason is that no transmission line operates at its normal > electrical "impedance" until it is a significant portion of an > electrical wavelength of the signal it carries. That's not exactly right. A transmission line has a characteristic impedance, which in the case of your local subscriber loop is probably around 100 ohms or so. I don't know the exact number but it can be calculated from the dimensions of the wire. If the line is exactly matched to the terminating impedance, then you don't get any reflections, regardless of how long the line is. The problem with local loops is that they aren't a good match to the endpoints, which have an impedance of around 600 ohms. But even if the characteristic impedance of the line were carefully set to 600 ohms, it wouldn't matter until the line becomes a substantial fraction of a quarter wave long, which would be at least several miles. Any resistance in the local loop will also make the loop deviate from an ideal transmission line. I think the biggest cause of reflections is probably the subscriber phone set, which doesn't present an exact 600 ohm resistive termination at all frequencies. I would guess that the resistance of the subscriber loop is secondary, and that actual transmission line effects are last. Can anyone confirm this? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ... From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 12:46:00 GMT On 30 Jan 91 06:25:10 GMT, zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu wrote: Z> ... a phone in another part of the house has been picked up? I Z> want to do this via the phone line in my room. Easy: get the cheapest $2 phone you can find, and turn its ringer switch "on". Voila, you can hear all kinds of activity, from just the other phone being picked up, to the whole conversation -- all without taking your phone "off hook". Just don't have your ear to the phone when it rings. [Disclaimer: not all cheap phones do all this]. Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM Naperville IL USA +1 708 979 6364 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 21:00:14 EST From: dscatl!daysinns!alanf@gatech.edu Subject: AT&T 605 and 615 Terminals Available A business acquaintance here in Atlanta has approximately 50 AT&T 605 terminals and approximately 75 AT&T 615 terminals he is trying to sell. As an added bonus, autodialers for the 615 terminals are included for free. These autodialers are designed to be used with the AT&T System 85/75 digital or analog sets. Since this may be of interest to the readers of telecom, Pat has graciously allowed me to post this. I can't give out the prices over the net and I will work as contact and forward the interested parties to the company selling these. Please contact me at: Alan Fleming {uunet}!gatech.edu!daysinns!alanf (404)/728-4498 Disclaimer: I have no connection with the company selling these other than that of a business acquaintance and fellow telecom devotee. [Moderator's Note: Although generally messages offering things for sale are best placed in the appropriate 'for sale' newsgroup, there are instances where the items are of relatively specialized interest to telecom people; thus I will put them here after first discussing the message with the writer. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #80 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28799; 31 Jan 91 2:33 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28821; 31 Jan 91 1:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14597; 30 Jan 91 23:54 CST Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:06:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #81 BCC: Message-ID: <9101302306.ab02414@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:06:25 CST Volume 11 : Issue 81 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cordless Phones False Dialing? [Ben Singer] Rolm Phone Compatibility [Bernie Cosell] Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia [Arnold Robbins] Help Wanted re German Telephone Interface [Dick Jackson] A Small Defeat for COCOT's? [Richard Bowles] AT&T Toolchest Number Wanted [Ed Benyukhis] Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? [Seth Cohn] Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Singer Subject: Cordless Phones False Dialing? Date: 30 Jan 91 07:38:18 EST Every now and then I receive a message on my answering machine (same line as my Panasonic 3910R) telling me I attempted to dial a long distance number incorrectly or something that effect (of course, a recorded message). Does anybody have any idea of why this should be, or has anybody had the same experience? I wonder if it is in any way associated with cordless phone use; yet, how does it get on the answering machine tape? Is it possible that the cordless phone is initiating calls that somehow seep into the answering machine? Or, is this the kind of thing that might occur independently of the cordless phone? An enigma ... Ben Singer Department of Sociology University of Western Ontario Singer@uwo.ca London, Ontario N6A 5C2 Singer@uwovax.bitnet (519) 660-0671 (home) (519) 679-2111 Ext 5137 ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Rolm Phone Compatibility Date: 30 Jan 91 13:58:20 GMT Reply-To: Bernie Cosell Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies, Inc, Cambridge MA Here at BBN we have a ROLM VLCBX system. As it turns out, I'm getting some grief from the phonedroids about replacing my instrument with a speakerphone, and so I'm thinking of finessing the whole matter by simply going out and BUYING a speakerphone --- phones are cheap enough and easy enough to come by that it is hard to fathom why providing a 'BBN approved' speakerphone should be an expensive hassle, but it is. Anyhow: does anyone know what the compatibility of 'ordinary' phones are with the Rolm system? It looks like the 'official' Rolm instruments all just have vanilla modular connectors on them, but I observe that the phone has at least two not-very-standard features: 1) it supports a "message waiting" light 2) it has some magic in the switchhook so that it holds the line down long enough to ensure that it is really a 'hangup' [and there is a separate 'flash' button]. Are there random commercial [speaker] phones that are actually fully compatible with the Rolm system [including the two items above]? Even if the answer is 'yes', I'm curious about what'll happen [besides that I'll obviously lose the above two items] if I just use a real-vanilla phone --- it won't hurt the system or otherwise not work, will it? Thanks, Bernie Cosell BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02138 cosell@bbn.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia Date: 30 Jan 91 14:41:54 GMT Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta There were two inserts in my bill from Southern Bell yesterday. This note describes one of them. Transcribed verbatim: GEORGIA RELAY SERVICE On December 4, 1990, the Georgia Public Service Commision gave approval for a Dual Party Relay System. This system provides telephone communications between deaf and hearing/speech-impaired customers who use Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) and all customers who use standard voice telephones. It will begin operation on April 1, 1991. To fund the system, the Commision ordered all telephone companies in Georgia to collect a monthly surcharge from their customers beginning in January, 1991. This month's bill includes a surcharge labeled "Dual Party Relay System for the Hearing/Speech Impaired Surcharge." The amount of the relay surcharge is seven cents per line per month. The Georgia Relay Center will be located in Norcross and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Customers can access the relay center using toll-free numbers. Toll calls completed thorugh the relay center will be billed from originating point to terminating point of the call, as though the relay center did not exist, at the intrastate rate minus a 25 percent discount. For more information on the Georgia Relay Center, please call Southern Bell at the following numbers: Residence Customers: 780-2355 Business Customers: 780-2800 The numbers above are in the 404 area code. I'm posting this just to provide the information to the Telecom readership. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 933 7612 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 [Moderator's Note: The other insert in Mr. Robbins' bill discussed the introduction of Caller*ID in Georgia next month. This insert will be printed in the next issue of the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: Help Wanted re German Telephone Interface Date: 30 Jan 91 19:06:23 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica We are working towards providing a voice response system for use in Germany. I would greatly appreciate information about the physical interface of telephone equipment to the line over there, ie. holding current, etc. Is it compatible with the US sytem? I understand about the need to use equipment which is registered with the PTT, etc. Thanks in advance, Dick Jackson ------------------------------ From: Richard Bowles Subject: A Small Defeat For COCOT's? Date: 30 Jan 91 21:18:29 GMT Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218 I just noticed a banner over a local 7-11 that said: "C & P Payphones are back!" And sure enough, no COCOTS ... is this a hopeful sign? Richard Bowles bowles@stsci.edu [Moderator's Note: Here in the Chicago area we are seeing a shift away from those obnoxious devices also, but not as quickly as other places. The 7-11 stores here have the discretion to use the phone service of their choice, but the two 7-11's I frequent both use genuine IBT phones with LD defaulted to AT&T. The 7-11 where I go for my luncheon sandwiches every day (and a dollar's worth of pinball) is owned by a nice man and his wife whose hometown is Baghdad. A COCOT salesman was there one day trying to pressure him into yanking the Bells in favor of his units. The 7-11 owner turned him down saying he had to use phones 'the public would be happy with'. Many merchants are beginning to discover the extra commission they receive isn't worth the hostility they get from the public. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Benyukhis Subject: AT&T Toolchest Number Wanted Date: 30 Jan 91 20:03:55 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Does anyone know the AT&T Toolchest modem line number? Please post or e-mail. Thanks, Edward Benyukhis ------------------------------ From: seth cohn Subject: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 12:43:19 EST Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y. I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system. The operator gave me a choice of: 1) a testable network interface 2) a NONtestable network interface What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) ) Seth Cohn ------------------------------ Date: 29-JAN-1991 00:29:57.47 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls Re: John Higdon's post about flashing an AT&T operator at the end of a Calling Card call. I know I keep talking about the "new" and "old" AT&T calling card systems, but John Higdon's post reminded me of yet another difference: First, some terms: "Old" system: generally, the mixed local-BOC/long-distance-AT&T Calling Card system, where callers would only hear "Thank you" after entering their card number, and where they could sequence call between local and LD calls, by hitting the "#" key. Some minor variations after divestiture: 0 + LD yielded "Thank you for using AT&T", 0 + local yielded just "Thank you", etc. Some prohibitions on LD to local or local to LD sequence calls, but generally there was no such restriction. "New System": voice is slightly different, and pauses between "Thank you using" and "AT&T". It is SLOWER than the older system, ie, on a sequence call, dialing #, then the new number, (a/c +7D) will not immediately yield a "Thank you"; you will wait a while, almost as if it is checking out the number. If you enter an invalid exchange, ie, 415-001 or something, it will tell you right then and there, and NOT go to the standard error message with the alert tones, ie " Your call can not be completed as dialed, please check the number and dial again. XXX XT" (If you don't live in CA, call 415-767-1212, you will see what I mean...) It will say "Please dial the number your are calling, again, NOW. The number you are calling is NOT correct." By entering the # key after your sequence call, ie, #-415-555-1212-#, you will get a response immediately (either "Thank you" or "Please dial again..."). "Local System": used by Pac*Bell, NY Tel, NJ Bell, NE Tel, and others. These companies seemed to put their own Calling Card machines in after divestiture (because "the Judge" ordered it so??), and only handle local Calling Card calls. The generic versions seem to have an English sounding voice which sounds more like a computer than a person (very "cold" voice, especially when it says "You may dial another call, now." You get the feeling that an eathquake wouldn't alter that voice! :) ) After the local Bells figured out that the voice sounded bit odd, they put in their own scratchy recordings. Thus with NY Tel, you may hear " You may dial other call nowwww". (Not THAT bad, but close...) Aside: Is this Northern Telecom CC equipment? The voice sounds EXACTLY like the generic DMS-100/200 voice that one hears before the local telco records their own messages on the DMS ... ie, the "generic" "We're sorry. The number you have reached is not in service." Call 203-724-9963 to see what I mean ... it's free (not in service). Anyhow ... with the "old" system, I DON'T recall being able to flash an operator on a Calling Card call WHEN I entered my calling card number myself. So, if I dialed 0-415-555-1212, and at the "boing"/tone entered my CC number, I could flash as much as I wanted after SF DA hung up and nothing would happen, except maybe I'd get a dial tone. However, let's say I was at a rotary phone, or some silly Touch Tone phone in Western MA where they disable the tone pad after you dial 0+ (Western Electric trying to act like a COCOT??? :) Probably since it was run off of some really old SxS or Xbar switch ...), then in such a situation, after the "boing"/tone, I would NOT be able to tone in/enter my calling card number. So after maybe five seconds, the AT&T operator would come on, and ask for my CC number. It was ONLY this way that I could flash her back after my first party had hung up to make another call. You could NOT (and I don't think you can now) get an operator to come on line DURING the call while the other party was still there. I *think* one could not recall her on a 'busy' or 'no answer' (ie, ringing), or any condition where supervision was not initially returned. I'm not sure about this. However, with the "new" system, you can recall the operator on a call where you initially entered your CC number, or where you spoke to her and verbally told her the number. It makes no difference. Does anyone know why AT&T did this? Moreover, some local Telcos are using the AT&T system (is it AT&T's?) as their own, substituting their local telco name instead of AT&T. Thus, instead of hearing "Thank you for using" "AT&T" you will hear "Thank you for using" "Bell Atlantic", or whatever local Telco serves you. Some really cheap telcos or areas that just put in the new system say "Thank you for using" "your local Telephone Company", and "You may dial another" "local telphone company handled" "call, now." Some telcos, like NY Tel, use this only in certain areas, like on Staten Island, where as in other parts of NY, one must use NY Tel's PRIMITIVE calling card system which they put in shortly after divestiture and is really awful and slow. (Pac*Bell uses a similar system, although friends have told me they are hearing the "new" AT&T system more often now, with of course "Pac*Bell" substituted for "AT&T" where applicable.) One company that has totally gone over to the AT&T system is SNET in Connecticut. C&P Tel seems to have gone over, some sections of New Jersey Bell (but not most), Bell of PA (in Reading, at least), etc. On these "new"/local systems, you have to push the "#" sign after a local seqeunce call to get the "Thank you" right away. IE, #-"you may dial another SNET handled call now" - 555-1212-#-"thank you". Can you flash to get an operator on these?? I've never tried it... It was also mentioned that if you are on a call, and decide to make an operator assisted three-way call (ie, "flash" - 0+xxx-xxx-xxxx - enter CC number -"flash"), you could NOT drop the call unless you get the operator back and have her RELEASE the call. I've found that rather than annoying the operator, there are simple ways to get control of the call back: On an AT&T call: sequence call (dial "#"), then dial 900-555-1212. You will NOT be billed for this call, even though it is a 900 number. After a few seconds, the AT&T computer will come online and tell you "Please hang up and dial direct - This number can not be dialed as a sequence call". You will then get promtply hung up on by the calling card system. Alternately, you can repeatedly dial an invalid number (415-767-1212 from outside CA), or a local number, IF your AT&T system in your area does NOT allow sequence calls to local numbers. On a local BOC call: dial ANY LD number,ie, a call that your BOC can not handle, and after two attempts it will hang up on you. I know this will work with the "new" AT&T equipment (if your local BOC uses it for local calls), and in many cases works with the older "local" equipment that some BOCs like Pac*Bell and NYNEX companies use. (Of course, the above is only valid for Calling Card calls, and if you just do nothing, the Calling Card system will probably just hang up on you anyhow.) Finally, we also have "110" for "flash-the-operator-if-you-have-three- way-calling", but how do you do this if the operator assisted call is on the "second leg" of the call, ie, you can't get the second "Three-way" tone with which to dial 110? In the example above, 110 wouldn't do much good. Consider this problem I once had: I was talking to someone, we wanted to reach directory assistance in London, so I called, via three-way, the operator, who connected me. DA in London took a LONG time to answer, so the operator left the line and told me "Flash me when done". I wasn't thinking, and said "OK", and after I got the number from London DA, I COULDN'T flash, since the operator call was my second call, and flashing did no good. So for over an hour my line was busy until the operator came on and hung up! DMSs don't seem to have this 110 code for 'flashing' for customers who have three-way calling and need to flash an operator on the "first leg" of their call (ie, no three-way call involved). Is there some similar code? I called the tech people at Pac*Bell and SNET, and none of them even knew what 110 did! Please....! Guess that's it for my favorite esoteric telcom subject! Anyone still awake? :) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told my call could not be completed as dialed. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #81 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02025; 31 Jan 91 4:54 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02270; 31 Jan 91 3:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06491; 31 Jan 91 2:01 CST Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 1:28:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #82 BCC: Message-ID: <9101310128.ab13165@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Jan 91 01:28:26 CST Volume 11 : Issue 82 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telemarketing Sleaze's New Gimmick: The Gulf War [TELECOM Moderator] Press a Button to Make a Donation [Stan M. Krieger] Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge for Poor People' [TELECOM Moderator] Southern Bell Notifies Customers: Caller*ID is on the Way [Arnold Robbins] 909 Split Official [Jeff Sicherman] Personal Communications [Steven A. Minneman] Economics of Caller-ID [Douglas Ferguson] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Robert Savery] Re: Japanese Payphones [Carl Wright] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 0:28:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telemarketing Sleaze's New Gimmick: The Gulf War Everyone has heard the stories of telemarketing sleaze ... the preposterous offers and the inconvenient calls from shysters. Although I myself feel it should be adequate to say no and replace the telephone reciever on the cradle, there are times when even I cringe at the abusive and ugly nature of some telemarketing schemes. Consider the latest one, as described by Kathleen Kott, a resident of Palatine, IL, in a story reported by the {Chicago Sun-Times} 1/30/91: Kathleen and her husband Bernard sent their son to the Persian Gulf not long ago with the fears and sadness all parents and spouses of military men and women are sharing right now. Although they did not expect to hear from him on a daily basis while he was overseas in the war, they knew he would call occassionally as he was able. James Kott, a 25-year old Air Force navigator went to do his military duty, and his parents went home to weep. Kathy Kott said, "I had been crying for two days ... we had expected to hear from our son, and his call was long overdue. My husband had gone to sleep, and I finally dropped off to sleep also." Then the phone rang, the shrill bell awakening Kathy. "This is Commander Walker," an authoritative voice announced late on the evening of January 18. "We are the connection to bring the voice of your loved one in Saudi Arabia to you ...." Hastily, Kathy awoke her husband Bernard; it must be a call from Jim. "To show your support, stay on the line and press one," the voice commanded them. Later, they found it was just a tape-recorded message used to introduce what came next: Kott pressed the one on her phone. But instead of hearing her son Jim's voice -- or worse yet, a dreadful message from an Air Force official -- who else would be 'Commander Walker' if not a military leader? -- Kathy and Bernard learned that a $9.95 donation plus $1.50 for shipping would buy her a bracelet "connecting you to your loved one in Operation Desert Storm ... Just press one again to place your order now ..." Stunned, Kathy did nothing, and eventually the call disconnected from her line. But she is still angry about this unsolicited, tape-recorded call placed to her home late at night. She said to get a call like that late at night under the circumstances was just devastating. She said it took advantage of the family's situation and was an invasion of their privacy. Kott and her husband are not the only ones to receive these calls. There have been numerous complaints lodged against the firm making these pitches. Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris, whose office oversees telemarketing firms operating in this state said both his office and the Attorney General of the State of New York have been contacted by numerous citizens complaining about the calls. Burris said "It is despicable that no matter what the crisis, no matter how much grief Americans are sharing at this time, we have unscrupulous people who are ready, willing and able to take advantage of American consumers ... " Todd Wyatt, owner of Voices for Freedom, the company he operates in McLean, VA denied being unscrupulous. He claims his business is legitimate. He claims the profits from the sale of the bracelets would subsidize a voice-mail center so troops in the Gulf could leave messages for their families and receive messages the same way. Mr. Wyatt was asked some pointed questions about his operation. One, why were calls made late at night? His response was there were problems with the contractor's equipment being used to make the calls. He would not specify exactly what the problem was. Did the equipment have a mind of its own and begin making calls each night? Was there perhaps some programming error which assumed east coast area codes were actually in the western time zone and that people would still be awake? He had no answers. Two, what about allegations made to state officials -- and supported by statements from two credit card charge processing centers -- that credit cards were having $100 holds placed on them to pay for the bracelets .... fact or fiction? Mr. Wyatt admitted this was true also, and again placed the blame on the contractor handling the sales. Wyatt added that he "would never do anything to bring discredit upon the men and women serving their country in the Gulf ... " But Todd Wyatt isn't alone in 'not bringing discredit to the troops', as Ronald Fenech revealed when he was questioned about his promotions. Mr. Fenech, of Elkhart, IN sells T-shirts by phone using the same sort of sleazy tactics which Wyatt is so good at. Fenech claims $2 of every $10 sale and $4.50 of every $18 sale is used to 'purchase sundries for our troops overseas". Neither Todd Wyatt nor Ronald Fenech have registered their fund raising organizations with any state agency that the {Chicago Sun Times} was able to find out about ... and both men claim they did not know they were required to register. The non-profit National Consumers League in Washington, DC cautions that 'dishonest telemarketers will find the gulf crisis a rich source of fraud where generous Americans wishing to show their support of the troops are concerned.' They urge caution when dealing with people over the phone claiming to have or implying they are associated with the military. I strongly second that suggestion. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 15:14:08 EST From: S M Krieger Subject: Press a Button to Make a Donation Organization: Summit NJ I just heard the following on WCBS radio (880AM in New York City). There was no information about how it is done, or what kind of new phone service was involved, but here is how it works. In Connecticut (Southern New England Telephone), people are getting phone calls asking them to push "1" if they support the troops in the Persian Gulf. After pushing "1", they're told, or later find out, that $2.00 will be billed to their phone. SNET says it's legal. Has anybody ever heard of this before? Stan Krieger: All opinions, advice or suggestions, even AT&T UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own Summit, NJ and do not represent any public or att!attunix!smk private policies of my employer. [Moderator's Note: I think to make it legal there has to be at least the briefest mention of the charge being made and the consideration being given, ie. the trinket you will receive or whatever. But they can slur the words and talk rapidly. :) no, actually :( PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:26:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge for Poor People' A class action suit was filed Wednesday afternoon against Illinois Bell Telephone Company asking that the company be required to abandon its plan to add fifteen cents to the bills of each subscriber in order to finance reduced-cost service for poor people in the state. Earlier this month IBT had announced a plan to provide service at a greatly reduced rate to people who qualified by virtue of their participation in some form of public aid program here. In excess of five dollars per month would have been credited back to the phone bills of people in this category, with the offset being a charge of fifteen cents per subscriber/month to everyone else. It is estimated about sixty thousand subscribers would have benefitted from the reduced rates. 'Proof of poverty' would have been achieved by participation in General Assistance, Aid to Dependent Children, subsidized housing or other forms of public assistance. The rest of the subscribers said NO!, and the class action suit filed Wednesday also asks for a temporary restraining order prohibiting IBT from collecting the fifteen cents until such time as the court has ruled on the class action suit. Spokespersons for the class action said "we are already taxed to the hilt to pay for programs assisting poor people. There are already numerous surcharges on our phone bills as a result of changes made at the time of divestiture. We don't plan to pay any more." Illinois Bell had no comment, saying they had not yet seen a copy of the suit papers. I'll provide more details as they are available. Only headlines were given on the evening news. PAT ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Southern Bell Notifies Customers: Caller*ID is on the Way Date: 30 Jan 91 14:52:27 GMT Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta There were two inserts in my Southern Bell bill yesterday. This note describes one of them. Transcribed verbatim: SOUTHERN BELL OFFERS CALLER ID Beginning February 14, Caller ID will be available to single-line customers in the metro Atlanta area. The service will be available to most of our service areas throughout the state by mid-1991. With Caller ID service and a special display unit (purchased separately), customers will be able to identify the telephone numbers of most incoming calls from the immediate local calling area. After the first ring, the call's number appears on the display unit. You can answer or return the call later -- you decide. Published and non-published telephone numbers will be shown on the special display unit. As before, non-published numbers will not be listed in the telephone directory or with directory assistance. Centers for crisis intervention and law enforcement agencies may be eligible for special treatment. For more information, agency directors should write to Southern Bell, Room 136CID, P.O. Box 100051, Atlanta, Georgia 30348. Southen Bell A BELLSOUTH Company This note is posted just to provide the information to the Telecom readership. I haven't yet formulated a personal opinion on Caller*ID. The most interesting thing I note is that no mention is made that Caller*ID is only being done on a one-year trial basis. I won't speculate though as to why that piece of information is ommitted. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 933 7612 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 22:02:55 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: 909 Split Official Organization: Cal State Long Beach The telephone gods have spoken: the 909 area code will be given to Riverside and San Bernadino counties in southern California and 714 will remain with Orange County. Effective date of the switchover is November 1992. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 11:13:45-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Personal Communications (was: Person Numbers) Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article <16413@accuvax.nwu.edu> stoltz@eng.sun.com (Ben Stoltz) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 66, Message 13 of 16 >I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers". >In the brave new world, people may have the option of calling me >instead of my phone. [significant speculation on this subject deleted] This is what is being called "Personal Communications (PC)" or "Universal Personal Telecommunication (UPT)". It is a new field with VERY high interest from most companies in the telecommunications field. However, it is in its infancy. Standards bodies worldwide are just beginning to define how PC or UPT will work. It will (hopefully) allow someone to reach someone else anywhere in the world by dialing a "personal number." However, there are still many questions to be answered and many agreements to be reached. ------------------------------ From: Douglas Ferguson Subject: Economics of Caller-ID Date: 31 Jan 91 01:27:12 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. I am writing an academic paper on the economics of Caller-ID with several levels of analysis: (1) the need for the regional BOCs to find new sources of revenue in a post-AT&T era, (2) the costs to the BOCs for offering Caller-ID with or without mandatory blocking, (3) the costs to the BOCs for offering other CLASS services in the absence of Caller-ID, (4) the costs to the consumer for Caller-ID and other CLASS services among the various BOCs, (5) the relative value of Caller-ID with blocking to Caller-ID without blocking, and (6) the costs to the BOCs for litigating the Caller-ID controversy. Can anyone suggest articles or books that could help? I know that a lot of the information is proprietary but it would also help if I could get the name of someone familiar with the economics of Caller-ID. Dr. Douglas Ferguson, BGSU, Bowling Green, Ohio (419) 372-6007 ARPA: ferguson%bgsu.edu@relay.cs.net * *** Disclaimer *** Internet: ferguson@andy.bgsu.edu * Opinions expressed are not Bitnet: ferguson@bgsuopie * those of BGSU. Trust me ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:50:41 PDT From: Robert Savery Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Reply-To: robert.savery@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message on 27 Jan 91, Tiny Bubbles (Michael Ho) writes: TB> I have one easy question about cordless phones and one trickier one. TB> 1. Are flexible antennas any good? ......... TB> ...... Do they work as well as the whip? I bought one of these when I broke the whip off my phone. It worked fine for me, but the phone never went out of the apartment. The only complaint I had about the flexable antenna was the way it mounted. The set screw was forever coming loose, resulting in the antenna flying across the room. TB>2. Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code? TB> Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the TB> dialing codes? I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring TB> a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I TB> wonder if my phone is safe. That's a big consideration for me, and TB> it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones. All the security code does is keep nefarious types from using another handset to outdial on your line. It in no way stops someone from listening in on your conversations. An AT&T phone is no "safer" than one of the el-cheepos. See Ya!! Bob msged 1.99S ZTC [200:5010/666.5@Metronet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 04:23:45 GMT I remember reading in our "Ann Arbor News" that the University of Michigan and Michigan Bell are or were testing pay phones with prepaid charge cards just like you describe in Japan. Are there any U.M. students listening who can comment? 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 #82 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02856; 31 Jan 91 5:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13046; 31 Jan 91 4:14 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02270; 31 Jan 91 3:07 CST Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 2:02:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Report on MFJ Symposium BCC: Message-ID: <9101310202.ab09067@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> [Moderator's Note: Jane Fraser, a regular correspondent to TELECOM Digest from Ohio State has passed along this special report of a symposium held last week. I thought you would enjoy reading it, although it is too long for a regular issue of the Digest. PAT] Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 13:59:37 est From: "Jane M. Fraser" Subject: Report on MFJ Symposium Sponsored by Ohio PUC Report on MFJ Syposium Jane M. Fraser On January 25, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio sponsored a one-day symposium on the Modified Final Judgment (MFJ). The MFJ is the 1982 consent decree (with subsequent modifications) between the U.S. Justice Department and the AT&T Bell system that divested AT&T from the former Bell operating companies (BOCs). In the MFJ, AT&T retained the portions of the system related to the provision of long distance telephone service and the manufacture of telephone equipment, while the BOCs retained the local exchange parts of the network. Because the MFJ was based on findings that there had been illegal use of monopoly power in the local exchange to dominate the provision of long-distance service and equipment manufacture, the newly independent BOCs were prohibited from entering into those lines of business. Since an earlier, 1952, agreement had prohibited the Bell system from being involved in information services, there were no such portions of the company to be allocated, but fears that the local exchange monopoly could be used to unfairly limit competition in that area led to also prohibiting the BOCs from providing information services. The MFJ specifies procedures by which BOCs can obtain waivers from the three restrictions for specific projects. The PUCO symposium had panels devoted to each of the three line-of-business restrictions as well as a fourth panel devoted to the concept of separate subsidiaries, a device proposed to be imposed on the BOCs if any of the restrictions are lifted. The day began, after a welcome from the PUCO chair Jolynn Barry Butler, with an address by Donald W. McClellan, Jr., Legislative Assistant to Senator Conrad Burns. McClellan also showed a tape, provided by Pacific Telesis, illustrating the telecommunications network of the future, including high fidelity video, voice recognition of commands, on-line shopping, and so forth. The panel on the manufacturing restriction, chaired by Barbara J. Stonebreaker (Senior Vice-President, Cincinnati Bell, which is not a BOC), included Richard Janney (General Counsel and Vice-President, Ameritech, which owns five BOCs in the Midwest), Michael D. Baudhuin (Corp. Vice-President, AT&T), Calvin Manshio (Commissioner, Illinois Commerce Commission) Lee Selwyn (President, Economics and Technology, Inc.) and Paul H. Vishny (Counsel, Telecommunications Industry Association). Janney set the stage by saying that the Ameritch BOCs, at least, have no desire to "bend metal," but are very constrained by the interpretation of the manufacturing restriction to include the creation of any software that is integral to the operation of switches. He argued that this interpretation has created inefficiencies in the BOCs. Baudhin (from AT&T) and Vishny (from the manufacturers' association) both argued that there has been an enormous growth in competition in the manufacture of telephone equipment since 1982 and that lifting the restriction might stifle this growing competition; the BOCs, they argued, would have incentives to purchase only from their own manufacturing arms just as the old Bell system had. Vishny provided the data that the BOCs purchased 92% of their equipment from AT&T before the MFJ but purchase only 60% from them today. Vishny also pointed out that manufacturing and operation are separated in many other countries for the same public policy reasons that they should be in the U.S. Baudhin also raised fears that the BOCs would illegally use revenues from regulated provision of local exchange service to subsidize the development of unregulated manufacturing divisions. Manshio presented one regulator's view that each state should be free to extract a fee from the BOCs to get into manufacturing, arguing that the nation would benefit from the increased competition the BOCs would offer in manufacturing. Selwyn focussed on the need to develop a national system that is modular so that all companies can get access to the intelligence that is increasingly being built into the telephone system. Janney replied that Ameritech had been the first RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Company) to issue its plans for an Open Network Architecture. Selwyn argued further, however, that we need a rich competitive software market without the BOCs before we should lift the restriction. He said the risk of allowing the BOCs to get into the programming of the switches is that the resulting system would lose its interoperability; different switches would be programmed differently. Selwyn raised the debate level considerably by stating that videos such as that we had just seen from Pacific Telesis seek to scare people into believing that only the BOCs can lead us forward; he disagrees with this belief. Selwyn also took issue with frequently cited studies (by Bill Davidson and others) that compare the U.S. phone system with those of other countries to scare people into believing that the U.S. telephone system is second rate because its annual investment is much lower; he argued that most foreign telephone systems are government owned and such studies ignore the considerable investment occurring in private networks and in CPE (customer premise equipment). In open discussion, Selwyn asked the proponents of lifting the restriction to give one example of something in the video that the BOCs could not provide today because of the restriction. (In my opinion, his question was answered later in the day by comments on the restrictions imposed by the information services prohibition.) Selwyn's remarks caused this panel to be easily the most lively and heated of the day. The information services panel was chaired by Tom Muth (professor of telecommunications at Michigan State). The panelists included Steve Shapiro (outside counsel for the RBOCs on the MFJ), Brad Tillson (publisher, Dayton Daily News), Nancy Garrison (Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice), Ron Binz (Colorado Consumer Counsel), Lenworth Smith, Jr. (Commissioner, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio), Gerhard O. Mueller (President, GemTech, Inc., a company that consults to information service providers), Anita Wallgren (Vice-President, Great American Communications, Inc., of Cincinnati), and Harry M. Shooshan, III (National Economic Research Associates, Inc.) The information services restriction seems to be the most likely to be lifted soon. In a pending decision, the court has been asked to remove this restriction. AT&T has not objected and the U.S. Justice Department has also filed to support this. Supporting views have come from the FCC and the United States Telephone Association, among others, while opposing views have come from the Association of American Publishers, Inc., the Consumer Federation of America, CompuServe, and MCI, among others. Tillson, publisher of the {Dayton Daily News}, gave a fascinating description of the movements newspapers are making into information services as they increasingly see their role as providing information in any form. He feared allowing the provider of the electronic highway (the LEC or local exchange carrier) to be a competitor with him in providing the products being carried over that highway. Mueller later expanded on Tillson's arguments that the the LEC has a monopoly that would enable it to treat other information service providers unfairly, by, for example, limiting their access to information on up-to-date phone numbers, information necessary to the operation of a credit bureau. Wallgren, formerly with the National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration, argued on similar grounds that content and conduit should be kept separate. Garrison, one of the authors of the Justice Department brief supporting the lifting of this restriction, stressed that the court's job is not to find the best possible settlement. The only question is whether removal of the information services restriction would further competition. She argued that vertical integration is not usually suspect, but rather is usually procompetitive; even where it may limit competition the usual legal remedy is to insist that the carrier cannot deny access. Binz, currently vice-president of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, argued that there are other alternatives to lifting the MFJ including granting limited waivers for necessary services such as medical imaging. He insisted that competition in the provision of local exchange access must be a prerequisite for lifting of the restrictions; he views such competition as being less remote than in the past. Ohio Commissioner Smith expressed misgiving over the ability of regulators to monitor the utilities, but argued that we need to remove the restrictions and gather data. Shooshan argued that we should unleash a potentiallly very efficient information provider. The BOCs are uniquely positioned to provide electronic advertising, for example. The provision of information services by a BOC through its information gateway could function as an "anchor tenant," making the information services of all other providers much more profitable. Currently the information services restriction even prohibits the BOCs from customizing the menu provided to each customer of a gateway. He argued that these effects of the restriction force the innovation out of the public switched network into CPE, leaving out small businesses and residential users. Congressman Michael Oxley, representative from the 4th District of Ohio, addressed the group over lunch, expressing his view that the best role for Congress in telecommunications is to get out of the way. The threat of possible action of Congress often functions as a sword of Damocles, which, hanging over the participants, may force more reasonable behavior without the need for action by Congress. The panel on interexchange services was chaired by John Borrows (Director of the Utilities Department of the PUCO staff) and included Rick Johnson (Director, Federal Regulatory Matters, US WEST), Bill Levis (Director, Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Central Division, MCI), William E. Long (Chairman, Michigan PSC), Mark Sievers (Director, Regulatory Policy, U.S. SPRINT), and Thomas B. Walsh (Director, MIS/Network Services, Champion International Corp.). Johnson argued that the RBOCs mainly need release from confining interpretations of this restriction since it forces them to design in inefficiency. Long gave many examples of such inefficiencies and argued, as Manshio had in the morning, that the state commissions should be given more latitude in making public decisions on relaxing the restrictions. The court has interpreted the prohibition on manufacturing to include product-related research and development and software development; it has also interpreted the prohibition on interLATA service to include carrying traffic across a LATA boundary to enable customers to access an information service gateway. Therefore, a BOC may need to place a gateway in each LATA or require the customer to make a long distance call to reach a gateway. Repeating many earlier arguments (as was inevitable) Levis argued that the BOCs would be able to take unfair advantage of their monopoly on local access. Sievers, stressing that the MFJ was consented to by the Bell system, argued that the agreement was reasonable. The standards for removal of the restrictions are clear and have not been met. Walsh described his company as a satisfied customer, particularly of Cincinnati Bell (not a BOC) and stated that companies served by BOCs seemed to have many more problems. The final session was chaired by Thomas V. Chema (attorney with Arter & Hadden, formerly chair of the PUCO), and included Allan Arlow (Vice-President, Government Affairs, Ameritech), Phylicia Fauntleroy (Director of Office of Economics, D.C. PSC), Jim Schlichting (Chief of Policy and Program Planning, FCC), William S. Newcomb, Jr. (counsel for the Ohio Cable Television Association), and John C. Panzar (Department of Economics, Northwestern University). As had been argued several times during the day, the lifting of any of the three restrictions would allow the BOCs to enter lines of business that are not regulated by state public utility commissions, raising the threat that the BOCs would use revenues from regulated (monopoly) customers to subsidize the unregulated lines of business. Therefore, some have proposed that the BOCs be required to place new lines of business into separate subsidiaries, thus reducing the risk of such cross subsidies. Arlow argued that corporate structure should not be controlled by government mandate and that numerous other regulatory controls, such as Open Network Architecture and price cap regulation, were sufficient. Fauntleroy based her talk on a report from the D.C. staff entitled "For Whom the Bells Toll: The Case for Separate Subsidiaries." That report concluded that structural safeguards are needed, that current accounting cannot detect cross subsidies, that separate subsidiaries have advantages but are not panaceas, and that requiring separate subsidiaries does not greatly increase the cost of providing new services. Newcomb later echoed these findings. Schlichting argued that proponents of separate subsidiaries were inconsistent, since they want the BOCs to take advantage of economies of scope by entering new lines of business but then insist on destroying those economies of scope by forcing the BOCs to have separate subsidiaries. Panzar argued similarly and asked us not to base policy on the assumption that employees of regulated companies are criminals. Those of you who have continued to read to this point did so, I can hope, to find out my conclusions. I found the continual presentation of facts, arguments, recommendations, and even some propaganda to be sometimes overwhelming. I found I was left with several reactions. There are 44 LECs in Ohio, only one of which, Ohio Bell, is a former member of the Bell System, that is, a Bell Operating Company. I would like to have heard the proponents of lifting the restriction on this one LEC use the other 43 LECs as good examples of what might happen if the restrictions were lifted. Since some of the arguments for keeping the restrictions were based on the monopoly status of a LEC, I would, conversely, have liked to have heard the opponents of lifting the restrictions on this one LEC argue that the restrictions should also be imposed on the other 43 LECs. Clearly, both arguments would have recognized that most of the 43 other LECs are not nearly as large as Ohio Bell and, therefore, might not hold the promise of innovation or the threat of monopoly power, but some certainly can serve as examples. Before the symposium, one panelist speculated to me that it would be possible to predict what each panelist would say based on knowing the panelist's place of employment. In the words of my colleague Thom McCain, "where you stand depends on where you sit." I found this to be true with very few exceptions. The day made me feel pleased to be an academic, since I thought some of the best analysis and freshest ideas during the day came from academics. The discussion also made me feel pleased to be an engineer. I was discouraged to see so much intelligence and energy go into thinking about who should or should not be allowed to do X or Y, instead of devoting that intelligence and energy to actually doing X or Y. I think it is important to set fair rules for competition, but I agree with Nancy Garrison who pointed out that the goal is to set fair rules, not perfect rules. As I listened to the debate, I also debated in my mind issues of business ethics. I am perhaps in a minority in not believing that phrase to be an oxymoron. One speaker stated that we should not base public policy on an assumption that the employees of regulated companies are criminals. I wonder whether fair competition could proceed without all the participants needing to have the rules spelled out for them. More pragmatically, authors like Michael Porter ( see his book _Competitive Advantage_) argue that, rather than seeking to harm or prevent competitors, companies should help good competitors thrive, since good competition helps all.    Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08355; 1 Feb 91 11:16 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20020; 1 Feb 91 9:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06080; 1 Feb 91 8:28 CST Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 8:02:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #83 BCC: Message-ID: <9102010802.ab00158@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Feb 91 08:02:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 83 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today [Eduardo Krell] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI [Phydeaux] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI [Brian Jay Gould] Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available [Eddy J. Gurney] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI [Eddy J. Gurney] 800 Number Confusion [Jeff Sicherman] Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Peter Clitherow] Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Carl Wright] Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount [Carl Wright] Re: Need System For LD Accountability [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 16:46:51 EST Subject: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today *** Reminder: Starting February 1st, instead of dialing 905 or 706 to call certain parts of Mexico, you will be able to call anywhere in the country from the United States by dialing 011 + 52 + NATIONAL NUMBER. In areas where operator assistance is required, there will be no additional charge. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 11:32:29 PST Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!reb@uunet.uu.net Organization: From the grass eaters at the Bovine Munching Works From: Phydeaux In article <16510@accuvax.nwu.edu> eddy@jafus.mi.org (Eddy J. Gurney) writes: >Just a quick note to let you know that I also called Telecom*USA and >requested an 800 number with them. They said there is a one-time >$25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month. Calls will >be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the >evening. This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and >cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and >requires users to enter a "security code" so "you control who calls." >This sounds to me like an excuse to let multiple users share one 800 >number. :-) When I spoke to MCI they told me that it was $5.00/month and ??/min - *UNLESS* you had MCI as your LD carrier. In that case, you would not have a monthly charge and you could use their hourly calling packages (I forget what theirs is called) for incoming *and* outgoing calls. Hourly calling in the evening and on weekends, xx% discount on incoming calls during the day. Unless the drone I spoke to didn't know what he was talking about (highly likely) it would seem that that's the way to go. reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 ------------------------------ From: Brian Jay Gould Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service Date: 31 Jan 91 22:43:38 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Someone had asked about getting wrong numbers to their 800 line. I get quite a few. For a premium, Telecom*USA will sell numbers that spell something. I bought one for $100. Now I get calls all the time of people wanting to know who answers the phone, or looking for a company of that name. It all amounts to five to fifteen calls per month at one minute each. Note that you get the phone number of the caller on your bill, so abuse would be noticed quickly. Any disclaimers made for me, by me, or about me - may or may not accurately reflect my failure to be reflecting the opinions of myself or anyone else. Brian Jay Gould - Professional Brain-stormer ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 15:43:19 EST Subject: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available Ahh ... the wonderful problems all these merger create ... On Monday I called Telecom*USA and ordered Residential 800 service. Or so I thought. Apparently the representative with whom I talked was not aware that they were no longer taking orders for that service, and today I received a call from them telling me to contact MCI. Gee, how nice! So I called MCI, and as I suspected, the so-called 800 number you are issued is basically just a shared number among a large number of customers. (Anyone know how many?) They say it is much like a "calling card", where you dial an 800 number, and after the "bongggg", enter a four digit code. (This would allow at least 8000 people to use the same number, even if they didn't offer codes like "0000", "1111", etc.) This is what I was trying to avoid by going with Telecom*USA. I called Telecom*USA back, and they said there was nothing that could be done. The _very_ polite woman explained that that service has not been available for some time, and said she was sorry that she was unable to help resolve my problem. I asked if her supervisor could approve it, and she said no, that because Telecom*USA merged with MCI, all requests for any type of service connection had to be routed to MCI. So it appears I'm out of luck, unless any readers know of other LDC's that offer residential 800 service at reasonable rates? (Preferably without a shared 800 number.) I figured it was too good to be true! 8-) Eddy J. Gurney, N8FPW -- eddy@jafus.mi.org -- The Eccentricity Group [Moderator's Note: That is really a shame. I guess I should consider myself very lucky I got my numbers from Telecom*USA before they made the changeover. I agree with you the idea of adding a code to the number being dialed sounds pretty bogus. My two 800 numbers just ring straight through to me. Even someone at a rotary dial payphone can use them with ease. You might ask about 800 numbers from Cable and Wireless. They offer user-programmable 800 numbers I believe. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 15:09:37 GMT In article <16557@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Huttig writes: > In article <16510@accuvax.nwu.edu> eddy@jafus.mi.org (Eddy J. Gurney) > writes: >>$25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month. Calls will >>be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the >>evening. This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and >>cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and > MCI's personal 800 number is MUCH cheaper ... no $25 service charge > ... only $2/mo (with Primetime) and .225 a min day and .1083 evenings/ > weekends (with Primetime). Even at the $5/mo rate it would take over > eleven months to make up the difference; and the calls are .25 day and > somewhere around .20/min other times. According to the information I received from MCI, the "PrimeTime plus Personal 800" costs $9.50/month. This entitles you to one hour of calls to and from your home during plan hours. Calls to your 800 number outside plan hours are billed at $0.225/minute. After the first hour, calls to your 800 number during plan hours are $0.1083/minute. Without the "PrimeTime" option, the charge is $5.00/month, and calls are always $0.25/minute, regardless of time of day. It does appear that MCI is cheaper with the PrimeTime option. However, the main disadvantage I see to MCI's personal 800 service is their use of "security codes." Although I'm not certain, I would assume that once a caller dials "your" 800 number, they must dial (presumably from a TouchTone(tm)-equipped phone) an access code to active the ringing of your home phone. The Telecom*USA numbers do not require this. I was not aware of the $25.00 hookup fee until I had answered half of their questions. I agree that the $25.00 charge makes the offer less appealing. Eddy J. Gurney, N8FPW -- eddy@jafus.mi.org -- The Eccentricity Group ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 01:51:27 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: 800 Number Confusion Organization: Cal State Long Beach One of my clients just got their first 800 number. Almost immediately they started getting phone calls for another company in an unrelated business. 800 directory assistance seems to have the right information but some of the misdirected calls seem to have been caused by information given by a local Chicago directory assistance (as best we can find out). Why would Chicago DA be giving out 800 number information ? Belatedly, we tried to find out how old the 800 number we were given was (how long it had been out of circulation). Apparently it's almost impossible to get a virgin one. But they (AT&T) claimed they couldn't tell us that information either before or after selecting a number. Are we getting stonewalled ? Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: Many companies have their numbers listed in directories outside their local telephone service area as a convenience to customers trying to find them. If the previous owner of the 800 number in question had a listing in the Chicago phone book then it might be the listing is still there. The company turned off the 800 number but might well have forgotten to notify IBT to cancel the directory listing they were paying for. If the 800 number is cross-posted to the Chicago listings, then 312-555-1212 would have the number. You might begin by finding out (from Chicago DA) if in fact they are still giving out that number for some company, and if so, then call that company yourself; speak to the telecom supervisor and ask them to cancel their now obsolete listing. They might be paying IBT for continuing to list the number and not even realize it if they are not reconciling their phone bills on a regular basis. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 23:46:45 -0500 From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Calling Cuba may or may not be legal; there was and may still be a service in Miami which forwards calls. Paying for the calls is quite illegal, however, under the 'trading with the enemy' act. You can not legally pay any money to Cuba. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner [Moderator's Note: Very interesting theory, but you are NOT paying anything to Cuba. You are paying AT&T. *They* are the ones 'trading with the enemy'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pc@ctt.ctt.bellcore.com Subject: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA Reply-To: pc@ctt.ctt.bellcore.com Organization: Bellcore - Wierd Ideas Factory Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 16:54:13 GMT In article <16552@accuvax.nwu.edu> julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) writes: > My 1982 Edition of "Telephony's Dictionary" shows a cable between Key > West, Florida and Havana Cuba. The number of circuits is not listed, > but I would guess it is less than fifty. I have no idea when the cable > was laid or whether it is still in use. On a visit to Key West last year, near the red concrete block that marks "The Southernmost Point in the Continental US", I noticed a small concrete hut. I was told that it housed the terminus of a telephone cable to Havana and was currently unused. I recall something about the cable being laid 75 or so years ago. Peter Clitherow, Bellcore, pc@bellcore.com 444 Hoes Lane, Room 1H-213, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4182 (908) 699-3322 ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 04:19:53 GMT I may regret this, but I would be pleased to try to get answers about ACUS from the horse's mouth. They are down the hall from our company and I can go ask them in person. Please send your questions direct to me. I will go ask them and send out the answers in one article. I can tell you without asking that they are growing quickly. They lease half the building we are in, are taking most of the new wing being built for them and in four years they have an option to kick us out. They also are every aggregator's favorite choice for billing services, but they refuse to handle all but three aggregators, I think. The call aggregators want them to do their bill processing because they can have the AT&T logo on the bills. The logo makes it easier to get the bills paid in Accounts Payable departments. 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: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 04:57:36 GMT In article 16225 (John R. Levine) writes: >According to an article in {Data Communications} (not a bad magazine, >available free to qualified readers) the AT&T aggregator business >exists because of tariff peculiarities. [other stuff deleted] AT&T developed IMHO multi-location WATS and Affinity Group WATS to permit it to sell to large corporations with many allied locations and give a discount for the amount of business brought to them in one sale. They are forced to permit the aggregator to build its own group because of laws/regulations prohibiting them from restricting access to tariffed services to just a segment of the possible buyers. The service must be available to all comers, even other competitors. I spoke at a conference for aggregators done by Dr. Bob Self, guru of tariffs. Many of the speakers imagined that AT&T liked this so long it brought in the other guy's customer and hated when it just lowers their income on existing customers. Aggregation is being done also with MCI and Sprint, but most attendees were interested in using AT&T. This is partly because MCI is resisting aggregation strenuously. I don't know why Sprint wasn't being used more. >direct. I forget how the aggregator makes money, either it's a fee >they charge their customers, or AT&T rebates part of the ultimate >customers' bills. I imagine that this has changed, but many of the aggregators at the conference were getting credits against their bills. This left them with growing credits, but no CASH. It sounded like AT&T might be changing this, but I haven't heard. This is a very fast changing situation and the conference was many months ago. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Need System For LD Accountability Date: 30 Jan 91 22:33:15 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > Can anyone suggest any similar solutions that are CO or LD-switch > based, i.e.do not require the dialer on the line? If you are looking for savings within the LATA, you will need to use a service that employs FGB. This is because Pac*Bell will NOT route a LATA call through an IEC. Hence, any "equal access" solution can be ruled out. There are still some LD providers that use FGB, and some of these will allow you to use a smart switch to route the calls rather than bozo dialers. This is always preferable; you as the customer can control your switch programming but you have not a clue about the dialers. There have been many cases where dialers have skimmed off even local calls (charging considerably more than local rates). There is one other creative solution to intraLATA savings, and that is by using the services of a reseller that has CENTREX access. A company called Centex does just that. You install a number of lines from their CENTREX group and place your calls normally. Your LATA calls are carried via highly-packed WATS, FX and other routes. Their rates are considerably less than standard Pac*Bell. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #83 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28867; 2 Feb 91 2:13 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14839; 2 Feb 91 0:46 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07146; 1 Feb 91 23:41 CST Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:58:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #84 BCC: Message-ID: <9102012258.ab04303@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:58:04 CST Volume 11 : Issue 84 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [John Temples] Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [John R. Covert] Re: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation [Floyd Davidson] Re: A Small Defeat For COCOT's? [Steve Wolfson] Re: Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled [Bryan Richardson] Re: Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls [Bryan Richardson] Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [Dave Levenson] Re: Rolm Phones [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge for Poor People' [Randy Borow] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Temples Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 15:17:29 GMT In article <16403@accuvax.nwu.edu> HANK@vm.biu.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) writes: >It is not Jews who are setting up this scam, but rather Arabs mainly >from the West Bank. This comment really speaks volumes, but this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss them. What difference could it possibly make to TELECOM readers whether the scam artist was a Jew, an Arab, or a Mongolian? The original article said "a visitor from Israel" -- how does adding "he wasn't a member of a *our* religion, but was a member *their* ethnic background" contribute to the discussion without raising undertones of racism and hatred? John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) [Moderator's Note: My feeling is a lot the same as yours, yet the original article on the newswires was somewhat more specific than the version I ran here (it identified the 'visitor from Israel' as someone from the Gaza Strip). Mr. Nussbacher thought it was important enough to write and add the clarification so I went ahead and used it also. Probably I should have mentioned the Gaza strip in the original article here as well. No harm was meant by the original or the rebuttal, I'm sure. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 12:20:08 PST From: "John R. Covert 31-Jan-1991 1456" Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again >Moderator's Note: By the way, I tested calling Israel today with my >AT&T card and the call went through ... This despicable practice is done "to high-fraud countries" and "from high-fraud areas." AT&T determines whether to block by NPA-NXX. I was at JFK airport, waiting for a flight to Hong Kong, and tried to call ahead from a payphone. The call was blocked. I found a phone on a completely different NXX, and the call went through. As has been pointed out before, AT&T is not the only company which blocks calls. Sprint completely blocks many countries from Travelcard access. john [Moderator's Note: In the new edition of the {International Telecommunications Guide}, a publication of the AT&T International Rate and Dialing Information Service, the use of call blocking as a deterrent to fraud is noted on page 15 in a footnote referencing their tariff authority as Tariff FCC # 1, Section 2.9.5. So apparently they are behaving lawfully -- the tariff *is* the law -- even if it still stinks. Incidentally, to get your free copy of this 88 page paperback book which gives much detail on city codes, dialing procedures on international calls, etc. phone AT&T at 1-800-874-4000. From outside the USA call 1-412-553-7458, ext. 348. You may reverse the charges. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 12:54:46 GMT In article <16558@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >In article <16472@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. >Kimberlin) writes: > [ an excellent introduction to four-wire lines ] >> So, a local telephone plant uses only one pair per subscriber. >> In engineering terms, it is far from a perfect transmission line. The >> main reason is that no transmission line operates at its normal >> electrical "impedance" until it is a significant portion of an >> electrical wavelength of the signal it carries. >That's not exactly right. A transmission line has a characteristic >impedance, which in the case of your local subscriber loop is probably >around 100 ohms or so. I don't know the exact number but it can be >calculated from the dimensions of the wire. If the line is exactly >matched to the terminating impedance, then you don't get any >reflections, regardless of how long the line is. The problem with >local loops is that they aren't a good match to the endpoints, which >have an impedance of around 600 ohms. But even if the characteristic >impedance of the line were carefully set to 600 ohms, it wouldn't >matter until the line becomes a substantial fraction of a quarter wave >long, which would be at least several miles. >Any resistance in the local loop will also make the loop deviate from >an ideal transmission line. >I think the biggest cause of reflections is probably the subscriber >phone set, which doesn't present an exact 600 ohm resistive >termination at all frequencies. I would guess that the resistance of >the subscriber loop is secondary, and that actual transmission line >effects are last. Can anyone confirm this? Despite slight mis-interpretation all the theory of transmission lines, this last paragraph is quite close. The DC resistance of the loop really doesn't have much affect. The characteristic impedance of telephone cable pairs varies with length, wire gauge, frequency, terminating impedance and whether loading coils are used. Non-loaded cable tends to have higher Z at lower frequencies. For instance 1200 ohms at 300Hz, 600 ohms at 1000Hz and 150 ohms at 3000Hz, all with 100 to 700 ohms of capacitive reactance. Loaded cable tends to have 400-800 ohms Z in the mid range and higher Z toward either high or low frequencies. The range of reactance is from inductive to capacitive and may jump very rapidly from one to the other extreme as the frequency is changed. Loaded cable tends to have less loss per unit of length, but there is an extremely high loss increase at higher frequencies. I poked around in an old AT&T (1960's vintage) book of tables for cable parmeters thinking I would post some examples, but decided a gross generalization would be boring enough (the tables are *really* boring). As can be seen it isn't just that the subscriber set is not a 600 ohm load at all frequencies. Thing else is either. The significant measure of a cable pair termination match is "return loss". There are a number of different methods for used to measure return loss, depending on what type of interference would be the most problem. But a simple example would be to measure how well a cable pair (with a termination at the distant end) balances a hybrid circuit when white noise is measured across the hybrid. Anything less than 11-12 dB would likely be annoying (it might sound like talking through a 20' piece of 6" pipe). Anything better than 20 dB is astounding. Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 09:43:08 CST From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: A Small Defeat For COCOT's? My health club dumped its COCOT phones for genuine IBT. The COCOT never kept up on programming and the phones tended to charge you $1.50 for a local call it thougt was long distance. ------------------------------ From: Bryan Richardson Subject: Re: Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled Date: 31 Jan 91 18:00:16 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Purdue University In article <16514@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >Yesterday, during Super Bowl coverage, I heard that Pepsi had planned >a telephone call-in contest, but that it decided to cancel it out of >concern over the phone network. This (as I have read since in a news- >paper) was done after consultation with the FCC. I don't know much >else about this. The details I read were as follows: Pepsico had scheduled a promotion for Diet Pepsi to run during the first three quarters of the Super Bowl. There were three 1-800 numbers, one each for AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. After dialing the number, you would be asked to record your name, address, and phone number (or something like that) and you would receive a coupon for a two-liter bottle of Diet Pepsi. Also, the 75,000 caller would receive $1,000,000. I assume that the different IXCs were prepared to handle the calling volume (I know AT&T was). However, the FCC and the LECs found out about it and were considerably more worried because after every commercial showing the numbers, thousands of lines of every CO would go off-hook, attempting to dial one of the three numbers. Not surprisingly, the LECs and the FCC were not prepared to deal with this peaked load, and were able to negotiate with Pepsi to get the call-in portion of the promotion cancelled. Part of the FCC's concern was the possible disruption in telecommunications nationwide during Operation Desert Storm. Bryan Richardson richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ From: Bryan Richardson Subject: Re: Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls Date: 31 Jan 91 18:07:16 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Purdue University In article <16569@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: >NOW. The number you are calling is NOT correct." By entering the # >key after your sequence call, ie, #-415-555-1212-#, you will get a In my experience, I use the '#' key after dialing in the calling card number and get much faster response, either on AT&T or LEC calls (typically, IBT and New Jersey Bell, as the site of my favorite airports). In dialing sequence calls, (e.g., #-415-555-1212# as above), sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. >[Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was >intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told >my call could not be completed as dialed. PAT] I think, but can't be sure, that 312-5T is an IBT Access Tandem (probably a 4 ESS switch) Bryan Richardson richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities Date: 31 Jan 91 23:42:49 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16530@accuvax.nwu.edu>, varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) writes: > [Moderator's Note: The tests I performed were these: My office has a ... > Finally, if you have been screened, the operator cannot put you > through either! It works like our 900/976 blocking here: If I block my > phones from 976-whatever, dialing the operator won't help. She cannot > connect me. And likewise, if I screen you, then calling the operator > *from the line(s) being screened* to ask for an emergency interupt or > 'assistance in dialing' will be to no avail. Her calls will be > screened also, because the equipment apparently is smart enough to > know the number placing the call. Very clever service! PAT] I have Call*Block, which is what NJ Bell calls the service IBT apparently calls Call Screening. The service works a bit differently here. Our three business lines are billed to the same account, but are all identified by the actual calling line number on a Caller*ID device receiving a call from any of them. When Call*Block is invoked and one of these lines is entered, callers from other lines still get through. Calling-card calls come through without identification (out of area) and bypass the Call*Block option. My two residence lines have Caller*ID and Call*Block. They are also in a hunt group. If I block calls from some arbitrary number on the first line in the hunt group, then calls from that number reach the refusal recording if the first line is idle, but ring the second line if the first is busy. That is not the way I would have implemented the feature interactions, but that's how it works in NJ, in 908-647, today. 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: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Rolm Phone Compatibility Date: 31 JAN 91 17:54:42 EDT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <16563@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >Anyhow: does anyone know what the compatibility of 'ordinary' phones >are with the Rolm system? It looks like the 'official' Rolm >instruments all just have vanilla modular connectors on them, but I >observe that the phone has at least two not-very-standard features: Presuming that your desk has a standard "Flashphone" instead of one of the electronic Rolm sets (ETS-100 or Rolmphone), then it's basically an ordinary phone, probably made by Comdial for Rolm. When I installed the original LCBX at BBN, we started with ordinary ITT (later Alcatel Cortelco) sets with a message lamp. > 1) it supports a "message waiting" light The BBN message lights were installed before Rolm supported message lights, so the wiring was non-standard: The second pair to each set carried the lamp voltage (90 vdc through 100k ohms). Rolm had to hand-bugger each set to move the lamp off of tip and ring. Nowadays they have standard superimposed message lamps; you can tell them apart because the latter blink when the phone rings. > 2) it has some magic in the switchhook so that it holds the line down long > enough to ensure that it is really a 'hangup' [and there is a separate > 'flash' button]. That's done by the Flashphone. It just has a two-second timer on switch hook. That solves the "ringback" problem that plagued all pre-Flashphone Rolm installations, like BBN! (Rolm rings you back with the first call after you put it on hold and finish the second call. Other PBXs hang both up at once. Depress the hookswitch too quickly between calls and you'll hold the first call instead of hanging it up. Hence the ringback.) > Are there random commercial [speaker] phones that are actually fully > compatible with the Rolm system [including the two items above]? Even > if the answer is 'yes', I'm curious about what'll happen [besides that > I'll obviously lose the above two items] if I just use a real-vanilla > phone --- it won't hurt the system or otherwise not work, will it? No problem -- the flash button and hookswitch timer are for your convenience, and the switch doesn't see them. The lamp voltage won't harm anything. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Thu Jan 31 10:11:45 CST 1991 Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge For Poor People' Pat, With all this talk about Illinois Bell's latest 15c tax to help the poor (what about me? I certainly ain't rich!), I was just wondering: what's your opinion on it? Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Note: I think universal service is an admirable goal if for no other reason than it increases the value of my own service. But I prefer the voluntary donation method used by People's Gas (the gas utility here) with a 'checkoff box' on your bill asking "do you wish to include $1 extra to assist in paying the gas bill for a needy person?" (Or words to that effect.) Also, I'd prefer to see the Welfare Department here increase the allotment in general, allowing the recipients more flexibility with all their utilities, including the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #84 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00615; 2 Feb 91 3:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19831; 2 Feb 91 1:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14839; 2 Feb 91 0:47 CST Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 0:19:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #85 BCC: Message-ID: <9102020019.ab17817@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Feb 91 00:19:33 CST Volume 11 : Issue 85 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Digital Communication Over Radio [Paul Schleck] Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Carl Wright] Re: Calling Cuba from the USA [John R. Levine] Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Ralph Zazula] Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Julian Macassey] Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? [Julian Macassey] Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? [Adam Keith Levin] Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia [Bob Goudreau] Re: Tel Aviv Pingable Systems [Brian Crawford] Re: NEC P300 Programming [Craig R. Watkins] Weird Two-Letter Prefixes [Carl Moore] What do the Numbers in Intercept Messages Mean? [C. M. Wolf] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 22:21:40 PDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Re: Digital Communication Over Radio Reply-To: paul.schleck%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE The abstracts of the 1st through 8th Computer Networking Conferences of the American Radio Relay League come to mind. They consisted of amateur radio operators discussing X.25, TCP/IP, and other networks over radio links. They are available for five or six dollars apiece from the American Radio Relay League, 225 Main Street, Newington CT 06111. Request a list of publications from them. 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) ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 1 Feb 1991 03:46:04 GMT Lars Poulsen suggested that having the LECs reprogram their switches to handle 950-YXXX access to ATT would be the preferred solution. I wonder if ATT may be avoiding charges from the LECs for this programming. I don't know that the LECs would charge ATT, but I learned from an Ameritech audiotext sales person that Ameritech could not provide me a 900 number I wanted becuase they had paid for it to be programmed in the routing tables of only selected switches. They wouldn't provide for national 900 usage because of the expense to them to get routing done in all the switches. Can anyone confirm this? Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Calling Cuba from the USA Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 11:48:31 EST From: "John R. Levine" In article <16552@accuvax.nwu.edu you write: >My 1982 Edition of "Telephony's Dictionary" shows a cable between Key >West, Florida and Havana Cuba. I read somewhere about that cable last year. It was in terrible shape, and AT&T wanted to replace it. However, various government regulations forbid their using the latest state of the art cable to Cuba, so they went out into the Atlantic and rolled up 100 miles of one of the old unused TAT cables to reuse between Key West and Havana. No word on whether it's actually been relaid yet. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu (RALPH ZAZULA) Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ... Date: 31 JAN 91 01:13:37 Reply-To: zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu Organization: University of Arizona Physics Department In article <16559@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes... >On 30 Jan 91 06:25:10 GMT, zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu wrote: >Z> ... a phone in another part of the house has been picked up? I >Z> want to do this via the phone line in my room. >Easy: get the cheapest $2 phone you can find, and turn its ringer >switch "on". Voila, you can hear all kinds of activity, from just the >other phone being picked up, to the whole conversation -- all without >taking your phone "off hook". Just don't have your ear to the phone >when it rings. [Disclaimer: not all cheap phones do all this]. The purpose I had in mind is this: My roomate and myself both have computers with modems. I'm sure that most of you know what happens if someone picks up a phone on your modem line when you are connected to your favorite service :-(. What I want to do is put a little box next to each of our computers (so we don't try to use modems at the same time) and near the phones (so we don't pick up the phone while modems are in use) that will have a light that remains lit while the line is open. I probably should have said "is in use" rather than "has been picked up" in my first message... I don't think I'd want to have modem sounds playing all the while I was connected... Ralph Zazula "Computer Addict!" University of Arizona Department of Physics UAZHEP::ZAZULA (DecNet/HEPNet) zazula@uazhe0.physics.arizona.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries Date: 31 Jan 91 15:06:07 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <16541@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 79, Message 7 of 12 >I've been trying to call Dabo since I got back, and I can't convince >the AT&T operator to stay on the line for the ten minutes or so that >it takes the operator in Indonesia to get through. Seems to me that >in the old days, the operator would take the number you wanted to >call, then ring you back when she was able to get through. Is there >some way to get them to do that today? Probably like me, the operator sometimes forgets that there is still a ton of plug-board stuff out there. Tell the operator you are calling a "Rural Plug Board system" and either to stay with you until the local operator responds or call you back when she is connected. My earlier comments on line and ring voltages were of course for semi-automatic and automatic exchanges. This does not include, RF links, long lines 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 ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? Date: 1 Feb 91 11:51:09 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <16568@accuvax.nwu.edu> sethcohn%alchemy.uucp@theory.tn. cornell.edu (seth cohn) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 81, Message 7 of 8 >I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system. The >operator gave me a choice of: >1) a testable network interface >2) a NONtestable network interface >What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) ) The testable interface has a really nifty feature. It has an RJ-11 type jack and plug in it. Your line runs through this plug. To disconnect every phone in the house, just un plug at the interface. That much is neat, but the real reason is testing. The network interface is also your "demarc" (demarkation point). If your phones fail and you are not sure whether it is your house wiring and phones (which you own and have to pay for repairs to) or whether it is the telco's lines, the plug is used. Get a good working phone, go to the testable interface and plug it in. If it works, dials, talks and rings, you have a problem with your wire and phones. If it is dead, or no ringing etc, they have a problem with their wires and CO. If you call repair and have tested at the demarc, get the clerk to note it on the ticket. If you don't have a "testable" demarc, you can do the same at the protector - yes Esmarelda, your protector is your demarc - only you then need he-man tools. The macho tool belt is optional. For unscrewing the nuts holding the house wire, the proper tool is a "can wrench", but a regular adjustable wrench will do fine. To listen and test a "hang from your belt to make you swagger" butt set is nice, but you can use any old phone and a pair of alligator (crocodile) clips. Yes, just to impress the girls, I have the full tool kit and hard hat, but I would go for the testable network interface. 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 ------------------------------ From: Adam Keith Levin Subject: Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? Date: 1 Feb 91 17:18:30 GMT Reply-To: Adam Keith Levin Organization: Commodore Business Machines, Tech Support In article <16562@accuvax.nwu.edu> singer@uwovax.uwo.ca (Ben Singer) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 81, Message 1 of 8 >Every now and then I receive a message on my answering machine (same >line as my Panasonic 3910R) telling me I attempted to dial a long >distance number incorrectly or something that effect (of course, a >recorded message). Does anybody have any idea of why this should be, I used to come home to similar messages on my answering machine. I finally figured it out when the following happened: 1 The phone rang but I let the machine answer it. 2 The caller hung up as soon as the outgoing message began. 3 The phone line was released and went to dial tone during the (firly long) outgoing message. 4 The dial tone timed out just as the incoming tape started to record. 5 I got a copy of the "To place a call, please hang up and retry your call." message. Adam Keith Levin - Commodore Applications and Technical Support BIX: aklevin Mail: 1200 Wilson Drive / West Chester, PA 19380 USA Phone: (215) 431-9180 UUCP: ...{rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!adam USENET: adam@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 12:46:51 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia In article <16564@accuvax.nwu.edu>, arnold%audiofax.com@mathcs. emory.edu (Arnold Robbins) writes: > For more information on the Georgia Relay Center, please > call Southern Bell at the following numbers: > Residence Customers: 780-2355 > Business Customers: 780-2800 > The numbers above are in the 404 area code. I'm posting this just to > provide the information to the Telecom readership. Beware these numbers! Southern Bell is implementing a uniform service number scheme throughout all its service regions (2355 = BELL, get it?). My Raleigh phone book lists the same numbers, and I've also received various bill inserts telling me to call 780-BELL "from any Southern Bell phone" (or words to that effect). What they *don't* tell you is that these special numbers are *not* reachable from outside of Southern Bell territory (such as my workplace, which is in GTE-land). Trying to dial 1-404-780-2355 from GTE territory intercepts after a few rings with a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" message, exactly the same as trying 1-919-780-2355. I suspect that no one outside of Georgia's Southern Bell territory will be able to get information about the Georgia Relay Center from the above numbers. 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: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: Tel Aviv Pingable Systems Date: 1 Feb 91 21:41:01 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article <16518@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HANK@vm.biu.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) writes: > You are free to ping them as you wish. At the risk of appearing overly naive, what is the formal definition of a 'ping' ?? Brian Crawford INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ [Moderator's Note: Here is the 'man ping' command at eecs.nwu.edu tells us. PAT] PING(8) NAME ping - send ICMP ECHO_REQUEST packets to network hosts SYNOPSIS /usr/etc/ping [ -r ] [ -v ] host [ packetsize ] [ count ] DESCRIPTION The ping command sends an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) man- datory ECHO_REQUEST datagram to elicit an ICMP ECHO_RESPONSE from a host or gateway. ECHO_REQUEST datagrams (``pings'') have an IP and ICMP header, followed by a struct timeval, and then an arbitrary number of pad bytes that fill out the packet. The default datagram length is 64 bytes, but this can be changed by specifying packetsize on the command line. Other options are: -r Bypass the normal routing tables and send directly to a host on an attached network. If the host is not on a directly-attached net- work, an error is returned. This option can be used to ping a local host through an interface that has no route through it (for example, after the interface was dropped by routed(8C)). -v Verbose output; list ICMP packets other than ECHO RESPONSE that are received. When using ping for fault isolation, it should first be run on the local host to verify that the local network interface is up and running. Then, hosts and gateways further and further away should be pinged. ping sends one datagram per second, and prints one line of output for every ECHO_RESPONSE returned. No output is produced if there is no response. If an optional count is given, only that number of requests is sent. Round-trip times and packet loss statistics are computed. When all responses have been received or the program times out (with a count specified), or if the program is terminated with a SIGINT, a brief sum- mary is displayed. This program is intended for use in network testing, measurement, and management. It should be used primarily for manual fault isolation. Because of the load it can impose on the network, ping should not be used during normal operations or from automated scripts. SEE ALSO ifconfig(8C) netstat(1) in the UMAX 4.3 User's Reference Manual ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: NEC P300 Programming Date: 1 Feb 91 18:43:00 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16456@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes: > If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300 > handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass > them along to me via e-mail or here on the net. I should have also mentioned in my last message the number for NEC's parts department: (800) 637-5917 They sell service and tech manuals for their cellular phones. I suspect that they would include programming codes. For the P-9100 they were on the order of $50 each. I haven't bought any (yet). Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 10:38:48 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Weird Two-Letter Prefixes Message-ID: <9101311038.aa09273@VMB.BRL.MIL> I don't intend this to digress to a discussion of ALL exchange names -- just the ones which are not apparently the first two letters of a normal word. That was XX4 (994), not XX7 (997), in the Bronx. Other weird central-office designations I found in the New York City area, besides LT1 (581) in Manhattan: TN7 (867), LR3 (573), LR8 (578), all in Manhattan TT5 (885) in the Bronx TN8 (868) in area 516 on Long Island LR4 (574), LR5 (575) in area 516 on Long Island I also see LL2,3,6,8 in Manhattan, but LL could stand for Llewellyn. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Feb 91 13:08:18 EST From: CMWOLF@mtus5.bitnet Subject: What do the Numbers in Intercept Messages Mean? >[Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was >intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told >my call could not be completed as dialed. PAT] What are these weird numbers, e.g. 312 5T, that are said when one dials a wrong number? CMWOLF@MTUS5 [Moderator's Note: When the recording originates with a BOC or AT&T, the first three digits are the area code where the message is coming from and the last two numbers/letters are the ID of the phone switch giving the announcement. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #85 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21264; 2 Feb 91 19:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07769; 2 Feb 91 18:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31573; 2 Feb 91 16:59 CST Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 16:19:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #86 BCC: Message-ID: <9102021619.ab28000@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Feb 91 16:19:48 CST Volume 11 : Issue 86 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available [John Higdon] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available [Mark C. Henderson] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Steve Gaarder] Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Bob Yazz] Re: MCI Personal 800 Number [Steve Forrette] 800 Directory For "Personal" 800 Numbers [Steve Forrette] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [William Degnan] Re: Network Interfaces: What's The Difference? [Doctor Math] Re: Personal Communications [Charles McGuinness] Cincinnati Bell 950-xxxx Payphone Problems [Ralph Hyre] Phillipsburg, NJ [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available Date: 1 Feb 91 10:10:47 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon "Eddy J. Gurney" writes: > So I called MCI, and as I suspected, the so-called 800 number you are > issued is basically just a shared number among a large number of > customers. (Anyone know how many?) They say it is much like a > "calling card", where you dial an 800 number, and after the "bongggg", > enter a four digit code. (This would allow at least 8000 people to use > the same number, even if they didn't offer codes like "0000", "1111", > etc.) This is what I was trying to avoid by going with Telecom*USA. You might just want to bite the bullet and get a REAL 800 number (and forget the "residence" garbage). I have had a REAL 800 number (with its own pair, etc.) that covers the state of California for about five years now. It has saved me thousands of dollars over standard rates and that doesn't include all the "alternative billing" arrangements that would have otherwise had to be made to call home. I realize you are not in CA, but there might be a similar arrangement available where you are. You are limiting yourself considerably when you shop for "residence" services. Remember, residences can have business service, but not the other way around. Sometimes for a particular application, a "business" service might be more suitable for one's needs. You must also evaluate YOUR real needs. If you want an 800 number for toy purposes, it is possible that there would be no plan that would be "cost-effective". In my case, I put 30 to 40 hours on the line per month that would just have to be carried some other way if the line did not exist. There is a real need; therefore it is cost-effective. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Mark C. Henderson" Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available Date: 1 Feb 91 18:00:07 GMT Organization: Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc. In article <16587@accuvax.nwu.edu> eddy@jafus.mi.org (Eddy J. Gurney) writes: >Ahh ... the wonderful problems all these merger create ... >So it appears I'm out of luck, unless any readers know of other LDC's >that offer residential 800 service at reasonable rates? (Preferably >without a shared 800 number.) US Sprint offers 800 numbers for $10/month + usage billed in six second increments. This is a real 800 number (not the shared scheme described above). Note that they also offer the ability to get a number that can be reached from anywhere in the USA and Canada. I don't know if MCI's service allows Canadian access. Mark C. Henderson, Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc. MS 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077, U.S.A. INTERNET: markh@crl.labs.tek.com (alternate: mchenderson@attmail.com) Tel: +1 503 627 6280 Fax: +1 503 627 5502 AT&T Mail: !mchenderson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 11:32:27 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service I recall getting a blurb from RCI long distance (an arm of Rochester Telephone) about some sort of personal 800 service. Unfortunately, I don't have it any more, and I don't remember details. Their number, if anyone wants to investigate, is 800-836-7000 or 716-777-8000. ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service Date: 2 Feb 91 20:02:23 GMT Organization: gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) writes: > Someone had asked about getting wrong numbers to their 800 line. I > get quite a few. > For a premium, Telecom*USA will sell numbers that spell something. I > bought one for $100. Now I get calls all the time of people wanting > to know who answers the phone, or looking for a company of that name. I learned the same expensive lesson ($25 signup + $50 for the "vanity" number 1-800-SCUMBAG) about wrong numbers arriving on my 800 line. There WAS abuse and it came from all over the country, and almost always from phone prefixes where the last four digits were marked "XXXX" on my bill. Finally disgusted, I forwarded my local phone to which the 800 number had been routed back to the 800 number itself. The phone was never answered, should have looped once and then gotten a busy. NO such luck; on the final bill (I had asked that the number be turned off) I got a couple of weeks worth of doubly billed calls. So, contrary to Pat's experience, I DID get bills for unanswered or busy calls by Telecom USA. But when I complained I also mentioned that I had been bothered by wrong numbers from all over the country -- any call that wasn't from CA or MA or in one case NJ were wrong numbers. Amazingly they offered to removed these calls from my bill! I truly did not expect this from an 800 company, but they did it! It changed my last bill from $49 something to -$4 something; I still haven't gotten a refund check and it's been months since I switched over to Cable & Wireless's programmable 800 service. C&W didn't charge me extra for my new vanity number (which is decidedly more upbeat than SCUMBAG but which I opt not to publish here) and they also have Programmability -- you can call their computer on Its 800 number and tell it where to reroute calls to Your 800 number. If you sign up now for their very new call detail billing (where they give you the number that called you on your bill) it's free. When I signed up for C&W I knew there would not immediately be call detail but I did expect each call to be itemized. It wasn't. Just daily summaries of how many minutes the calls lasted. I was appalled! I actually have one of those Radio Shack CP-1000 clackety-clack units that prints every digit you dial and the duration and time and date of every call received, right down to the number of rings before it was answered. Well, when I complained to C&W about the utter inability to verify that the calls the put on my bill were accurate or not they told me they'd run a special program to get the info and FED EX it to me for free! I was once again amazed! I told them send it by regular mail, I could wait the extra days. I've signed up for the free call detail so I'll start getting "conventional" 800 bills next month. BTW, their rates were more like 15 cents a minute, not the 20 something to 29 cents a minute of Telecom USA. Happy to report two positive customer service stories. Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com [Moderator's Note: I tried your experiment of forwarding the line my 800 calls come in on back to the 800 number itself. There was one small difference: my 800 numbers ring via the distinctive ringing number assigned to my first line. Since I cannot make outgoing calls on that line I could not actually forward that number; just the actual first line number. But in my case I had telco set the distinctive number so it would NOT forward when the first line did. In other words, you call my first line, it forwards (if set to do so). You call the distinctive ring number attached to it, and it rings through to here regardless of forwarding status on the first line itself. With the first line working normally, I dialed the 800 numbers. Instead of them going out to Cedar Rapids or wherever then dialing back here on the distinctive line and giving me the distinctive call-waiting tone as I expected, the 800 number returned a busy signal, just like dialing your own number returns a busy signal rather than a call-waiting tone. This would seem to imply the 800 number does not supervise, ie, does not charge until someone answers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 15:23:10 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Number I called MCI a couple of months ago to find out about their service. The rep gave me the same story about having to select a four-digit PIN that callers need to know in order to call you. I pressed the issue, pointing out that users with universal dial (around 40% of the U.S., right?) would not be able to use it. She paused, and put me on hold while she checked this out with her supervisor. When she came back, the indication was that they assigned a prefix, then you selected your "PIN" to form the number. So, the PIN is really just the suffix of the number. Callers just dial 800 then the seven digit number. The implication was that they presented it in this "PIN" manner to give people the security that "only the people that know your PIN can use the service." While this is indeed true, it is very misleading. And of course, this is assuming that the supervisor had the correct information. Has anyone here acutally signed up to see what happens? Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 15:34:21 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: 800 Directory For "Personal" 800 Numbers When I signed up for my 800 service with Cable & Wireless, they indicated that a listing in 800 Directory would be $12/month extra. The explanation offered was that this fee is what was charged them by the providers of 800 Directory. I didn't spring for it, but it would be kinda funny for people to be able to ask for me by name at 800 Directory. By the way, my service costs $10/month. The per-minute rates are quite good: around $.21/day, $.14/evening, $.11/night. And they now have call detail with caller's ANI on the statement. For an extra $10/month, you get "Programmable 800", which lets you call into their switch from anywhere, and instantly reprogram where your 800 calls go. It works quite well, and C&W is the only carrier that I know of that offers this service. Call them at 800/486-8686. (I've no affiliation, other than as a customer). Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 07:36:28 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System On Kent Hauser writes to All: U> What's the latest and greatest in small business telephone U> systems? U> 6-8 incoming lines 16-20 telephone lines U> "Normal" features such as intercom, paging, DND, etc. U> Ability to connect normal two-wire devices such as FAX, answering U> machine, cordless phone, etc. U> Good value (ie cheap). I suspect the advice you receive will be worth the price paid. It is not enough to know that you are looking in the 8x20 range. The answer depends on what you _really_ need. It depends on what you can get installed properly and supported. It depends on the track record of the manufacturer and the installation/service company. And if you buy the first one in town, will the vendor have spares? For how long? We would be distributing questionaires to your users, looking at your phone bills, wandering around looking for ways that a skilled implementation could improve your operation and we'd be writing a specification based on all that. We'd qualify vendors, looking at past installation work and talking to their customers. We'd find out what references _they_ were given when they bought _their_ system... and we'd call those references. We narrow the field down to three finalists and recommend one. The client picks. It can be a long process but the fit of a telephone system to your operation is very important. All the details are important. Find yourself an honest, reliable, independent consultant. Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Date: Fri, 01 Feb 91 00:13:16 EST Subject: Re: Network Interfaces: What's The Difference? Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer) sethcohn%alchemy.uucp@theory.tn.cornell.edu (seth cohn) writes: > I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system. The > operator gave me a choice of: > 1) a testable network interface > 2) a NONtestable network interface > What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) ) The "testable" network interface probably has a modular jack wired inside of it such that all the wiring in your house (past demarc) can be unplugged, allowing the customer to plug in an ordinary phone and see if the inside wiring is at fault before calling repair. A less likely possibility is that it contains a chip that the telco can "see" from the CO, also to determine where any problem lies. I say "less likely" because (at least here) they've stopped using these chips; apparently they register about a ringer and a half and this was causing problems (installer told me this as I watched him yank out all six of the little buggers). ------------------------------ From: Charles McGuinness Subject: Personal Communications Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 16:04:29 EST For those who can't wait for universal "Personal Numbers" that stay with you when you move around, I have an easy solution: Get an 800 number. Of course, there are a few differences as far as the billing is concerned, but that's an financial, not technical, issue... ;-) charles@jyacc.com [Moderator's Note: Of course you are referring to programmable 800 numbers; otherwise they don't move anywhere either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rhyre@cinpmx.attmail.com Date: Wed Jan 30 13:31:49 EST 1991 Subject: Cincinnati Bell 950-xxxx Payphone Problems In Cincinnati Bell territory, RBOC payphones in certain exchanges (231, 752, and 772) are unable to dial '950' numbers. The calls are marked as 'bogus', and routed to an AT&T operator with a charge of $77.77. I suspect that LEC switches are misconfigured, since the calls work from certain exchanges but not others (The phones are plain old Cincinnati Bell payphones, not COCOTs. Residential lines in the same exchanges can apparently dial the 950 numbers.) Calls to repair and the business office fail to get any meaningful response. In one case, I was told that my troubles resulted from the phone being switched over to MCI long distance service (in error) and the LEC switched it back to AT&T. My understanding is that the switches are 5ESS or DMS-100 series. Distinctive ringing is the only new service that has been added recently, so I suspect that switch software was upgraded to allow for that. Can anyone supply me with the proper buzzwords to use to convince Cincinnati Bell that their equipment is to blame? I'd prefer not to escalate to the PUC unless I have to. Thanks. Ralph Hyre (rhyre@attmail.com) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 10:46:19 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Phillipsburg, NJ I visited Phillipsburg, NJ recently (U.S. 22 and I-78 just across the Delaware River from Easton, PA). Phillipsburg is going into the 908 area, but I found pay phones displaying 201 in some cases and 908 in others. (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for the full cutover?) The Phillipsburg prefixes are 213,454,859; and they are a local call from Easton in 215 area; notice the N1X prefix (213), but (quite recently) 215 area began requiring 1+NPA+7D instead of 7D for local calls into a different area code. End of TELECOM Digest V11 #86 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22402; 2 Feb 91 20:34 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23362; 2 Feb 91 19:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07769; 2 Feb 91 18:04 CST Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 17:26:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #87 BCC: Message-ID: <9102021726.ab00784@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Feb 91 17:26:14 CST Volume 11 : Issue 87 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls [Phydeaux] The Best Cellular Roaming Guide [John R. Covert] Caller*ID in Indiana Put on Hold [Bill Berbenich] Telecom Info Management Questions [Mike Sullivan] Caller Info Needed [Joe McGuckin] CLID Blocking Introduced in C&P Territory [Bill Berbenich] Interesting Note on Call*Trace [Phillip Wherry] 75/120 Balun Needed [Raymond Conmey] Watching the Listeners [Jeff Sicherman] What Happened to 1990 DOJ Divestiture Report? [Sandy Kyrish] Roaming in Los Angeles [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 09:49:26 PST Subject: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!reb@uunet.uu.net Organization: From the grass eaters at the Bovine Munching Works From: Phydeaux Last evening I had occasion to make a LD call from a friend's house. Somehow I got disconnected (I think the cordless phone on the other end ran out of power). I dialed "00" for the operator - to get reconnected. Turns out it was the MCI operator who told me that she could connect me with the credit operator to give me credit for the last 1 minute and to reconnect me. After the credit operator came on the phone and asked a couple of questions about how the call was billed she offered to reconnect me. "Would you like me to assist you with reconnecting your call?" Something didn't sound right about that, so I asked if she'd be charging me operator assisted rates. Guess what? Of course they would! I declined and redialed myself. At home I've got AT&T. AT&T has *never* chaarged operator assisted rates to reconnect me. The whole process seems much easier with them too. How do other carriers handle such situations? reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 13:01:11 PST From: "John R. Covert 31-Jan-1991 1516" Subject: The Best Cellular Roaming Guide The third edition of "The Cellular Telephone Directory" by Communications Publishing Service has recently appeared. This book contains coverage maps for the U.S. and Canada (including quite a few of the new rural service areas that have just started coming on line), roamer access numbers, roaming rates, Follow-Me Roaming, Roam-America, and automatic roaming agreements. In addition, the book contains information on roaming in Hong Kong, Mexico, and the Caribbean. The book costs $17.00 in quantities of 1-2, $14.00 for 3-9, and less for larger orders. You may order by calling 800 366-6731 and giving a credit card; there is no charge for shipping. Or you may send a check to Communications Publishing Service; P.O. Box 500; Mercer Island, WA 98040-0500. john ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Caller*ID in Indiana Put on Hold Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 10:28:46 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu UPce 01/31 0738 Caller ID Plan on Hold INDIANAPOLIS (UPI) -- State utility regulators will not allow GTE to test its controversial Caller ID plan in a way that costs money for telephone customers who have no desire for the service, officials ruled Wednesday. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission invited GTE to return with a different plan in fifteen days. A GTE spokesman said the company may or may not submit a new plan, but first must study Wednesday's IURC ruling. Such identification plans are opposed by some people as invading the privacy of the caller. James L. Turner, Indiana utility consumer counselor, said the GTE plan to test the service in 50,000 homes was flawed because even customers who did not want the service would have been required to pay $8.50 per month for a protected number service. Commission Chairman James R. Monk agreed there was insufficient consideration by GTE for customers who had no desire for the service. Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Ga. 30332-0250 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 07:12:34 PST From: Sullivan Subject: Telecom Info Management Questions I am an applications programmer for Stanford University Communications Services. I wrote and maintain many of the online systems in production for our campus phone system. Some of it actually kinda works ok :^) Stanford has a NT SL100 switch with 24000 voice, 5500 gandalf data, and some 5000 point to point circuits that we service and bill for. Years ago, I investigated various Facilities managment systems on the market. Decisions were made, now we got what we got. There is effort from management to move us in other directions, naturally different managers, with different needs, all clearly see different directions. As I am up to my eyebrows in the nuts and bolts of the current systems, I'm pretty isolated and ignorant from how the rest of the world of Telecommunications DBMS's. I'd like a word or two with some folks: 1. Who maintain, develop, spec out, code, document, Telecom DBMS's and Telecom Facility management systems. specifically, CAD, Line Inventory, Billing, Cable management, service order processing, switch performance tools, financial summaries, Trouble ticketing, Network management, and more. 2. Who have a bibliography of specific periodicals, books, that discuss above. 3. Who have all the hot answers for telecom info management 4. Or, like me, just have all the dumb questions. I'd be happy to provide a summary of our current system and some of our future projects, also some of the questions I'm asked I can't answer. In return I'd like to see a summary of other systems, or talk via email/ telephone, or come for visit. I'd be happy to collect whatever summaries I receive, and resend, or post. Email or call me at office: 415-725-0503 Snail mail at home: 7480 Kelsey Creek Kelseyville, CA 95451 Mike Sullivan ------------------------------ From: mcguckin@zoetrope.enet.dec.com (Joe McGuckin) Subject: Caller Info Needed Reply-To: mcguckin@zoetrope.enet.dec.com (Joe McGuckin) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 00:05:15 GMT I'm building a computer interface to the phone network. One of the things I'd like to be able to do is receive Caller-ID info. Does anyone know where I can get the technical information? A sample implementation would be great. joe mcguckin@decwrl.dec.com -- or -- joe@parcplace.com ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: CLID Blocking Introduced in C&P Territory Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 14:34:18 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu UPma 02/01 1320 C&P to begin offering free Caller ID blocking BALTIMORE (UPI) -- C & P Telephone Co. plans to begin offering free, per-call blocking for people who do not want their number to show up on Caller ID, officials say. Beginning Sunday, touch-tone phone users can dial a three-digit code -- star, 6, 7 -- before placing a call to ensure their telephone number does not appear on a Caller ID device. The code is 1, 1, 6, 7 for rotary phones. When the code is dialed, a "P" or "Private" will show up on the Caller ID device instead of a number. People who want to make sure their numbers are not revealed will have to dial the code every time they make a call, officials said. C&P had opposed offering free blocking in Maryland, contending it would undercut the value of the service. C&P appealed a Public Service Commission order in November calling for it to provide free blocking. The appeal was rejected in December, when the commission gave C&P 45 days in which to begin offering blocking. C&P's deadline expires Sunday. PSC spokesman Frank Fulton said C&P made an eleventh hour appeal to get the deadline extended. C&P contended Caller ID might be helpful in deterring terrorist threats, such as bomb threats, as a result of the Persian Gulf war, he said. The commission did not concur with that view and pointed out that Caller ID is not available statewide. The panel also said there are other ways to track down those kinds of calls, including Call Trace, a C&P service that automatically traces calls when users dial star, 5, 7. "C&P, the schools and the police respond very quickly to those kinds of calls," said Fulton, referring to bomb threats and other terrorist threats that may be relayed by phone. "The commission didn't see where Caller ID would be that effective in those kinds of cases," he said in Friday editions of The (Baltimore) Sun. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Phillip Wherry Subject: Interesting Note on Call*Trace Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: Sat, 2 Feb 1991 01:17:54 GMT An interesting note on the Customer-initiated call trace feature in the areas served by C&P Telephone's CLASS-equipped exchanges: A friend of mine had occasion to use the *57 customer-initated call trace to attempt to track down the source of an annoying call. She did this, and received a recorded message to the effect that the trace was complete. I explained to her that it was then necessary to call the business office to find out the identity of the caller, and that it usually/always meant involving law enforcement. As it turns out, this isn't exactly the case. When her telephone bill arrive, the number which called her APPEARED ON THE TELEPHONE BILL under a heading to the effect of "Customer Initiated Call Traces" (don't know exact wording). I haven't talked with anyone within C&P, but I suspect the logic involved is that since Caller*ID is available within the entirety of C&P's serving area, and since it's non-blockable, there was no particularly good reason to have Call*Trace act like anything other than a one-shot Caller*ID. Without commenting on the merits/drawbacks of non-blockable Caller*ID, the C&P approach to Call*Trace seems pretty reasonable to me, given the status of Caller*ID (non-blockable). Phillip Wherry The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA psw@mitre.org ------------------------------ From: Raymond Conmey Subject: 75/120 Balun Needed Date: 1 Feb 91 13:44:29 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I am looking for a vendor of 75 ohm to 120 ohm Balun PCM interconnectors. I need BNC at the 75 ohm side and wire-wrap at the 120 side. It (they) can be discrete units or 19" relay rack mountable. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:00:44 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Watching the Listeners Organization: Cal State Long Beach The local PBS station (KCET) had an episode of their public affairs program "By the year 2000" about surveillance and monitoring on the job and the effects it has on employees, whether it's legal (or ought to be), etc. Not unexpectedly, one of the cases examined was the intense measurement that directory assistance operators are under to meet certain performance standards and how there is pressure to constantly improve (what have you done for us lately?). One of the supervisors who was questioned about why this was done apparently had been programmed properly by the company - Pac*Bell - and responsed that the communications world was competitive now and they had to perform or lose customers. Funny, I thought they had a local monopoly on dial-tone and related services. One of the real problems with this intensive cost cutting effort is that the LA area is a very multicultural society with many people speaking or reading little or poor English or having various accents. This can make it very difficult for the DA operator to understand in some cases. But since they are under pressure to keep their time-on down, there's no incentive to listen carefully or double-check. And since the phone company charges for DA after a certain minimum, there's actually a monetary incentive to at least tolerate (if not promote) high error rates on the information given out. Don't know if the program is distributed to other PBS stations but you might watch it to see an example of monopoly power and attitude at work. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 15:01 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: What Happened to 1990 DOJ Divestiture Report? One of the terms of the divestiture agreement was that the Department of Justice was required to report to the Court every three years on the state of competition in the telephone industry. In 1987, of course, Peter Huber produced "The Geodesic Network" for them. Whatever happened in 1990? Was a similar report produced, and where can I obtain it? Thanks in advance, Sandy Kyrish MCI ID 320-9613 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 16:14:27 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Roaming in Los Angeles I recently got to speak to the Roaming Coordinator at Cellular One of San Francisco regarding some problems I was having with RoamAmerica, and got to pick his brain regarding some other things. We all know how maxed out the Los Angeles system is - they're even charging for uncompleted calls to reduce system usage. The following refers to the "A" system; "B" system's milage may vary. An interesting thing that came out is that they are now using the "ping" command in the cellular protocol. This is the command whereby the switch can page your phone in each cell, and your phone answers back whereever it happens to be, so that the switch knows that your phone is alive, all without your phone giving any indication that this is happening (similar to what happens on incoming calls, but no ringing). The reason has to do with the Super Access system we have throughout California and Nevada. Roamers from other systems in these areas have their calls reach them automatically, and get all of their custom calling features. It works much better than "Follow-Me Roaming" on the "B" system, as the switches are permanently connected. So, activation happens instantly and reliably. When you roam into another area, that switch contacts your home switch to verify the MIN and ESN, and also tells your home switch what "pseudo-number" was assigned to your phone. Then, if you get a call at your home number, your home switch simply forwards the call to this "pseudo-number" at the roam switch, which then connects to you if you're on the air. The problem in LA is that they are running short of these pseudo-numbers. So, after you register there (just by doing a SEND/END), if you're not actually talking, every five minutes the switch will "ping" you. If you're not there, it resets the follow-me functionality, and can then reuse the pseudo-number for someone else. So, if you turn your phone off, you have to do a SEND/END each time you turn it back on if you want your calls to find you. This sounds fine to me, but I know some paranoid people (the "privacy phreaks") will undoubtedly feel that their every move is being tracked. The only problem that *I* see with this is that if my phone temporarily wanders into an area with poor or no reception and misses the ping, that the follow-me functionality may go away without me knowing about it. It may be that this only occurs when the system is running short of pseudo-numbers. In fact it would make sense to only do it in this case, as otherwise, it would generate a lot of unneccesary traffic on the paging channels. Apparently, the other systems in the Super Access areas don't do this, as their plan of resetting everything at midnight is sufficient. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #87 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24643; 2 Feb 91 22:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11840; 2 Feb 91 21:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21977; 2 Feb 91 20:10 CST Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 19:58:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #88 BCC: Message-ID: <9102021958.ab02621@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Feb 91 19:58:29 CST Volume 11 : Issue 88 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission [Apple PR via Tom Neudecker] LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone [Jim Rees] How to Market a One-Armed Bandit [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Cost of Dialing UK -> US and US -> UK [David Gast] When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [John Richard Bruni] Sprint to Offer Billing Through LEC [Steve Forrette] Everybody's Getting Into Telemarketing These Days [Steve Forrette] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Michael P. Deignan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 10:46:38 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Neudecker Subject: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission Moderator's Note: Mr. Neudecker passed along the following press release from Apple Computer which has appeared in the print media and other newsgroups recently. PAT] Contact: Cindy McCaffrey - or - John Cook Apple Public Relations Apple Public Relations (408) 974-1578 (408) 974-3145 Apple Petitions FCC for Use of Radio Waves For Data Transmission by All Computer Makers WASHINGTON, D.C.--January 28, 1991--Apple Computer, Inc. today filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that, if approved, would let computers transmit and receive information over radio waves instead of through a wired network. The petition asks the FCC to allocate a part of the radio spectrum so that all computer manufacturers be permitted use of radio waves for wireless computing. Apple believes that approval of the petition is an important step in the establishment of a new generation of personal computing. Apple's petition paves the way for the establishment of a new class of data communications, called Data Personal Communications Services (Data-PCS). If Apple's petition is approved, personal computer users in the future will be able to communicate with other users and with computer peripherals within a building or a campus over radio waves. This innovation would eliminate the need, in many cases, for local communications to travel on wired networks. "With the rapid advances in portable computing and wireless communications, we believe it is essential that computer users have access to this vital communications resource in the future," said John Sculley, Apple's chairman and chief executive officer. "Wireless networks will change the nature of information tools, making them as mobile and spontaneous as the individuals using them. "Apple's action, which will benefit all personal computer users, is motivated by a desire to ensure that the United States will have made the most forward-looking public decisions, allowing wireless networking to become a reality," Sculley added. Specifically, Apple petitioned the FCC to allow computer communications exclusively on 40 MHz of the radio frequency bandwidth between 1850-1990 MHz to transmit data at high speeds (for example, 10 megabits per second) over short distances (up to about 150 feet). "The convergence of wireless communications and computers will dramatically change the nature of computing," said David Nagel, vice president of Apple's Advanced Technology Group. "For example, students and teachers would no longer be confined to a rigid classroom set-up. Instead, computing and communications -- and therefore learning -- could happen any place. Users in the workplace would enjoy similar advantages. Employees would be liberated from the constraints of physical networks, which would enhance ativity and personal productivity," Nagel said. This type of "spontaneous" or "ad hoc" local area networking would supplement today's wired network configurations, which typically consist of telephone lines, coaxial cables, and fiber optics. The cost, particularly the capital cost, of hardwiring a building is high and then users are restricted as to when, how and where they can use their computers to move data. Apple recognizes that radio spectrum is scarce and in high demand. Considering this, along with the intense activity being focused on proposals for new voice communications services, Apple is requesting that the FCC move quickly in giving equitable consideration to data communication when determining future bandwidth allocations. "We're urging the public to support Apple's appeal that the allocation of radio spectrum go beyond voice communications to include an appropriate emphasis on data communications," Sculley said. "Our hope is that computer users will view the allocation of the radio spectrum for wireless computing as Apple does -- as an important step in advancing the future of personal computing technology." -30- Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Apple Press Releases PR Express 1/28/91 ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Fri Feb 1 19:29:28 1991 GMT I'm trying to find a long distance carrier that will give me a credit card number that can be used with 10xxx and isn't tied to any particular local telephone service. None of the big three seem to be able to give me one. AT&T won't open accounts at all for people who don't have a local phone (is this because of billing?) and the other two will issue a card, but it can't be used with 10xxx. Just to head off a lot of misguided replies, note that a phone credit card number does not have to contain a valid local phone number. [Moderator's Note: Someone at AT&T gave you bad information. They've had a miscellanous billing account calling card for many years. They give it to people in the military, in dorms with switchboards, etc all the time. And of course the AT&T Universal Card can somewhat meet your requirements also. I think you have to actually have phone service with AT&T / a local telco for credit approval purposes, but you can definitly have a card which does not relate to any specific number. Maybe you are going about it the wrong way. Explain that you DO have a phone (or someone does who will guarentee your payments), but that you want a miscellaneous billing type number. They are billed out of Orlando, FL I believe; same as cellular phone billings, with separate bills sent each month not attached to any regular phone bill. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 23:24:02 -0500 From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" Subject: How to Market a One-Armed Bandit Having read quite a few complaints and horror stories about COCOTs in TELECOM Digest, I thought you'd be interested in some literature I received in the mail today from a COCOT manufacturer. The company is listed below: Company: Goldbeam Electronics, Inc., 1741 West Rose Crans Ave., Gardena, CA 90249 +1 213 719 1106 / +1 800 735 7331 [Disclaimer: I don't speak for or endorse the above company -SJR] There were two models of COCOTs which being advertised. One model, #PT-138N, is shorter, wider, and deeper than a "genuine" pay phone, with the handset located on the left-hand side. There is a red button located on the face of the phone, and from what I surmise, you insert 25 cents, make a call, the party answers, and then you have to press the button (which collects the quarter) to speak to the other party. The following is a list of the phone's capabilities (quoting word-for-word from their literature): - One quarter seven-digit call for one to nine minsutes or no limit. - Owner can define up to fifteen sets of area call numbers as one- quarter calls. - Owner can define up to 25 sets of prefix and/or area call numbers as two-quarter calls. Time limit can be adjusted from one to nine minutes or no limit. [After the time limit, you are asked for one or more quarters -SJR] - Four-quarter call for any 1+ calling, except the owner's predefined one-quarter and two-quarter calls. Time limit can be adjusted from 40 to 90 seconds. - Owner can restrict up to 25 sets of prefix numbers, such as 976, 1900, and some overseas calls which do not start with 001 [sic] or 011, etc. - Owner can restrict the factory set coinless calls, such as 1800 or operator, where it is legally allowed. - Owner can allow or eliminate the continuous coin deposit feature for one and two-quarter calls. - The factory set or owner predefined time limits can be increased by 50 or 100%, when it is desired. The literature also indicates that it will ONLY take quarters (no nickels, dimes, etc.). The selling price is between $400 and $600, depending on whether or not it's on sale (the literature quotes the sale price as being currently in effect "for one month only".) The other model being marketed, #GB-676, is a grossly-oversized desk telephone, beige in color, which operates in a manner similar to the first phone I mentioned (ie., use of the "Push to Talk" button, quarter-only operation), except that (my summary): - It doesn't allow _any_ call greater than seven digits long. (Presumably, this include 800 numbers; I don't know for sure). - All dialable seven-digit numbers (including, presumably, 950) are charged 25 cents for every three minutes. There are apparently no exceptions, and it would even appear that not even the owner can program the COCOT to allow exceptions to this rule (except to manually bypass the charging mechanism with a key). - The literature does state that it will allow 911 and 411 calls. (Can it be programmed such that 411 calls are actually dialed out as 1-555-1212? I don't know. Ditto with 911.) - It's being sold by this company for between $270-$370. Now, this is what Goldbeam tells their potential customers as to why they should buy a COCOT (once more, I'm directly quoting their literature): "No installation necessary. Simply plug it in and ... you keep all the money! A new profit center... "Every call made generates a profit for you. A local three minute call costs about six cents on a business telephone. Your customers and employees deposit a quarter and you make 19 cents profit ... long distance calls generate even greater profits. "If you currently have a pay phone in your resturant/bar, you are paying The Telephone Company about $30.00 a month, and THEY keep all the revenue. Install [the COCOT], and YOU keep all the revenue." Like I said, it made rather interesting reading. One final disclaimer: My speculations are entirely on their basis of their literature. I have not actually used these particular devices. Sander J. Rabinowitz | !sander@attmail.com | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | -OR- sjr@mcimail.com | 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:49:06 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Cost of Dialing UK -> US and US -> UK In early December there was a discussion about why it costs more to call from the UK to the US than from the US to the UK. The answer is actually fairly simple. There is no fixed exchange rate for dollars and pounds. It can very substantially across time. Last September the exchange rate was about 1 pound = $2.00; a few years ago it took only one dollar to buy a pound. At present exchange rates, one the recipients noted that the cost from England was almost 50% greater than from the U.S. If the exchange rate were one for one (as it recently was), then it would cost about 50% more to call from the U.S. I was in England recently and my overall impression was that almost everything in England is about twice what is costs in the U.S. The primary exception was beer; pub meals were not too bad either. Lodging, most food, transportation, phone were all terribly expensive. At only 50% higher transatlantic telephone service is actually a relatively good deal. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------ From: John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com Subject: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 03:53:46 PST Regarding testing phone lines at the demark ... those who are new at this should be told that ringing voltage can give you one heckuva memorable shock. I learned this the hard way when I was fourteen. I was tapping my sister`s phone and had just begun attaching a permanent line ... I happened to hold onto an iron pipe (the demark was in our basement) and you guessed it, the phone rang and I *very* temporarily made a complete circuit between ring and ground. My guess is this would be fatal for someone with a weak heart. This does not apply to demarks with the test option, I think. Alas, I am now triple the age I was back then, so this true confession is beyond prosecuting ... my sister was pushing for it back then, however. Regards, ROCKY [Moderator's Note: Yes-sir-ee! I think we all had to learn our lesson the hard way at one time or another. It helps a little if it is a hot, humid day and your hands are sweaty. Then you don't even have to wait for the bell to ring! :) This reminds me of the time I was 'brousing' inside a 100-watt linear amplifier for a CB and I forgot to put my screwdriver in there first to discharge the capacitors. Instead of 'arguing with' the metal part of the screwdriver, the DC worked me over good on the way to ground instead. I've had a couple of RF burns also. That really feels good! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 23:25:17 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: US Sprint to Offer Billing Through LEC My recent Sprint bill insert had a mention that they will be offering billing directly on the LEC bill in the near future in several areas. They mention that the benefit to the customer is that they only have to write one check each month. (They didn't mention that a benefit to Sprint is that the customer is much more likely to write that check, since he would be risking disconnection if he didn't pay). As for me, this would NOT be a benefit. I have four lines on my Sprint account: four Pacific Bell lines (three are consolidated-billed, one by itself), and one cellular phone. They all work together to give me the maximum volume discount. So, my occasional cellular long distance calls benefit from a discount based on my high modem use at home. By splitting up the bills, I would end up paying more for the same calls. I confronted Sprint customer service about this, and they said that they could flag my account so that it wouldn't be switched over. If you are in a similar situation, you may want to call before you get surprised by a larger bill. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 15:09:03 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Everybody's Getting Into Telemarketing These Days Last night, I got what may be the strangest telemarketing call yet. Let me say that based on the caller's voice and reaction, that I don't think it was a joke. me> "Hello?" female caller> "Hi. I'm in the neighborhood, and could use some extra money. Are you interested?" me> "Uh, (thinking, then realizing!) oh, no thanks!" Given the state of the Oakland/Berkeley area these days, this is entirely believable. I'll leave it as an excercise to the readers as what the product or service was. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: She could have been the Avon lady calling. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 Date: Sat, 2 Feb 1991 00:24:17 GMT MCMAHON%GRIN1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (McMahon,Brian D) writes: >Which reminds me ... again. :-) Does anyone know if MARS is still in >business? MARS is/was the Military Auxiliary Radio Service (or >System, I'm a bit hazy on the acronym), and provided a radio link >between soldiers and the Stateside phone network. Has this service >been declared outmoded, or are they still doing their good work? MARS is still in operation. Both my father-in-law and brother-in-law are MARS members here in the Rhode Island area. Michael P. Deignan Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #88 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04118; 3 Feb 91 5:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30800; 3 Feb 91 4:22 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17348; 3 Feb 91 3:16 CST Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 2:58:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #89 BCC: Message-ID: <9102030258.ab24016@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Feb 91 02:58:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 89 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 416 Area Code Split Announced [Bell Canada News, via David Leibold] Is it a Good Idea to Run Digital and Analog in Same Cable? [Casey Leedom] Headset Installation Help Needed [Heath Roberts] Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices? [David R. Zinkin] Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia [John Higdon] Re: CNN From Baghdad [Jim Redelfs] Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Richard Budd] Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest_ [Timothy Newsham] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: woody Subject: 416 Area Code Split Announced Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 17:21:29 EST [This is the info in the 28 January 1991 _Bell_News_ on the eagerly awaited splitting of the 416 area code by Bell Canada.] 416 area code to split By Deborah Sura TORONTO - Ballerinas do it. Gymnasts do it. Even bananas do it! In this case "it" is the splits, and Bell will be doing just that with its 416 area code in late 1993. Rapid growth within the Golden Horseshoe region, which stretches from Colborne in the east, around Lake Ontario to Fort Erie [map was printed to accompany the article], as well as the popularity of new communication technologies like cellular and faxes, have created a huge demand for telephone exchanges and phone numbers. About a year ago, Bell took steps to alleviate the problem by implementing a system whereby either 1+416 or 0+416 is dialed when placing long distance calls within the "416" area. This measure freed up the use of "0" and "1" for use as the second digit in telephone exchanges providing tens of thousands of new telephone numbers, but by the end of 1993 the supply will be exhausted. In order to provide numbers for our customers in the years to come, Bell will introduce a new area code on October 4, 1993. Metropolitan Toronto will retain the 416 area code and the rest of what is now 416 will be assigned to the new code. "A steering committee and several working committees within Bell have been set up to ensure a smooth transition not only for our Networks, Sales and Service people, but primarily for our customers whom they support," says Ted Edmonds, associate director, Network Planning. A major communications campaign has been developed to get the message across. "Focus studies of business and residence customers revealed that most participants readily accepted the reason for the area code split when it was clearly stated. However, they were concerned about who would get the new area code, how it would affect their bills, and changes to their dialing," points out Geoff Matthews, associate director, News & Information. Bell plans to announce the new area code at a press conference on March 25 as part of the official campaign launch. Coincident activities include visits from Bell officials to advise our major-impact clients, such as the municipal governments, a direct-mail package to all business customers and a billing insert in April to all 416-area-code- customers to give general notification of the change. Detailed mailings will follow closer to the implementation date. A key issue to be communicated to the 1.7 million customers who will be transferred to the new area code is that the change will not be reflected on their phone bills. Calls placed within a customer's local calling area will remain toll free. The only difference will be the addition of three digits (416 or the new area code) when placing a call into or out of metro Toronto. To ease the changeover, there will be a three-month period of permissive dialing followed by a period of automated referrals on misdialed calls. As well, a training video produced by our Region's Audio-Visual team will help Bell employees handle their customers' concerns, and a 416-Changeover Hotline will provide a direct means of answering customer queries. [note from djcl@contact - No info on just what the number of the new area code will be; perhaps that will be announced at the 25th March press conference, or sooner or later. - Anyone out there have a scoop, or is Bellcore sworn to secrecy on this?] [Moderator's Note: Is this the first time an area code in Canada has been split? It is pretty routine here in the States now, but I cannot recall such an instance in Canada before. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Casey Leedom Subject: Is it a Good Idea to Run Digital and Analog in Same Cable? Date: Sat, 02 Feb 91 18:02:02 -0800 We're planning on completely rewiring our home. We want provision for three analog voice lines, AppleTalk PhoneNet and 10baseT Ethernet. Each analog voice line needs a pair of wires, PhoneNet requires a pair and 10baseT requires two pair. Two of the analog voice lines would be used for high speed modems (V.32bis.) We're thinking of running copper six pair, twisted pair cable throughout the house. I have several questions regarding the wiring: 1. I've heard that there's a potential problem with running high level (loud) digital signals in the same cable with lower level analog signals on other lines -- even if using twisted pair throughout. It was suggested that we should consider running two three pair cables; one for the PhoneNet and 10baseT and one for the three phone lines. Is there any truth to this? 2. ISDN may hit our area sometime in the distant future. This would obviate the need for two of the voice lines because we could use an ISDN B channel. Would the three pair we have allocated for voice service and modems be enough to support an ISDN connection? Can one use one B channel for voice and the other for data simultaneously? I.e. in order to support our need to be able to use a phone in a standard manner and operate a data connection require that we get *TWO* ISDN drops? Basically we'd like to do the cabling job *RIGHT* once and not have to go back and run new cable because of electrical problems (cross talk, too thin wire, etc.), mechanical problems (insufficiently robust insulation, etc.) or not enough wires. We don't care that much about the cost of the raw wire. The biggest cost as far as we're concerned will be the effort of running the cable and wiring the stations. Thus: 3. Can people recommend specific wire for our needs? Please specify brand and model or provide explicit descriptions of features I should look for. Which brings up a related topic: all this wire is going to go to and from some place. We're planning on running all the wiring out from a central junction in a star pattern. Individual wires that aren't in use by particular end station won't be hooked up at the junction. The questions are: 4. What kind of junction would be best for our needs? It would be really nice if it were easy to [de]activate lines to stations simply by throwing a switch instead of having to pull wires off of and punch them down into a punch down block of some kind. Again, specific brand and model recommendations are welcome. 5. What kind of end stations would be easiest to work with and look nicest? It would be really nice if there was a modular box capable of holding several varying jacks. Three RJ11s for the voice lines, an RJ45 for the 10baseT and whatever PhoneNet uses. I doubt whether such a box exists, but I can dream. What do people recommend for this? Thanks for any and all advise you can give! Casey ------------------------------ From: Heath Roberts Subject: Headset Installation Help Needed Reply-To: Heath Roberts Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 06:14:52 GMT I bought an telephone-type headset at a garage sale, and haven't been able to get it to work. I suspect that I'm not connecting something correctly. There's an over-the-ear mic boom, and an in-the-ear receiver, connected via a connectorized cord to an electronics box. The box says "UNEX Controlonics Corp., Westford, MA" and then what looks like a model, "Ventel II, Operator" It also has an FCC reg. number and a REN of 0. There's an RJ plug (same as normal handset cords) on the other end of the box. The box came with a coil cord and a twin-phone plug. Connecting it to a phone doesn't do anything. Since it's not a line-type connector, I haven't tried plugging it into an active line. I understand that the tip connetors on the twin plug is receive, and ring is transmit (or vice versa) so the device is pretty clearly not intended to plug into a normal two-wire circuit. My best guess to what's happening is that the box expects some power supply that a normal phone isn't going to provide. It's a nice headset and I'd like to be able to use it. Anyone have any helpful information? I've tried calling Westford, MA directory assistance, but they don't have a Urex Corp. listed. Heath Roberts barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program ------------------------------ From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices? Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 00:13:54 GMT Can anyone tell me the names (and addresses and phone numbers, preferably) of companies manufacturing Caller-ID equipment? I know of something called ClassMate, but I don't know who makes it or any other similar devices. Thanks (again!) David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- Rochester General Hospital Radiology (Consultant) and Case Western Reserve Univ. (Psychology/Chemistry) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia Date: 2 Feb 91 02:15:08 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Bob Goudreau writes: > What they *don't* > tell you is that these special numbers are *not* reachable from > outside of Southern Bell territory (such as my workplace, which is in > GTE-land). Trying to dial 1-404-780-2355 from GTE territory > intercepts after a few rings with a "Your call cannot be completed as > dialed" message, exactly the same as trying 1-919-780-2355. I suspect > that no one outside of Georgia's Southern Bell territory will be able > to get information about the Georgia Relay Center from the above > numbers. For years, Pac*Bell has had numbers reachable by the public of the form 811-XXXX. These are toll-free and can be used anywhere with Pac*Bell's territory. For a period, these numbers could not be reached by any non-Pac*Bell telephone. Gradually, the independents started making them available from their phones as well. At least GTE and Contel (soon to be one and the same) did. However, no area code is used when calling. My local residence business office is 811-5700. If I wanted to call that number from San Diego, I would pick up the phone and dial 811-5700 and would then be connected with the same people in the same office as if I dialed it from 408 or 415. For this reason, it would seem impossible to reach these numbers from outside of the state, since none is associated with a particular NPA. Anyone from outside CA ever tried one? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: For many years here, 811 was used for hotel/motel or other institutional accounts with switchboards which had to charge back calls to individual extensions. 811 reached a long-distance operator who knew automatically to send back time and charges ASAP via teletype to the subscriber following each call. (Although usually they batched the tickets and sent back all results once an hour.) The rest of us used 211 to reach the same long-distance operator. 811 has been gone for many years. I just now dialed 811, also 1-811. I got intercepted locally at that point and told my call could not be completed as dialed. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 91 00:58:42 GMT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad Reply-To: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu Brian Crawford wrote: >> 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. As of 21:00, 1-20-91, he was reporting, voice-only, from Baghdad. CNN Headline News was VERY proud to announce that theirs was the only service allowed to stay - based on their balanced reporting! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 12:57 CDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY tanner@ki4pv.compu.com writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #83: >Paying for the calls is quite illegal, however, under the 'trading >with the enemy' act. You can not legally pay any money to Cuba. I don't know about calls to Havanna, but as of January 25, you could still call Baghdad from the USA. A guy in the office said he called and made a reservation at one of the hotels there. Does that mean he doesn't have to pay for either the call or the hotel? (Does CNN have to pay their reporter's hotel bill as well?) :-) Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBM - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others - klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest | Phone: (914)578-3746 IBM and Marist College don't ask me about my opinions, they just let me play with their computers. [Moderator's Note: The way I heard the story was that last week someone placed a prank call to the Sheraton Hotel in Baghdad and asked for reservations. He asked, "do you have any rooms available?". The reservations clerk said yes, there were presently rooms available, and when did he need his reservation? He told her in about two weeks he would be wanting to book the entire hotel for an indefinite period. The reservations clerk asked, "Who is this calling, please?", and the caller replied "The name is Bush ... George Bush. I work for the US Government. My party will include several thousand people." It is not known if the clerk took the caller seriously or not. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 13:27:48 hst From: Timothy Newsham Subject: Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest_ I got a small chuckle from this joke I read in this month's _Reader's_Digest_: Department-Store automatic answering machine: "If you are calling to order or send money, press 5. "If you are calling to register a complaint, press 6459834822955392. "Have a good day." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #89 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24590; 4 Feb 91 1:03 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26139; 3 Feb 91 23:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18816; 3 Feb 91 22:25 CST Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:25:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #90 BCC: Message-ID: <9102032125.ab26958@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:25:07 CST Volume 11 : Issue 90 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Wiretaps in Virginia - a Year's Summary [UPI Wire, via Bill Berbenich] Michigan BBS Results (Round 1) [GRID News via Ed Hopper] Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [Todd Inch] GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service [David Gast] _Boring_ Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest and Bill Inserts [D. Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill Subject: Wiretaps in Virginia - a Year's Summary Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 20:25:42 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The following story came from the UPI wire. I thought we Telecommers might be interested in it. ------------ UPse 02/03 1734 State police attribute 20 arrests in 1990 to bugging By United Press International State police in 1990 bugged 3,885 phone calls between 72 unsuspecting parties at a cost of $117,593, a published report says. As of December, the effort had resulted in the arrests of twenty people and the convictions of three. The {Richmond Times-Dispatch} said Sunday that during the past five years, agents of the state police Bureau of Criminal Investigation have eavesdropped on 18,330 conversations involving 5,096 parties at a cost of $1,049,296. All told, probes involving bugging resulted in the arrests of 97 people and, so far, 58 convictions. The thousands of intercepted conversations seems widespread, but they all were accomplished by investigators' bugging of 25 phones. Three wiretaps were approved in 1990, three in 1989, five in 1988, three in 1987, three in 1986 and eight in 1985. Bureau Director Carl Baker said the rationale for so few intercepts is that the use of a wiretap can be approved only at great effort and as a final resort. "The mere fact that you have to exhaust all other investigative techniques prior to obtaining an eavesdropping warrant" makes their use scarce, Baker said. Most of the phones that investigators targeted were in single-family homes; however, investigators also bugged telephones in apartments, two businesses and a city arena in Virginia Beach, as well as a car cellular phone. The legal bugging effort was used nearly exclusively in drug probes and resulted in 199 incriminating calls from 1985 to 1990. The BCI conducts all of the bugging for authorities in Virginia. Some years more warrants are issued than in other years, Baker said, but apparently there is no trend. Once police conclude a wiretap is needed, Baker said, approval is sought from the Virginia attorney general's office. Then authorities have to seek the warrant from a circuit court judge in the locality in which they seek the wiretap. No annual budget is allotted specifically for wiretapping, Baker said. The costs in the annual reports from the attorney general's office to the clerks of the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates include the costs involved in paying the agents installing and monitoring the equipment as well as any tapes, rent, lodging, vehicle and meal expense incurred. Localities in which judges approved wiretaps in the past four years were Richmond with one wiretap, Henrico County with four, Chesterfield County with one, Henry County with two, Halifax County with two, Fluvanna County with two; Albemarle County with one, Lynchburg with two, Martinsville with one, Virginia Beach with three, Bristol with one, Chesapeake with four and Charlottesville with one. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Michigan BBS Results (Round 1) From: Ed Hopper Date: Sun, 03 Feb 91 10:35:23 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 I am posting the following, verbatim, from a message passed on to me by Bruce Wilson at his request. Anyone who wishes to engage in flames over the completeness of this report should direct their comments via US Mail to the address given. ---------- GRID News. vol 2 nu 4. January 29, 1991. World GRID Association, P. O. Box 15061, Lansing, MI 48901 USA Michigan Bell Fends off BBS Complainant by Michael E. Marotta James R. Imhoff is the sysop of Variety and Spice BBS. In January of 1990, Michigan Bell began assessing him business rates. He filed a complaint with the Michigan Public Service Commission. MBT filed for and was granted a motion hearing. On January 18, 1991 at 10:00 am, a hearing was conducted by telephone. Judge Daniel Nickerson presided. Two MPSC staffers were present in person. Michigan Bell's Craig Anderson and Char Hoffman were connected and James R. Imhoff was connected. At that time, Michigan Bell asked for several "discoveries". As the defendants, they had a right to know what proofs and witnesses Imhoff intended to rely on. Judge Nickerson granted most of the eight requests. Docket U9725, James Imhoff vs Michigan Bell Telephone was heard on January 29, 1991. Present were Bruce Rainey, Tomasin Garcia, and Sam Khattar of the MPSC staff. Craig Anderson, Charlene Hoffman, Nancy M. Rhoads, and Amy Edwards of Michigan Bell. James Robert Imhoff appeared, also. Daniel Nickerson was the administrative law judge. We met in a pre-hearing at 9:00 am. The judge announced that the purpose of the pre-hearing was to define the issues of discovery. Craig Anderson, speaking for Bell, said that discovery was not resolved. The MPSC staff said that it did not see the complaintant's reponses to the request for discovery until this morning. Craig Anderson said he had a motion. The judge said he would continue presently. Anderson's motion was heard. "I spoke to Imhoff and reminded him of the deadline," he said. That deadline was Friday, January 25, 1991 at 5:00 pm. According to Anderson, Imhoff delivered the responses to Bell on Monday at 12:10 pm. Speaking for the MPSC staff, Tomasin Garcia said she did not receive the response. Anderson said that Imhoff did not provide addresses or other materials as directed by the judge. MBT asked that Imhoff be precluded from calling witnesses as they did not have adequate time to prepare a defense or response. James Imhoff said that he delivered the materials to Bell's Michigan Avenue Detroit office at 4 pm on Friday, January 25, 1991, but that the guard was unconcerned. The guard did not know Craig Anderson. Imhoff said that three guards were present, two men chatting with women, a third woman chatting with another woman. Imhoff also said that he did not know he was to give materials to the MPSC staff, he thought he was to deliver them to MBT staff. Further, he does not know the addresses of his witnesses because they are all computer people whom he knows online only. He did not know who could and could not appear. Judge Nickerson asked Imhoff if he received a letter outlining is responsibilities. Imhoff replied that he did not know if he got the letter because he gets a lot of mail, some of it redundant. Some discussion transpired on the state of readiness of security at MBT and whether and when every package delivered is logged. After a recess to consider the arguments, Daniel Nickerson ruled. "Discovery is allowed," he said, calling it an important aspect of an efficient and fair hearing. "Therefore," he said,"I find that my order was not complied with. Both staff and respondant are prejudiced for not receiving the answers ... The matter is dismissed without prejudice." James Imhoff said he would file again and take it up later. After the hearing, I spoke with the principals and the audience. Craig Anderson said that Michigan Bell is not interested in going after every BBS. He would not comment on two hypothetical cases. He would not say whether he would consider file uploads to be a value rendered and he did not feel he could say what this might mean in an information society. Anderson and his colleagues all agreed that these issues would have to be addressed in the future as we continue to wire our network nation. I also spoke with James Imhoff. "I do charge for access," Imhoff said. When a user sends him money, "they get time on my system... they get into the library." Imhoff feels he should not be charged business rates. "The last seven years I have run this system I have not made dime one on this system. I actually lose between $100 and $150 a month. It is a hobby for this reason. If I were charging by the minute like a Prodigy or a CompuServe, it would be a business. I just want to get close to break-even. According to the IRS, anytime you lose money on a business for three years, that is a hobby. I make anywhere from $1000 to $1200 a year and it costs me about $800 a month. The cost of a man's toys do not determine whether his hobby is a business or a residence. ----------- BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) Reply-To: toddi@gtisqr.uucp (Todd Inch) Organization: Global Tech International Inc. Date: Sun, 03 Feb 91 05:40:27 GMT Our Moderator suggests: > . . . have the number on your second line changed to something non-pub, > and have it hunted when the first line is busy. That way the busy > first line will automatically forward a second call to the other line > if it is not busy with a data call. That's what I have. GTE (north of Seattle, WA, near Everett) didn't charge extra to make the first line hunt to the second line when the first is busy, which surprised me a bit. Monthly and LD charges for both lines are intermixed on a single bill. I had originally asked for a "circular hunt" where calls coming into the second line would also hunt the first, but they won't give it to me. We wanted this so long distance callers (inlaws in Spokane) could avoid the answering machine attached to line one by calling line two and letting it ring indefinitely. In the case where two was busy with data, we would be home (sending the data) and would answer one (which their call would hunt to) before the machine, so either way it would be a guarantee of avoiding the machine. That was my plan, anyway. After not giving me what I'd asked for and then playing around for a few days, GTE finally said that a circular hunt wasn't tarriffed, so they couldn't do it. They admitted that their equipment could do it, and even said they had it programmed that way for about a half day, then realized there was no tarriff for it and changed it back. Can anyone give evidence that this IS tarriffed? (Tad?) I figured they were full of it and checked out our key system lines (POTS) at work (also GTE) and sure enough, the last line won't hunt to the first, so now I'm not so sure. So now my line one hunts to two only and two is unpub and nobody knows the number. But, we get LOTS of wrong numbers on it. We know they're wrong numbers because we aren't on line one so they couldn't have hunted. We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you have the wrong number." But that just confused them and they wanted to know how we knew. Now I just answer "We're sorry, the number you have dialed has been disconnected or is no longer in service . . ." :-) Their response is now usually just a click as they hang up after the first few words of my intercept impression. We really confused a GTE repairman who dialed line two when he was troubleshooting some noise on it - poor guy. Now here's another oddity: We had a custom-calling feature package for about the first month of service when the first line was installed. We later had them turn the features off, but some of them seem to persist. When we flashed the hookswitch too quickly and then hung up again, it would ring back. Three-way calling wouldn't really work, but almost. That "feature" went away when they installed line two and programmed the hunt, but we still have speed dialing and call-forwarding on line one, which we don't especially want and aren't paying for, but no features on line two. I'm fairly sure it's a GTD-5 switch, if anyone cares. Todd Inch, MIS Supervisor, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 02:14:29 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service I just received an insert with my GTE phone bill. It details three changes. The first is that ``Touch Call Service'' (must be marketing lingo) will automatically be available to all GRE California customers (given the marketing lingo, I am surprised we aren't clients). This change becomes effective February 1. To compensate GTE for the lost revenue, ``local telephone service'' (I am not sure what is included -- monthly service, ZUM charges, local calls (if applicable), etc?) will be surcharged 4.74%. Assuming that it only covers Basic Service, I assume that I will save $1.00, but pay $0.55 cents more for a savings of $0.45 per month. The second change is that starting June 1, the CPUC has ordered local calling areas expanded from eight miles to twelve miles. I am not sure what they do for the substantial portion of us in GTE land that live closer than twelve miles from the ocean. Perhaps we can call the Soviet subs at local rates. :-) Anyway, they will take on an additional 6.37% to compensate for this change. I estimate that I will lose money on this one as I rarely make non-local calls in CA. The additional charge will likely be about $0.75 per month. The third change is hidden in the last paragraph and the title ``Touch Call Service, Local Calling Area Changes Upcoming'' clearly does not reflect this third change. It says that GTE has requested that local and toll service increase by .41% and 2.45% respectively. This change it is noted is part of a filing under the idiotic plan approved by the CPUC last year (see an article John Higdon for further information) that is supposed to lower the cost of telephone service. The bottom of the page says ``Telecommunications Excellence.'' I think the truthfulness of this advertising hype has already been fully discussed by this forum so no further comments are necessary. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 11:08:27 CST From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: _Boring_ Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest and Bill Inserts Reply-To: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA >>>>> On 2 Feb 91 23:27:48 GMT, newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham) said: Timothy> "If you are calling to order or send money, press 5. "If you Timothy> are calling to register a complaint, press 6459834822955392. Har har. I'm sorry to say that I find that {Reader's Digest} joke as weak as those "comics" Illinois Bell puts in their phone bills. There are also the monthly "news items" in there, along the lines of ten paragraphs on "Feeling bored, just call!", "Friends are just a call away!", "Calling puts a wide range of services at your fingertips!", "Calling: inexpensive and Ccnvenient!" Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM Naperville IL USA +1 708-979-6364 [Moderator's Joke: This one also from *Reader's Digest* some time ago: A man in a trench coat huddled in a payphone whispering into a receiver is speaking to the operator, and the operator in turn is speaking to someone who has answered on the other end: "I have an obscene call for anyone at this number. Will you accept the charges?" That's it, you can laugh now! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #90 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26523; 4 Feb 91 3:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28832; 4 Feb 91 1:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16628; 4 Feb 91 0:30 CST Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 0:25:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #91 BCC: Message-ID: <9102040025.ab27743@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Feb 91 00:25:18 CST Volume 11 : Issue 91 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ms. Mobile Manners Has Advice For You [Toronto Globe via TELECOM Moderator] Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls [Floyd Davidson] Re: How Do You Tell When ... (I Need Information Also) [Bob Falcon] Re: Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices? [Bill Berbenich] Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Phil Gunsul] Silly Question [Dan Bloch] Re: Personal Communications [Jim Rees] Rural Areas Getting Hooked on Cellular [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:54:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Ms. Mobile Manners has Advice For You Cellular Companies Call on Users to Mind Their Manners by Mary Gooderham, {Toronto Globe and Mail}, Sunday, February 3, 1991 Emily Post did not have to deal with this social skill, but cellular phone companies are trying to teach their users some manners. The era of personal communications is getting a little too impersonal for a growing number of people put off by the use of the devices in public places. Warnings to switch off cellular phones are becoming common in restaurants and theatres. The menu of the Teahouse Restaurant in Vancouver, BC carries a notice telling patrons they may not use portable phones at the table. Felix Zurbuchen, manager of the restaurant said, "If someone is celebrating an anniversary or birthday and they are sitting next to a table where the phone is ringing every three or four minutes it is annoying. When people are in business conversations they raise their voice to make themselves understood." Motorola Cellular, Canada's largest manufacturer of cellular phones recently issued guidelines on safety and good manners. They include turning off the phone while dining or attending theatre or sporting events, stepping away from the crowd when making a call and speaking softly, since the phones have very sensitive microphones. On driving manners and safety, Motorola suggests that drivers use 'hands-free' or 'eyes-free' methods to place calls without having to hold the phone or punch numbers into it. Speakerphone attachments or phones with voice-recognition systems allow such conveniences. According to Mark Lukowski, vice president and general manager of Motorola Cellular, "We're encouraging people to be more aware of the environment they're in. If the environment you're in is not comfortable with the use of a phone, don't use it." Cellular phone companies have been overwhelmed by growth. Sellers predict that some day each user will be reached at one telephone number anywhere in the world, rather than having separate numbers for home and work. Under the guise of 'Ms. Mobile Manners', Cantel Inc., one of two companies that provide national cellular service in Canada warned customers in a recent newsletter to use the phones so they do not annoy others or lead to awkward situations. "It really comes down to a matter of respect for other people as well as one's own convenience," said David Parkes, president of Cantel Ontario. PAT ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Sun, 3 Feb 1991 11:38:51 GMT In article <16628@accuvax.nwu.edu> mtxinu!Ingres.COM!reb@uunet.uu.net writes: >Last evening I had occasion to make a LD call from a friend's house. >Somehow I got disconnected (I think the cordless phone on the other ... >Something didn't sound right about that, so I asked if she'd be >charging me operator assisted rates. Guess what? Of course they >would! I declined and redialed myself. >At home I've got AT&T. AT&T has *never* chaarged operator assisted >rates to reconnect me. The whole process seems much easier with them >too. How do other carriers handle such situations? Alascom is the regulated carrier in Alaska, much as AT&T is for the rest of the US. Our handling of disconnects is much the same as you described for AT&T: we reconnect the call and credit your bill with a small discount. That is not the end of it though. I don't know the figures, but I am aware that in a significant percentage of instances we can't find any recorded call to credit! There might be a number of reasons (wrong times given or the operator erred in recording the data, etc.). That is not a problem unless there is a pattern that indicates fraud. Each time a "cutoff" is reported the operator records it in such a way that we can separate various types: observed (the operator was on line), reported by customer, one-way transmission, noise, etc. All known data is recorded by the switch (DMS-200) and output as a log report that is collected by a separate computer. Every day this data is passed to each toll center as a dual list, one sorted by time and another sorted by telephone number. We keep a running count on cutoffs from each toll center and each trunk group. Needless to say there have been many problems come to light because of this. The common problems are with line switches, and less likely the trunk facilities (microwave, carrier, etc.), and least likely with the toll switch. I know of only one case of suspected fraud. It is interesting in view of recent events, but we just thought it strange at the time. One number reported approximately five cutoffs per week calling to Kuwait. We could find no record of normal calls from that number to Kuwait. After watching this pattern for a month or so we just called the number and asked if there was a problem ... not one cutoff has been reported since. One other interesting point. I do not know exactly how AT&T handles the same data, but I do know they collect it and analyze it. And if they don't like the percentages they will complain about high cutoff rates to connecting LD carriers. Disclaimer: Alascom, Inc. may not agree with anything I say. Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Do You Tell When .... (I Need Information Also) Date: 3 Feb 91 04:26:20 EST (Sun) From: Bob Falcon Hi TCD 'ers, In a message posted : Date: 2 Oct 90 14:53:05 GMT, Craig Steinberger asks : >I'm trying to find a device that lights up when a phone extension is >picked up. That way I can know if a phone line with multiple >extensions is in use without picking up the phone itself ... >[Moderator's Note: We have discussed this many times in the Digest. >Would one of you readers with a schmatic send it along to Craig, with >a parts list, etc. Thanks. PAT] I find I am in need of a similar device, and would appreciate much if someone could mail me any info/schematic/etc needed to put this together. Thanks Pat, all. Have a good one. Catchya later, Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ] [ 1:273/906 @Fidonet ][ (215) 745-9774 HST/DS ] internet: bfalcon@rescon.uucp uucp: { cdin-1 || dsinc.dsi.com }!alba2l!rescon!bfalcon [Moderator's Note: So send Bob the information also please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ccocswb Subject: Re: Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices? Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 17:47:14 EDT Reply-To: eefacwb@prism.gatech.edu In article <16650@accuvax.nwu.edu> drz@po.cwru.edu (David R. Zinkin) writes: >Can anyone tell me the names (and addresses and phone numbers, >preferably) of companies manufacturing Caller-ID equipment? >I know of something called ClassMate, but I don't know who makes it or >any other similar devices. Well, Bell Atlantic sells a bunch of Caller-ID boxes and phones in its catalog. Their phone number is (800) 523-0552. Their prices seem reasonable enough, considering that there is not really a lot of competition yet in the Caller-ID display market. Bell Atlantic sells ClassMate for $49.95 (save your money though, don't buy the "special" cable. It's just a 9-to-25 or 25-to-25 pin RS-232 cable. It costs $24.95 from BA.) But more in line with answering your question, ClassMate is made by MHE Systems Corporation, 14251 Chambers Rd., Tustin, Cal., 92680. The following companies also sell Caller-ID devices: Eagle Telephonics Inc. 375 Oser Avenue Hauppauge, NY 11788 (800) 545-1438 CIDCO, Inc. 56 Harrison Street New Rochelle, NY 10801 unknown phone # Colonial Data Technologies Corp. 80 Pickett District Road New Milford, Connecticut 06776 (203) 355-3178, ask for Ron LaBarbera (he is Marketing Director) Bell Atlantic sells devices made by all of the above companies. Be sure to call them and ask for a catalog of their telephone equipment. Also, Hello Direct (800) HI-HELLO, sells the products of Colonial Data (Hello's prices are a bit more than Bell Atlantic's). I am a satisfied customer of both Hello Direct and Bell Atlantic, but in this case my personal recommendation goes to BA because of their large selection and competitive pricing. In my opinion, both organizations "aim to please" and will do nearly anything to keep a customer or potential customer happy. Hope this has helped David and anyone else in the Telecom wings who may have wondered where this stuff comes from. (Note: different account, same guy. bill@eedsp.gatech.edu is undergoing repairs for now.) Bill Berbenich School of EE DSP Lab Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!eefacwb Internet: eefacwb@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Gunsul Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! Date: 3 Feb 91 22:40:14 GMT Organization: AT&T Montgomery Works, Montgomery, IL In article <16643@accuvax.nwu.edu>, John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com writes: < Regarding testing phone lines at the demark ... those who are new at < this should be told that ringing voltage can give you one heckuva < memorable shock. I learned this the hard way when I was fourteen. < [Moderator's Note: Yes-sir-ee! I think we all had to learn our lesson < the hard way at one time or another. It helps a little if it is a hot, < humid day and your hands are sweaty. Then you don't even have to wait < for the bell to ring! :) This reminds me of the time I was 'brousing' < inside a 100-watt linear amplifier for a CB and I forgot to put my < screwdriver in there first to discharge the capacitors. Instead of < 'arguing with' the metal part of the screwdriver, the DC worked me < over good on the way to ground instead. I've had a couple of RF burns < also. That really feels good! PAT] Pat, a 100-watt linear amplifier for CB!!?? I thought that was illegal?? Phil [Moderator's Note: Indeed they are illegal for use on Citizens Band frequencies in the USA; i.e. 26.965 - 27.405 megs. They can be purchased in the USA for export purposes only, although a lot of guys buy them claiming they will be used only in the ten meter band while knowing good and well the amp can easily be tuned to eleven meters (CB) with no hassle. For that matter, I think the FCC has banned the use of linear amps in ten meters also; they're not fooled! About 25 years ago a fellow sold me a tuneable ten/eleven meter rig made by Allied Radio. (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago for you young'uns reading this.) He threw in a bunch of stuff: the linear, a phone patch, lots of RG-8 coax, the Sams Photo-Facts book, etc. I never did use the linear. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 1991 18:12:48 -0500 (EST) From: Dan_Bloch@transarc.com Subject: Silly Question This is pretty basic, but a friend asked me and I don't know the answer. The question is, how does a telephone signal get between my phone and the CO? It's an analog signal on a two-wire pair when it leaves my house, and there isn't a sheaf of twisted pairs a foot across running all around the city. So what happens to it? Dan Bloch dan@transarc.com ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Personal Communications Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 23:47:01 GMT In article <16625@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jyacc!charles@uunet.uu.net (Charles McGuinness) writes: > For those who can't wait for universal "Personal Numbers" that > stay with you when you move around, I have an easy solution: > Get an 800 number. I thought you could only call 800 numbers from within the NANP. That's not very universal, is it? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 23:54:58 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Rural Areas Getting Hooked on Cellular In the {St.Louis Post-Dispatch}, Sunday, February 3, 1991, Jerri Stroud reported on the rapid growth of cellular systems throughout rural and small-town America. She points out that only eighteen months ago, the idea of virtually one hundred percent coverage across the USA by cellular carriers was at best an optimistic plan for the future. She noted that rural cellular service is seven years behind urban service. It was only in 1989 that the Federal Communications Commission began handing out provisional licenses for 428 rural and/or small town areas. As in the big cities, the FCC awarded two licenses in each of these areas: one went automatically to the local telco and the other by lottery. As part of the lottery process, the potential licensees had to demonstrate financial responsibility and technical competence. At that point, once a qualified carrier was selected by lottery, the carrier was permitted to apply for a construction permit. Once construction is complete the carrier then applies again for an operating license. One of the first carriers to turn on their service was Missouri Cellular Management Corp., serving the Steelville, MO area. It began operations on October 10, 1990. According to Tim Cherry, owner of Missouri Cellular, demand for the service has far exceeded his greatest expectations. Just three months into operation, he has over 400 subscribers. Cherry said he had to start taking orders for the service almost a year ago because so many people were stopping in to sign up. Apparently his experience is not unique. Other rural cellular companies are reporting booming sales figures in their territory. The Federal Communications Commission requires that cellular companies must put at least one tower into operation within eighteen months of receiving their construction permit. They then have five years once service is started to entend their service to 75 percent of their designated territory, and several more years to reach 100 percent coverage. Every tower -- including land, construction costs, antenna, radio equipment and miscellaneous expenses -- costs between $300,000 and $600,000. Before the FCC awards a license, they want to see where the money is going to come from. And before a cellular carrier puts up a tower they want to make sure it will amortize, or pay for itself in a reasonable time. Because most cellular companies start with a very small subscriber base, revenue from roamers is very important. Time and again, the first tower to be constructed is along the interstate highway someplace. Roamers cost the cellular company almost nothing since the home system handles billing and customer service. So the new cellular carrier puts the first tower in a place where they can catch all the roamers passing through the area easily. Once that tower is up and running, meeting the FCC's requirements to start operations within 18 months (a kind of use it or lose it philosophy), then the carrier begins expanding with towers in the most prosperous towns and villages in the service area. Tom Rudd of CyberTel Cellular seems to think that once a carrier has built its most profitable tower, ie, the 'interstate highway outside of town', they have little incentive to build more towers in less prosperous areas. According to Commission records, 150 of the 428 rural area licensees have begun at least limited service. All but 45 have at least begun construction of their first tower. Most of these 45 are in very thinly populated Western states, and the FCC says if they have not begun service by the end of March another lottery will held to find other interested operators. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #91 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29200; 5 Feb 91 4:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32122; 5 Feb 91 2:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13868; 5 Feb 91 1:40 CST Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 0:47:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #92 BCC: Message-ID: <9102050047.ab26464@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Feb 91 00:46:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 92 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Electronic Surveillance Bill in WA; Electronic Communications [P. Marshall] Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [Carl Moore] Long Distance Rates and Access Codes [Bernard F. Collins] John Bardeen is Dead [TELECOM Moderator] Sprint World and Sprint Billing Options [Ken Jongsma] Bell of PA Calling Card Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben] MCI Pays to Switch [Ray Guydosh] Correction to "Flashing an Operator..." [Douglas Scott Reuben] Electronics 10 Commandments [Bob Izenberg] Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? [David Singer] Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? [Ted Marshall] Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Steven W. Grabhorn] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Electronic Surveillance Bill in WA; Electronic Communications From: Peter Marshall Date: Mon, 04 Feb 91 13:17:00 PST Organization: The 23:00 News A bill recently introduced in the WA State Legislature, ostensibly dealing with use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, but intended to void a key State Supreme Court decision that is an important component of current communications privacy protection in Washington State, is otherwise disturbing given its apparent application to what the bill defines as "electronic communications." Essentially, SB5126 and HB1351, its House companion, would broaden the use of these devices with only minimal standards and minimal, if any, consent required. These devices basically track and record the transaction-generated information related to communications; the pen register re: outgoing calls initiated and trap-and-trace devices re: incoming calls. These bills define "electronic communication service" as "a service that provides to its users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;" and "electronic communications system" as "a ... facility for the transmission of electronic communications, and computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications." The Senate version of the bill appears headed for the Senate Floor after coming out of the Senate Law & Justice Committee. The House version has its first hearing this week. The bill's Senate sponsor, Senator Gary Nelson, has been a longtime US West employee, and is a Republican. Peter Marshall ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 14:27:05 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland With this year's 301/410 split coming in Maryland, I thought I'd review two prefixes (both at military bases) which seem to have a wide calling area. The 800-477-4704 helpline says they both stay in 301, but note the comments by me (and I don't know what the calling instructions from these prefixes are): 688 at Fort Meade -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as "Fort Meade (Waterloo)", and in Washington-area call guides as "Fort Meade (Berwyn)", apparently because it has both Baltimore and Washington metro local service. This prefix was apparently never in the 202 area (that's moot now, because all Maryland and Virginia points were removed from 202). As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade), the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for zip code 20755?). 878 at Fort Ritchie -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as "Fort Ritchie (Baltimore city)", and in Washington-area call guides with the Silver Spring prefixes. Also, I found out back in 1989 that the same prefix is reachable in area 717, as part of the (neighboring) Blue Ridge Summit (Pa.) exchange. Fort Ritchie proper is in a part of Maryland which is to stay in 301, but notice the reference to Baltimore city, which is going into 410. 878 as a Washington-area prefix was reachable in area code 202, but should have dropped out of that area as part of the DC area changes last fall. (By the way, a useful rule of thumb might be this: If local to Baltimore, it goes into 410; if local to DC, it stays in 301. Notice that 804 in Virginia is too far away to affect the local calling from the Va. suburbs of DC, but 410 will include some points local to the Md. suburbs of DC.) ------------------------------ From: "Bernard F. Collins" Subject: Long Distance Rates and Access Codes Organization: University of Maryland at College Park Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 21:28:41 GMT This must have been covered many times. But I'm new to this group and need to know. Is there some way to find out the LD rates for different carriers at different times between my home area code/exchange and the many LD exchanges that I call regularly? What about access codes? What 10XXX codes are available for consumer use? Does their use affect rates in comparison with using normal Dial-1 long distance? The level of service I received from AT&T, MCI and Sprint via mail and phone in answering these questions varied from worthless to nil. "Get it in writing" seems only to apply to business customers. Many thanks, Skip Collins (collins@128.8.71.3) (301) 792-6243, collins@wam.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:37:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: John Bardeen is Dead John Bardeen, 83, professor emeritus and faculty member of the University of Illinois in Champaign, IL since 1951 died January 30 in Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Dr. Bardeen was a two-time Nobel Prize winner for his work on transistors and superconductivity. He was widely regarded by the scientific community as a genius on the level of Albert Einstein. Dr. Bardeen was the last surviving member of the Bell Telephone Laboratories team that invented the transistor many years ago which as we all know prompted the electronics revolution. We owe him a moment of silent praise and thanks. PAT ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint World and Sprint Billing Options Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 18:59:21 EST From: Ken Jongsma Sprint World: In my bill flyer this month, Sprint announced a new world calling plan. Entitled Sprint World, it offers calls to Europe for .59/min, Canada for .19/min, Asia for .79/min and Mexico for .24-.89/min. The charge is 3.00/month in addition to the per minute charges. I did call Sprint for details: The rates apply during the existing Sprint Economy periods, plus all day Saturday and Sunday. There is a 5% discount during standard rate time periods. RBOC billing: Sprint has announced that some Sprint subscribers will start getting their Sprint billing included with their local service billing. If you are like me and prefer Sprints bill, you can call Sprint and ask that you not be billed via your local BOC. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: 4-FEB-1991 20:03:01.39 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Bell of PA Calling Card Calls Note: This is NOT another "new"/"old" Calling Card system post! :) :) I got my phone bill today, and took a comparative look at the local and LD sections: -A 1 minute call (11:30PM) from Reading, PA (215-373-9??? -payphone) to New Castle, DE (302-740-7626), with my calling card, was $1.18, via "Bell Atlantic" (or really Bell Of PA). This was the "default" which the payphone used, naturally. -The same call the next day, from the same payphone, to the same DE number, at 12AM, was only $.12 cents on my Reach Out America Plan. If I did not have the plan, it would have been $.92. (Note that this is between two states, 1so ROA's Calling Card discount is applicable.) Why would Bell of PA charge MORE for a call than AT&T, in between TWO states? (and not IN-State). IE, in an area where there is competition, as in the NY/NJ corridor, NY Tel and NJ Bell charge LESS than AT&T (not including ROA). NJ Bell even "makes" itself the default carrier from its payphones on all calls which it is allowed to handle to NYC. It would seem to be that either there is a VERY low volume of calls between PA and DE that Bell O' PA doesn't mind this business going over to AT&T, or no one told them about this! Is it as strange with 1+ calls as well? So much for rational toll pricing ... (not that it was ever all that great to begin with ...) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 20:52 EST From: Ray Guydosh Subject: MCI Pays to Switch I received a mail promotion for MCI Primetime accompanied by a gift -- a Twenty Dollar check in my name. From the promotional literature: "Don't forget to endorse your check before depositing or cashing it. With your signature, you authorize MCI to notify your local telephone company to switch your primary long distance service to MCI PrimeTime (SM)." And from the back of the check, under the space for endorsement: "With this signature, I authorize MCI (R) to switch my Dial-1 Long Distance Service to MCI PrimeTime, and I authorize MCI to notify my local telephone company of this choice for the telephone number listed on the front of this check. I understand that I may choose only one long distance company for this telephone number, and that if I choose more than one company, none of my choices will be considered valid." I already DO have more than one long distance carrier on some of my lines, none of which are MCI -- as far as I know, that is. ;-) I suppose that they really mean "no more than one Dial-1 carrier". But what are the implicatons of "if I choose more than one ... none of my choices will be considered valid." If that were true, that would help eliminate the slamming practice, right? Also, as it turns out, the telephone number "listed on the front of this check" is a telephone number that I haven't "owned" in seven months. I suppose that if I cashed the check, MCI might "slam" the number's new "owner". (Don't worry, I'm not going to cash it.) Ray Guydosh, GUYDOSRM@SNYPLAVA.BITNET (Even if the header says something else.) ------------------------------ Date: 4-FEB-1991 20:00:45.96 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Correction to "Flashing an Operator..." re: My post on flashing an operator on the "new" vs. the "old" calling card systems (used by AT&T and some BOCs), Pat noted: > [Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was > intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told > my call could not be completed as dialed. PAT] Hmmm...woops...what I *meant* to say was: 1. Dial 0+out-of-lata AT&T call (for those not in Canada dial 0-416-455-9950, which is not in service. Any INTER-lata number will work, though..) 2. Enter Calling Card Number. 3. Hit the "#"/Octothorpe button. 4. Dial 415-767-1212. You should then get the message from the AT&T Calling Card system, and not the generic local one. (Later, try making another sequence call, but this time, push the "#" at the end of the number, and see how much faster it goes through, or rather, how much longer the "new" system takes if you do not enter the "#". ) I also tried dialing 0-415-767-1212 as a "first" call, and NOT as a sequence call. I got "Your call can not be completed as dialed...[etc.] 914-0T". That's nice... THEN, I tried 1-415-767-1212 ... I got "Your call can not be completed as dialed ... [etc.] 203-2T" Hmmm... ^^^^^^ So 1+ calls to invalid prefixes are stopped locally, while 0+ (initial) calls to invalid prefixes are stopped at the nearest (or a) "Calling Card center"? (White Plains?) Interesting ... Is this correct? Sorry for the lack of clarity in my previous post. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleya.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: Electronics Ten Commandments Date: 4 Feb 91 21:37:05 GMT Organization: The Shekhinah Project, Austin, TX Pat, Your post about shocks that you've gotten reminded me of a chart hanging on the wall in the engineer's office at a radio station that I once worked in. The applicable line was something like: Thou shalt not work on ungrounded circuits, for electrical cooking is a slothful process, and thee might sizzle in thine own fat for hourse before thy Maker saw fit to bring thee into his fold. I wish that I remembered the rest. Perhaps an alert c.d.t. reader has seen and saved a copy from somewhere. Bob ------------------------------ From: USENET_INTERFACE@ibm.com Subject: Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? Date: 4 Feb 91 19:27:32 GMT Reply-To: David Singer Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center When someone calls my answering machine and hangs up just before the beep, the machine will often wind up recording the "You have exceeded the time allotted to dial this call" message from the phone company. The timing has to be just right for this to happen; usually, the machine detects and erases null calls. David Singer -- Internet: singer@ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (amusing disclaimer du jour goes here) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 16:47:07 PST From: Ted Marshall Subject: Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? I don't think it's your cordless phone but your answering machine, although this depends on exactly what message you are getting. I use to get the last part of the message "Your call cannot be completed as dialed; please hang up ..." on my answering machine. What I finally descovered was that the caller(s) was hanging up as soon as my outgoing message started. During the time that the rest of the outgoing message was playing, the phone company presented and then timed-out dial-tone (because the outgoing message was playing, the machine did not notice the hang-up or dial-time). By the time the machine started recording the incoming message, the phone co. was playing the dial-tone time-out message, which the AM recorded. I solved the problem by shortening my outgoing message so the AM would notice the dial-tone. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. ------------------------------ From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA Date: 4 Feb 91 06:28:47 GMT Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego The January 7th, '91 issue of {Telephony} contains a two page article on the Cuban phone system. The article states: AT&T, the sole company authorized to handle telephone traffic between the United States and Cuba, says a miniscule 79 lines connect south- ern Florida ... to the Caribbean nation of 10.6 million inhabitants. The reason is plain and simple: Washington's 1962 trade embargo against Fidel Castro. "Approximately 40 million attempts are made to reach the AT&T operator to place calls to Cuba, of which we complete about 400,000," says AT&T's managing director for the Caribbean. ... Despite the absence of diplomatic ties, AT&T will soon complete an $8-million cable running from West Palm Beach, Fla., to Cojimar, a town east of Havana. The cable, expected to begin operation by March, will replace a 1949 cable that has long since decayed, as well as an obsolete 1957 radio link between Havana and the Florida Keys. "Once we get the cable in service, quality should improve, but there won't be a substantial change in the number of lines," Cavanagh told Telephony, adding that the U.S. and Cuba also have signed a new agreement governing telephone traffic between the two countries. The treaty, subject to U.S. Treasury approval, was signed June 28 and replaces a previous agreement that had been in effect for 40 years. Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152 Phone:619-553-3454 Internet:grabhorn@nosc.mil UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #92 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00595; 5 Feb 91 5:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02303; 5 Feb 91 3:51 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32122; 5 Feb 91 2:47 CST Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 2:14:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #93 BCC: Message-ID: <9102050214.ab20209@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Feb 91 02:14:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 93 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Neil Rickert] Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Gunsul] Allied Radio / Radio Shack [John L. Shelton] Whoopsie [Nick Sayer] Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [Craig Watkins] Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [John Higdon] Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Harry Burford] Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service [Peter da Silva] Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad [Carl Moore] Re: Phillipsburg, NJ [Tom Coradeschi] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Neil Rickert Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! Organization: Northern Illinois University Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 14:55:00 GMT In article <16667@accuvax.nwu.edu> prg@mgweed.uucp (Gunsul) writes: >[Moderator's Note: Indeed they are illegal for use on Citizens Band >... >years ago a fellow sold me a tuneable ten/eleven meter rig made by >Allied Radio. (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago >for you young'uns reading this.) He threw in a bunch of stuff: the Wrong. Allied Radio was one of Radio Shack's competitors. Radio Shack had several competitors, all of whom were (in my opinion) better than Radio Shack. There was quite some choice in those days. Alas the business became non-profitable, probably because of the integrated circuit. Radio Shack bet on computers (with its TRS80 series) and survived. The others (or most of them are no more). Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940 [Moderator's Note: Yes and no. See the next couple of messages for more detail on this. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gunsul Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! Date: 4 Feb 91 15:55:36 GMT Organization: AT&T Montgomery Works, Montgomery, IL In article <16667@accuvax.nwu.edu>, prg@mgweed.uucp (Gunsul) writes: < Pat, a 100-watt linear amplifier for CB!!?? I thought that was < illegal?? < [Moderator's Note: Indeed they are illegal for use on Citizens Band < frequencies in the USA; i.e. 26.965 - 27.405 megs. They can be < purchased in the USA for export purposes only, although a lot of guys < buy them claiming they will be used only in the ten meter band while < knowing good and well the amp can easily be tuned to eleven meters < (CB) with no hassle. For that matter, I think the FCC has banned the < use of linear amps in ten meters also; they're not fooled! About 25 < years ago a fellow sold me a tuneable ten/eleven meter rig made by < Allied Radio. (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago < for you young'uns reading this.) He threw in a bunch of stuff: the < linear, a phone patch, lots of RG-8 coax, the Sams Photo-Facts book, < etc. I never did use the linear. PAT] Thanks Pat, I'm proud of you! 'Had me worried for a second! Allied Radio! I remember the thrill of getting my mother to take me into Chicago to pick up the speakers for my "Sweet Sixteen" speaker encloser which I built from the plans in "Popular Electronics"! Those were the days. Phil - WB9AAX [Moderator's Note: Then you no doubt remember the big warehouse store they operated at Western Ave. and Washington Blvd., right across the street from Olson Electronics (remember them also?). In the late fifties and early sixties we'd go shopping there on Sunday. Unless you went in right at 10 AM when they opened you could count on being there several hours before you got out, what with the sales people having to call to the back for 'stock checks' and such. Credit approval could take another thirty minutes (they did their own credit in house) and you would then wait until your name was called on the public address speaker: "Townson, go to cashier seven". You'd wait in line there for maybe ten minutes to sign off on everything and pick up your package. After Tandy/Allied closed the store, it was vacant for a few months; since that time it has been a local office for Illinois Public Aid. Olson Electronics remained open several more years but I guess they are gone now also. That whole neighborhood is the pits now: stereotypical inner city advanced urban decay. Nothing around there now but the welfare office, a couple of liquor stores and the omnipresent Illinois State Lottery agents. *Ancient* painting on the side of the welfare office now mostly faded away welcomes everyone to Allied Radio, open Sundays, HAymarket 1 - 2600, parking for customers only. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 16:25:53 -0800 From: "John L. Shelton" Subject: Allied Radio / Radio Shack ... (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago for you young'uns reading this.)... Not true. Radio Shack was formed in 1920 (approx) in Boston, MA, and for years had the one store on Commonwealth Ave. They branched out into mail order over the years. In the 60's, Radio Shack was bought by the Tandy Corporation, which at the time was doing mostly leather and craft stuff. Eventually, RS became the large portion of Tandy, and I believe the craft business is almost completely gone. Allied Radio is as old as RS, and was based in Chicago, as PAT should well know. Allied Radio was a mail order house only, doing both commercial and residential electronics. They sold brand-name hifi out of the same catalog that listed GE transistors etc. Allied also eventually branched out to retail stores and had in the neighborhood of a hundred or so when ... in the late 60's or early 70s, Tandy bought Allied and tried to merge it with R/S. For a few years, all the stores were labelled "Allied Radio Shack". The Justice Department stepped in, deciding that this was a "Bad Idea", but by the time they did so, Tandy had closed all but about 30 or so of the original Allied stores. Tandy took Allied to wholesale only, and eventually sold off the Allied business, though for years Allied carried Radio Shack parts. =John= [Moderator's Note: You are wrong on the 'Allied was mail order only' statement. See the message before this. They did have a mail order division but their big warehouse store on the west side of Chicago was a beehive of activity for hams, CB'ers, and lots of other early radio freaks for thirty years or more, circa 1930 through the mid-60's. When they annouced that Tandy had bought them out (yes, Tandy was originally into handicraft type projects, a sort of Heathkit for people who liked basket weaving and knitting sweaters, etc) they had a big sale and got rid of all *non Tandy* merchandise. They cleared out all sorts of radio equipment from other companies and filled the place with Tandy stock. Allied lost most of its loyal customers as a result. Then came the Allied Radio Shacks, the final closure of the west side warehouse store in Chicago, and the birth of the dozens of much smaller (Tandy merchandise only!) Radio Shack stores across Anerica. Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing these days? Are they still around? My first terminal was a Zenith Z-19 which I built from a Heathkit in 1980, meaning it was actually an H-19 instead. The last I heard, they closed the Benton Harbor facility. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 20:16:38 -0800 From: Nick Sayer Subject: Whoopsie In article <16643@accuvax.nwu.edu>, the Moderator writes: > For that matter, I think the FCC has banned the use of linear amps > in ten meters also [...] That's not true. They just made HF amplifiers intended for use in the Amateur service type accepted equipment, and the type acceptance is based on the inability of the amp to do any amplifying in the 10/11 meter vicinity. You can, if you're a licensed amateur, build or modify an amp to work on 10 meters - you can even build up to one a year and sell it to a licensed ham without type acceptance. The upshot is that once you've got an amp that works on 10 meters, there's nothing to keep you from using it. Getting it is made a little more difficult, but for a licensed ham, it's no big deal. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ [44.2.1.17] 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) Date: 4 Feb 91 08:50:26 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article <16659@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gtisqr!toddi@yang.cpac. washington.edu (Todd Inch) writes: > That's what I have. GTE (north of Seattle, WA, near Everett) didn't > charge extra to make the first line hunt to the second line when the > first is busy, which surprised me a bit. Monthly and LD charges for > both lines are intermixed on a single bill. Same thing here in Bell of PA land. > I had originally asked for a "circular hunt" where calls coming into > the second line would also hunt the first, but they won't give it to > me. [...] > After not giving me what I'd asked for and then playing around for a > few days, GTE finally said that a circular hunt wasn't tarriffed, so > they couldn't do it. They admitted that their equipment could do it, > and even said they had it programmed that way for about a half day, > then realized there was no tarriff for it and changed it back. Can > anyone give evidence that this IS tarriffed? (Tad?) Here's how it works here according to Bell of PA when I checked a few years ago: Circular hunting is tarriffed as a business service. So if I wanted circular, I would have had to switch my service to business and pay a fairly high monthly rate for it (I think it was around $8/month -- I forget if that was per line for sure, but I think it was). I found this out right after moving across town into a new place. In the old place I had (free) circular hunting with the folks next door (different address, different bill). (In case one wonders what use that would be, we had both lines running into a shared PBX.) The folks at Bell that moved my service for me had no idea how I got that installed originally (I just asked, I think). It seems like the old business/residence thing. Many residential reps don't even know what circular hunting is. > We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you > have the wrong number." But that just confused them and they wanted > to know how we knew. I have some "extra" lines on my electronic set at work (software defined numbers -- no actual addition hardware involved). When they ring, I know it's a wrong number. I've actually been suprised at the number of people that accept "Sorry, wrong number" that I actually now use that most of the time. It lets the people know they dialed wrong and it lets me get off the phone fairly quickly. > Now I just answer "We're sorry, the number you > have dialed has been disconnected or is no longer in service . . ." :-) > Their response is now usually just a click as they hang up after the > first few words of my intercept impression. I like that. Good idea. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 17:07 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) Todd Inch writes: > We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you > have the wrong number." You are absolutely correct: people cannot deal with a phone answered in that manner. Throughout life, I have always had at least one telephone line that was not only unlisted, but one that I had never given out to anyone for any reason. If the line was connected to an answerable phone, I would sometimes answer it in the manner you describe. Most of the time people are just bewildered. But sometimes they became hostile and insisted that I could not possibly know that they had a wrong number without their announcement of whom they were calling. Those were even funnier at times since I would begrudgingly invite them to tell me to whom they wished to speak and then (with greatly enforced authority) inform them that they had indeed reached the wrong number. Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Harry Burford Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm Date: 4 Feb 91 13:50:02 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS MCMAHON%GRIN1.BITNET (McMahon,Brian D) writes: |>Which reminds me ... again. :-) Does anyone know if MARS is still in |>business? MARS is/was the Military Auxiliary Radio Service (or |>System, I'm a bit hazy on the acronym), and provided a radio link |>between soldiers and the Stateside phone network. Has this service |>been declared outmoded, or are they still doing their good work? |>Brian McMahon Grinnell College Computer Services Yes, MARS is in operation. I'm not a member, but a recent WESTLINK story (WESTLINK is a ham-radio news service) said that there was a ham that has completed over 300 phone patches so far. The story also said that SPRINT was picking up the phone bill. Try lurking on the rec.ham-radio to pick up more complete info. There is also a topic area on the ham radio forum on Compu$erve where radio frequencies are listed and this topic is more completely discussed. Harry Burford - NCR Peripheral Products Division PHONE:316-636-8016 TELEX:417-465 FAX:316-636-8889 CALL:KA0TTY SLOWNET:3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita KS C-$erve:76226,2760 SS: 9.5 Harry.Burford@Wichita.NCR.COM ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 15:03:57 GMT Higdon, et al, keep pointing out how the PUC screwed up by allowing rate increases for dropping touch-tone charges, when they already did them a bunch of other favors in exchange for dropping this charge. Have any of you guys told the PUC about this? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 10:09:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad Did anyone check the latest Sheraton directory to look for any comment about the Sheraton in Baghdad (also Kuwait if they have a hotel there)? Holiday Inn has a hotel in Kuwait, and the latest edition of their directory still lists it as usual, but adds a note that Holiday Inns currently cannot take reservations for it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 11:52:10 EST From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Re: Phillipsburg, NJ Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center Reply-To: Tom Coradeschi >I visited Phillipsburg, NJ recently (U.S. 22 and I-78 just across the >Delaware River from Easton, PA). Phillipsburg is going into the 908 >area, but I found pay phones displaying 201 in some cases and 908 in >others. (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for >the full cutover?) The Phillipsburg prefixes are 213,454,859; and 908 works right now, and is being given out by DA, appears on phone bills, etc. It becomes mandatory on 8 Jun 91. >they are a local call from Easton in 215 area; notice the N1X prefix >(213), but (quite recently) 215 area began requiring 1+NPA+7D instead >of 7D for local calls into a different area code. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil <+> tcora@dacth01.bitnet [Moderator's Note: These area code changes always take years to get the payphones properly identified for some reason. The Chicago suburban area still has payphones whose number tag reads '312'. I don't think they ever bother to change the number tag. The phones are in 708 of course. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #93 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27690; 6 Feb 91 1:45 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14555; 6 Feb 91 0:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30165; 5 Feb 91 23:01 CST Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 22:49:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #94 BCC: Message-ID: <9102052249.ab09272@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Feb 91 22:48:53 CST Volume 11 : Issue 94 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues [Bill Huttig] Re: Phillipsburg, NJ [Gerry Lachac] Re: LD Calling Card Not Tied to Home Phone [Mark Van Buskirk, Randy Borow] Re: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today [S. Srinivasan] Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service [John Higdon] Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [Peter da Silva] Help Needed Cancelling Call Waiting [Jonathan White] Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls [Roy Smith] Re: ROLM Phone Compatibility [Robert Brauer] Telecom Industry Directories: Get Listed Free! [Nigel Allen] Payphone Number Stickers [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues Date: 5 Feb 91 00:13:45 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I just thought I'd post an update on the status of my account. The Telecom*USA central divison finally changed the flags on my phone line around the 27th of Jan. I received a copy of my 1/1/91 invoice today. I also recieved two welcome kits. The first one was a PrimeTime plus Personal 800 and it had the info on the second 800 number I set up (The one that rings at my aunt's). The other one had a brand new 800 number and was a regular Personal 800 account ($5/mo $.25/min type) ... so I called and the rep found that they had set up a new account for me. She transfered (I guess she requested that it be transferred) it to my existing account. Then I had her explain the other charges section on the bill. It seems that they break down the monthly charge into PrimeTime Minimum Adjustment which only shows if you didn't use your hour ($6.50) usage. The other is called PRIMETIME OPTIONS ... mine shows $4.75 which is $1.00 for the 10% day discount and $1.75 for intrastate option and $2.00 for the 800 number ... She said somthing to the effect that the charge was $2 no matter how many 800 numbers you received. (According to the bill I have this seems true.) On my first invoice I had a lot of calls that were for one minute and I thought were not answered and I asked for credit, (This might be due to the fact that the equipment in this area was at one time SouthLand before SouthernNet bought it and then Telecom*USA but the TELECOM*USA/MCI Supervisior stats that is impossible to have unsupervised calls and will not credit those calls. As far as 800 calls are concerned there were only a couple on my bill so I couldn't tell. I guess I need to keep a log every time the numbers are used. I called Torie several times last week to see if my account was credited or not ... she was 'unavailable'. I left one message but she never returned my call. They say I owe $149.19 (for two months). I did a rough rerate my self and decided that Telecom*USA rates that showed are about 27%-30% too high. So I should end up with about $105 after adjustments. Also, I have found a way to get signed up for the service without getting MCI/Telecom*USA (if you have RingMaster) as the dial one service. Simply sign up for PrimeTime and use the RingMaster (or whatever your Phone Co. calls it) number as the line you want connected. There is no way a call can originate from that number. >> issued is basically just a shared number among a large number of >> customers. (Anyone know how many?) They say it is much like a When I talked to MCI/TELECOM*USA a while back a very nice Customer Service Representative said 3000 PIN's per number. In article <16621@accuvax.nwu.edu> forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: [about MCI/TELECOM*USA stating that the PIN was the last four digits of the number] They asked me for a PIN also ... I don't know why ... Maybe the originally planned to give each user his/her own number with a PIN so that they didn't have to adjust for wrong numbers. But if you dial a call from a rotary phone the MIC/Telecom*USA operator will answer and ask for the PIN and complete the call. Bill ------------------------------ From: gerry@dialogic.com (Gerry Lachac) Subject: Re: Phillipsburg, NJ Organization: Dialogic Corporation Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 15:18:27 GMT In article <16627@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >others. (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for >the full cutover?) The 908 area code is usable now, as of Jan 1 I believe. NJ Bell advertises about the change over in the local newspapers. Full cutover is either June 1 or July 1, I forget. As the deadline grow near, I'm sure I'll see some full page adverts. ------------------------------ From: mvanbusk@bcm1a05.attmail.com Date: Mon Feb 4 09:43:09 CST 1991 Subject: Re: LD Calling Card Not Tied To Home Phone Regarding Jim Rees inquiry on calling cards he can contact AT&T at 1-800-525-7955 and ask for a non-subscriber calling card. These cards are issued to people with out a home telephone number. Bills are issued from the Orlando billing center. Mark Van Buskirk Rolling Meadows, Il [Moderator's Note: And thanks also to Randy Borow for his message saying almost the same thing and noting that the cards usually have a $100 credit limit at first. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "S. Srinivasan" Subject: Re: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today Date: 4 Feb 91 19:43:33 GMT Organization: Ultra Network Technologies In <16584@accuvax.nwu.edu> ekrell@ulysses.att.com writes: >*** Reminder: Starting February 1st, instead of dialing 905 or 706 to >call certain parts of Mexico, you will be able to call anywhere in the >country from the United States by dialing 011 + 52 + NATIONAL NUMBER. >In areas where operator assistance is required, there will be no >additional charge. On a related note, why didn't Mexico choose to go with the "Gringo Peeg" Bell System, and opted instead for the European one? With the onset of free-trade (hopefully), this might be a severe detraction. I suspect a call to Mexico would be routed to one of the International Switching Centers (AT&T-speak) - and where's the closest one to San Diego - Atlanta?!!! Anyone care to explain what is it about the European telephone system that makes it different from the Bell System that the two require "internetworking with special-purpose routers"? Is it just that we use the North American Digital Hierarchy, i.e. DS-0,DS-1,DS-3, etc, and that they use the CEPT? Or is it more to do with Inter-Office Signalling? Thanks, and sorry for all the question marks, (S. Srinivasan ...!{ames!}srini@ultra.com) Ultra Network Technologies - "Home of the Gigabit Network" - San Jose, Calif. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 04:16 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service Peter da Silva writes: > Higdon, et al, keep pointing out how the PUC screwed up by allowing > rate increases for dropping touch-tone charges, when they already did > them a bunch of other favors in exchange for dropping this charge. > Have any of you guys told the PUC about this? Many of those on the board at the time this abortion was approved are no longer there. However, they were well aware of what a bad deal this was. There is an active member of this forum, a legislative analyst who made it quite clear to all and sundry that this was not a good thing for the public. But, of course, Pac*Bell being the behemoth that it is, pulled the necessary strings and sufficient pressure was exerted from on high (legislators who oversee the PUC) to expeditiously pass all of this stuff. At the time, our wonderful watchdog media printed every piece of fluff the Pac*Bell PR people spewed forth. I wrote letters to the editor, letters to state assemblymen, and even posted heavily in this forum against the matter. But it was all swept in on a wave of euphoric bliss. This is one of the major events that have caused my distrust of our news services. Anyone who has studied this package walks away with mouth hanging open in disbelief. If the media had actually reported reality instead of public relations propaganda, the "people" would have risen up. To answer your direct question with a direct answer: the PUC was the co conspirator in the piece. The PUC and a half dozen other state officials know very well what I think about all of this, for all the good it does. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Tue, 5 Feb 1991 15:08:30 GMT In article <16689@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would > have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number. Back when I was going to Berkeley someone accidentally gave out the # of the payphone outside the door instead of their own. They got a lot of calls, and some of the store's regulars would take to answering the phone in "interesting" ways after "Pay Phone" and "Wrong Number" wore off. "AT&T security, hold for a trace please" was one of the more memorable ones. I used a number of them a couple of years later when telemarketers started running up our dial-out modem banks. Answering with the name of the company calling always got a reaction, too. They don't do that much any more. Wonder why? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ From: jonathan white Subject: Help Needed Cancelling Call Waiting Date: 5 Feb 91 17:04:20 GMT Reply-To: jonathan white Organization: New York University There was a previous posting of an, I think, BASIC program to be used when *70 will not work to cancel call waiting that would at least prevent disconection of the modet(m call in progress. *70 works for me so I didn't take it down but have since found a need for it. If someone could mail it to me or give me a pointer I'd appreciate it. Thanx in advance. Jonathan White whitejon@acf5.nyu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 15:09:06 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City reb@ingres.com writes: > I got disconnected (I think the cordless phone on the other end ran out of > power). I dialed "00" for the operator - to get reconnected. Turns out it > was the MCI operator who told me that she could connect me with the credit > operator to give me credit for the last 1 minute and to reconnect me. This is not a flame. The point of reb's note was to gripe about the MCI operator being sly about getting him to put through the reconnect call at operator assisted rates, but I wonder what the point of getting the operator involved at all was. Getting credit for the last minute of the call is only worth a few cents; it's hardly worth the time and effort to explain to the operator what went wrong. Besides, if it was the customer's equipment which caused the disconnect (as reb suggests), why should the carrier owe you anything at all? It's not their fault the call was disconnected, is it? 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: portal!cup.portal.com!Hofbrau@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: ROLM Phone Compatibility Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 21:49:42 PST Bernie Cosell writes: >Here at BBN we have a ROLM VLCBX system. As it turns out, I'm getting >some grief from the phonedroids about replacing my instrument with a >speakerphone, and so I'm thinking of finessing the whole matter by >simply going out and BUYING a speakerphone --- phones are cheap enough >and easy enough to come by that it is hard to fathom why providing a >'BBN approved' speakerphone should be an expensive hassle, but it is. >Anyhow: does anyone know what the compatibility of 'ordinary' phones >are with the Rolm system? It looks like the 'official' Rolm >instruments all just have vanilla modular connectors on them, but I >observe that the phone has at least two not-very-standard features: <...stuff deleted...> >Are there random commercial [speaker] phones that are actually fully >compatible with the Rolm system [including the two items above]? Even >if the answer is 'yes', I'm curious about what'll happen [besides that >I'll obviously lose the above two items] if I just use a real-vanilla >phone --- it won't hurt the system or otherwise not work, will it? The ROLM phone you describe is an electronic phone. The deskset performs the analog-digital conversion for the voice channel and the link from the deskset to the switch is digital (proprietary format). This link is constantly active and, if unplugged for too long, it can be deactivated. So don't unplug your phone and definitely don't plug in a Plain Old Telephone Set. Now for your problem: all of the ROLM phones I've seen have the speakerphone built in. One of the configurable buttons is usually programmed to select the speaker option. You can check your phone as follows: 1. Is there a small (1/2in. x 1/2in.) set of slots in the very front of your phone? This is the microphone pickup for the speakerphone. 2. When the phone rings with a call, tap the line button that flashes and see if the call is answered in speaker-phone mode. OK, I just checked the manual and you might not have the two-way speakerphone. Check the underside of the phone for the model number. RP400 and RP240 have the two-way speakerphone hardware but the RP120 has the speaker only. This is to allow one-handed dialing, you don't have to pick up the handset until the called party answers. Robert Brauer ROLM Systems Inc., Santa Clara, CA. Disclaimer: These OPINIONS are mine and if you think I speak for anyone else, you're wrong. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 04:41 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Telecom Industry Directories: Get Listed Free! Here is a list of directories that telecommunications-related companies and associations may want to get listed in. A basic listing in each of them is free, but the Telephony Buyers' Guide and TE&M Directory also sell advertising. All of them depend on questionnaires to put together their listings, so if you would like to be listed, contact any or all of them and ask for a questionnaire. Telephony Buyers' Guide Attn: Tina Rubin 55 E. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 USA tel (312) 922-2435 fax (312) 922-1408 (Formerly a thick annual directory which also listed operating companies, now just an annual special issue of {Telephony Magazine}.) Telephone Engineer & Management Directory One East First Street Duluth, MN 55802 U.S.A. telephone (218) 723-9200 ext. 552 fax (218) 723-9142 (Also lists U.S. and worldwide operating companies.) Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory Attn: Mr. John Krol, editor Gale Research Inc. 835 Penobscot Bldg. Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094 USA tel. (313) 961-2242 fax (313) 961-6241 Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory P.O. Box 6789 Silver Spring, Maryland 20916 U.S.A. telephone (301) 871-5280 No fax This lists consultants in general, not just telecommunications industry consultants. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 10:14:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Payphone Number Stickers The situation described in my message about Phillipsburg, NJ is the first case I have been to an area with permissive dialing, as I don't visit New York City that much. Removing area code 202 from Md. and Va. suburbs in the Washington DC area did not change the area codes to be displayed on pay phones there. [Moderator's Note: Well, things remain real messy here in the suburbs. Many payphones still have the old stickers with 312 on them. I guess they do not bother changing them until it is otherwise necessary to do maintainence on the phone, and that makes sense in a way. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #94 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00212; 6 Feb 91 3:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14205; 6 Feb 91 2:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00428; 6 Feb 91 1:11 CST Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 0:42:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #95 BCC: Message-ID: <9102060042.ab07756@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Feb 91 00:41:58 CST Volume 11 : Issue 95 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Paul S. Sawyer] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Barton F. Bruce] Tandy/Heathkit [Ed Greenberg] Speaking of Heathkit [Steve Wolfson] Tandy Leather and Radio Shack [Sean Williams] Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [Dale Neiburg via John Covert] Voice Compression on MCI Trunks? [Howard G. Page] IEEE Conference: TENCON 92 - AUSTRALIA [Srinivasa K.R. Murthy] Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [John Luce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paul S. Sawyer" Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 18:11:56 GMT In article <16686@accuvax.nwu.edu> jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 93, Message 3 of 10 > [Moderator's Note: (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years > ago for you young'uns reading this.)... > Not true. > Radio Shack was formed in 1920 (approx) in Boston, MA, and for years > had the one store on Commonwealth Ave. They branched out into mail > order over the years. In the 60's, Radio Shack was bought by the > Tandy Corporation, which at the time was doing mostly leather and > craft stuff. Eventually, RS became the large portion of Tandy, and I > believe the craft business is almost completely gone. I seem to remember when the ONE store they had was downtown, on Washington Street, and had just about everything. I think Comm Ave was when they started to expand, become a serious commercial jobber, etc. Then Tandy made them into the McDonald's of electronics.... >[Moderator's Note: ... > Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing these >days? Are they still around? My first terminal was a Zenith Z-19 >which I built from a Heathkit in 1980, meaning it was actually an H-19 >instead. The last I heard, they closed the Benton Harbor facility. PAT] I think I have you beat on this one, Pat, I built an H-9 (yes, NINE) around 1977. It was upper case only on transmit, and RECEIVED lower case as garbage, so I had to add a gate to shift that bit on only those characters ... I have an H-89 here in working condition, which is really an H-19 with a Z-80 computer and floppy disk in it. There were still two Heath stores in the Boston area as of a few years ago, but they had a lot more of a consumer electronics/computer store feel to them ... sigh.... Paul S. Sawyer {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.unh.edu UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 FAX: +1 603 862 2030 [Moderator's Note: The H-19 (Z-19) had a hollow space on the right side of the monitor where the disk drive would fit if you were converting it to a 89. Then inside the unit right in front of the logic board there was a place to install the board for the 89 if desired. The coversion was not real hard, but I did not bother. What I did do with the H-19 was install a 'Graphics Plus' board in there instead which improved the terminal's performance greatly and made it a very smart terminal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Date: 5 Feb 91 22:29:58 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <16686@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) writes: > Radio Shack was formed in 1920 (approx) in Boston, MA, and for years > had the one store on Commonwealth Ave. They branched out into mail They moved out to Commonwealth Ave. right near the BU bridge actually quite late in their history, and well into their downward slide (IMHO) that they still continue today. They WERE on Washington St. right between what is now Government Center, and what has long been Haymarket Square. Back when I was a kid, and the subway was a nickel, they had bins of all sorts of WWII surplus electronics stuff along with the new stuff. The quality and atmosphere has never been quite the same. Back then the sales folk generally knew what they were talking about. When they finally moved to Comm. Ave. they got a bit fancier, and they were heading down hill. Now they are mostly blisterpacked gadgets on the 800% markup racks. [Moderator's Note: Sad to say, there is *no way* a radio/electronics gear store of the 1950-60 era could operate today, given the economics involved. The old Allied Radio store had *barrels* of capacitors and other components sitting around everywhere -- sort through them and take what you want. If you did not know what you wanted, the salesman would consult directories, indexes and tables to find the proper part number from other companies, etc. The salesman would spend thirty minutes with you if needed to help you find the gizmo you were looking for to use in modifying your radio, etc ... all for a two dollar sale. Olson was the same way. How they made a profit I'll never know. I guess in fact they did not make a profit since they, like Allied, are out of business. Blisterpacked gadgets and salespeople who know from nothing are where the profit is now-a-days. In the old days, the sales help in those stores were almost always hobbyists themselves, with hobbyist mentalities, stringing components together to make things work like they wanted. It was easy for them to empathize with the customer and spend time discussing your project and helping you dig through barrels of poorly marked capactitors, vacuum tubes, switches and plugs finding what was needed. Imagine most RS clerks doing that today or even knowing/caring what your home-brew project is about. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 10:39 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Tandy/Heathkit >Eventually, RS became the large portion of Tandy, and I believe the >craft business is almost completely gone. We have a "Tandy Crafts" store near my home (San Carlos Avenue in San Jose) but their hours are 10-5 Mon-Sat so I haven't been able to get in there, the few times I've wanted to try. It's an old dusty store, from what I can see, and it's not clear to me how anyone can make any money with such limited access by the public (in this day and age.) > [Modertor: Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing > these days? Are they still around? Many people recently got a Heathkit catalog. I think that the mailing list included the FCC Amateur Radio Operators database, since all the hams I know got one addressed to their FCC mailing addresses. It was pitiful. About 30% of the stuff in the catalog was buildable. The rest was sold assembled-only. The ham gear line has been decimated, the stereo/television line is about gone, and their concept of building a computer is to plug the boards in. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 08:47:45 CST From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Speaking of Heathkit Heathkit is still around and there are two or three stores left in the area. A few years ago when Zenith bought them out to get the computer technology the Heathkit part began to diminish a bit, especially since it became cheaper to buy built than the kits. A friend of mine who was an engineer for Zenith Data Systems said that they would pull the key caps off of keyboards that were imported for the "Kit" versions of the PC clones. Since the purchase of ZDS by Group Bulle, the status of Heath may be in doubt, but they are still in Benton Harbor (where the Zenith computers are made as well). ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Tue Feb 5 21:31:50 EST 1991 Subject: Tandy Leather and Radio Shack John L. Shelton writes: | In the 60's, Radio Shack was bought by the Tandy Corporation, which at the | time was doing mostly leather and craft stuff. Eventually, RS became the | large portion of Tandy, and I believe the craft business is almost | completely gone. At the Summerdale Plaza in Enola, PA (a local mini-mall) there is a Radio Shack, and a few doors down, there is a Tandy Leather and Crafts store. I always wondered about the possible connection of the companies, but I always just tossed it as a coincidence. Sean E. Williams | attmail.com!seanwilliams 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | seanwilliams@attmail.com Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: (717)/957-8139 ------------------------------ From: "John R. Covert 05-Feb-1991 1125" Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland Date: Mon, 5 Feb. 91 10:42 EST From: Dale Neiburg Organization: National Public Radio Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland On 4 Feb., Carl Moore wrote: > As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade), >the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is >going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for >zip code 20755?). I live about ten miles from Fort Meade, and about thirty *YARDS* from the new 301/410 dividing line. In fact, I live on the 410 side of the line, but my CO is on the 301 side, so I'm keeping the old, unimproved 301. As I understand it, my Zip Code (20723) will end up being divvied up between 301 and 410 also. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 08:37:12 EST From: HPAGE@ibm.com Subject: Voice Compression on MCI Trunks? I've had the honor of using MCI's LD service lately. The voice quality on a significant of my calls from the East Coast to the West Coast is slightly distracting. There seems to be some type of speech detecting circuit that annoyingly clips the first several hundred milliseconds off the voice of the called party. If the called party's transmitting power is very low, which is the case when he/she has a soft voice or is using "cheap" phone, there is intermittent cut outs of the speech. In addition, interestingly enough, when the circuit is idle there is a moderate amount of circuit (white) noise in the background that disappears as the called party speaks. I'm guessing that MCI is using some type of fast packet voice compression technology (hence the speech detection/clipping). Anybody know the definitive story? Howard G. Page hpage@ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 15:47:30 EST From: Srinivasa K R Murthy Subject: IEEE CONF - TENCON 92 - AUSTRALIA Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories A SPECIAL CALL FOR ALL THE EARLY BIRDS. TENCON 92 - AUSTRALIA IEEE TENCON 1992, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA The TENCON 1992 will be held in the World Congress Center, Melbourne, Australia. from 9th through 13th Nov 1992. The topics are Computers, Communications and Automation The theme of the conference is TECHNOLOGIES ENABLING TOMORROW I am the International Program Co-ordinator. We are planning for tutorials on 9th and 10th Nov 1992 covering the three topic tracks - Computers, Communications and Automation. I am seeking volunteers for the conference. TENCON is an international IEEE conference. It is a Region 10 conference conducted every year. Region 10 covers the Far East (Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Singapore, India, South Korea and other countries), New Zealand and Australia among other countries. The conference organizers and attendees will come from many countries around the world. The conference was hosted in 1989 by the IEEE Bombay Section. I was the Program Co-Chair of the conference. The conference featured around 70 paper sessions, a dozen panel discussions, three two-day tutorials. The conference had a very successful product exhibits program with around 90 stalls participated by companies from around the world. The conference was very successful and even attracted the attention of the press (news papers, TV and radio). The attendance was around 1200 from around 24 countries. The 1990 Tencon was conducted in Hong Kong in September, for which I was an International Advisor. We have received around 600 papers. The 1991 Tencon will be held in New Delhi, India from 26th through 30th August 1991. I am the Program Co-Chair. I am giving below suggestions for your involvement in the conference. I am sure all of you can be creative and think of more ways to contribute to the conference: a. First thing you can do is to publicize about the conference in your organization (university, industry). b. You can submit a paper for the conference and identify people in your organization and professional circles who will be interested in submitting a paper. c. More experienced people can organize a session. Students and new graduates can identify more experienced people (seniors professionals, professors) interested in organizing a tutorial or paper session and pursue it. I will be glad to guide and provide help for any of the activities. You as a volunteer, attendee, paper presenter or session organizer can convince your employer of the benefits of your and your management's participation in this conference. Please send me your session proposal and / or paper by e-mail first. Please include the following: Title of the session Summary of the session Sub-topics of the session Potential / actual papers (title, author, estimated number of pages abstract, if any) Details of the session organizer(s) / chair(s) (address, phone(s), fax, e-mail address bio, IEEE experience, session experience) For a paper please include: Title of the paper Author's details (address, phone, fax, e-mail address) Abstract Estimated number of pages Your role in TENCON can not only benefit you, but also your employer. Please respond as soon as possible with a note / letter giving the role you would like to play in TENCON 1992 (example: session chair or paper presenter with topic(s)). If you send e-mail now, you have to send a hard copy of your submittal later. Thank you, again. With warm regards. K.R.S. Murthy AT&T Bell Labs Room 2N-437 Holmdel NJ 07733 (201)-949-4850 (201)-949-5196 (Fax) E-mail ..!att!homxb!murthy or k.murthy@ieee.org or homxb!murthy@att.com ------------------------------ From: "J. Luce" Subject: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Date: 5 Feb 91 17:55:55 GMT Reply-To: "J. Luce" Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC Up to a year ago, I was an employee of BNR, Inc. (Bell Northern Research), the R&D arm of Northern Telecom, the perpetrator of this horrid thing called Caller ID. It should be noted that MANY MANY software designers who worked on this were against it's concept without the capability to block it by the CALLER. The software to do so is actually trivial but in the true sense of software companies we told our customers it was not. Anyway, we had great outpouring of disdain for this feature on the company mainframe 'Gossip' area. I give great attaboys to BNR that no action was taken via censorship or reprimands by the BNR management. In fact, several of these articles were forwarded to the PUC for insertion to the documents against No. Carolina allowing SoBell to sell Caller ID. I believe NC did not allow it at that time, but will allow SoBell to bring it up again. (BTW, I have nothing but respect for BNR, it is in general one of the best places to work, bar none). We already had a feature in place to allow crank caller numbers to be printed at the CO by pressing *XX (depends on BOC usage). Therefore, no need for CID. I feel that this is one large marketing scam only for the RBOCs and feel that if I pay for a non-published listing, that CID should be inactivated. Believe me, the software hooks are there. John Luce Alcatel Network Systems Raleigh, NC Standard Disclaimer Applies 919-850-6787 Mail? Here? Try aurs01!aurw46!luce@mcnc.org or ... !mcnc!aurgate!luce - or - John.Luce@f130.n151.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: A copy of Mr. Luce's article is being posted to the Telecom Privacy mailing list (telecom-priv@pica.army.mil) so that continued discussion may take place between interested parties in that forum. If you wish to subscribe: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #95 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27122; 7 Feb 91 2:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21139; 7 Feb 91 0:29 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11457; 6 Feb 91 23:24 CST Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 22:44:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #96 BCC: Message-ID: <9102062244.ab25214@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Feb 91 22:44:28 CST Volume 11 : Issue 96 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unbreakable Dialtones [Pete J. Bowden] Re: Phillipsburg, NJ [Stephen Tell] Re: Headset Installation Help Needed [Paul Elliott] Re: Voice Compression on MCI Trunks? [Peter M. Weiss] Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [John Abt] Re: Speaking of Heathkit [wegeng@arisia.xerox.com] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Wayne Folta] Re: LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone [Phydeaux] Re: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues [Bill Huttig] Motorola Programming Manual in Archives [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 00:46:11 -0500 From: "Pete J. Bowden" Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtones Reply-To: ap373@cleveland.freenet.edu I happen to have a multitude (14) of lines in my residence which happen to be on a GTE GTD-5 switch and experienced the same trouble which Singer mentioned, plus an added touch. Occasionally when people called my voice line they would hear me garbled. I called my house once when this intermittent condition was occurring and the best way to explain it was that the person on my phone sounded like Mickey mouse. I had similar results with GTE, with them turning around and usually not calling me to tell me that it had been "cleared" even though the problem persisted. After a while the phone repair people were getting "annoyed" with me -- I would use much stronger words for how I felt the phone company was treating me. The repair person sent someone out to my house and said it was INSIDE my house and that if I called in again they would charge me some outrageous hourly rate to repair it. I said it was similar to his problem so let me get back to that. In addition to me sounding like Mickey mouse to my callers I would occasionally pick up the phone and be unable to break dialtone. I found out, however, that I could dial-pulse -- so I switched the phone over to pulse and called my other line and low and behold I sounded like Mickey coming out the one end. Now then, when confronted with this obnoxious repair person saying he was going to charge me I kept picking up the line until I could not break dialtone and I dialed his supervisor direct. He heard me as Mickey mouse and realized it was a real problem. A friend of mine installs GTD-5's and told me that it is the line card which was bad -- so I told them to replace the line card when they finally listened to me the problem went away. ------------------------------ From: Stephen Tell Subject: Re: Phillipsburg, NJ Date: 6 Feb 91 06:57:00 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article <16695@accuvax.nwu.edu> gerry@dialogic.com (Gerry Lachac) writes: >In article <16627@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >>others. (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for >>the full cutover?) >The 908 area code is usable now, as of January 1 I believe. It has been active for a lot longer than that; I reprogrammed my autodialer for parents in NJ as soon as I heard about 908 right here on the net, probably last March or earlier. I've used it heavily for eight months or so. >NJ Bell advertises about the change over in the local newspapers. It is discussed in the new 90-91 phone books delivered this past fall. My parents live right near the boundary, and their phone book has to list numbers in the white and yellow pages with the full ten digits. Actually, it only prints 908, and says "201 unless otherwise stated" in the front and atop many pages. Most numbers listed in the book are in fact still in 201. For those of you keeping track, their number is in 908-464, which is in the "Surban Essex" phone book. Sometime this past fall, CNID in that area started delivering 908 where appropriate. Steve Tell tell@.cs.unc.edu H: +1 919 968 1792 #5L Estes Park apts CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill. W: +1 919 962 1845 Carrboro NC 27510 ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Re: Headset Installation Help Needed Date: 6 Feb 91 04:22:13 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article <16649@accuvax.nwu.edu>, barefoot@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) writes: > I bought an telephone-type headset at a garage sale, and haven't been > able to get it to work. I suspect that I'm not connecting something > correctly. > There's an over-the-ear mic boom, and an in-the-ear receiver, > connected via a connectorized cord to an electronics box. The box says > "UNEX Controlonics Corp., Westford, MA" and then what looks like a > model, "Ventel II, Operator" It also has an FCC reg. number and a REN > of 0. If memory serves, Ventel is a manufacturer or distributer of phone paraphernalia > There's an RJ plug (same as normal handset cords) on the other end of > the box. The box came with a coil cord and a twin-phone plug. > Connecting it to a phone doesn't do anything. Well, Try it again! Actually, if it is similar to the ones I've designed, it should plug right into the phone in place of the handset cord. Make sure you lift the handset off the hook buttons (this is kinda like asking "Did you plug it in?", but just thought I'd mention it). > Since it's not a > line-type connector, I haven't tried plugging it into an active line. Definitely don't do that. > I understand that the tip connetors on the twin plug is receive, and > ring is transmit (or vice versa) so the device is pretty clearly not > intended to plug into a normal two-wire circuit. The headset amp uses the hybrid inside the phone to do the two-to-four wire conversion. > My best guess to what's happening is that the box expects some power > supply that a normal phone isn't going to provide. It's a nice headset > and I'd like to be able to use it. Anyone have any helpful > information? The phone actually will provide about five volts (depends on the current drawn) across the transmitter (microphone) connections, and this is the power that the headset box uses to power the boom microphone (probably an electret). It may also steal some power to amplify the receiver (earphone). At least mine did. Of course, you said it didn't work when you plugged it into the phone, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Or it's broken. They are usually fairly simple inside, you might be able to fix it. [A personal note: I regularly annoy my wife and kids by excitedly pointing it out when I see one of "my" headsets on T.V. (Miami Vice liked them a lot). Also got to see one in use in orbit on the Space Shuttle; NASA was trying out a few different types of communications headsets. I guess I have to take my glory where I find it ;-) ] Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {uunet, pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 6 Feb 1991 09:45:38 EST From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: Voice Compression on MCI Trunks? In article <16713@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HPAGE@ibm.com says: >I've had the honor of using MCI's LD service lately. The voice quality >on a significant of my calls from the East Coast to the West Coast is >slightly distracting. There seems to be some type of speech detecting >circuit that annoyingly clips the first several hundred milliseconds >off the voice of the called party. (deleted) What does this do to modem data calls? Peter M. Weiss | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN 31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with psu.vm.edu | psuvm University Park, PA USA 16802 ------------------------------ From: John Abt Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) Date: 6 Feb 91 14:37:51 GMT Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA In article <16689@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would > have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number. I have a sister who is an OB/GYN in the SF Bay area. As you can imagine, she was a slave to her beeper. A while back she bought a handheld cellular (on my recommendation) which she now says "changed her life". But when I asked for her cellular number, she refused to give it to me (her husband does not have it either). She "never" receives calls on the cellular - it's only for "calling in when I'm beeped". John Abt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 1991 11:31:11 PST From: wegeng@arisia.xerox.com Subject: Re: Speaking of Heathkit >A few years ago when Zenith bought them out to get the computer >technology the Heathkit part began to diminish a bit, especially since >it became cheaper to buy built than the kits.... >Since the purchase of ZDS by Group Bulle, the status >of Heath may be in doubt, but they are still in Benton Harbor (where >the Zenith computers are made as well). I received a letter from Heathkit a couple months ago, stating that all of the stores were being converted into strictly computer stores (they store here in Rochester, NY hasn't paid any attention to kits for quite a while). The kit business is now being handled completely via mailorder catalog. Don ------------------------------ From: Wayne Folta Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Date: 6 Feb 91 21:40:01 GMT Reply-To: Wayne Folta Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 >no need for CID. I feel that this is one large marketing scam only for >the RBOCs and feel that if I pay for a non-published listing, that CID >should be inactivated. Believe me, the software hooks are there. In Maryland, you can now dial *67 before a call and the CID box shows "Private #" on the display. As a (free) counter-feature, I would like to be able to have the phone company block all *67'd and otherwise private # calls from ringing my phone. If you want to call me (enter my house as it were), I believe I have a right to know who you are before granting you entrance. On another note, I wonder if the *XX to report crank calls to the phone company is a true alternative to CID. CID allows me (in theory) to find out who is crank calling, and attempt to solve the problem without resorting to legal proceedings. In some cases, this is more appropriate. Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8) [Moderator's Note: The way to refuse calls from blocked numbers is pretty simple if you also have call screening. Please note that *67 does not refuse to pass the caller's number to the CO ... but merely instructs the CO not to give it to you. So what you do is, you have to get called once by the blocked number. Answer it or not as you please. When that call is off the line, then do *60 #01# or whatever you do to 'add last caller whether or not you know the number' to your list of calls to be screened. Henceforth what they will get for their *67 + your number will be a recording saying "The customer you have called has activated call screening, meaning they are not accepting calls at this time." Even if they call back unblocked they won't get through. Anything that Caller*ID can grab can also be handled by its close cousin, Call Screening. Above code is from Bell of Illinois, your telco may have different codes / intercept messages. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 13:49:34 PST Subject: Re: LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!reb@uunet.uu.net Organization: From the grass eaters at the Bovine Munching Works From: Phydeaux In article <16640@accuvax.nwu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >able to give me one. AT&T won't open accounts at all for people who >don't have a local phone (is this because of billing?) and the other >two will issue a card, but it can't be used with 10xxx. >[Moderator's Note: Someone at AT&T gave you bad information. They've >had a miscellanous billing account calling card for many years. They I've had one for a while. At the time I had no phone billed to me. I had no problem at all getting it. I also have a similar card with MCI (Billed to my Amex card). I've never had a problem with either of them and 10xxx. You just have to use 10xxx+0+[10D] ... >want a miscellaneous billing type number. They are billed out of >Orlando, FL I believe; same as cellular phone billings, with separate >bills sent each month not attached to any regular phone bill. PAT] Hmm ... my AT&T card is billed out of Cincinatti, OH. reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 [Moderator's Note: The reason yours is billed out of Cincinatti is because for many years, Cincinatti Bell handled all miscellaneous billing accounts for AT&T and the other Bell Companies. I think a lot of those accounts are still with Cincinatti Bell and newer ones are being handled by AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 20:40:20 EST From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <16694@accuvax.nwu.edu> Bill Huttig writes: >I just thought I'd post an update on the status of my account. [stuff deleted] >the second 800 number I set up (The one that rings at my aunt's). The >other one had a brand new 800 number and was a regular Personal 800 See below >I called Torie several times last week to see if my account was >credited or not ... she was 'unavailable'. I left one message but she >never returned my call. They say I owe $149.19 (for two months). I >did a rough rerate my self and decided that Telecom*USA rates that >showed are about 27%-30% too high. So I should end up with about $105 >after adjustments. Well I called her again today and she said that she hadn't heared anything from the billing department ... so she offered a $25 general credit. I said that I thought it should be a little higher so she offered $50 which was $5 more then I was hoping. I will do a rerate myself when I get the February invoice and see what the bonus for all my time was. I dont see why they dont do what the other half of MCI does and issue a blanket credit instead of spending all that personnel time to rerate, etc. >They asked me for a PIN also ... I don't know why ... Maybe the >originally planned to give each user his/her own number with a PIN so >that they didn't have to adjust for wrong numbers. The third number I received comes with the PIN I requested: 2455 which spells BILL. [Moderator's Note: Why do they have all those employees to correct errors, you ask? The rule of thumb for many (most?) huge companies is that about half the people there have as their main duty correcting the mistakes of the other half. Consider how large most customer service departments are the telcos. What would they do if there were not lots of mistakes to be corrected constantly? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 23:00:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Motorola Programming Manual in Archives A copy of the Motorola programming manual for certain models of cellular phones is now available in the Telecom Archives. This was donated to us (and typed in) by Andy Rabagliati . When you next visit the archives you may want to get a copy of this file if you own or work with Motorola cellular phones. Look under the cellular category in the main directory. The Telecom Archives is ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu. You would login as anonymous, give your name@site as a password, then 'cd telecom-archives' to reach our section. Of course the archives mail server can also be used: send mail to bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu (bitftp@princeton.bitnet). Thanks Andy! PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #96 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28679; 7 Feb 91 3:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12606; 7 Feb 91 1:34 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21139; 7 Feb 91 0:29 CST Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 0:09:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #97 BCC: Message-ID: <9102070009.ab04346@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Feb 91 00:08:43 CST Volume 11 : Issue 97 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit [Alan Ruffer] Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit [Allyn Lai] Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit [Dave Levenson] Radio/Electronics/Parts/Stuff Stores [jailbait@ai.mit.edu] Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad [John Tombs] Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [John Richard Bruni] Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission [Joe Stong] Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Gordon Baldwin] Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Jon Sreekanth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 20:37:47 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <16708@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Sad to say, there is *no way* a radio/electronics > gear store of the 1950-60 era could operate today, given the economics > involved. The old Allied Radio store had *barrels* of capacitors and > other components sitting around everywhere -- sort through them and > Olson was the same way. How they made a profit I'll never know. I > guess in fact they did not make a profit since they, like Allied, are > out of business. Blisterpacked gadgets and salespeople who know from > nothing are where the profit is now-a-days. In the old days, the sales > help in those stores were almost always hobbyists themselves, with > hobbyist mentalities, stringing components together to make things > work like they wanted. It was easy for them to empathize with the > customer and spend time discussing your project and helping you dig > through barrels of poorly marked capactitors, vacuum tubes, switches > and plugs finding what was needed. Imagine most RS clerks doing that > today or even knowing/caring what your home-brew project is about. PAT] Actually, Olson only handled their "own brand" of stuff, while Allied handled many brands. I assembled my first hifi system from Allied, and bought most of it out of the Chicago store. The Allied catalog was required reading to find out what was new in electronics. Allied's principal competitor was Lafayette Radio, in New York City. Lafayette was located on Lafayette Street in NYC, near Hudson and Varick Streets. This area was known as Radio Row, and had many radio and electronics parts and surplus strores. The area disappeared when the World Trade Center was built. One store from that area still exists uptown, Harvey Radio (now Harvey Electronics), and is an upscale sound system dealer. I bought one rarity from Lafayette, an black dial phone ("for hobbyist use only" in those days :-) ), which turned out to have been manufactured by HEEMAF in the Netherlands, a company mainly known for its AC motors. Herman Silbiger [Moderator's Note: Ah yes, Lafayette! There was a nice Lafayette store in Chicago on Wabash Avenue until about 1968 or so ... I bought a few things from them, but mostly for my stereo: a pre-amp, cartridges, a couple of speakers, a reverb unit, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Ruffer Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit Date: 6 Feb 91 06:06:38 GMT Reply-To: Alan Ruffer Organization: Perfect Partners Inc., Sulphur, LA In article <16686@accuvax.nwu.edu> jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 93, Message 3 of 10 ....text deleted regarding Allied Radio and Radio Shack. >[Moderator's Note: You are wrong on the 'Allied was mail order only' >Anerica. Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing these >days? Are they still around? My first terminal was a Zenith Z-19 >which I built from a Heathkit in 1980, meaning it was actually an H-19 >instead. The last I heard, they closed the Benton Harbor facility. PAT] Heathkit IS still alive and well. They were bought by Zenith primarily because of their educational courses and computer systems. A good friend of mine was a technical consultant at the time this occurred. During the resulting streamlining process he and many others lost their jobs. I still get catalogs from them, though the last few times I attempted an order, I always wound up with a refund for this or that because it had been "discontinued". Heath is more into selling "assembled" products these days, for instance their amateur radio equipment is Yeasu with Heaths name plate on it, much as Sears does with their "Kenmore" products. They still sell a few kits. The quality of the construction manuals has declined however. By the way I have a vintage H-19 terminal serving STILL as console to this Unix box! Those things were huge as you know, but they are cement mixers! It was old already when I bought it used, then I put it thru hundreds of on-off cycles, and finally the last four years its been running 24 hours a day. On an unrelated subject I have two questions: Does anyone know when South Central Bell will be adding caller-ID to the 318 area? How much a month is the typical bill for service in areas that already have this feature? Alan R. Ruffer UUCP: {csccat,chinacat!holston}!adept!alan Route 1, Box 1745 Amateur Radio Station WB5FKH Sulphur, LA 70663 BBS: (318) 527-6667, 19200(PEP)/9600(V.32)/2400/1200 [Moderator's Note: Many years ago we used to drive over to Benton Harbor on Saturday to visit the Heathkit surplus outlet store. Talk about some steals! Returned kits, merchandise with slight defects, it was all put out at 70% off retail price. Those were the days! Bell of Illinois has indicated Caller*ID will cost about $6 per month when they begin offering it later this year. Of course, you have to buy the display box from whomever ... figure about $70-100 for that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!Allyn@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 19:18:46 PST I believe Heathkit is a strictly mail order business now. I have a feeling that it will not last very much longer.... Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit Date: 7 Feb 91 03:45:12 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16709@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > Many people recently got a Heathkit catalog. I think that the mailing ... > It was pitiful. About 30% of the stuff in the catalog was buildable. > The rest was sold assembled-only. The ham gear line has been > decimated, the stereo/television line is about gone, and their concept > of building a computer is to plug the boards in. I'm sure there are other factors, but one thing that happened to Heathkit was FCC part 15. I got to know Heath as a kid back in the 50's. In those days, if it wasn't a transmitter, no FCC certification was required. As a result, you could assemble a Heathkit table radio, or a shortwave receiver, and it was legal. Today, it has to be FCC type-accepted, and that means it has to be assembled by an FCC-approved factory, etc. About all you could do now is ship the RF parts pre-assembled and build the case around it. The market for kit-built electronics is pretty much limited to amateur radio (still legal for home-builts) and audio equipment with no RF-radiating ability. I have built a dozen or so Heathkits, ranging from a shortwave receiver (remember the AR-3?) to an electronic air filter for a domestic central HVAC system. I still have the IM-11 vacuum tube voltmeter, but the FET-VOM from Radio Shack is less expensive, more accurate, and more user-friendly. 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: When I was in 5th grade or somewhere back in that era a buddy and I tried to build a Heathkit table radio. I think it had three or four tubes in it. Somehow we accidentally wired it up wrong and sent the wire which carried the IF (intermediate frequency at 440 kc) out the antenna. Although the radio would not play, we soon discovered it would radiate all over the house. With that in mind, we attached another 80 feet or so of wire to make a quarter-wave antenna at 1620 kc's and played 'radio station' for everyone within a three block range of my house. We re-broadcast Muzak from an SCA receiver my buddy had found at a junk dealer and the time signal from Boulder, CO at 15 megs. My parents found out a couple days later, raised cain and the 'radio station' signed off the air for good. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jailbait@ai.mit.edu Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 12:01:15 -0500 Subject: Radio/Electronics/Parts/Stuff Stores About Pat's comment about old style radio/electronics stores not being able to exist these days, I'd say that this isn't true. Maybe not to the same level of expertise of the staff that they used to have, but there are a number of stores in NYC and at least one in College Park, MD. (Electronics Plus, formerly Surplus Electronics) where the bins of parts, priced per, the stuff, nonsense, bits, pieces, etc. still exist. Come to think of it, I went digging around one of this type of store last time I was in Toronto. In most of them that I've seen, the staff has a reasonable clue. They may not be quite as into/up on everything as they once were, but they can and do help alot. Come to think of it, there are a couple around MD/DC ... I've gotten stuff from all of them ... only these days, ethernet connectors are a more likely purchase than caps and resistors. Rich. (If replying and mail bounces, please resend. mail can be flakey around here.) ------------------------------ From: jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) Subject: Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Date: Wed, 06 Feb 1991 18:28:01 GMT In article <16692@accuvax.nwu.edu> cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >Did anyone check the latest Sheraton directory to look for any comment >about the Sheraton in Baghdad (also Kuwait if they have a hotel I once stayed overnight at the Kuwait Sheraton, courtesy of British Airways. I read that it is now the Iraqi army headquarters. No vacancies, probably. John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT , ------------------------------ From: John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 15:30:27 PST Hi Patrick, I see from your postscript to my letter that you shared some electrifying experiences with me ... I got zapped by plate voltage a few times while hamming, thank God not on a linear amp. The best zap I ever got was off a power supply I made for a linear accelerator in high school. This was basically a Tesla coil, but the primary was tuned and drew about .15 amps at 12,000 volts. I was playing with it one day using a four foot florescent tube attached to the proverbial ten foot pole. A lightning bolt traveled down the tube, down the pole, down the *outside* of my arm and under all my clothes where it went to ground through the safety kicker switch I was standing on. The only place I got shocked was where the bolt went through my toe. It left a little black pinhole in my big toenail. Oh, and when this happened I got thrown off the kicker switch, which shut down the coil just before I hit it. I got a second shock from the large static electric field that the secondary coil always built up after a minute or so of operation. This tall but true tail has nothing to do with Telecom, I present it here for your amusement. The coil was designed, BTW, to put out 2.5 MEV of tuned power to a linear accelerator tube, unrectified. The tube was short enough that AC merely made it put out a beam from each end. Vacuum problems put the fini to this project, as well as radiation concerns from the people granting me money to build it. I`d guess that of the 2.5 MEV I was shooting for, 1.5 of it vanished in solid blue corona. The device built up enough ozone in the room it was being tested in to give one a severe headache in only a minute or two of operation, and lit florescent bulbs in several houses nearby. TVI and RFI were problematic as well. John_Bruni@CUP.PORTAL.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 20:16:33 PST From: Joe Stong Subject: Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission [Apple computer petitions the FCC for 40 MHz in the area of 1.8 to 1.9 GHz for digital 10MB/s LANs, with a max of about 150 feet.] A hundred and fifty feet? What garbage! Maybe they want to sell a lot of repeaters, and keep me from doing my connection to the building across the street! I certainly wouldn't max the license out at 150 feet, 2000 feet might be more like it, with provisions for the transmitters using only as much power as necessary, like cellular systems. With the frequencies they're using, it should be easy to put a small directional antenna on it to boost the ERP. I'm sure I've seen portable telephones with 2000 foot ranges, even though a majority are probably less than this. I'd think this would give a clue for what a maximum "personal convenience" radio connection distance would be. To me, wiring between buildings is MUCH more trouble than wiring within a building. I'm pleased that somebody's introducing an FCC petition for commercial data useage, but this sounds much too restrictive! If they want to produce most of the UNITS with a 150 foot range, that's fine with me, as long as they can legally sell higher power units with somewhat greater ranges for the circumstances where they're needed. BTW, someone told me about the NCR WaveLAN product. I've asked NCR for literature and pricing. [As usual, please CC: me in mail if you post about this, I try to read telecom faithfully, but I miss things ] Joe Stong jst@cca.ucsf.edu [Moderator's Note: I'd think the risks of having your data snooped on or deliberatly messed with would be too great at 2000 feet. Some people would deliberatly park in front of your plant to mess around with you. 150 feet is more realistic from a security standpoint, although of course someone could interfere with that also, but not as easily unless they were inside your premises. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 10:09:36 PST From: Gordon Baldwin Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ... >I'm trying to find a device that lights up when a phone extension is >picked up. That way I can know if a phone line with multiple >extensions is in use without picking up the phone itself ... >[Moderator's Note: We have discussed this many times in the Digest. >Would one of you readers with a schmatic send it along to Craig, with >a parts list, etc. Thanks. PAT] Could I also get the info/schema! I have a two year old that loves to play with the phone, and it would be nice to not have a light so that we know the phones are in "play mode." Gordon Baldwin ELDEC Corp sherpa2!gbaldwin@sunup.west.sun.com ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When... Organization: The World Date: 6 Feb 91 13:42:52 In article <16525@accuvax.nwu.edu> zazula@uazhe0.uphysics.arizona.edu writes: .... [See previous message if you need to review the question. PAT] Regarding commercial units that do this (I've heard mention of a Radio Shack box) Does anyone know what their REN is ? Just yesterday, a consultant told me that the REN was calculated as a worst case of several measurements, one of which was DC on-hook resistance. A device of REN 1.0 has 25 Meg ohm of DC resistance. Since the customer of a 'privacy LED' box presumably has several other extension phones, such a box would need to have about 50Meg ohms of DC resistance in its DC comparator (which is how I assume they detect an off-hook extension), in order to have an REN of 0.5 (which seems to be a reasonable design goal.) Was this consultant right ? (Have the FCC 68 rules changed recently?) If so, does anyone know if commercial units have such high resistance? It's moderately challenging, I'd assume. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #97 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06666; 7 Feb 91 8:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27020; 7 Feb 91 3:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27247; 7 Feb 91 2:36 CST Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 1:51:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #98 BCC: Message-ID: <9102070151.ab11043@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Feb 91 01:51:35 CST Volume 11 : Issue 98 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [John Murray] MIR Revisited [Mark Steiger] The Internet Explained (Pointer to Print-Article) [Werner Uhrig] India on Calling Card [Arun Baheti] Telular Address and Phone [Mark Earle] Answer Supervision From Telco is Possible [Tom Lowe] Recording International Phone Calls [Paolo Bellutta] Cellular Phone Theft [Kevin Bluml] Phoney Number Games (re: Payphone Outside Store) [Dan'l DanehyOakes] Simple Telephone Wiring Question [Christopher Lott] CNA Numbers Needed for 202 and 301 [Michael Rosen] Call Waiting and Answering Machines [Eric Tholome] Pac*Bell to Provide Answer Supervision [John Higdon] You Can Help AT&T Sue the COCOT SOB's [Bob Yazz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Murray Subject: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty Date: 7 Feb 91 05:28:37 GMT Organization: SCRI, Florida State University The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC 2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win a crewmember position on a russian space mission. No other details were reported at the time. I'd like to see email from anyone that caught the details of the conviction. Disclaimer: Yeah, right, like you really believe I run this place. John R. Murray murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Research Inst. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 23:39:18 CST From: Mark Steiger Subject: MIR Revisited I have some more info on that MIR space travel contest. It's void in NY,FL, & RI Also, how to enter for free (OK -- 29 cents!) Send in a #10 (Must be #10) size envelope on a 3" X 5" (Must be 3X5) your name, address, phone number. Must be hand printed. to: Space Travel Services P.O. Box 580249 Houston, TX 77258 Or call 1-900-258-2647 for $2.99 [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS 218-262-3142 300-19.2K Baud (HST/Dual)] Internet: Penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com MCI Mail: MSteiger UUCP: ...crash!pro-igloo!penguin ATT Mail: MSteiger ProLine: Penguin@pro-igloo America Online: Goalie5 TELEX: 51623155 MSTEIGER [Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate. Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 1991 7:48:56 CST From: Werner Uhrig Reply-To: Werner Uhrig Subject: The Internet Explained (Pointer to Print-Article) This week's {InfoWorld} (Feb 4, page 48) has a two-page description of what the Internet is all about; the main article is titled: Riding the Internet - This vast collection of networks is a mistery even to people who call it home. on page 57 are two side-bar articles titled: JUST WHO OWNS THE INTERNET and HOW TO GET ON THE INTERNET. Not every statement is completely correct, but its as good an introduction as I have seen in the popular press (useful part of a collection of handouts to give to someone.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 09:02 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: India on Calling Card Does anyone have any information about when/if I will ever be able to call India on one of my calling cards at any point in the near future? The ban on calls (due to fraud a few years back) has been one for at least a few years (five?) and I'm curious as to whether there is still a need or have all the LD servers simply forgotten? There is something inherrently wrong with carrying around over $3 in quarters. ab [Moderator's Note: And how long does $3 get you? One minute? The ban on using calling cards to international points seems to come and go depending on various factors. Israel was banned for awhile, and now seems to be open again from some areas. Call the AT&T International Information Center for an answer: 1-800-874-4000. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 20:51:49 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Telular Address and Phone Pat, as a follow up to my post (originally about CMT installation in a van) the address for Telular, makers of the Celljack (gives an RJ-11 connection, dial tone, battery, supervision, etc) between a CMT and 'normal' telephone device: Telular Inc. Mobile & Fixed Cellular Telephony 1215 Washington Ave Wilmette, IL 60092-3566 (708)-256-8000 Customer/product support: (800)-333-8899 Also try: Dave Tellmac, @ Cellular Solutions (800)-999-7758 Have had several email enquiries about this, so please post it to the net, as aparently there is interest in this or similiar products. mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 CI$ 73117,351 Packet: WA2MCT @ KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA ------------------------------ From: tel@cdsdb1.att.com Subject: Answer Supervision From Telco is Possible Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 10:58 EST With regard to recent discussions about getting answer supervision from the local phone companies, it is possible. I just had sixteen outbound trunks installed by New Jersey Bell that were configured to provide answer supervision. They are called Wink Start trunks and they are not a tariffed offering. I had to wait for several weeks of Special Rate Approval for these trunks, and they are not exactly cheap. I think they were something like $100 each to install and $85 per month, plus usage, although I have no idea what standard tariffed ground start trunks cost as a comparison. I was told that being AT&T had nothing to do with getting these trunks approved and that anyone who wants to pay for them can get them. I was always under the impression that the phone companies weren't permitted to offer non-tariffed services, but apparently that's not so. Can anybody explain this? The way I understand it, they work just like standard DID trunks, except reverse. When the PBX wants to place a call, it siezes an available trunk by taking it off hook (This works with a standard phone, also). The CO responds by attaching digit receiving equipment then sending a wink which consists of a momentary reversal of current (A volt meter shows a change from approximatly 6 volts between Tip and Ring to -6 volts and back to 6 volts) (My polarity may be backward ... I wasn't paying attention to which was tip and which was ring). This means the same thing as a dial tone ... i.e. go ahead and send digits. The PBX recognizes this wink and sends the digits, which are standard DTMF digits. Again, you can do this with a standard phone. When the called party answers, supervision is provided to the PBX by means of a reversal of line current (from 6 to -6 volts or whatever). When the called party disconnects, line current flips again to signal the disconnect. I tried using these trunks on my AT&T Voice Power VP4 boards which are designed to sense presence of current, as well as current reversal, and it worked like a charm. My program watched for the initial wink and sent the DTMF digits. When the called party answered, it sensed the reversal of current, and when they hung up, it again sensed the reversal of current. If you have any questions about these, please send me email. I don't know if I'll be able to tell you more than what I said here, but I'll try. Disclaimer: This represents the way I understand (or mis-understand) how things are. It may be wrong and does not represent any official statements of AT&T or NJ Bell or me. Tom Lowe tel@hound.ATT.COM AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ 908-949-0428 [Moderator's Note: The way telco handles non-tariffed special situations is to go and have a tariff written for that customer. There is an overall master tariff which covers 'special situations', and this tariff allows for filing tariffs subscriber by subscriber as needed. If they see some profit in your proposal, they'll find a way to do it and get it tariffed! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY Subject: Recording International Phone Calls Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 16:16:03 MET DST What if the recording part is in a country where you don't have to put the fifteen seconds beep, or in general where the law about recording a telephone conversation is different? Paolo Bellutta (bellutta@irst.uucp) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 10:53:37 CST From: Kevin Bluml Subject: Cellular Phone Theft A 'what if' question: As a new cellular user the thought comes to mind: What if my phone is stolen? I know I'm to contact the company ASAP to get my number disabled, but can the phone still be used some other way? What I'm wondering I guess, is cellular theft a problem, or are they almost unusable once stolen due to the systems in place to check (ESN, others?). My guess is that's a dream world, and anybody with a soldering iron and a friend can bypass that stuff, but I'm not sure. Thanks, Kevin V. Bluml - Cray Research Inc. 612-683-3036 USmail - 655E - Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121 Internet - kevin@cray.com UUCP - uunet!cray!kevin [Moderator's Note: When your ESN goes on the inter-company negative listing, that should end the problem. As you point out, some people can change the ESN, but it is not a trivial matter for most folks with the phones manufactured in the last couple of years. The phone's worth to a buyer of hot merchandise goes down quite a bit when it cannot be immediatly used as is, and most with disabled ESN's can't be. But cellular phreaks all know that every cellular carrier has certain phone numbers on their switch which for one reason or another are flagged to *ignore* or not check the ESN. Why? Well, consider a Radio Shack dealer with dozens of cell phones for sale and a single cellular phone line given to him for free by the carrier to use in demonstrating his products: how could he take a phone off the shelf, put a battery in and let a prospective customer test it out if he had to have a phone line to cover every ESN in the place? All the cellular companies give free demo phone lines to their dealers. Program *your* phone to one of those numbers and you'll make free calls too, without regard to your ESN. The cellular carriers also keep several phones around the office; in customer service; for use by their technicians at work, etc. They want to be able to grab a phone (from several laying around all on the same phone number) and use it ... again that being the case you can't very well check the ESN, can you? Then there are the lines used for temporary assignment to roamers. ESN's aren't checked on those lines either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dan'l DanehyOakes Subject: Phoney Number Games (was: Payphone Outside Store) Date: 6 Feb 91 16:57:37 GMT Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Peter the Hacker writes: >Back when I was going to Berkeley someone accidentally gave out the # >of the payphone outside the door instead of their own. They got a lot >of calls, and some of the store's regulars would take to answering the >phone in "interesting" ways after "Pay Phone" and "Wrong Number" wore >off. "AT&T security, hold for a trace please" was one of the more >memorable ones... Not surprising after 10+ years, Peter, but your memory of this is a bit off. They installed a pay phone right outside the door of The Other Change of Hobbit, a science fiction bookstore in downtown Berkeley, in 1978. The number on the payphone was one of a bank that had recently been converted to COT use, and in fact had been in other use for some time and until very shortly before the change ... as the business line of "The Wild Ones Massage Parlor." Some of the employees and regulars of the Other Change began answering the phone in strange ways, as you say; a few female persons began putting on their slinkiest voices, and saying, "Wild Ones, this is Prudence [or whatever], may I help you?" -- and making appointments for these "gentlemen." Unfortunately, none of us knew where TWOMP had actually *been* or we might have gone down to watch their amazement and dismay when they arrived for their, ahem, massages and found that the place no longer existed. My favorite, however, was when Eric "the Large" Larson answered the phone, with an appropriate second-generation Irish-American accent "Wild Ones Massage Parlor, Sgt O'Malley speaking. May I help you?" Momentary fum, fuh, uh, ah: then a click. The Roach ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 12:18:22 -0500 From: Christopher Lott Subject: Simple Telephone Wiring Question Hi, This past weekend I visited relatives in AT&T country (NJ) and tried to help them activate an old telephone jack in an upstairs room. I found the network interface outside - left it alone - and also found the knot of interconnections in the basement. Single terminal with two brass knobs, and then a mess of wires and goofy connectors. We got nowhere in a hurry. Can anyone explain what the installers do? I know that only red and green are needed, so usually black/yellow are left dangling. But this setup looked odd; in some cases it looked like all four wires were used, and in some cases only black/yellow (not red/green at all). A complicating factor in this is that they have two lines, but I didn't expect this to make it *too* nasty. They use a two-line phone, but it has exactly two lines running to it, nothing fancy. In the knot of connections, I found two interesting connectors: thin, 3/4-inch diameter disks with some three or four wires sticking out of each. One was green and the other red. Are these magic? Thanks for any and all explanations, pointers to literature, etc. chris ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu Subject: CNA Numbers for 202 and 301 Needed Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 23:12:08 EDT I would like to find out the CNA numbers for the 202 and 301 areas if anyone has them. Mike ------------------------------ From: Eric THOLOME Subject: Call Waiting and Answering Machines Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 18:27:07 GMT I bought a Panasonic answering machine and it has a switch that should be set to A or B, depending on whether I have Call Waiting or not. Can anyone tell me what difference it makes ? Eric THOLOME tholome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 13:42 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pac*Bell to Provide Answer Supervision Beginning 1/31/91 Pac*Bell will offer answer supervision indication on PBX (including Hotel/Motel) and COCOT service. This will (for now) only be available on exchanges served by DMS100 switches. Well, there it is folks. You might know if it deals with billing, Pac*Bell is always at the fore. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz Subject: You Can Help AT&T Sue the COCOT SOB's Date: 7 Feb 91 03:23:01 GMT I ran into a new pair of COCOT's the other day that said "AT&T is the carrier" very promininently. No one here will be shocked that when I dialed 0 + the long distance number, the electronic voice said "Telesphere". 10288 didn't work, of course. I called AT&T at 800/222-0300 and started out with "I'd like to report an act of fraud against AT&T." The woman I spoke with was happy to hear from me. She was in NJ and said that as of the first of the year it was illegal for a payphone to deny you your choice of long distance carriers. People had come down from Pennsylvania [I might have the two states reversed here] to tell everyone in her office about the pending lawsuit that AT&T was filing, so it seemed serious to her. She took all the information I could give her. It's great to see someone with big legal guns going after the COCOT slimeys. Anyone have any confirming stories? Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #98 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28788; 8 Feb 91 9:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01315; 8 Feb 91 8:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15215; 8 Feb 91 3:59 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17495; 8 Feb 91 2:50 CST Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 2:01:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #99 BCC: Message-ID: <9102080201.ab15773@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Feb 91 02:01:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 99 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [John Murray] Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [Dave McCracken] Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [John Higdon] Re: MIR Revisited [Chris Jones] "Ultimate Contest" a Real Lottery! [David Lemson] Re: MIR Revisited [Frank Vance] 900 Space Travel Scam (?) [Edward Hopper] YA9S (Yet Another 900-Number Scam) [Dr. Tanner Andrews] Allied Electronics is Still in Business [Paul J. Zawada] Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Roy M. Silvernail] Telephone Pioneers, Allied R/S, etc. [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Phil Gunsul] Lafayette Radio [Alain Fontaine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Murray Subject: Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty Date: 7 Feb 91 15:44:49 GMT Organization: SCRI, Florida State University Michael Ho sent me an excerpt of an article in the {Omaha World-Herald}, which reports that David Mayer, president, and James Davidson, senior vice president of Space Travel Services were arrested Wednesday for alleged violation of Texas gambling laws. Note that there is a bit of a difference between an arrest and a conviction. Since I can't get WWCR right now to see what they're saying at the moment, I must assume that I misheard them last night. Sorry for the possible misreporting, folks. Disclaimer: Yeah, right, like you really believe I run this place. John R. Murray murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Research Inst. ------------------------------ From: Dave McCracken Subject: Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty Organization: Dell Computer Corporation, Austin, Texas 78759-7299 Date: 7 Feb 91 15:40:10 GMT murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes: >The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC >2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas >sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win >a crewmember position on a russian space mission. >No other details were reported at the time. >I'd like to see email from anyone that caught the details of the >conviction. There was an article in the Austin paper about it this morning. They have not been convicted, merely indicted. The Houston DA's office claims they are running an illegal lottery because of the 1-900 phone charges. The people running the sweepstakes maintain they were told by the DA's office in December that since they also allowed free mail-in entries that it was legal. The impression I get from sci.space is that the organizers are space enthusiasts honestly interested in putting an American on Mir, and used the 900 number to help defray the $10 million charged by Glavcosmos. It sounds like they are getting jerked around by yet another publicity-seeking prosecutor out to advance his political career. Dave McCracken dcm@dell.dell.com (512) 343-3720 Dell Computer 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin, TX 78759-7299 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 03:13 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty John Murray writes: > The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC > 2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas > sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win > a crewmember position on a russian space mission. Justice certainly moves swiftly in Texas. I heard yesterday on KGO (San Francisco) that these people had just been arrested on charges of operating an illegal lottery. They were released (or perhaps held in lieu of) $2000 bail. Once again, we seem to have conflicting reports on this matter. Just another example of our super-accurate media at work. > [Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be > void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate. > Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty. PAT] And where did your report come from? Are there now at least three different versions of what happened to these guys? Arrested and guilty are usually separated by more than one day even on traffic offenses. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I say if they're arrested they must be guilty, and if they're guilty they must be hung immediatly. Of course I am a Bigoted and Very Biased Immoderate Moderator ... :) Seriously John, all I know about this is what I read in TELECOM Digest, and my reputation for lying is not any worse than {Readers Digest}. I just went with the original poster's comments ... sorry! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chris Jones Subject: Re: MIR Revisited Date: 7 Feb 91 09:22:21 EST Reply-To: Chris Jones Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp In article <16738@accuvax.nwu.edu>, penguin@pro-igloo (Mark Steiger) writes: >I have some more info on that MIR space travel contest. >It's void in NY,FL, & RI >[Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be >void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate. >Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty. PAT] (Gee, I haven't even visited Mir once, and here people are planning revisits.) I think there's a presumption of innocence that applies in cases like these. As I heard it, they've been charged (with running an illegal lottery, I believe), but not found guilty. Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj [Moderator's Note: Alright already. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: "Ultimate Contest" a Real Lottery! Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 17:19:32 GMT I just read in our Clarinet UPI feed that the dial-in 900 lottery in which you could possibly win a trip on the Soviet Mir Space Station has been declared an "illegal lottery" by the Harris County (Texas) DA's office. The DA finally decided to press charges of running a lottery after the people who were running the contest said that they would return all of the monies received from people who called in, and then did not actually return the money. If your site subscribes to the Clarinet service, check out the story in clari.news.top with a subject line like "Charges Filed against sweepstakes promoters". David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana ------------------------------ From: fvance@airgun.wg.waii.com (Frank Vance) Subject: Re: MIR Revisited Date: 7 Feb 91 18:55:43 GMT Organization: Western Geophysical, Houston Other's comments: >[Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be >void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate. >Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty. PAT] >The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC >2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas >sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win >a crewmember position on a Russian space mission. The true story is that they were arrested 2/6/91, after failing to heed the warnings of the district attorney's office. The district attorney contends that under the laws of the State of Texas, they are not running a sweepstakes, but a lottery, and lotteries are illegal. As I understand it, if they would cease collecting money on the telephone calls to register, everything would be kosher. According to the {Houston Chronicle}, they were charged with promotion of gambling, which is a third degree felony, and were later released on $2,000 bond each. As far as I can determine, No one is questioning the legitimacy of the prize itself. Frank Vance (713) 963-2426 Western Geophysical fvance@airgun.wg.waii.com 10001 Richmond Avenue ...!uunet!airgun!fvance Houston, TX 77042 USA ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Thu Feb 7 10:36:13 CST 1991 Subject: 900 Space Travel Scam (?) An earlier message reported that the founders of Space Travel Services had been convicted of a crime. Not true. They were ARRESTED yesterday 2/6/91. The charge was conducting an illegal lottery. Please note that this charge does not hinge on whether or not they could actually deliver the prize to the winner, just that a $2.99 phone call for entry (or the mail in entry option) was gambling. Obviously, they will use the mail-in entry option as a defense, since that will break the traditional prize-chance-consideration definition of alottery. I wonder, if this is an illegal lottery, what about MTV's big giveaways? They seem to be the same deal. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Subject: YA9S (Yet Another 900-Number Scam) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 18:51:51 EST From: "Dr. Tanner Andrews" Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Sent with the usual residential junk-mail from Donneley Marketing, printed inside the envelope, is a plug ('now you can save hundreds of dollars with a single phone call!') for Value-Phone. For only $1.50/$0.95 for first and following minutes, you can enjoy ``High Value Savings!'' You must call Value-Phone (TM) to get these offers. Void where prohibited by law. TM--ValuePhone is a trademark of 900 Rebaytes Inc., NY, NY. I ought to open a 900-based financial advice line, offering the wisdom that you can save big money by not calling 900 numbers. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 14:14:55 -0500 From: Paul J Zawada Subject: Allied Electronics is Still in Business Allied is still in business ... at least there is a company called Allied Electronics Inc. in business. They use the old Allied Radio logo, the A with the dot in the middle. They are supposedly a subsidiary of a company called Hall-Mark Electronics. They have a HUGE catalog (in keeping with the Allied tradition) of about 800 pages, the size of a good sized phone book. They seem to be more of an industrial electronics supplier now, meaning prices are only a deal when you buy in quantity. I was impressed with their service though. The couple of times I ordered something from them, they were very courteous and went out of their way to make sure I found what I was looking for. I was very impressed with their inventory, they carry a lot of hard to find items. It is also kind of interesting how there are a number of Radio Shack items in their catalog. Kinda makes me want to know what the real Allied <-> Radio Shack connection is. Paul Zawada KB9FMN ------------------------------ Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Thu, 07 Feb 91 20:40:15 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN (Ob telecom: Holding on to both wires of a phone line when it rings is even better than casual contact. Learned that when I was only 16 ;-) > [Moderator's Note: Then you no doubt remember the big warehouse store > they [Allied Radio] operated at Western Ave. and Washington Blvd., > right across the street from Olson Electronics (remember them also?). Ah, memories of sweet youth, Pat! When I was just a little electron herder, I used to drool over the Allied and Olson catalogs for hours. (after all, Nome, Alaska had very few electronics stores in those days) The other two standbys were Newark and Lafayette. I haven't seen anything indicating that Lafayette is still around, but Newark is a regular supplier to my place of employment. I was also a Heathkit fan ... built a HW-16 and a digital clock, among everything else. The clock still runs, and will be 20 years old next year. If Heath is still around, I think I'll send 'em a picture of it. Roy M. Silvernail now available at: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6-FEB-1991 17:54:03.79 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Telephone Pioneers, Allied R/S, etc. Following a hint of the Moderator's some time ago, my first act upon settling in at my Dallas UniForum motel earlier this month was to look up Telephone Pioneers in the local phone book -- Eureka, there it was, with a Museum to boot, housed in the SWBTL building right in the heart of downtown, open daily 9-5, admission free ... Spent a pleasant afternoon there Monday -- displays included: Watson's ringer; Watson's magneto; Strowger's original 50-pair stepper; a bank of steppers behind see-through plexiglass, stepping in response to visitors' pulse-dialing; an Alexander Graham Bell mannequin seated at a replica/model of the Bell workbench; and much, much more. 208 S. Akard, a.k.a. One Bell Plaza, corner of Akard & Commerce, 2nd floor, +1 214 464 4359. Well worth a visit. You've already been corrected about "Allied Radio Shack" -- but perhaps someone can fill in further details about the life and death of the original Allied Radio's principal competitor -- Lafayette Radio -- or about how such other former competitors as Newark Electronics, Hatry, et al., managed to survive after all. Finally: Internet folks _can_ TELNET to both mcimail.com and attmail.com -- login prompts appear, but whether using my username, my userid, or my account number there, and whether using my password or any of the preceding at the password prompt, I am barred entry. Should it _not_ be possible for me to access my accounts with these services via TELNET, or am I just doing something wrong? (Methinks DREUBEN, fellow Wesleyan local, might also like to know.) Fred [Moderator's Note: You can't *really* 'telnet', 'rlogin' or 'ftp' to MCI Mail or AT&T Mail ... what you wind up reaching are the gateway sites which handle their mail. For example, I tried 'rlogin mcimail.com' and wound up connecting with NRI in Reston, VA. Trying the same with 'rlogin attmail.com' simply got me some system within att.com which serves as a gateway. Since you do not have an account on the machine at NRI (or the machine at att.com) then your login will fail. Your MCI Mail (ATT Mail) login/user name is meaningless to the gateway itself. I also tried 'telnet' with the same results. I think (am not sure) that the phrases 'mcimail.com' and 'attmail.com' are -- to the Internet's point of view -- just basically aliases that point to the respective gateways rather than the end sites themselves. I'm sure 'alias' is not the right term, but you probably know what I am trying to say. Also try 'finger @mcimail.com' to see what happens! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gunsul Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Date: 7 Feb 91 04:43:51 GMT Organization: AT&T Montgomery Works, Montgomery, IL Just one more Pat and I'll stop living in the past! I can remember my junior high and high school days, back in the early and mid '60's, waiting by the mailbox for the Lafayette catalog to arrive. I also remember the great smell of the Allied and Lafayette catalog -- gosh I loved getting those in the mail... Oh well, like I said ... guess I've gotten off the intent of the news group, but thanks for the trip back in time Pat, I enjoyed it!!! Phil [Moderator's Note: Those 'trips back in time' are fun, and really I think they are essential to a complete understanding of modern day technology and telephony. There are a lot of politics and history involved in why things are as they are today. Things don't just happen. We cannot dwell in the past but we must learn from it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Feb 91 15:37:18 +0100 From: Alain FONTAINE Subject: Lafayette Radio Would you believe that, in the late sixties, there was a Lafayette Radio store in Brussels, Belgium ? As far as I remember, they were selling the most abrasive magnetic tape one could find.... 8-) /AF BTW : There was also a Heathkit store carrying the entire line... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #99 *****************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01375; 8 Feb 91 11:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02760; 8 Feb 91 10:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15215; 8 Feb 91 4:06 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17495; 8 Feb 91 2:50 CST Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 2:32:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #100 BCC: Message-ID: <9102080232.ab12664@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Feb 91 02:32:04 CST Volume 11 : Issue 100 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NYNEX/Boston Charges for FMR [Douglas Scott Reuben] New Book on Integrated Broadband Networks [Amit Bhargava] Will Digital Make Analog Cellular Phones Obsolete? [T. Govindaraj] Answering Machines and Rotary Phones [Daniel A. Margolis] Caller*ID in Georgia / Atlanta [Bill Berbenich] Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? [Alan Nishioka] On-Line X.400 and X.500 Code Needed [Ju Zhang] Re: Stolen Cellular Phones [Ed Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6-FEB-1991 01:51:03.12 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: NYNEX/Boston Charges for FMR I noticed that NYNEX/Boston was charging airtime and a daily charge for simply ACTIVATING (not using) FMR, so I complained to GTE Mobilnet. They were very understanding, yet said that this was the way things were, and that only a few system actually did this. Unfortunately, NYNEX/Boston is one. I was told that if I wish to take this matter further, I should write to: Ilene Sandrafield (not sure of the spellimg, they didn't spell it for me) GTE Mobilnet 616 FM 1960 West. Suite 400 Houston, TX 77090 So I took them up on it, and wrote her the letter which follows. If they don't correct this soon, I'm pretty much willing to junk GTE and FMR, and use the Roam America service that the "A"s are offering. I spoke with the person responsible for instituting "Roam America" for McCaw/Cell One, and we had a twenty minute conversation all about how Roam America works and a few specific details on the system's operation. I am impressed enough by what he told me that I think it is more than a viable alternative to FMR, and thus, failing to get a satisfactory result from GTE (who I am otherwise satisfied with), will look into this "Roam America" thing. (I called 800-426-2229 and asked for info on Roam America -- the guy seemed genuinely interested in talking about the system, and was quite knowledgeable as to where it was in place, where it was pending, some problems they were having, etc. ) Anyhow, without further delay, yet another addition to my collection of "Letters to Mobile Phone Companies" :) ....or rather, :( !! ------------- DATE: 6-FEB-1991 00:58:59.45 FROM: Douglas Scott Reuben SUBJECT: SEND TO: GTE Mobilnet, Houston TO: dreuben@mcimail.com Dear. Ms. Sandrafield, I was referred to you by Mr. Rudy Kadett at GTE Mobilnet, San Francisco, after an inquiry I had made about FMR activation charges on the NYNEX cellular system in Boston, Mass. After traveling to Boston numerous times and using Follow Me Roaming, I noticed on my GTE bill that I had been charged airtime for EACH activation/ deactivation, and as a result, also incurred a "daily charge" of $3 for each day that I had activated FMR at least once. I have never looked favorably upon the practice of a daily roamer surcharge, yet, this seems to be a rather unfortunate fact of life when roaming these days, one which I reluctantly pay so that I may use my phone in foreign systems. However, I flatly refuse to pay a daily charge as well as airtime for the "ability" to activate FMR, even if I receive no calls via the service nor initiate any outgoing calls myself. Regardless of what your literature indicates (and after carefully scrutinizing GTE/SF's past mailings on the subject I find no indication that some systems will actually bill for FMR activations), the practice of assessing a charge for FMR activations goes too far. There have been plenty of times when FMR was "slow" or "sluggish", and thus I had to press *18 repeatedly so as to invoke FMR properly. Moreover, as you may know, FMR deactivates at approximately 12:15AM, local time, each night. This thus requires that I hit *18 for EACH day that I am in the area, thus incurring a dialy roam charge and a 1 minute airtime each EVERY day. NYNEX charges $3/day for their daily charge, and $.75 per minute airtime. This results in a handy $3.75 automatic charge each day I am in the system and choose to activate FMR. I find this appalling. It is not enough that I must pay $3 for the "privilege" of using their system (a charge which I think we all know is MUCH higher than the cost of verifying my ESN/MIN will ever be), yet they are so outrageously greedy that they must make sure that they get this from their FMR roamers even in the event that the a roamer receives/places no calls on a specific date. In my conversation with Mr. Kadett, I was told that GTE would not hold me to my service contract should I wish to repudiate it due to these FMR charges, yet I would earnestly prefer to remain a customer of GTE Mobilnet/SF. It came to my attention that some efforts had been put into drafting a new roaming agreement between GTE and NYNEX/Boston, so as to eliminate these petty charges, yet nothing came of it. I am thus writing to you so that I may strongly request that GTE undertake a new effort to come to an agreement with NYNEX/Boston so as to address this issue. When other "B" companies such as Southern New England Telephone/LINX in Connecticut offer a "no-daily-roam-charge and $.60 per minute airtime" package for anywhere in the United States, or the "A" carriers offer a service similar to FMR (Roam America), yet one where there are no activation charges, I find it increasingly hard to remain with GTE. I would think that in light of these newly emerging (and less costly) alternatives to GTE's FMR service, GTE would desire to take measures to make itself more competitive. Let me once again stress how much I do appreciate the service and value which GTE Mobilnet provides, yet these excessive and unwarranted FMR charges can not continue, and I will take whatever action is necessary to avoid them, including, unfortunately, leaving GTE for another cellular firm. I thus await your response as to what action, if any, you propose to take to remedy FMR activation charges with NYNEX/Boston. I shall base my continued use of GTE Mobilnet on your reply. Thank you very much for your time and attention in this matter, Douglas Scott Reuben ------------- GTE was rather prompt in its previous reply to me (about FMR midnight deactivations and delays in re-establishing FMR), so hopefully they will respond similarly to this letter. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: amit bhargava Subject: New Book on Integrated Broadband Networks Date: 7 Feb 91 15:16:19 GMT Organization: Codex Corp., Canton MA INTEGRATED BROADBAND NETWORKS ----------------------------- by Amit Bhargava Codex Corp. (Motorola Inc.) Here's an ideal opportunity to catch up on the latest research in communication networks. The first book to address congestion control and traffic integration in fast packet networks, Integrated Broadband Networks describes how larger transmission bandwidths and more sophisticated multi-media applications have created a demand for integrated networks and how this demand has spawned new problems and issues for the industry. Organized into four sections, each of which presents a brief tutorial, references, and six or seven papers, Integrated Broadband Networks brings you up-to-date on key advances in network architectures, switching, modeling and performance analysis, and congestion control and traffic integration. Computer scientists and engineers will welcome this collection of twenty-six outstanding papers painstakingly selected from recent literature. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Amit Bhargava has been involved in conducting research in networking technology at Codex Corp. (a subsidiary of Motorola Inc.) since 1987. Since Fall 1989 he has also been a fellow at the Center of Advanced Engineering Study at MIT. He received his MSEE from the Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst and his B.Tech. EE from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. Mr. Bhargava is a member of the IEEE. For more information and details about the book (contents, order information etc.): * See posting on comp.newprod * OR send mail to codex!abhargava@uunet.uu.net * OR Call Artech house at 1-800-225-9977 ext. 4002 (0900-1730 EST) Within Massachusetts or outside the US call (617)-769-9750 ext. 4002 * OR Write to Artech House,685 Canton Street,Norwood, MA 02062, USA. Integrated Broadband Networks by Amit Bhargava Softcover, 331 pages, December 1990. Order Book 425483 ISBN: 0-89006-483-0 DISCLAIMER: This notice has been posted by the author of the book on Usenet for informational purposes only and does not constitute any action on part of either Artech House or the author's employer Codex Corp. ------------------------------ From: "T. Govindaraj" Subject: Will Digital Make Analog Cellular Phones Obsolete? Date: 8 Feb 91 01:24:44 GMT Reply-To: "T. Govindaraj" Organization: Center for Human-Machine Systems Research - Georgia Tech Greetings! I have been thinking about getting a cellular telephone and am wondering if current cellular phones will become obsolete and unusable when cellular goes digital. When are we expected to go digital? What is the conventional wisdom on the format? (The immediate trigger for this question is an article in the February 1991 issue of {IEEE Spectrum} entitled "Ericsson bets on a cellular world".) If digital cellular is expected in the next couple of years, I don't want to spend a lot of money if the phone is likely to become unusable. Also, I would welcome opinions and suggestions about a small portable that would fit in my spouse's purse (i.e., light and small), but not too expensive. Any opinions on the advantages of going with PacTel or BellSouth? Thank you very much. T. Govindaraj +1 404 894 3873 (voice) tg@chmsr.gatech.edu +1 404 894 2301 (fax) tg@chmsr.uucp; 128.61.3.10 School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology 765 Ferst Drive, ISyE-0205, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 17:38:51 EST From: Daniel A Margolis Subject: Answering Machines and Rotary Phones >>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. I bought my girlfriend one of these. If you are at a touch-tone phone, you just dial touch-tones in response to voice prompts like any answering machine. If you are on a rotary phone and you leave no message (silence for a few seconds), it figures you have a pulse phone and goes into voice response mode. It gives you prompts and you respond by saying simple words. For example the conversation might go: Machine: Entering first digit of remote access password now. Enter 0... Enter 1...Enter 2...Enter 3...Enter 4... Person: Enter. Machine: Enter second digit...Enter 0...Enter 1...Enter2... Person: Enter. Machine having accepted 42 as your password plays message 1. Machine: Repeat? Person: Repeat. Machine repeats message. Machine: Repeat?... No response from person, machine plays 2nd message. And so on. Dan Margolis ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Caller*ID in Georgia / Atlanta Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 18:07:12 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Here's the latest... On Tuesday, Feb. 5, I spoke with a nice woman from Southern Bell who answered all my questions about Caller*ID in Atlanta and was just otherwise quite helpful. Her name eludes my memory (but not my Dayplanner at work), but her phone number (actually for Southern Bell Direct Marketing) is (404) 493-5555. Please note that this number is available from outside SB territory. As I said, she answered all my "when, where, how, who" questions about Caller*ID, which served to reconfirm information which I have posted here and to Telecom Privacy digest. The WHEN is February 14 (for ordering), the WHERE is the Atlanta metropolitan area (outlying areas to come on line at an unannounced future date, depending on where it is), HOW is by calling the Southern Bell order line (780-2355 for residential customers), and WHO is everyone in the north Georgia LATA - whether or not your CO is capable yet for receiving the CLID info, it still sends it out. (Note to John Higdon: I think north Georgia lost its last crossbar in Dec. 90 - but that may have just been Atlanta's last crossbar - and if you ever move to Atlanta, you can still get either paging or cellular service here from PacTel (-:.) I say that the WHEN is Feb. 14 for ordering. Presumably, orders will go through as before, usually within a few hours unless a visit to customer premises is necessary. I gave Ms. Nicewoman my "pre-order" when I spoke with her under her assurance that my order would be entered in with all deliberate speed as soon as possible. Ms. Nicewoman told me that the customer inquiries about the new service had leveled off within the last few weeks, but once the service was actually on-line and being advertised the queries would likely increase (as she analogized with the new Call* Answer service). Strangely enough, with the furor attributed to Caller*ID in other locales, the Atlanta media and professional activists and protestors have had little to no mention of this coming "horror." I suppose the war has a war of diverting attention away from less important things. In any case, less than a week to go before Caller*ID hits Atlanta. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 22:27:09 -0800 From: Alan Nishioka Subject: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? I've been trying to build a box to make key phone's lights flash and to implement a hold button. I am using a 1M/5M voltage divider across the line and some comparators to detect voltage levels and thus ring and off-hook. This isn't the best method, but I want it to coexist with other phones on the line in parallel and to be adjustable (ie. sans zener diodes) for now. (I forget what you call these phones but they have fifty wire cables, five line buttons and a hold button, ex-standard AT&T office phones) The problem enters when I add a 200ohm resistor and a 2n2222 transistor across the line to implement the hold button. (Common emitter, with a 47K base resistor to a CMOS latch output) When I call the line, a phone wired in parallel chirps shortly (a Ferrari phone, if that matters :-) and the ringing voltage ceases. The ringback is still heard on the calling line and the called line is still on hook and can be answered, but there is no ringing voltage. When I wire the base of the transistor low (off), the problem goes away. Is this some sort of protection that is tripping because there is a wierd impedance across the line? What could be causing it? My CO is a 1AESS, I think. It has been a long time since they installed it and offered tours. You hear a clunk when call waiting beeps. Alan Nishioka KC6KHV atn@cory.berkeley.edu ...!ucbvax!cory!atn 974 Tulare Avenue, Albany CA 94707-2540 37'52N/122'15W +1 415 526 1818 ------------------------------ From: Ju Zhang Subject: On-Line X.400 and X.500 Code Needed Date: 7 Feb 91 04:33:18 GMT Organization: DSET Corporation, Lebanon, NJ Anybody knows how to get on-line ASN.1 code for X.400 and X.500? Thank you. Ju Zhang ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 13:17 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Stolen Cellular Phones Kevin at Cray asks about stolen cellular phones. My understanding is that phones stolen and/or disconnected for non- payment go onto a hot list and that new service cannot be attached to them. On more than one occasion, I've heard of phones that come into a store for programming, and when the person who left them comes back, the cops are waiting. edg ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #100 ******************************